Wladyslaw Polakowski

One of the results of the application of the graf theory to research of the bevorhistory processes by the linguistic methods.
The IV chapter of author's book "Tatar-mongols. Eurasia. Manyvariancy". Adopted to the article format.
Devoted to V.Steciuk

The narration we want to continue by application of all those data, which natural sciences are giving: physics, mathematics, astronomy, geography, and such auxiliary historical disciplines, as numismatics and archeology. We begin that empress of the sciences - mathematics can give.

Many attempts recently were undertaken to investigate the past with the help of the mathematics. Among them were more or less successful methods from the viewpoint of the correctness from the viewpoint of mathematics and informativeness. Below we shall propose one historical-linguistic method named as his author as a graf method (as to the author of the given lines, he for certain has picked up other name, but he, as is spoken, does not want to change the horses on a ferry(Russian idiom with the sense: don't change tools during the intensive work). It (this method) was offered by the philologist from cities Lwow Walentine Steciuk [11], and itself Steciuk the creator of this method names the philologist Illich-Svitych [8].

1. Essence of used graf method

As to mathematics, material, which gives in to processing and allows to take the valuable items of the information, not so it is a lot of. One of the few results, which can be given by mathematics in the field of the linguistics are certain results concerning mutual relation of the peoples, belonging to different language families.

The further narration of this chapter will awfully and completely is based on "The research of the prehistorical ethnogenetical processes in East Europe" [11], exposed Internet on page http://www.geocities.com/valentyn _ua, the work by Ukrainian philologist Walentine Steciuk" (the Same book is issued in Lwow in the Ukrainian language in 1999).

The task, which to itself was put by its author, consists in the following. On the basis of the today's data of the comparative philology (quantity of the common language attributes in different languages) on a maximum to restore a picture of the language development of the mankind. In such situation it is best a word to give to the author, that we and shall make. (It is possible, certainly to make some philological digression, but we shall omit it).

In 1998 the author of the method (Steciuk) published the description of the researches of the related mutual relation of the several tens languages belonging to different language families. The research was carried out by a special mathematics-statistical method, which was developed by his author after long searches at the end of the 70-th - beginning 80 years and was named as graphioanalitical, as just the graphic analysis has enabled to establish the latent laws of the distribution of the common lexical fund of the related languages.

The researches, described in work, were carried out on three historical levels of the development of the languages. Relationship between languages nostratical of the superfamily (indoeuropean family, Altay, Ural, kartwelian, kartwelian and drawidian) at first is considered. At the second level was investigated relationship of the languages indoeuropean, Turkish, finnish-hungarian of the language families, and on third - relationship of the German, Iranianand slavic languages.

The technique consists here in the following.

Some languages (language families) are taking. These languages are broken into pairs. In these pairs two parameters are considered:

1. Quantity of those language attributes, which are for them common (crossing of the sets of these languages or language families), it given the letter Q

2. For each of the pairs of the languages we are considered Quantity of the common language attributes. It is designated by the letter M

(Note. A word "the lexical attribute" has the generalized character and includes not only lexicon, but also phonetics, and grammar. In more detail - see. Illich-Svitych [11]..)

3. A certain scale factor (for concrecy gets out. Generally, it is possible and to not choose and obviously to accept K = 1)

4. Under the very logical formula linguistic distance between languages for each of the pairs of the languages is considered

L = K/(M-Q)(1).

Thus, we receive the following picture: we have N of the languages and (to read "C" from "N") linguistic distances between them (number of the combinations). Such given can be presented as the table, and it is possible as graphs.

5. For construction graphs we solve the following geometrical task: to draw on plane N of the circles of the minimal radius so that distance between points laying in circles, which they form, precisely corresponded to distance between researched objects (languages or language families).

Thus, we on an output shall receive the following picture: N of the objects of the research will on a plane be submitted as circles of the different radius, and coupling geometrical distances in figure between it will be precisely correspond to linguistic distances L, calculated on the formula (1). Thus radius of the turned out circle will display a certain error of the method.

