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

 510  George van Driem   of a pre-Indo-European or even pre-Nostratic homeland in India. The pres- ence of F* and K* in Indian populations represents additional molecular evi- dence for the even more daring hypothesis that the Indian subcontinent may have been the ultimate primordial fatherland of most of linguistic and genetic phyla outside of Africa. References Abdulla, Mahmood Ameen et al. and the Indian Genome Variation Consortium. 2009. ‘Mapping human genetic diversity in Asia’, Science, 326: 1541–1545. Arunkumar, G., Soria-Hernanz, D. F., Kavitha, V. J. et al . 2012. ‘Population differentiation of Southern Indian male lineages correlates with agricultural expansions predating the caste system’, Public Library of Science PLoS One, 7 (11): e50269. Ballard, W. L. 1979. ‘Chinese — A bastard at the Sino-Tibetan family reunion’, paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Paris. Ballard, W. L. 1984. ‘The Mother Soup: A South China recipe for tonometamorphogenesis’, Computational Analyses of Asian and African Languages, 22: 43–70. Beaujard, P . 2012. Les mondes de l’Océan Indien — Tome I: De la formation de l’état au premier système-monde afro-eurasien (4e millénaire av. J.-C. — 6e siècle likewise did not yet include Hittite, Luvian and Palaic because the clay tablets on which these extinct languages were recorded in cuneiform script had not yet been discovered, and were later recognised as Indo-European by Bedřich Hrozný only in 1915. Manuscripts written in Tocharian languages were not discovered until the beginning of the 20th century. The Scythian language family was renamed Indo-Germanic by Malte-Brun in 1810, and this name has largely been replaced by the synonymous term Indo-European, which was first used by the English polymath Thomas Young in 1813 in a book review of Mithridates by Johann ChristophAdelung. Portions of this story are told in detail elsewhere [van Driem 2001: 1039–1051, 2005: 285–291]. By contrast, William Jones believed that most of the languages ‘from the China Seas to Persia’, including Latin and Greek, all derived from Sanskrit. Accordingly he called this language family the ‘Indian branch’. Jones’ two other language families were the ‘Tartarian’ and ‘Arabian branches’. His three branches derived from Noah’s three sons, whereas languages not belonging to these three branches were considered by Jones to be ‘antediluvian’ vestiges, i. e. remnants from before the Biblical Flood. In Jones’ conception, Sanskrit was ancestral to Latin, Chinese, Ancient Egyptian, Japanese, the languages of Ethiopia, Peruvian, the Celtic languages, Mexican, Greek and Phoenician, whose speakers all ‘had a common source with the Hindus’. Jones’ study of Hindi led him to believe that Hindi was unrelated to Sanskrit. Instead, Hindi was of ‘Tartar- ian or Chaldean origin’ [Jones 1786, 1792, 1793]. Nonetheless, the absurd myth ascribing the discovery of the Indo-European language family to Jones is astonishingly robust.