Diachronic interpretation of phonomorphological and semantic regularities of nostratic (Based on HuKa "eye")

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru

Diachronic interpretation of phonomorphological and semantic regularities of nostratic (Based on HuKa “eye”)

Yan V. Kapranov

The degree of manifestation of phonomorphological laws indicates a close type of language relationship among Indo-European, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic language families. They are: 1) the law on the three-letter / three-phonemic root structure of an archetype (according to E. Benvenist), which corresponds to the law on the consonant root (according to A G. Belova): it helped to fix three phonemes in Indo-European Hrelc- / *heuk-, Altaic *uka- and Afro-Asiatic *Hwq-, as well as to trace the reflexes of this structure in the genetic data material of these language families; 2) the law of the mora is fixed in the Indo-European *h'iek4- / *heuk-, Altaic *uka- and Afro-Asiatic *Hwq-, the forms of which correspond to a monosyllable structure, and mono- and multisyllable structures have been observed in the genetic data material; 3) theprocess of spirantisation consists in weakening the consonant phoneme /q/, i.e. the reflection /q/ into /k/ and /x/; 4) the process of “pharyngisation” can be traced at the end of monosyllabic words, where it could occur by analogy with those forms of the word where the consonant was intervocal; 5) the law on the pronunciation of short vowel phonemes /a/ and /u/, where such features are represented: 1) the degree of solution of the oral cavity; 2) hardness / softness (low tonality / high tonality); 3) absence or presence of labilisation; 6) the law of prosody, which consists in the realisation of stress in accordance with various languages; 7) the law of an open syllable.

The degree of phonomorphological manifestations indicates a remote / distant form of language relationship between Indo-European / Afro-Asiatic and Altaic language families, where one of the provisions of the phonetic prohibitions of Jucquo, i.e. when the initial and final laryngals are not allowed, is traced in the Indo-European *h'ieki- / *heuk- and Afro-Asiatic *Hwq-.

The degree of manifestation of semantic laws indicates a close type of language relationship among Indo-European, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic language families, where 2 lexico-semantic variants (LSV) were fixed: 1) somatism; 2) action. If in the Indo-European *h'iek'i- / *heuk- “eye, to see” 2 LSVs are fixed: 1) somatism; action, but in the Altaic *uka- “to notice, to understand”, including Turkic *uk(a)- “to raise, to listen” and Mongolian *uk- “to notice”, as well as the Afro-Asiatic *Hwq- “to know” - only 1 LSV - 2) action.

Keywords: diachronic interpretation, phonomorphological and semantic laws, divergent and convergent types of language relationship, Indo-European, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic language families.

Ó ñòàòò³ çä³éñíåíî ä³àõðîí³÷íó ³íòåðïðåòàö³þ ³íäîºâðîïåéñüêîãî *h'iek'i- / *heuk- “îêî, áà÷èòè”, àëòàéñüêîãî *uka- “ïîì³÷àòè, ðîçóì³òè”- é àôðàç³éñüêîãî *Hwq- “çíàòè” àðõåòèï³â, ùî ñÿãàþòü íîñòðàòè÷íîãî àðõåòèïó *HuKa “îêî, áà÷èòè”, ÿêà äàëà çìîãó âñòàíîâèòè ÿê äèâåðãåíòíèé, òàê ³ êîíâåðãåíòíèé òèïè ìîâíî¿ ñïîð³äíåíîñò³ ì³æ íèìè. Óñòàíîâëåíî áëèçüêèé (³íäîºâðîïåéñüêà, àëòàéñüêà, àôðàç³éñüêà) ³ â³ääàëåíèé / äàëåêèé (³íäîºâðîïåéñüêà / àôðàç³éñüêà ³ àëòàéñüêà) âèäè ìîâíî¿ ñïîð³äíåíîñò³ çàëåæíî â³ä 䳿 îñíîâíèõ ôîíîìîðôîëîã³÷íèõ ³ ñåìàíòè÷íèõ çàêîíîì³ðíîñòåé.