It is a little running forward, the author of these lines will tell, that in works Steciuk this problem was solved with some simplifications, besides not always with the appropriate linguistic explanatories (all the same pioneer, without pain to not do without), therefore them would be not bad once again do on some more high level. Nevertheless, something already is visible.

The received result, besides other, can contain certain geographical and - or historical interpretation. Automatically among the given group of the researched languages will appear languages "more ancient" (will lay closer to the centre of the figure) and "newer" (will lay closer to territories of the figure). To within some turns of the plane of the figure can still became clear basic areals of the moving of the carriers of the given languages (especially brightly it it can be visible for related languages or dialects of the one language).

It is completely obvious that to represent N of the circles on a plane satisfying given conditions - tasks not from easy. Without a certain technique more accomplished, than its author has described, to not do without. About such perfect technique the book author will try to state the representations.

2. A little about a more perfect technique

So there is of the linguistic objects with C N of the linguistic distances between them. Generally, it is possible to go both from mathematics, and from linguistics. If to go from mathematics, it is possible to go from distant pairs languages (with large linguistic distance) to near (with little linguistic distance) and from near pairs languages to distant.

On last method we shall choose two languages with greatest distance, we shall place them on a plane. The third language we take by criterion of the maximal total linguistic distance up to first two, the principle of the greatest total distance will be kept for a choice fourth and subsequent objects of the research.

By the following step we shall place the following, third, language on the necessary distances from first two (is natural, it is possible, if the sum of the distances is not less distance between first two).

Let's make it precisely the same as and at construction of the triangle, compasses by carrying out circles of the necessary radiuses and first two points and on crossing by putting a third. Further there will be a task of the accommodation of the fourth language. For this purpose we, again, shall take distances from each of the three points up to fourth and we shall carry out circles of the necessary radiuses.

Here we at once collide with that problem, that generally, geometrical place of the crossing of the three circles can and be not. But, under all laws of the mathematics, we can find a geometrical place of the points (in this case simply point), whence distances up to all three circles would be identical. In such case the centre of such circle would be a required site of the object, and radius - characteristic error of the method.

As the following step we shall engage in that the received error - radius of the appeared circle - we shall try in regular intervals to distribute on all four objects of the research, therefore radius of the circle around of the fourth object has decreased, and around of the other three has increased. It can achieve to a little variation of the parameters, it is easy by achievable computer methods.

There will be a fifth language further. Thus we shall carry out circles of the linguistic distances, the centres by each of which will be at the centres of the four turned out circles and which radiuses will be equal to the sum of the radius of the circle and linguistic distance.

At a place of the centre of the fifth circle there will be a problem similar what has arisen by consideration of the fourth language: the places of the points, whence from fifth up to four others are available the necessary distances, can and be not. Moreover, as against the fourth point, hardly it has turned out to find that place on a plane, whence the distances up to three circles would be identical.

We shall act similarly, how in a case with fourth: by computer methods we shall find that point on a plane, whence sum of the distances up to these four circles will be minimal. Such point also will be the centre, and radius for concrecy we shall take average arithmetic distance from this point up to each of the circles. Now is exact as we shall act for sixth, seventh etc. last object of the research.

While it only plans. And author of the method has acted a little in another way.

3. Application of the given technique to the issue on interdependence between nostratic language families

So, word to Steciuk:

"To begin a ethniogenesis history of the whole group of the peoples it would be necessary from the origin of the man, but this issue together with the issue on it the most ancient motherland remains too discussionable. Therefore we shall begin from a less debatable issue of the origin nostratical of the languages. The unanimity among scientific concerning a reality of the existence of such superfamily of the languages is not present, but, to not go deep scientific disputes, we shall analyse graphoanalitical by a method already assembled, processed, though and not up to the end systemitizitings results of the researches of W.M.Illich-Svitych [11]. By it were investigated lexical, worldcreatical and morphological similarities of the six large language families of the Old World: Altay, Ural, drawidian, indoeuropean, kartwelian and semito-chamitian. The part of the data, received as a result of the researches, was submitted in the tables (morphological attributes and lexicon in Quantity 147 positions), and 286 lexical parallels could be found in the text".

