Проблемы китайского и общего языкознания. К 90-летию С. Е. Яхонтова

 502  George van Driem   Following [Toporov 1969, 1971] I adduced some additional linguistic evidence for the hypothesis that Burushaski might be distantly related to Yenisseian [van Driem 2001], but because of a reinterpretation of the sig- nificance of the Karasuk cultural assemblage I later rejected the archaeologi- cally inspired name Karasuk for the putative language family in favour of Greater Yenisseian [van Driem 2008]. 1 The Burushaski may have retained a Greater Yenisseian language but largely lost the presumed paternal lineage Q (M242). In fact, the ethnolinguistic history of the Burushaski may be a rather complex tale and is no doubt intimately tied up with the Indo-Iranian groups which surround them. At the time of the release of the new Kusunda material by [Watters 2006], possible correspondences suggested by the Kusunda realis suffix <- ǝn ~ - n >, the Burushaski plural agent-subject suffix <- an > (except for genderless third person) and the Ket plural subject-agent suffix <-( V ) n ~ -( V ) ŋ >, by the Ku- sunda plural suffix <- da > and the Ket distributive prefix < d -> and by a num- ber of other typological parallels between Kusunda and Greater Yenisseian 1 I retain the conventional English spelling Yenisseian, which follows the original Ger- man and Dutch sources, where the doubling of the s ensured a voiceless pronunciation, although a newer Russian-inspired spelling with a single s has recently come into use among some English speaking linguists. Figure 22. The Y chromosomal haplogroup Q is a possible patrilingual marker for the spread of the Greater Yenisseian linguistic phylum [van Driem 2008]