Ñòóï³íü ïðîÿâó ôîíîìîðôîëîã³÷íèõ çàêîíîì³ðíîñòåé çàñâ³ä÷óº ïðî áëèçüêèé âèä ìîâíî¿ ñïîð³äíåíîñò³ ì³æ ³íäîºâðîïåéñüêîþ, àëòàéñüêîþ é àôðàç³éñüêîþ ìîâíèìè ñ³ì'ÿìè, ñåðåä ÿêèõ:

- çàêîí ïðî òðèë³òåðíó / òðèôîíåìíó ñòðóêòóðó êîðåíÿ åòèìîíà (çà Å. Áåíâåí³ñòîì), ùî â³äïîâ³äຠçàêîíó ïðî êîíñîíàíòíèé êîð³íü (çà À. Ã. Áºëîâîþ) ³ äຠçìîãó çàô³êñóâàòè òðè ôîíåìè â ³íäîºâðîïåéñüêîìó *h'ieEi- / *heuk-, àëòàéñüêîìó *uka- é àôðàç³éñüêîìó *Hwq- àðõåòèïàõ, à â³äòàê, ïðîñòåæèòè ðåôëåêñè ö³º¿ ñòðóêòóðè â ãåíåòè÷íîìó ìàòåð³àë³ ìîâíèõ ñ³ìåé, äî ÿêèõ âîíè íàëåæàòü;

- çàêîí ìîðè ô³êñóºòüñÿ â ³íäîºâðîïåéñüêîìó HreE'- / *heuk-, àëòàéñüêîìó *uka- é àôðàç³éñüêîìó *Hwq- àðõåòèïàõ, ôîðìè ÿêèõ â³äïîâ³äàþòü îäíîìîðí³é ñòðóêòóð³, à â ãåíåòè÷íîìó ìàòåð³àë³ ðåôëåêñóþòüñÿ ó âèãëÿä³ ÿê îäíîìîðíèõ, òàê ³ áàãàòîìîðíèõ ñêëàä³â; 3) ïðîöåñ ñï³ðàíòèçàö³¿ ïîëÿãຠâ îñëàáëåíí³ ïðèãîëîñíî¿ ôîíåìè /q/, òîáòî ðåôëåêñàö³ÿ /q/ â /k/ ³ /õ/; 4) ïðîöåñ “ôàðèíãàë³çàö³¿” ïðîñòåæóºòüñÿ â ê³íö³ îäíîñêëàäîâèõ ñë³â, äå â³í ì³ã ñòàòèñÿ çà àíàëî㳺þ ç òèìè ôîðìàìè ñëîâà, äå ïðèãîëîñíèé áóâ ³íòåðâîêàëüíèì; 5) çàêîí ùîäî âèìîâè êîðîòêèõ ãîëîñíèõ ôîíåì /à/ ³ /à/, äå ïðåäñòàâëåíî òàê³ îçíàêè: 1) ñòóï³íü ðîç÷èíó ïîðîæíèíè ðîòà; 2) òâåðäîðÿäí³ñòü / ì'ÿãêîðÿäí³ñòü (íèçüêà òîíàëüí³ñòü / âèñîêà òîíàëüí³ñòü); 3) â³äñóòí³ñòü àáî íàÿâí³ñòü ëàá³àë³çàö³¿; 6) çàêîí ïðîñî䳿, ÿêèé ïîëÿãຠâ ðåàë³çàö³¿ íàãîëîñó ó â³äïîâ³äíèêàõ ð³çíèõ ìîâ; 7) çàêîí â³äêðèòîãî ñêëàäó.

Ñòóï³íü ïðîÿâó ôîíîìîðôîëîã³÷íèõ çàêîíîì³ðíîñòåé çàñâ³ä÷óº ïðî â³ääàëåíèé / äàëåêèé âèä ìîâíî¿ ñïîð³äíåíîñò³ ì³æ ³íäîºâðîïåéñüêîþ / àôðàç³éñüêîþ é àëòàéñüêîþ ìîâíèìè ñ³ì 'ÿìè, äå îäíå ç ïîëîæåíü ôîíåòè÷íèõ çàáîðîí Ó. Æþêóà - êîëè íå äîïóñêàºòüñÿ ïî÷àòêîâèé ³ ê³íöåâèé ëàðèíãàëè - ïðîñòåæóºòüñÿ ëèøå â ³íäîºâðîïåéñüêîìó *hvekv- / *heuk- ³ àôðàç³éñüêîìó *Hwq- àðõåòèïàõ.

