Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian) Langauges

> << To begin, in any discussion of the 'Aryan problem', one has to
> stress vehemently that the 'invasion model' which was still
> prominent in the work of archaeologists such as Wheeler
> (1966: "Indra stands accused"), has been supplanted by much more
> sophisticated models over the past few decades (see Kuiper 1955
> sqq., Witzel 1995, Thapar 1968). It must also be underlined that
> this development has not occurred because Indologists were

reacting,

> as is now frequently alleged, to current Indian criticism of the
> older theory. Rather, philologists first, and archaeologists
> somewhat later, noticed certain inconsistencies in the older

theory

> and tried to find new explanations, thereby discovering new facts
> and proposing a new version of the immigration theories. For some
> decades already, linguists and philologists such as Kuiper 1955,
> 1991, Emeneau 1956, Southworth 1979, archaeologists such as

Allchin

> 1982, 1995, and historians such as R. Thapar 1968, have maintained
> that the Indo-Aryans and the older local inhabitants
> ('Dravidians', 'Mundas', etc.) have mutually interacted from early
> on, that many of them were in fact frequently bilingual, and that
> even the RV already bears witness to that. They also think,

whether

> explicitly following Ehret's model (1988, cf. Diakonoff 1985) or
> not, of smaller infiltrating groups (Witzel 1989: 249, 1995,

Allchin

> 1995), not of mass migrations or military invasions. However,
> linguists and philologists still maintain, and for good reasons,
> that some IA speaking groups actually entered from the outside,

via

> some of the (north)western corridors of the subcontinent.
>
> In fact, we do not presently know how large this particular influx
> of linguistically attested outsiders was. It can have been
> relatively small, if we apply Ehret's model (1988, derived from
> Africa, cf. Diakonoff 1985) which stresses the osmosis (or
> a 'billiard ball', or Mallory's Kulturkugel) effect of cultural
> transmission. Ehret (1988) underlines the relative ease with which
> ethnicity and language shift in small societies, due to the
> cultural/economic/military choices made by the local population in
> question. The intruding/influencing group bringing new traits may
> initially be small and the features it contributes can be fewer in
> number than those of the pre-existing local culture. The newly
> formed, combined ethnic group may then initiate a recurrent,
> expansionist process of ethnic and language shift. The material
> record of such shifts is visible only insofar as new prestige
> equipment or animals (the "status kit", with new, intrusive
> vocabulary!) are concerned. This is especially so if pottery --
> normally culture-specific -- continues to be made by local
> specialists of a class-based society. Similarly, Anthony
> (1995): "Language shift can be understood best as a social

strategy

> through which individuals and groups compete for positions of
> prestige, power, and domestic security... What is important, then,
> is not just dominance, but vertical social mobility and a linkage
> between language and access to positions of prestige and power...

A

> relatively small immigrant elite population can encourage

widespread

> language shift among numerically dominant indigenes in a non-state
> or pre-state context if the elite employs a specific combination

of

> encouragements and punishments. Ethnohistorical cases ...
> demonstrate that small elite groups have successfully imposed

their

> languages in non-state situations."

I wonder if having better poets and grammarians would be a survival
parameter for a language? Who invented (the science of) grammar,
BTW? Wouldn't such a package be attractive to young hopefuls
aspiring to mooch at various courts by kissing up to the local
potentate with home-made lyrics?


Torsten