Chukotko-Kamchatkan-Amuric languages

Print

Chukotko-Kamchatkan-Amuric languages

Richaringan, Thu, 2022-10-06 12:13
Regarding: 
Classification
State
Closed
ISO 639-3: 
niv

Hello, Gilyak (or Nivkh) is currently considered a language isolate by Ethnologue. But in 2011, Michael Fortescue argued that Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Amuric actually formed a language family (based on phonological, lexical and morphological evidence), called Chukotko-Kamchatkan-Amuric (also known as Gilyako-Chukchi, or Nivkh-Kamchukotic).

It seems that this theory is not controversial, rather well accepted, and only Glottolog says that it is "insufficiant" (as for Nilo-Saharan, and Niger-Congo languages).

What do you think ? It could be C-K-A, Gilyak and C-K-A, Chukotko-Kamchatkan (C-K-A=Chukotko-Kamchatkan-Amuric).

Sources :

(PDF) The relationship of Nivkh to Chukotko-Kamchatkan revisited (researchgate.net)

Glottolog 4.6 - Amur Nivkh

Yours sincerly, Richaringan

Editorial Action

No action taken.

Comments

Chuck Fennig, Thu, 2022-10-13 09:26

Dear Richard,

Thank you for this information on the classification of the Gilyak (Nivkh) [niv] language.

I will refer this to the Ethnologue Classification editor for review.

Best regards,

Charles Fennig
Managing Editor, Ethnologue

Richaringan, Thu, 2022-10-13 11:00

Hello, thank you for your answer !
How does it work? Will exam details be available?
I add this source.

https://www.google.fr/books/edition/The_Origins_of_Language_Revisited/9i...

Yours sincerly, Richaringan

Chuck Fennig, Thu, 2023-01-19 10:41

Dear Richaringan,

I have finally received a response from Ethnologue's Classification Editor to your query, as follows:

After looking into this classification, I would have to agree with Glottolog (https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/nivk1234). Michael Fortescue's classification is one among many proposals for classification. I do not see anyone other than M. Fortescue himself citing this classification in their articles. I would imagine it's safe to leave it as an isolate for now unless Fortescue's classification gains more traction among linguists. I see that there is one non-linguist who cites this classification but its in order to back up their own theory about migrations.

Best regards,

Charles Fennig
Managing Editor, Ethnologue

Add new comment

View the Discussion