STUDIA

ETYMOLOGICA
CRACOVIENSIA
3 (1 ee8)

CONDIDIT ET MODERATUR
MAREK STACHOWSKI
 S tudia Ety m o lo gica Cra c ot iens ia

vo1. 3 Krakw 1998

Alexander V o v i n, A Reconstruction of Proto-Ain. (Brill's Japanese Studies

Llbrary, edited by K' W. Radtke, Volume 4), Leiden _ New York _ Kln
1'993,E. J. Brill, XIII + 0 pp.ISBN 90-04_09905-0.

According to Vovin (p. 1), ,,The Ainu language, as well as Ainu themselves,
is probably the greatest mystery in the historical linguistics and ethnology of
the northern pafi of the Far East". It is certainly probable that the Ainu
speech is not genetically related to any of the neighbouring languages in the
Siberia and Far East, thus it is still defined as an isolated language.
The reviewed book contains an introduction (pp. 1-7), three basic parts
on (I) phonological, (II) lexical and (III) genetical problems (pp. 8-174),
short conclusions (p. 175), bibliography (pp. 176-178), a so far unpublishecl
Russian-Ainu glossary by L G. Voznesenskiy in the Ainu-English arrangement
(pp. 1'79_10), as well as a useful index of the smantems (pp. 11_19).
In the introduction Vovin records data and documonts on ,,O1d Ainu",
including the most useful glossary of ,,Ezo Hgen Moshiwogusa'' (,,Ainu
dialect miscellany") by Uehara Kunzajiro and Abe Chozaburo (1804 A.D.),
and these on the modern, almost extinct nowadays, dialects, for which the
main source is the Ainu language dialect dictionary published by Hattori
5h1ro'.
Part I (,,Reconstruction of Proto-Ainu Phonology" , pp ' 9-16) describes fea-
tures of Proto-Ainu consonantism, vocalism, prosodic and accentual systems.
According to Vovin, ,,pfoto-Ainu had the opposition between voicelesss and
voiced stops (*p, nt, *d, *, *g) which disappeared in modern Ainu. Besides
*tr-,
that, there were several initial consonant clusters in Proto-Ainu (*pr-,
nhr-, nty- and nhd-) which later underwent different kinds of simplitication.
The vowel system of Proto-Ainu was also considerably richer: it consisted of
twelve short and six long vowels" (p. 175). Vovin claims that his Proto-Ainu
(PA) reconstruction is made ,,on the basis of internal data", but it is not true.
The voiced stop *d is suggested (pp. 16-18) by the special reflex in Naircr
(NA) dialect. When NA r- is an equivalent of initial r- in other dialects,
Vovin reconstructs PA xr-, but when NA r- corresponds to common Ainu r-,
he suggests PA*d-. This last correspondence is not represented in medial or
linal positions. The Nairo examples demonstrate that /- changes into -r- in

1slrir Hattori, Ainugo hgen jiten (An Ainu Dialect Dictionary)' Too 1964.
186

an:ray:ke'I kill'. As the Ainu dialects show only r- or t-, the decisive
arguments for reconstruction of initial *d- on the basis of internal data are
lacking. Moreover, I feel that Vovin is wrong, trying to distinguish PA *d-
and PA n/r-. The reflexes of *tr- show exactly the same distribution as these
of *d- (i.e. NA /- vs. r- in other dialects). What is a difference betrveen them?
Both M. Dobrotvorskiy and Bronisaw Pisudski note that tr- is a rare variant
of the pronunciation of r- in Sakhalin Ainuz. Vovin reconstructs PA */r- in
these cases when the variants with tr- are really attested in Dobrotvorskiy's
material and in at least one Kuril dialect. However, he notes simultaneously
that the reflexes of the consonant cluster *tr- are unstable. It is not clear
whether rr- was a variant within one Ainu dialect, or whether tr- and r-
are variants in different dialects. Moreover, it is not impossible that the
archaic reflexes with r- disappeared and not the least trace was left in the
preserved material. It is worth emphasizing that PA*tri(i):'uP] upper part'
(Jap. ue:no kata) contains all really attested forms beginning with r- (not
with r- or tr-): Yakumo rllc, Saru ilk, Obihiro ritta; Asahigawa e:rilc:as;
Soya rik:wa; Raichishka ris(:1rS 'up'; Kuril Ainu rikta'above' (aocording to
I. G. Voznesenskiy) and rik'above, over, high' (aocording to .I. Batchelor).
The initial PA ntr- is reconstructed by Vovin (p. 147), as the above appellative
is etymologically related to the root *trii'to be high', which shows an evidence
for PA *tr- in Kuril vocabulary: triiva 'to be high' (S. Krasheninnikov) and
trichingi'higher' (I. Voznesenskiy).
Vovin's evidence fbr the Ainu term for 'footprint, trace, mark' presents
a number of items beginning exclusively with r-: Yakumo ru(:we)'traces,
marks', Horobetsu ru( 1e), Saru ruwe( :he), Obihiro ruye( :he), Bihc:ro ruwe,
Asahigawa ruwe; Nayoro rLL, ruwe; So;ya ru(:hu); Raichishka ruweh,e 'traces,
marks', Batchelor's ruwe, tuhe 'footprint, line'. As no Nairo equivalent is
attestecl, Vovin was not able to decide whether the correct reconstruction
is PA nru or PA *du (?). However, he did not take into consideration
B. Pisudski's Sakhalin Ainu material of 1913, where both r- and /-variant
fbrms are in fact attested: he, ruhe 'footprint' (R140.) next to the, the,
ttthe'footprint; line' (T17 6.).
It is worth emphasizing that the Sakhalin Ainu data' co1lected by B. Pi-
sudski, demonstrate eight following items containing initial t- in alternation
with r-:

2A significant Russian commentary by Dobrotvorskiy on the Sakhalin Ainu alter-

nation tr-: t-i r- is quoted in a French version by P. Naert, La situation linguistique de
l'aitl.ou. I' Atnou et indoeuropen,Lund 1958, pp' 49*51 (herrcefortlr: SLA).
38. Pisudski, Mateals
for the Study of the Ainu Language and Folklore, Krakw
19L2' Conlpare also An Ainu-Et'glish Index-Dictionary to B. Pisudski's Materials for the
Study of the Ainu Language and Folklore of 1912, compiled by A. F. Majewicz and
E. Majewtcz, Pozna 1986, The UAM Press'
 187

(1) tamhu - ramhu - rnmu 'soul, wish, thought' (T'), Dobrotvorskiy's

tram'esprit', tranka'poitrine'(quoted after Naert SLA 50). Both variants
beginning with r- and r- appear also in Batchelor's Ainu dictionarya. La
Prouse notes tchame (i'e. tiam) 'le devant et le haut de la poitrine'. This
is why Vovin's protoform *rAm 'sou1. heart, mind' is doubtful. Thus it is
necessary to reconstruct *trAm.
() tara - rara 'eyebrow' and 'bare, plantless' (T5. = R6B.), la Prouse's
tara 'Ies sourcils's, cf. Vovin's doubtful *rAr 'eyebrow'.
(3) texni * rexni'drumstick' (T78. : R79.). A. F. Majewicz derives it from
tek 'hand' and ni 'wood'' cf. Dobrotvorskiy's trki 'main.
(4) tetara 'white' corresponds to Common Ainu retar(a) 'id.', cf. Vovin's
*dE(:)tar 'white'.
(5) rumbe - tLLampe - tumpe - rumpe'beaf'S den' (T165_166. & R13B.)'
Is it a cognate of Sakhalin Ainu tuf 'cave'?
(6) tLihe - the - tuhe 2. 'footprint' 3' 'way' path' 4''line' (T175 ') and rhe
- ruhe . 'path,
*ru
way, track, route, trail, footprint' (R140.), cf. Vovin's *truLt
'road' and (*du?)'traces, marks'.
(1) turu - turup - turupa - rurupa'a village or land (province) from Ainu
legends' G253_57.).
(B) tu- ttti- lll'fut, animal skin' (T25B. : R160.), cf. Vovin's *dus 'fur,
skin', though Dobrotvorskiy knows also truand trusd. Acaording to Vovin
(p' 149), the homonymic word tu- ttti(and not ru)'cord',as well as tuihi
'string, rope' (T25B., T60_64.) continues PA ntus 'rope'.
Tvo examples (No. 4 & 6) agree generally with Vovin's way of thinking,
three other (No. 1, 2 & B) indicate that Vovin is probably wrong reconstructing
*rAm 'soul' (Dobrotvorskiy's examples tram and trnka point out that NA
ram:ka is a secondary formation), *rAr'eyebrow' (decisive Nairo data are
lacking) and *dus (against of ntrus).
All these instances demonstrate that the equivalence between Nairo /-
and common Ainu r- (independently of a presence or absence of descendants
with initial /r- in Kuril or Sakhalin dialects) should be treated in the same
way. In other words, all the examples, quoted by Vovin as an evidence for PA
*d- and PA *tr-, testify in fact to only one original cluster */r-. Thus I prefer
to reconstruct PA *tray 'to die' instead of uday (Nairo tay vs. CA ray) or PA
otrE:'three' instead of Vovin's odE: (Nairo te:p:pis vs. CA re, re:p). In
my opinion, Vovin's reconstruction with initial *d- is caused not by evidence
from internal data, but rather by external comparisons, e.B.
PA*day'to die'vs. Proto-Austronesian *tay'to die' (p. 163), Proto-Miao-
Yao *dai2 'to die' (p. 173).