Ñòóï³íü ïðîÿâó ñåìàíòè÷íèõ çàêîíîì³ðíîñòåé çàñâ³ä÷óº ïðî áëèçüêèé âèä ìîâíî¿ ñïîð³äíåíîñò³ ì³æ ³íäîºâðîïåéñüêîþ, àëòàéñüêîþ é àôðàç³éñüêîþ ìîâíèìè ñ³ì 'ÿìè, äå âäàëîñÿ çàô³êñóâàòè 2 ëåêñèêî-ñåìàíòè÷íèõ âàð³àíòè (ËÑÂ): 1) ñîìàòèçì; 2) ä³ÿ. ßêùî â ³íäîºâðîïåéñüêîìó àðõåòèï³ *lr elk- / *heuk- “îêî, áà÷èòè” çàô³êñîâàíî 2 ËÑÂ: 1) ñîìàòèçì; 2) ä³ÿ, òî â àëòàéñüêîìó àðõåòèï³ *uka- “ïîì³÷àòè, ðîçóì³òè”, ó òîìó ÷èñë³ é òþðêñüêîìó *èê(à)- “ï³äí³ìàòè, ñëóõàòè” ³ ìîíãîëüñüêîìó *èêà- “ïîì³÷àòè ”, à òàêîæ àôðàç³éñüêîìó àðõåòèï³ *Hwq- “çíàòè ” - ëèøå îäèí ËÑ - 2) ä³ÿ.

Êëþ÷îâ³ ñëîâà: ä³àõðîí³÷íà ³íòåðïðåòàö³ÿ, ôîíîìîðôîëîã³÷í³ ³ ñåìàíòè÷í³ çàêîíîì³ðíîñò³, ³íäîºâðîïåéñüêà, àëòàéñüêà é àôðàç³éñüêà ìîâí³ ñ³ì'¿.

Introduction

The issues related to the evolutionary development and formation, on the one hand, the mankind as a whole and a Homo sapiens in particular, and on the other hand, his (her) lasnguage, are topical at the present stage of development of Linguistic Macrocomparative Studies. It is impossible to answer these and other questions using only linguistic (language) data. Therefore, now it is not just necessary, but, according to Klein, the interdisciplinary approach remains “obligatory”, i.e. there is an appeal to such branches of knowledge as: archeology(Ð. Å. Grine, W. L. Jungers, J. Schultz (1996)), genegeography (Ye. V. Balanovskaya, O. P. Balanovskiy (2009)), culturology (Ð. Å. Grine, W. L. Jungers, J. Schultz (1996) et al.) and so on.

The nostratic theory, which became a logical continuation of Linguistic Comparative Studies and Linguistic Macrocomparative Studies, which took shape as a separate branch of knowledge - Nostratics, or Nostratic Linguistics - also “found a response”, according to Nafikov's observations, “in a number of related disciplines: archeology and others” (Nafikov, 2003: 33).

In this context, it is worth recalling the words of Alekseyev, the anthropologist: “the differences between the Indo-European and Dravidian peoples are morphologically as significant as it can be within the framework of one type: they are included in the various racial divisions of modern mankind”.

Aim

Methodology

phonomorphological manifestation language linguistic

The second step deals with the comparative-historical method with the parallel application of internal and external reconstruction procedures: if the internal reconstruction procedure is reflected in the material of one language family (Indo-European, Altaic, Afro-Asiatic), but the external reconstruction procedure - on the material of two and / or three language families. In this case, it helps to see the common and distinctive features concerning phonomorphological regularities.

The third step deals with the application of the method of diachronic interpretation aimed at identification of the common features of Indo-European *hueku- / *heuk-“eye, to see”, Altaic *uka- “to notice, to understand”, Afro-Asiatic *Hwq- “to know” and observation of their reflexes in genetic data material. In this case, the method of step-by-step reconstruction (according to Starostin) is used for proving the mass comparison hypothesis.

Results

Phonomorphological Regularities

The law on the three-letter / three-phonemic structure of the root of etymon.