Then at check of all material... 27 words from Uralic and 8 of the Altaic languages [7]) were still added.

In result has appeared, that from 433 all quantities of the attributes 34 are common (to them we still we shall return), and rest was made by 255 units from Uralic, also 255 - from Altaic, 253 units from indoeuropean, 240 - from semito-chamitian, 189 - from drawidian and 139 of the kartwelian. The Quantity of the common attributes in pairs of the languages was counted up, but thus it was not taken into account different weight of the morphological attributes and lexical units, though it is absolutely different categories. However quantitative Evaluation by this weighty(importance) all the same would be subjective, and we shall hope, that the morphological attributes were distributed among languages more or less in regular intervals. The calculations have given results, submitted in table 1:

Table 1. Quantity of the common attributes between families of the languages (Look in book, please)

Altaic - Uralic 167
Uralic - kartwelian 66
Altaic - indoeuropean 153
Indoeuropean - semito-chamitian 147
Altaic - semito-chamitian 149
Indoeuropean - drawidian 108
Altaic - drawidian 109
Indoeuropean - kartwelian 70
Altaic - kartwelian 84
Semito-chamitian - drawidian 110
Uralic - indoeuropean 151
Semito-chamitian - kartwelian 86
Uralic - semito-chamitian 136
Drawidian - kartwelian 54
Uralic - drawidian 134

By analysing the half-scientific data, it is impossible at once to tell about any their certain law, however it is possible to notice, that most of all of the common words have among themselves Altay, Ural, semito-chamitian and indoeuropean. At first it is necessary to choose factor of the proportionality, and further to count quantities of the common attributes in distances between areals of the languages. The choice of the meaning of the factor is determined by the sizes of the sheet, on which the circuit is under construction. According to our data the meaning K = 1000 approaches. Then the distances between areal of the separate languages will have meanings, submitted in table 2:

Table 2. Distances centre to centre of the language families on the circuit

Altaic - Ural 6.0
Uralic - kartwelian 15.2
Altaic - indoeuropean 6.5
Indoeuropean - semito-chamitian 6.8
Altaic - semito-chamitian 6.7
Indoeuropean - drawidian 9.3
Altaic - drawidian 9.2
Indoeuropean - kartwelian 14.3
Altaic - kartwelian 11.9
Semito-chamitian - drawidian 9.1
Uralic - indoeuropean 6.6
Semito-chamitian - kartwelian 11.6
Uralic - semito-chamitian 7.4
Drawidian - kartwelian 18.5
Uralic - drawidian 7.5

The construction of the circuit of the relationship goes in some iterations. At first on two coordinates for each language there is one point, which determines an approximate situation of it's areal, and in the following iterations there is a specification of the arrangement all areals of the languages. Basically it is possible to begin from any language, but at once it is not known, to what party there will be a construction, and the circuit can leave for limits of the sheet. Therefore it is the most convenient to begin construction from pair of the languages, which has the greatest Quantity of the common attributes. In our case it is the Altaic and Uralic languages (these problems it is offered to solve by a method described in the previous section - WP).

Hence, at first arbitrary we put somewhere at the centre to a sheet a piece AB of the length 6 sm, which corresponds to Quantity of the common attributes in this pair (see. A Fig. 1). The ends of this piece determine a place of the points for Altaic and Ural. Further on the basis of this piece the points for indoeuropean and semito-chamitian of the languages are under construction. Let's begin with semito-chamitian, as these languages have more common attributes with kartwelian and drawidians, than indoeuropean. According to Quantity of the common attributes the point semito-chamitian of the languages should be on distance 6,7 cm from a point Altaic and on distance 7,4 cm from a point of the languages. By the compasses with the appropriate solution is done two little compasses lines and on their crossing we find a point semito-chamitian of the languages. Such points there can be two - at the left and to the right of the base. The choice of the one of these two probable points determines a final kind of the circuit, which can have two variant, mirror under the relation to each other.

