LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE REGARDING BANTU ORIGINS
LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE REGARDING BANTU ORIGINS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0021853700011427
复制
发表时间：
1972-01-01
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
GREENBERG, JH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
GREENBERG, JH
这篇文章有两个相关的目的。第一个是试图澄清奥利弗教授在他的文章“班图扩张的问题”中提出的某些观点，该文章发表在本刊的前一期上，涉及他对古特里教授和本作者关于班图人起源的其他理论的讨论。第二个和更普遍的目的是调查的基本假设的古特里的工作班图只要它涉及到同样的问题。在论述的过程中，我们考虑了三种类型的证据：班图语内部的语言证据，班图语外部的语言证据，主要来自西非的语言;非语言的，主要是地理的证据。认为古特里的假设，这是他的理论基础的一个中心“核”区作为起源点，即语言上最保守的地区揭示了原产地，与经验证据相反。相反，它是内部分化最大的地区，在这种情况下是西北地区，它指向最早的分化，因此是起源点。
This article has two related purposes. The first is to attempt a clarification of certain points raised by Professor Oliver in his article, ‘The Problem of the Bantu Expansion’, published in an earlier issue of this Journal, insofar as it concerns his discussion of the alternative theories of Professor Guthrie and the present writer regarding Bantu origins. The second and more general aim is to survey the basic assumptions of Guthrie's work on Bantu insofar as it relates to the same problem. In the course of the exposition, three types of evidence are considered: the internal Bantu linguistic evidence; the linguistic evidence external to Bantu, chiefly from West African languages; and the non-linguistic, chiefly geographic evidence.It is argued that Guthrie's assumption which underlies his theory of a central ‘nuclear’ area as the point of origin, namely that the linguistically most conservative area reveals the place of origin, is contrary to empirical evidence. It is rather the area of greatest internal divergence, in this case the north-western area, which points to the earliest differentiation and hence point of origin.