The law on the three-letter / three-phonemic structure of the root of etymon is consistently fixed in Indo-European *h"ek"- / *heuk-, Altaic *uka- and Afro-Asiatic *Hwq-.

The effect of this law, according to the definition of Benvenist, can be traced in the Indo-European *h"ek"- / *heuk-, which is monosyllabic, “three-letter”, or three-phonemic root, where *e is the main proto-langauge vowel (Benvenist, 1955, p. 201): the roots of IndoEuropean *h"ek"- (*h", *e, *k") and *heuk- (*h, *eu, *k) have three proto-language constructs, where is *e is an independent proto-language vowel in the first version and *e is represented in the diphthong *eu in the second one. In this case, according to Brugman's position, the Indo-European root morpheme is monosyllabic, because it has the short protolanguage vowel (* e / * eu) and it is also referred to as “light monosyllabic morpheme” (German leichte einsilbige Basis) (Brugman, 1904: 140). The provisions of this law are fixed in the genetic data material of the Indo-European language family: Avestian asi (dual.); Armenian. akn; Old Slavonic îêî.

Incidentally, the Indo-European h"ek"- / *heuk-, represented by Illich-Svitych, belong to the “morpheme I” (according to Benvenist), because the complete degree of correctness (ðîñ. îãëàñîâêè) of their roots causes zero correctness of their suffixes. (which can be traced after the hyphen -). According to the scholar, the second element cannot be added to it neither in degree (i.e. with the form of expansion (ðîñ. ðàñïðîñòðàíèë)), because two consecutive elements with zero validity within one morphological series are impossible, nor fully (i.e. with suffix), because only one can get full alignment of the three elements, and it already has the root. It follows that the morpheme I does not allow the expansion; it can only have it when it is morpheme II (Benvenist, 1955, p. 201).

In addition, it is worth noting that certain provisions of this law, such as three-letter or three-phonemic root structure, are traced not only in the Altaic *uka-, but also in the Turkic *uk(a)- and Mongolian *uka-. Due to the fact that they are not monosyllabic, because they have two vowels and one consonant, they correspond to this structure and are consistently observed in genetic data material: Middle Mongolian uqa-, Written Mongolian uqa-; Khalkha uxa-; Oirat uxa-; Kalmyk uxa-.

Moreover, it should be assumed that the provisions of the law on the three-letter / three-phonemic structure of the root of the etymon correspond to the law on the consonant root, which, according to Belova, is one of the features of the grammatical system of Semitic languages (Belova, 1991: 81).

The notion of a consonant root (if we consider the root as one of the morphemes) is theoretically admissible, as admissible derivational and inflectional consonant morphemes. However, this assumption can be limited only by the shortest single-voiced elements. The consonant root in semitology is not so much in the historical as in the synchronous- operational sense (Mayzel, 1983: 88-90). In synchronous typology and morphology, the consonant root is a member of the morphological system along with other morphemes and it is considered as a typological attribute of grammatical systems of Semitic languages. The attention should be drawn to the fact that within the framework of the conditional operational interpretation of the Semitic root as a consonant, it becomes the object of historical research, the purpose of which is the problem of the number of consonants composing it (Belova, 1991: 81).

Belova also adds that the three-voiced root is typical for the Semitic root word and traditional Semitic lexicography not only quantitatively, because, according to her words, “the whole system of grammatical methods of regular word formation and inflection is based on apophony (on alternation) of vowels or on a combination of apophony with affixation (the so-called derivational and inflectional (“models”)), “inclined” to the three-voiced root” (Belova, 1991: 81). That is why the period of general Semitic unity already represents the three-voiced root as the leading structure of Semitic morphology. The most revealing study in this area is the work of Mayzel, the orientalist, who represents the original hypothesis about the structure of the Semitic root. It is built on the phenomena of allotheza (some, a small alternation of sounds for a semantic purpose) and metathesis (mutual permutation of sounds or syllables in words motivated by assimilation or dissimilation) that are typical for the Semitic languages (Mayzel, 1983).

The attention should be drawn to the fact that the Afro-Asiatic *Hwq- really corresponds to the structure of the consonant root, i.e. the three-letter, three-phonemic structure and it is consistently traced in the genetic data material of the Afro-Asiatic language family: Avia jaq, Geez coqa, Harari aqa.