Let's choose a point, which lays closer to the centre. Now at us three points - A, B, C, and we pass to construction of the point D (indoeuropean languages). Its situation we shall determine too on the basis of the piece AB. It should be on distance 6,5 cm from a point A and on distance 6,6 cm from a point B. By the compasses we do two appropriate little compasses lines in the party opposite from the point C we and receive a point D. (to have it near a point C it is impossible, as in this case semito-chamitian and indoeuropean languages should have considerably more common attributes, than they have actually). A point E for drawidian of the languages we build on base BC, as just semito-chamitian and the Uralic languages have more all of the common attributes with drawidian. So, this point settles down on distance 7,5 cm from a point of the Uralic languages and on distance 9,1 cm from a point semito-chamitian of the languages in a direction from the centre of the circuit, in another way it wiil be lie near a point of the Altaic languages, why contradicts Quantity of the common attributes between them. A point F for kartwelian of the languages, only in this case on base AC similarly is under construction. The first iteration is completed - the skeletal circuit of the relationship nostratical of the languages is received. Them areals should be somewhere in area of the received points A, B, C, D, E, F.

Figure 1. First iteration of the construction of the circuit of the relationship nostratical of the languages

The second iteration enables to specify and to check up correctness of the arrangement areals. Thus the points of the separate languages build on other coordinates. For example, the point D was under construction on two coordinates, which were pieces AD and BD. Now we can use as coordinates, say, same pieces in other combinations - with pieces, which answer distance areal indoeuropean of the languages from areal drawidian, semito-chamitian and kartwelian. Then it is possible to take also other probable combinations. As a whole we should receive 10 points, which to us have outlined areal indoeuropean of the language. Thus each time at a choice of the one of the two probable variants we should choose at which the new point is lieing closer to already constructed.

In the given version the description of the second and third iterations falls.

Finally circuit of the family relations nostratical of the languages accepts a view shown in figure 2.

The received thus circuit is one of the two mirror variants, from which just this is chosen for the reason, what exactly for it was possible to find a place on a geographical map. Here it is necessary only to pay attention, that by searches of the appropriate place on a geographical map for the received circuits of the relationship it is necessary each time to select new factor of the proportionality according to scale of the map, that is to build vectorially similar circuit of the other size according to the sizes areals on the map.

Figure 2. The circuit of the related relations nostratical of the languages

Once more we pay attention that deformations of the circuit thus is not made".

Let's interrupt a little author of the method. Let's pay attention to one surprising circumstance: drawidian, kartwelian and indoeuropean languages lay in tops of the turned out triangle, and here semitian, Uralic and Altaic - on the sides. That is very roughly is seen theoretically probable nostratical beforelanguage: it should represent something average between semitians, Uralians and Altay. As the little note we shall add, that of the Morozow, as the author had an impression, appealed not to see a difference between turks and Hungarians. Or, at least to not give this difference the large meaning. (Illich-Switych [8] in the characteristics interdependence between these languages already described by a certain number, hence, the work in comparison of these languages was done not so recently - WP).

Looking on figure 2, we can find its one interesting interpretation. Namely we can safely families we can divide on early - semitian, Uralic both Altay, and late - drawidian, kartwelian and indoeuropean. The further part of artcile is illustration of this statement only, and reader can merely go to the main result.

