Kalya: �On the Sumerian substrate, I forgot to mention
about an Akkadian
cylinder seal which showed a Meluhhan with a
translator; doesn't
this show that Meluhhan did not speak Akkadian? Maybe,
there were at
least bilingual speakers who could facilitate trade
between
Mesopotamia and IVC (Meluhha). Hence, the search for
the Meluhhan
language(s).�
JS: It does strongly suggest that Meluhhans
(presumably living along the Makran coast, southern
Baluchistan and southern Sindh) did not speak
Akkadian. This is hardly surprising, after all, why
should they? What is more to the point is that there
are strong signs of all sorts of ethnic and even
cultural diversity within the Greater Indus Valley
civilization. Given this, it is most reasonable to
assume that different languages were spoken in the
area. In fact, the curiously �frozen� and cryptic
nature of attested Indus writing may have something to
do with this (besides reflecting a uniquely complex
civilization that seems to have flourished without the
archaic state apparatus so familiar to us from the
pharaonic Egypt or from Mesopotamia). Anyway, we are
still stuck in the infuriating situation that not a
one single language can be identified as an Indus
Valley language around 2500 BCE�
Kalya: �Hock adds another principle of simplicity. I
don't know why language
movements should be simple one-way traffic. Couldn't
there be
borrowings and re-borrowings and acquisition of
morphological
characteristics as languages interact? Every
relationship doesn't
just have to be either genetic or pecuniary
(borrowing, I mean).�
JS: I leave the explanation of general principles of
comparative linguistics to Piotr or some other more
knowledgeable person, but as far as Hock is concerned,
I ask you to read my message 17063 and the discussion
that followed after it. If you do, you will find why
and how Hock appeals to simplicity (Occam�s razor and
the inference to the most likely explanation) here: if
one wants to account for the attested spatial and
temporal distribution of Indo-European languages (and
their isoglosses) and to postulate an Indo-European
homeland within India, one also has to postulate a
migration that already has the future spatial
relationships pre-existing within the home land. This
is most implausible. To save the OIT from easy
refutation, Elst came up with the idea of several
migrations from India to other parts of Eurasia.
Unfortunately for him, none of these migrations are
attested in archaeological and other records. This
does not mean that the theories of Indo-European
dispersal most Indo-Europeanists favour would be
without problems. No, it is just that they pale into
insignificance compared to the problems an OIT will
necessarily give birth to.
Kalya: �How is item 2 exclusion principle justified?
Why is it considered
unlikely that IE homeland was in a territory not
occupied by any
other language? Doesn't this principle assume that
there has to be a
vacuum space -- say, with simple languages with a
vocabulary of only
300 words -- which has to be filled by language
speakers?�
JS: The exclusion principle is not as compelling as
the other principles, not even for Mallory. All the
same, it is not very plausible to assume that the
homeland of a language family already was populated by
people speaking a different language: for how did the
new language then emerge under these conditions?
Kalya: �On item 5 archaeological plausibility; if it
is possible to find a
gundestrup cauldron so far away from a place which had
an IVC seal
with strikingly comparable glyphs, one can only
surmise on how
people moved around in search of mineral resources. I
read from
Witzel that there is an Ehret-like elite acculturation
of new areas
possible with languages moving without people moving.�
JS: Well, the Gundestrup Cauldron dates to around 150
BCE or so, more 1500 years after the demise of the
Harappan civilization�but of course you are right
about the meaning of mineral resources for many
peoples: Arkaim-Sintashta forts may have something to
do with battles over such resources�
Regards, Juha
--- "S.Kalyanaraman <
kalyan97@...>"
<
kalyan97@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Juha Savolainen
> <juhavs@...> wrote:
> > Here are Mallory�s criteria> once again:
> >
> > (1) Temporal-spatial plausibility
> > (2) Exclusion principle (it is unlikely that the
> IE
> > homeland lay in a territory already occupied by a
> > non-IE language)
> > (3) Relationship principle (the IE homeland
> solution
> > must accommodate the inter-group relationships of
> the
> > IE family)
> > (4) Total distribution principle (the solution to
> the
> > IE home problem must explain all the languages
> > belonging to the IE family)
> > (5) Archaeological plausibility
> >
> > Needless to say, but Mallory finds OIT
> unacceptable in> the light
> of his criteria.
>
> Thanks a lot, Juha.
>
> Let me also try to Piotr's suggestion of a short
> numbered list of
> points that haven't been addressed exhaustively.
>
> On the Sumerian substrate, I forgot to mention about
> an Akkadian
> cylinder seal which showed a Meluhhan with a
> translator; doesn't
> this show that Meluhhan did not speak Akkadian?
> Maybe, there were at
> least bilingual speakers who could facilitate trade
> between
> Mesopotamia and IVC (Meluhha). Hence, the search for
> the Meluhhan
> language(s).
>
> Hock adds another principle of simplicity. I don't
> know why language
> movements should be simple one-way traffic. Couldn't
> there be
> borrowings and re-borrowings and acquisition of
> morphological
> characteristics as languages interact? Every
> relationship doesn't
> just have to be either genetic or pecuniary
> (borrowing, I mean).
>
> How is item 2 exclusion principle justified? Why is
> it considered
> unlikely that IE homeland was in a territory not
> occupied by any
> other language? Doesn't this principle assume that
> there has to be a
> vacuum space -- say, with simple languages with a
> vocabulary of only
> 300 words -- which has to be filled by language
> speakers?
>
> On item 5 archaeological plausibility; if it is
> possible to find a
> gundestrup cauldron so far away from a place which
> had an IVC seal
> with strikingly comparable glyphs, one can only
> surmise on how
> people moved around in search of mineral resources.
> I read from
> Witzel that there is an Ehret-like elite
> acculturation of new areas
> possible with languages moving without people
> moving.
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/