The Law of the Mora

Phonetic Prohibitions of Jucquo

- one and the same consonant does not occur at the beginning and at the end of the root (ghagh, dod, pep, nan... are not allowed);

- the initial voiceless occlusive and final voiced aspirate (such as tagh) is not allowed (it means that the forms tak, tag are allowed); this provision is included in the second prohibition of Meillet;

- the initial voiced occlusive and final voiceless occlusive (such as dak) are not allowed;

- the initial and final voiced occlusive of different places of articulation (such as dag) are not allowed (but ded, gag ... are not allowed according to the provision 1 - gweg, g'ag ... are allowed);

- the voiced aspirates of different places of articulation at the beginning and end (such as dhagh) are not allowed (but according to the provision 1 the forms dhedh, ghagh ... are not allowed, the forms gwhegh, g'hagh... are allowed);

- the initial voiced occlusive and final voiced (occlusive) aspirate (such as dagh type) are not allowed;

- the initial voiced (occlusive) aspirate and final voiceless occlusive (such as bhak) are not allowed (it is inverse to the provision 2);

- the voiced aspirate at the beginning and voiced explosive at the end (such as dhag);

- the initial and final laryngeals are not allowed: H1aH2, H2eH3 (Jucquo, 1966: 61).

Although the Indo-European *h"ek"- / *heuk- have proto-language laryngeal consonants *h“- / * h- at the beginning and proto-language consonants *-k“- / * -k- at the end, in which *h“- / *h- is fricative, voiceless, but *-k“- / * -k- is stop, voiceless, noisy, the attention should be paid to the 9 (ninth) provisions of the laws of U. Jucquo - the initial and final laryngeals are not allowed.

The process of Spirantisation

The Process of Pharyngealisation

The law on the pronunciation of short vowels /a/ and /u/.

The law on the pronunciation of short vowel phonemes /a/ and /u/, among which we fix such signs: 1) the degree of solution of the oral cavity: if short /u/ is narrow (diffuse), short /a/ is wide (compact) (Shcherbak, 1970: 27); 2) hardness / softness (low tonality / high tonality): short phonemes /a/ and /u/ are of hardness (low tonality) (Shcherbak, 1970: 35); 3) absence or presence of labialisation (labialising / non- labialising) (simple tonality / flat tonality): if short /u/ is labialised, short /a/ is non-labialised (Shcherbak, 1970: 39).

The effect of this law is recorded in the data material of Indo-European: Ancient Indian aksi n.; Armenian akn; Latin oculus; Lithuanian akis; Tocharian À àê; Tocharian B ek; Altaic: Khakas ux-; Gorno-Altaic uk-; Kyrgyz uk-; Ancient Uighur uq-; Chagatai uq-; Uighur (Southern) uk-; Oguz (Ibn-Muhanna) uq-; Middle Mongolian uqa-; Written Mongolian uqa-; Khalkha uxa-; Buryat uxan; Oirat uxa-; Kalmyk uxa-; Afro-Asiatic: Kuara àõ; Avia jaq; Amharic awwaqa; Harari aqa.

It is worth dwelling on the third feature of this law - the absence or presence of labilisation - which is fixed in Turkic *uk(a)-, reconstructed within the Altaic language family, because it (the feature) is of fundamental importance for the reconstruction of the phonological system of the Turkic proto-language. According to Shcherbak, “none of the Turkologists are trying to restore the three-stage opposition of labial vowels in protolanguage, and it should be noted that there is no reason for such a reconstruction”. The scholar adds that “labialising /a/ is not a common Turkic feature; [...] a phenomenon that arose during the separate development of Turkic languages” (Shcherbak, 1970: 39-40). Therefore, the combinatorial-positional tendency of the phoneme /a/ to labilisation could contribute to the efficient manifestation of substrate influence (Shcherbak, 1970: 40).