4. The Illustration of the idea about relationship of the nostratical languages on the early etaps of development.
Let continue Steciuk, who writes about the geographical Interpretation of our statement:

"As chronologically researches (probably, is going about researches in the field of the linguistics - WP) be ordered not in that of the order, in which there is a statement, on the moment of the reception of the circuit already there were known places later of the settlements indoeuropenians, fihnns-hungarians and turks having these data, and also considering modern places of the settlements semito-hamiten (Africa, Forward Asia), drawidian of the peoples (south of the Indiostan subcontinent) and carriers kartwelian of the languages (territory of the Georgia) and that the received circuit rather dense, area of the searches could be only Forward Asia and Transcaucasia, which are at the centre later of the settlements of the carriers nostratical of the languages. (I.e. peoples be dispatched from Ararat. As on Bible. It is very important - WP).

At the detailed analysis of the geographical map of the Forward Asia and Transcaucasia in view of the obligatory presence of the geographical borders anything suitable, except for territory in area of the three lakes Wan, Sewan and Urmia (Rezaye) was not found. That the geographical borders here are expressed very well, speaks presence just in this territory of the state borders to six (is very indicative!) modern states. Three lakes form a correct triangle, on which the central part of our circuit is very well imposed. But as triangles has equal sides, here also there was a problem of the choice. It was clear, that thecestors of drawids should occupy areal somewhere in the south or in east of the common territory. The additional bases for a choice were, first, circumstance, that modern kartwelians, obviously, have remained nearby to the old places of the settlements, and secondly, account of the opportunity of the movement indoeuropenians, uralians and altaians on north (about the south of the issues it would not be desirable to set, and here east and west - WP) without obstacles on turn one behind others.

For an illustration of the interrelation between language of the various groups the book author slightly will continue to quote Steciuk.

"However in this case it is possible to add also parallels from religious motives. For example, mansian Kors-torum, Kworys-torum, Khantian Num Kurys id the ancestor of the gods and creator of the world (after a flood the role of the Supreme deity has passed to his son Numi Torumu) remind a name shumerian of the god - the soldier Ningirsu (Nin-girsu). Komi the god - demiurg Yen at Nutuyar "the sky", udmurtian inmar "the god", In (M) "sky", in mari language yymy "god" precisely corresponds to shumerian An - "the god of the sky" [15]. Considering all these facts and that shumerian it is possible to suppose language not semito-chamitian, that this language belongs to Uralic or to drawidian to family. The opportunity of the belonging shumerian (as well aselamic) language to drawidian to family is explained to that protodrawids occupied areal nearest to Mesapotamia (unfortunately, drawidianss-shumerians of the connection in the given researches were not specially found (book author expresses hope, that at one time hands up to them nevertheless will reach - WP). Frontasian elements in language and onomastic of the vasiugan khants has found by A.M.Maloletko. In one their works he results two ten examples fo the Khantyjan of the words, for which there are parallels in languages of the Forward Asia and Caucasus. Among hydronames, widespread in area of Vasiugan there is not etholomized on a local basis an element lat, to which there are conformity in area of the lake Wan and in upper part of the Tiger ([9], 81-82, is printed in the collection ([6]). It in addition confirms an arrangement primary Motherland uralians in Transcaucasia, though scientist treats results of the researches in another way.

The theme of the flood present in Uralic (in particular hanty-mansian), semito-chamitian and shumerian Mythologie could confirm that fact, that this event the far ancestors uralians and semito-hamits have gone through somewhere together, however importance of the Khanty-mansian legend about a flood depreciates by the large distribution of the legend in different variants among the peoples of all continents of the world ([5], 96-147) a little. In legends almost always true people are rescueed on an island, on a tree or on any floating means. Forward Asia has gone through two icings - riss and wuerm. It is possible, that the flood could be caused by thawing of the snow and ice at tops of the mountains after last warming, and the people, really, were rescueed on mountains of the volcanic origin, which rose by islands above the sea of the water. Not without reason name of the mountain Ararat reminds a little turkish Aral "island". At art/ert - "ground", "place" in indoeuropean languages Ararat could mean something like "an island of the ground".

Time of the beginning and place of formation of nostratical language is hardly to determine precisely. However V.P.Aleksejew [4] supposes an opportunity of the existence of the rassfrmating units of the process, within the limits of which occured basic rassogenetical of the event.

