--- In cybalist@..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: richardwordingham
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:52 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Bangani
I may need some tutoring.
> > Piotr: ... what is otherwise an inconspicuous Indo-Aryan
But according to Abbi (
'One thing is certain, the syntax and the word list of Bangani show
layers of structures some of which may be relic of the past as it
neither fits in a typical Indo Aryan group nor as a part of the areal
phenomenon. I think more linguists should work on this language,
especially descriptivists and historico-sociolinguists.'
(I don't think syntax peculiarities argue one way or another.)
> It's a substrate.
To me, "The Centum element is a substrate." means that speakers of a
Centum language switched to a (locally) higher status non-Centum
language. Is this what you mean, or have I misunderstood the term?
>>> <kOtrO> is supposedly related to Celtic *catu- and Germanic
(OE heaþu) 'battle', with an *-r- extension visible in German
Hader 'quarrel', Balto-Slavic (OCS kotora 'fight', Lith.
kata~ryti 'beat') and Sanskrit (<s'atru-> 'enemy'). The Balto-Slavic
words may be Centum loans themselves, and the ultimate reconstruction
would then be *k^at-u- ~ *k^at-(o)r- (Pokorny's *k^at- 'fight,
struggle). This works for the Bangani substrate.
> > How well does Greek kótos (2nd declension) 'grudge, spite' fit in
with the /kOtrO/ words? I can't see how to reconcile the Celtic and
Greek vowels without upsetting the Sanskrit correspondence.
> I can't see how to reconcile Greek with the rest of the set either,
and so I think the connection should be abandoned.
Germanic, Balto-Slavonic and Sanskrit do not distinguish PIE /a/
and /o/ in the contexts we have here. Only Celtic indicates /a/. If
we ignore the Celtic, the only problem I see with the Greek is how
kótos is formed from *k^ot-u- ~ *k^ot-(o)r-. I can see two options:
*k^ot-u-o- >* k^otwo- > kotos (is this grammatical PIE?)
*k^ot-o- > kotos
It would be nice to derive Celtic *catu from pre-Grimm's law pre-
Germanic *katu- < *kotu-, but I don't know how plausible that is. It
goes against the usual flow of loanwords.
Does *k^at- have a problem? I thought we could write PIE with only
e/o/e:/o:/& vowels, but how do we render *k^at? Would *k^h2etru-
give Sanskrit s'atru? (If so, this fully eliminates Greek as a
source, for we would then be looking for *khatr- &c as the Greek
cognate, and Bangani has voiceless aspirates.)