In the article “Tyurkskiye yazyki” (Engl. “Turkic Languages”) Gadzhieva tries to explain how Ancient Turkic was formed, referring to anthropological data material. She suggests that it “was formed in Southern Siberia and Central Asia, in a large territory from Altai through the Sayan Mountains to the Lake Baikal”. Moreover, “the formation of individual national Turkic languages was preceded by numerous and complex processes of migration and distribution of the Turkic languages over the vast territory from the Yenisei to the Bosphorus” (Gadzhiyeva, 1997: 17-34).

According Gadzhieva, the monuments of Ancient Turkic writing help to restore the real picture of the historical fate of the Turkic peoples, starting from the V c. Thus, the Gur tribes (later the Bulgars) began to move from Asia in the V c., the Turkic tribes began to move from Central Asia (Oguz et al.) to Central Asia in the peiod of V-VI c. The range of settlements from Central Asia of Ancient Uighur tribes to Central Asia has expanded (karyluk, chigili, yagma) until the X-XI c. (Gadzhiyeva, 1997: 17-34). It is evidenced by correspondents which have the same form: Gorno-Altaic uk- and Uighur (Southern) uk-. There was an amalgamation and consolidation of tribes - ancestors of Tuvans, Khakasses, Gorno-Altaics. At the beginning of II mil. BC the Kyrgyz tribes moved to the present territory of Kyrgyzstan from Yenisei (Gadzhiyeva, 1997: 17-34): for example, Gorno-Altaic uk- and Kyrgyz uk-. The Kazakh tribes consolidated in the XV c. The Kipchak-Uzbek tribes had a close contact with the Karluk-Chagatai tribes at the beginning of the XVI c. (Gadzhiyeva, 1997: 17-34).

According to the modern geography of distribution, the Turkic languages of the following largest areas are clearly distinguished: Central and Southeast Asia, South and Western Siberia of Volgokamya, the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia, the Black Sea region. The Turkic languages, which have been developing for centuries in these areas, have developed linguistic features typical for their regions. For example, there is an increase in the specific gravity of the overwrought allaut in the Turkic languages of the North Caucasus, Transcaucasia and more broadly - in the Caspian region. Sonorisation here is a chronologically established phenomenon. A phonetic process such as spirantisation is also typical phenomenon. The phonetic process of determining the velar ö is expressed in the Turkic languages of the Caspian Sea (Gadzhiyeva, 1997: 17-34). This is evidenced by the correspondents from the Turkic language group: Gorno-Altaic uk-; Kyrgyz uk-; Uighur (Southern) uk-.

The Law of Prosody

The Law of Open Syllable

Semantic Processes

Within the Altaic language family, only LSV 2) action may be fixed, i.e. Altaic *uka- “to notice, to understand”. The Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy (Engl. The Dictionary of the Ukrainian language) (hereinafter reffered to as “SUM”) convinced that the meaning of “to notice” is interpreted as: 1) to perceive by sight; to see; 2) to perceive by ear; to hear (SUM: 127) and it is reflected in Gorno-Altaic uk- “to listen”, Middle Mongolian uqa- “to notice” (Syno Mongolian “to recognise”).

Of course, the attention is also drawn to the Afro-Asiatic *Hwq- “to know”, which also corresponds to LSV 2) action, however, it is interpreted in the SUM in the following way: “4) to understand, realise something”.

Moreover, Illich-Svitych, citing Pokorny (Pokorny: 775-776), assumes that, for example, at Proto-German *augan- “eye” (Gothic augo, Ancient High German ouga) represents not secondary conversion by analogy to *ausan- “ear”. Pokorny leaves such an assumption without explanation, i. e. velar *g <*k“), and the ancient “basis I” *Heuk- (where H- is probably *h-), concerning the transformed “basis II”. Therefore, *h"ek"- (< *h“ek-), as well as Indo-European *breug- “to run”, belongs to * bheg“- (Illich-Svitych).