aJ. Batclrelor, An Ainu-English-Iapanese dictionaryl, th ed., Too 1938'

5P Naert, ,,Le vocabulaire ainou de la Prouse collationn sur le vif'', Orbis 10,
No. 2, 1961, pp. 320-35-5, esp. 326.
1BB

PA "dE: 'three' (against of *trE:6) vs. Proto-Austronesian *talu 'three'

(p. 163).
The matter is not dilTerent when we examine the Ainu rvords beginning
with r-, tbr. ex. Yakumo wakk 'water', Horobetsu wakka, Saru wakkc,
Obihiro wakka, Bihoro wakka; Asahigawa wakka; Nairo walclca; Soya wakka;
Raichishka wahla', Kuril walrla 'water'. The PA *w seems to be a perfect
phoneme in this case. Vovin does not think so. He prefers to produce an
original cluster *hd on the basis of two incidental forms: Krasheninnikov's
siruGen 'rain' (literally 'weather [is] bad' vs. Common Ainu wen 'to be bad')
and Klapenroth's ihguoen'six' (cf. CA i:wan'six', wan: 'ten'). But these
examples may indicate rather *-hg- or even *-g-, but not *-hd-.It is obvious
that the proposed reconstructton *hd-, as well as that of *d-, is not based on
internal evidence, but it really refers to external comparisons, e.g.
PA *wak:ka 'water' (Vovin's *hdak:ka) versus Proto-Viet-Mong *'dak
'water'; Proto-Monic n6aak'watef'; '|ak dk; UyIo dak; Bahnar dk; Boloven
tidk; Chrau dk; Churu di; Halang dt; Kaseng dk; Khmer dik; Kontu dd;
Kuoi dak; Lav dilc; Niahn dk; Talaing ddk; Cntral and Coastal Nicobar
dak; Chowra Nicobar ralc'water' (p. 166).
Vovin's reconstruction of Proto-Ainu consonantism shows its deep weak-
ness in the case of a suggested protophoneme *g. It is reconstructed on the
basis of the reflex - in Common Ainu, which is sometimes rendered as g-
or - by the Russian authors. On the other hand, initialf appears instead of
initial h- before the vowel [a] only in Batchelor's Ainu dictionary, as well as
in Kuril and Sakhalin dialects, e.g.
(9) Pisudski's Sakha1in Atnu fura - fura'Scent, smell, odor' (F1.), Kuril
Ainu hura, fura 'smell' vs. Hokkaido Ainu hura (Yovin's *gura).
(10) Pisudski's Sakhalin Ainu fure 'ted' (F3.), Batchelor's fure and hure
vs. Hokkaido Ainu hure (Yovin's *guurE).
(11) Batchelor's huru, furu 'hill'vs. Hokkaido hur, Voznesennskiy's Kuril
Ainu 5lr (Vovin's xgur).
(12) Batchelor's fushko 'to be old', Dobrotvorskiy's fusiko, fushko, fusku,
fushku'old, ancient, antique'vs. Hokkaido Ainu ht'tsko,Kurilhosuko, hushiko
(Vovin's *guskO).
(13) Batchelor's ft 'raw, green' vs. Hokkaido Ainu hu 'to be raw, to be
fresh' (Vovin's ng).
Trying to reconstruct a ,,strange'' voiced stop *g for Common Ainu -,
Vovin (pp.6-7) assumesf as the result of innovationalprocesses. However,
Vovin's conclusion remains in disagreement with the development observed in
neighbour languages, tbr ex. in .Iapanese. It is a well-known fact that the Old
.Iapanese phonemef yields regularly MJap. h- before [ol,Iol and [e], develops
to M.Tap. q before p] and only before [a] it preserves its original status even