By one of the two probable on the Earth of the units he considers FORWARD Asia and East Mediterranean ([4], page 49). If to us in this region is unknown any of the languages except for nostratical, that is all bases to suppose, that by one of the centres of the rasseforming process was just in area of the three lakes. Probably, just here of the beginnings to be formed nostratical beforelanguage somewhere during late paleolite. Certainly, in this connection at once comes on an idea Bible of the legend about Adam and Noah. The word "Adam" in meaning "man" is presenting almost in all turkish languages, in Iranian and Caucasian. As all researchers it is considered the Persian-Arabian origin, but in Chuvash it has the form "etem", which it is impossible to explain by borrowing. It is impossible to explain by borrowing and marian aydems "man", as against udmurtian "adiami" "that". In Khantian language there is a word btamb in meaning "people"; both under the form and on meaning this word does not look borrowed from turkish. In the Chuvash language there are also other words of this root: "Atam" - name any of the deity, some inexplicable geographical names - village Chavash-etem, Tutar-etem, river Etem-shive; Biblian the motives, in opinion Sergejew, are reminded by the Chuvash expression - yetem yurtna shama "little bone for the fascinating", which it explains as "little bone, which Adam had loved" ([10], page 105). In osetian language adam has meaning "the people", "people". Under the certificate of V.I.Abajew [3], the words of this root and similar meaning are widespread on all Caucasus: Georgian adamiani, lakian adamina, awarian, balkarian, daginian, Chechen adam etc. Probably, the part from them is borrowed from Arabian or from turkish of the languages, but not all. Probably, to this root "son-in-law" is possible to attribute(relate) words in the German languages with meaning: German Eidam, Oldenglish ethum, oldfrisian athom. Hence, there are bases to consider, that adam ancient nostratical a word with meaning "man". It is considered, that oldjewish adamah has primary meaning "ground", "red". Such prosaic explanation for the name of the man looks a little bit doubtful. In imagination of the primitive man the man could differ from an animal by that has soul.

The understanding of the presence of the soul even by the primitive man can be explained by such not clear for him by internal sensations as reproaches of the conscience, repentance, shame and so on. As against clear physical sensations - heat, the colds, were even such feelings, as an alarm, pleasure. In this connection by a word to "hells" in meaning "man" is possible with them to compare. Atem "breath, spirit" and other words of the German languages of this root and that meanings. F.Kluege [2] compares the German words with oldindian atma "breath, soul" ("Hauch, Seele"). J.Pororny [14] German Atem carries to indoeuropean etmen "breath" and results to it conformity in other Indian and celtian languages. G.Frisk [1] ranks here greec Atmos "of the pairs". Obviously in this number it is possible to put widespread in the Iranian languages dam "of the breath". Hence, definition of the man as essences, which has soul, more plausibly, than what connects its origin to ground. Last explanation could be assumed by the later researchers Bible.

However we shall come back to nostratical beforelanguage. A bit later after the formation it was dismembered in some new languages of the second level. Obviously it was dismembered not on six languages. It is necessary to take into account also the Caucasian languages, which relationship with any certain language family is not for the present determined. The non-authorized issue of the origin of the Caucasian languages can have such decision: thecestors of the carriers modern abhaz-adygian and hahian-Dagestan groups of the languages were rooting, origin settlers of this places of the settlements, and their common at one time language was one of the most ancient dialects nostratical beforelanguage, which carriers before all have come off from common paleolitical nostratical tribes and have occupied southern slopes of the Large Caucasus, in that time as the carriers others to six nostratical of the languages were left in area of the three lakes long time. By accepting this assumption, we can think, that to the moment of the resettlement nostratical of the groups in Europe and slopes of the Northern Caucasus, and the steppes of the beforecaucasian plain were already populated with carriers of the Caucasian languages. Therefore indoeuropenians, uralians and altaians should move further on north. But all this only assumption, and is no more. For the decision of the issue of the origin of the Caucasian languages it is necessary specially to investigate them on an opportunity of the relationship with nostratic by languages.