Discussion

Table 1. Diachronic Interpretation of Nostratic *HuKa “eye, to see”

The nalysis of the plan of expression of the genetic data material allowed to trace the phonetic correspondence of vocal and consonant constructs: 1) within the Indo-European language family, the Indo-European *h"ek"- / heuk- corresponds to such reflexes: the IndoEuropean proto-language vowel *e corresponds to Ancient Greek *o and Albanian *o: à /à/, å /å/, î /î/; the Indo-European proto-language consonant k corresponds to the Ancient Greek *k and Albanian *k: ñ, k /k/, s /s/, s /J7; the Indo-European proto-language vowel *u corresponds to the Ancient Greek *“ and Albanian *“: î /î/, u /u/; 2) within the Altaic language family, the Altaic *uka- corresponds to the following reflexes: the Altaic protolanguage vowel *u corresponds to Turkic *u and Mongolian *u: u /u/; the Altai protolanguage consonant -k corresponds to Turkic *k and Mongolian *k: k, q /k/, x /x/; the Altaic proto-language vowel *a corresponds to Turkic *a and Mongolian *à: à /à/, à, à /à:/; within the Afro-Asiatic language family, the following reflexes correspond to the Afro- Asiatic *Hwq-: Afro-Asiatic consonant *w correspond to: à /à/, à /à:/, î /î/, î /î:/; Afro- Asiatic consonant *q correspond to: q /k/, g ZZ.

The reflexes of the plan of content of the Nostratic *HuKa “eye, to see” made it possible to fix 2 LSVs: 1) somatism and 2) action that are found in Indo-European h"ek"- / heuk- “eye, to see” (1) somatism and 2) action), Altaic *uka- “to notice, to understand” (1) action) and Afro-Asiatic *Hwq- “to know” (1) action) (second-degree etymons), as well as in the Ancient Greek *ok“ie “eye, to see” (1) somatism and 2) action) and Albanian *ok“i- “eye, to see” (1) somatism and 2) action) (first-degree etymons).

Conclusions

The degree of manifestation of these degrees of relationship is evidenced by the action of the relevant regularities: 1) the law on the three-letter / three-phonemic structure of the root of etymon (Benvenist) corresponds to the law of the consonant root (according to Belova), which allows to fix three phonemes in Indo-European *h"ek"- / *heuk-, Altaic *uka- and Afro-Asiatic *Hwq-; 2) the law of mora is fixed in IndoEuropean *h"ek"- / *heuk-, Altaic *uka- and Afro-Asiatic *Hwq- as single-stranded structures, which were reflected in the genetic data material of these language families and they represented both single-stranded and multifaceted compositions; 3) the phonetic prohibitions of Jucquo, one of the characteristics of which the initial and final larynx are not allowed, can be traced in both Indo-European *h"ek"- / *heuk- and Afro-Asiatic *Hwq-; the process of spirantisation is the weakening of the consonantal phoneme /q/, i.e. its reflection into /ê/ and /x/ that is observed in Indo-European, Altaic and Afro-Asian language families; 5) the process of pharynalisation is traced at the end of monosyllabic words and could occur by analogy with those forms of the word, where the consonant was intervocal; it is observed in Indo-European, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic language families; 6) the law on the pronunciation of short vowel phonemes /a/ and /u/, among which the following features are fixed: 1) the degree of solution of the oral cavity: if short /u/ is narrow (diffuse), short /a/ is wide (compact); 2) hardness / softness (low tonality / high tonality): short phonemes /a/ and /u/ are of hardness (low tonality); 3) absence or presence of labialisation (labialising / non-labialising) (simple tonality / flat tonality): if short /u/ is labialised, short /a/ is non-labialised; 7) the law of prosody deals with the stress in the correspondences of different languages and it is reflected in Indo-European, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic language families; 8) the law of open syllable is fixed in Indo-European, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic language families.

The reflexes of the plan of content of the Nostratic *HuKa “eye, to see” made it possible to fix 2 LSVs: 1) somatism and 2) action and testified the divergent and convergent relationship of the Indo-European, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic language families. They are found in Indo-European h"ek"- / heuk- “eye, to see” (1) somatism and 2) action), Altaic *uka- “to notice, to understand” (1) action) and Afro-Asiatic *Hwq- “to know” (1) action) (second-degree etymons), as well as in the Ancient Greek *ok"ie “eye, to see” (1) somatism and 2) action) and Albanian *ok"i- “eye, to see” (1) somatism and 2) action) (first-degree etymons).

1. Alekseyev, V. P. (1974). Geografiya chelovecheskikh ras [The geography of human races]. Moskva.