Cf. Dobrotvorskiy's re, tre 'three' and la Perouse's tct (i.e, ti'e) 'ttois', tchbi
kassma 'treiz'' cf. Naert SLA 74.
 189

in Modern .Tapanese. I think that the Ainu development could be hardly

different from that in JapaneseT. However, the ,,Old Ainu" data, collected
by Girolamo De Angelis in 1619-218 and reprinted by Ph. J. Strahienberg in
1730, preserve ancient f in the position before [a] and [o],
".g.
(1a) De Angelis Faib'madre', Strahlenberg's Faibo'Mutter' vs. CA hapo,
habo 'mother'. This equivalence excludes Vovin's *gaa(:)po (pp. 86-87);
(15) De Angelis Fottzu'venti', Strahlenberg's Fotzu 'Zwantzig'e next to
CA hot '20' stands in disagreement with Vovin's *gOt 'twenty' (p. B9).
It is obvious for comparative linguists and etymologists that the ,,Old
Ainu" data are crucial for Proto-Ainu reconstruction, so we should use them
as remarkable data1o. Thus, it is necessary to reconstruct *faapO 'mother',
*fOt'twenty', nlrr'mountain, hill', *fura'smell, odor', *fuskO'to be old',
*fuu 'to be raw, to be fresh' and nfuurE 'red' and consequently to replace
a number of further Vovin's entries with initial *g- by means of initial xf .
To conclude, Vovin's reconstruction of the Proto-Ainu consonantism is
highly subjective, premature and even unreasonable in some cases.
Part II (,,Proto-Ainu vocabulary", pp.77-154) includes more than seven
hundrecl Proto-Ainu lexical items. The vocabulary is arranged in the alfabetical
order according to Vovin's own reconstruction.
As far as genetic relations of the Proto-Ainu language are concerned
(see Part III: ,,Origins of the Ainu language", pp. 155-174), Vovin concludes
definitely that ,,Proto-Ainu is unrelated to any of the neighbouring languages"
(p. 175). Even its ties with the Nivhgu (or Giiyak) language (quoted in
pp. 158-162), which are deeper than with any other language in the northern
Far East region, are probably due to the centuries of mutual contacts, rather
than common origin.
Vovin tries to seek paralels in numerous language families of the South-East
Asia. In Vovin's words, ,,the search for the origins of the Ainu language in
a southern direction seems to be far more promising than the search in a north-
ern direction". He cloes not take into consideration a western possibility (for
ex. ,,Paleo-Euro-Asiatic", Indo-European, Altaic of common Nostratian) of
the Ainu ethnogenesis. He decides to consider Ainu relations to the fbllowing
language families:
7
Language contacts and mutual influences between the Ainu and Japanese peoples
are noteworthy. What is more, Ainu is a substratal layer of .Iapanese, and vice
versa, Japalrese can be treated as an adstraturn for Ainu. Tlrus tlre sirrrilari of tlre
phonological development in Ainu and Japanese is not unexpected.
sSee P Naert,
,,Urre liste de nrots airrou dresse au 1'Je sidcle. La plus arrcienrre
source europenne connue sur la langue ainou'', orbis 11', No. 1, 7962,pp. 116_130.
Vovin seems to not know G. de Angelis' relation (edited in 1624 in Rome), which
lists 49 Ainu lvords.
e
Strahlenberg's list of numerals, as well as De Angelis' one, includes aTso Tzu
Fotzu '40', Refotzu '60' and Ynefotzu '80'.
l0Vovin's opinion is that
,,strahlenberg's material cannot be evidence for the shift
f > h" (p.26), but his arguments and conclusions are extremely weak,
190

(1) Proto-Austronesian (PAN);