While we shall try to determine time, when the carriers to six nostratical of the languages have begun to be settled with of the origian places of the settlements. At first we shall recollect, that T.V.Gamkrelidze and V.V.Iwanow carry the first dialect partitioning indoeuropean of the languages, when there are first dialects, from which were developed anatolian languages, not later than IV thousand up to CE later. ([7], 861). And already then indoeuropenians, in their opinion, were set in Europe around of the Caspean sea and somewhere on a road from them the group "was separated indoiranian".

Here, probably, it is necessary to interrupt the most interesting story by Walentine. Once again state his basic conclusion: all of the nostratical peoples be dispatched from Ararat. Who earlier, who later. There are those who more early. There are those who mare late. There are districts, which inhabitants precisely remember, including at a level of the legends and Myths about prahistory, that they are radical inhabitants. There are districts, where remember, that whence came. There are districts, where the inhabitants in general nothing remember. There are places on a map, where the representatives of the concrete considered people were first. There are places on a map, where the representatives of those or other peoples started up. There are, where them did not start up.

It is very interesting to construct their geographical distribution on a map of the world. Variations on Araratian of the theme again should turn out.

5. Little generalization of the method of the columns on process of the development of the mankind from the viewpoint of the linguistics.

If to speak generally, now restoration of the picture of the genesis of the mankind from the viewpoint of the linguistics becomes an interesting accounting task, in which the contribution not only linguistics, but also mathematics is important.

Again we shall look at figure 1. Safely we shall tell, that this figure contains the very interesting information on development of the mankind from the language viewpoint. Figure 2 is a circuit with the brightly expressed centre and suburbs. We shall be set by the issue: whether this centre and suburbs can be interpeted from the viewpoint of the language genesis of the mankind?

If yes (let's show of the optimism), two are possible theoretically probable directions of the process: from the centre to sides and from siedes to the centre.
That is centrifugal variant (figure 3),

At which of the one common beforelanguage (or, as it is possible to be expressed more correctly, language protoplasm), different languages develop in the party of the increase of the linguistic distance between them, that is has a place the tendency to isolation of the increasing and greater number of the languages.

And directed-to-centre variant, which is described by the circuit

And at which realization the set of the fine dialects and languages aspires to the maximal reduction and formation of the uniform common language.

On an example of the development of the vegetative world we know completely precisely, that most probable was the first variant. A certain analogue on an example of the development of the garden cultures: during development of the gardening from one - two initially existing primary kinds of the wild apple were developed (more precisely, were not developed, but the gardeners have deduced them) many garden grades. Thus the paradise apple quite satisfies the requirements "of the apple though any", and the later grades satisfy the higher flavouring requirements.

So, from figures it is clear with the large preference we give back overweight to centrifugal variant. And time so, time most preferable is looked by this most centrifugal variant, the thesis about early and late groups we can consider proved.

And from figure 2 we can clearly interprete three of the six groups, which are closer to the centre of the figure, as early and three of the six groups as late. And time so, so we from the abstract circuits shall proceed to estimated chronology and we shall tell, that Arabian has arisen, probably, earlier then kartwelian, Hungarian earlier then tamilian, and tatar and turkish before Russian. (Attention! We have used first time for the book a word "tatar" only in modern ethnic sense). And if there was any mutual relation between Russian and tatar, as between two next peoples, they developed only in one direction: Russian it would appear as language conditionally later in a role of the language more highdeveloped and superseding, and tatar, as language earlier - in a role superseded. (As remarkable: the philologists-enthusiasts in medieval Russian caught significant number turkismus. Look even Sulejmenow [12]. Or Afanasys Nikitin's trip, as specified Fomenko in [13]).

Result. All nostratical language families could be shared on two groups: early (semit-chamitical, uralian and altaian) and late (indoeuropean, drawidical and kartwelican).