(2) Proto-Austroasiatic (PAA), including such subfamilies as Proto-Viet-Mu-
ong (PVM), Proto-Mon-Khmer (PMK), Proto-Wa (PW) and Proto-Monic
(PM);
(3) Proto-Miao-Yao (PMY);
(4) Proto-Thai (PTh).
The last possibility should be - according to Vovin - excluded, because
no evidence can be found to support a suggested Ainu{hai relationship.
As far as both the first and third cases are cclncerned, Vovin rvas able
to quote 6 lexical parallels connecting Proto-Ainu with Proto-Austronesian
(p. 163) and only 2 similarities connecting Proto-Ainu with Proto-Miao-Yao
(p. 173). IJnnecessary to say that it is a very modest evidence. Let us compare
these PAN and PMY parallels with the lexical material, which was presented as
an evidence for the Indo-European origin of the Ainu peoples in publications
by P. Naert and his supporters (fbr ex. I. Lindquist, A..L Van Windekens)11. It
shouid be emphasized, however, that Naert's Ainu-Indo-European hypothesis
has been reiected by most scholars12.
PA PAN PMY PIE
'I' *ku *cku nku(u)
"e8 ?
*,rrr ? *eme- cf. Khmer a
*prH- ?
LIIL_- ?
'fire' oapE *apuy ?
ntray , ??
'to die' ntay -,- .')
^doL'
(Vovin's nday)
'two' *tttu *
duvc ? *duw ?
'three' *trE: *talu '? *
treyes '/

(Vovin's *dE:)
'nose' *Ettt *idttng ? cf. "od- '?

'to smell'
Following D. Silvestril3, I am able to quote one additional example tcr
this ambiguous evidence:

11Naert 5La (1958); I. Lirrdquist, Indo-European feattres in the Ainu language.

With reference to the thesis of Piewe Nae,Lund 1960; A. J. van Wirrdekens, ,,La
thdse de Pierre Naert et l'origirre indo-europenrre de trois mots ainou'', SL 14, 1960,
pp. 114-1L For discussion of Ainu-Inc]o-Europeail liriguistic relations, see especially
b-. Silvestri, La posizione ling,uistica dell'indoeuropeo. Genealogie, typologie,,corutatti, .ttt
E. Carrrpanile 1a'), Nuovi ateali per la cerca tndoeuropeistica, Pisa 1981, Giardini,
pp. 161- 201, esp. 116-179 (cf. also useful bibliography of the problem, pp. 194*1,95).
1zNaert's thsis is critictzed by G. Durrrzi1 (SL 1z, 1958, pp. 52_55)' A' Tovar
(Emeta 28, 190, pp. 336_338), E. Berrveniste (BSt _55, 1960, pp. 51_ 53), A. . Dol-
iopol'skiy lttmoiigia 19(t3,pp'.293-299) and most carefully by O. G. Thilleur (Kratylos
,'tgoo,'pp. 16_8; KZ '/], 191' pp. I_30; orbis 1'1', 796, pp. 243_250; Lingua 1,
1963, pp. 389-410).
13D, Silvestrt, op. cit., p. 111 ,
 191

'one' *si:nE cf. Malay sa ?

nsem- ?
.Iavanese sa
It is remarkable that the refuted Indo-European hypothesis is not weaker
than both the Proto-Austronesian and Proto-Miao-Yao ones, even when we
consider only these 6 examples, and exceeds both alternatives with different
respects. Taking into consideration the same basic examples, we may admit
an analogical statement with reference to the Proto-Austroasiatic theory of
the Ainu ethnogenesis.
However, Vovin has ventured a hypothesis that ,,Proto-Ainu may be
related to Proto-Austroasiatic" on the basis of 76 possible comparisons in
the fundamental vocabulary. As it was shown above, he prepared evidence
fbr the Ainu-Astroasiatic theory by making use of the Ainu reconstructions,
which does not agree with the Ainu internal data, e.g.
Common Ainu *walc:ka 'water' (Vovin's *hdalc:ka) vs. pVM. *'dak
'water'; PM *6aalc'watef' (< PAA. *hdcak, see above).
common Ain. *woo (vovin's "hdoo)'span of the thumb and first finger'
vs. PW *tn:da''linger-span' (p. 166).
Proto-Ainu *trEtcr'white' (Vovin's *dE[:]tar) vs. PrA. *tair ,whit,1|.
Common Ainu par and car 'mouth' (Vovin's doubtful *prAA), cf. pM
*paa,J, PAA *pdu 'id.' .
Common Ainu hcm'|eaf' (sg'), hap 'Ieaves' (pl.), Kuril Ainu yam ,Ieaf,
(Vovin's hypothetical *hrA), cf. PVM *hla, PW *hla?, PM *slaa?, pfu\ *fu!61?
'leaf '.
Moreover, the same critical notes, which vovin uses to rebuke patrie's
,,Altaic" hypothesis of the Ainu originsis, may be successfully applied to his
own theory:
(A) vovin compares his highly subjective reconstructions with contempo-
rary Astroasiatic forms or even only one modern term, lvithout any attempt
to reconstruct a PAA stage, e.g.
PA *kar'to make', cf' Middle Mon a 'work; deed';
PA *nEE: 'vho, what', cf. Kui nila 'what'
PA *nOOti(:)qu'star', cf. Kui ntaar'star';
PA upa'head', cf. Kui plaa 'head; skull';
PA *pay:i'to go' (plur.), cf. Kui pa' 'to go, to come';
PA npOk'vulva', cf. Kui pe' 'vagina';
PA xcas (Vovin prefers non-attested *pras) 'to run', cf. Kui mpraarl ,to
run';
PA nsa: 'to be non-existent', 'no, not', cf. Old Mon sak ,not to have; to
lack; not to happen', ha (negative particle);
PA *trAp'feather', cf. Kui slaap, lhaap'wing', Khmer slap ,feather,.
laVovin notes that
,,this comparison is valid only if dE= is a prefix" (p. 165), cf.
lrowever, Gadaba ta:tar 'white'.
lssee J. Patrie, The Genetic Relationship of the Ainu Language,
Honolulu 1982.
19

(B) The semantics of Vovin's comparisons is sometimes.extrernely weak'

It is doubtful rvhether the following parallels could convince anybody:
*(')nlm'plant';
PA *num'fruit, berry', 'to bear fruit' vs. Proto-Wa
pg *:pEt'finger' vs. PAA *pet 'to pitch';
PA *poqOn 'quarter' vs. PAA *puon'four' (see below);
PA *strE 'to catry'vs. PAA xsalz 'basket'; *toy'I', Car Nicobar
CA cl: (Vovin's x1' :) 'we'vs. Proto-Met-Muong
cin'I': *jaary 'to flsh with a scoop-net''
PA uyaa'net' vs. Proto-Mon-Khmer
(C) Even worse than Vovin's semantics, is his knolvledge of Proto-Austro-
*tOO 'day' (< ntOqO) with
asiatic historical grammar. He connects PA ntiqu[:]p)
for days', and CA ncup (Vovin's
PM *t-r-r1ay 'day-time; classifier*sue'
,the sunl- tLe moon' with PW 'sun; day' and PM *tjay 'sun', without
accounting that PM
*t-r-ryay is a derivative from
"tEay by means of the infi'x -r-'
Most of the fgndamental Proto-Ainu vocabulary remains with no equivalent
in the Austronesian languages:
(I) Numerals:
There is only one Ainu-Austronesian comparison: Vovin (p' 168) connects
pA1^ nptton'four' with PA *pOqOn 'quartef' (literally 'fcrur halves'), but it is
semaniically and formally doubtful (see above), because the common Ainu
word for'four'is nothing other than
*ii:nE:'
On the other hand, the refuted Ainu-Indo-European hypothesis nsi:nE
offers
three phonologically and semantically perfect comparisons: PA 'one'
*Sem-'id,',PA*tuu 'two'vS. PIE *duw'id.' ancl PA *trE: (Nairo
vs. PIE
PIE *treyes 'id''16'
te, but re in other dialects) 'three' vs.
(II) Personal Pronouns:
*ku, but the Ainu folklore texts use the
The basic Ainu word for 'I' is
pfonoun *[n:, xa:. Both pronouns seem to reflect PIE'
*e! (nom.)'I' and
*u- (always in declension cases), respectively.
The Austroasiatic material offers no equivalent for PA *ku. Vovin (p' 165)
'Wa'^"I'and 'a''we'.
compafes' however, PA*a(n): with Khmer a'I',
According to Vovin (p. 165), PA
*E:'you'(sing.) can perhaps be co1-
nected with Halang ai, Kaseng ai, sre ail (fem.), stieng ei 'thou" but the
Austronesian material in question is limited' Mofeover, it is highly doubt-
ful that the Ainu word fr 'we', c: (Vovin's /i:), is related to Proto-
viet-Muon g *toy
.I" car Nicobar cin 'I', (note semantical difference!). But
the Indo-European hypothesis offers no solution'
16It is worth emphasizing that the next Ainu numetzrls are obvious neologisms:
*'aski or xasllc 'five' (cf' *as!
PA *ii
=nE: 'four' (etyrrrololgically urrclear), PA |A-
llian.l'i.e' .hv" fing"ri'j, pe ;:w'an (Ycnit|s *ii:hclan) 'six'(1iterally'{bur [to] ten'),
*a=tr=wan'sevei 'tlrree ten', PA *tu-P:wan'eight' (literally 'two
PA 1literally [to]
(iterally'one_[io]ten'). It is rrot irnprobable
i i"'l' PA *si =n5:)Er=r_-'ni''.'
fbr *wa,l (Vovirr's *hdan), rnay be relaterl to PIE
il'oi
.''; u''Proto-Ainu
Jorc] 'tet'|,
^ael(ln 1c]..
 193

(III) kinship terminology:

Vovin was able to find no kinship term in the Austroasiatic kinship
vocabulary comparable to a Proto-Ainu synonym. On the contrary, adherents
of the Ainu-Indo-European relationship suggest the following comparisons:
PA *faaca or *faaa'father' (De Angelis' Faciappi'padre', Strahlenberg's
Fascicppu 'Vatef' vs. Yakumo acapo; Soya aca:a, Raichishka aacr:ha;
Vovin's *aaa), cf. IE. *piitr, Latin pater, Greek Turp, Sanskrit pitr-
'father' and so on.
PA *mct 'wife; woman', cf. IF. *mrcr 'mother', Latin mater, Gk. p,qrt1p,
Skt. mtar-.
(IY) Physiographical vocabulary:
The proper Proto-Ainu word fbr 'wate/, *wak:kq (and not *hdak:kc),
represented in all Hokkaido and Sakhalin dialects and attested even in one
of Kuril jargons, should be connected with PIF,. *H2akwaH2 ,water, rather
than PAA *'daak (see above). The alternative Ainu word for 'wate{, "pE (in
Hokkaido dialects it mostly means 'undrinkable water' or 'sap'), seems to have
equivalents in Indo-European (see IE. *rp- I *ap-),but not in Austroasiatic.
The Austroasiatic languages offer no possible cognates with the meanings
'river' (PA *pEt and *nay),'lake' (PA *tOO, cf. proto-Nivhgu *tu,id.,), .sky,
cloucl' (PA *nls, cf. PIE. *nebhes-), 'heaven, sky' (pA *kantO) or ,rain' (pA
"aptO).
(Y) Animal nomenclature:
There are only three suggested Ainu-Austroasiatic comparisons denoting
a kind of animal:
PA *kapa(:)p 'bat' vs. PM *klwaa' 'id.', Proto_Mon *kaw, ,bat' (p. 164);
PA *sOya 'bee, wasp' vs. PM *saay 'bee' (p. 170).
CA *cl: (Vovin's *;:)'bird'vs. PVM *cim'bird', pW *sem; Alak
tsim; Bahnat em;Boloven tbm;Kuoi tem-tu 'bird' and so on < PAA cim
(pp. 171_17).
The possible Ainu-Indo-European equivalents are of similar or even su-
perior worth, e.g.
PA *mOs 'a fly' vs. PIE *mus-, *mous- 'id.';
PA *yuk'Ieindeel' vs. PIE neivos 'hofse' (e' g. Toch' A yuk, B yiilove).
It is not easy to establish if and why the Proto-Austroasiatic equivalents
of the Ainu words are more remarkable than the Indo-European ones, see,
t\o

^
PA ukirqu 'horn' vs. PW *nry, PM *draj, PMon *kreary ,horn' vs. IE.
nker', nknlu- 'horn' (Gk. rc,pag, Lat' cornu,
oNorse hom)'
PA *rit 'root' Vs. PAA *lh, PYM *relh, P'W *res, Khmer n's, vs. IF,. *wrid-,
*wfd- 'root' (Gk.
P'i(a., Lat. radix).
To conclude, Vovin's attempt to prove the Ainu-Austroasiatic relationship
is premature and unmotivated. Thus, I prefer to consider Ainu-Austroasiatii
parallels as a mere coincidence. I am not sure if we should treat the possible
Ainu-Indo-European relationship in the same or similar way. None of the
 194

above-mentioned theories is a final solution to the problem of the origins of

the Ainu language and PeoPle.
Vclvin was unable t clarify obscure prehistoric relations of the Ainu
people, but I can not deny that his monograph remains a first significant step
in itr" direction of reconstructing the Proto-Ainu historical phonology and
ivocabulary. It is a pity that none of the numerous Ainu publications by Alfred
E' Majewicz, an excellent Polish orientalist from Pozna, is even mentioned
in Vovin's book.

Krzysztof Tomasz WITCZAK (d)