Re: Grimm's Law is about to expire (Collinge 1985, p. 267, Thundy 1

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "etherman23" <etherman23@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
> >
>
> > Thank you Dr. Wordingham for these detailed examples. The following
> > are real words:
> >
> > Skt _bandHati_, Greek _pentHeros_, English _bind_
> >
> > Great! There are laws needed to explain why the b and p are going back
> > and forth. But the English word bind (or an earlier OE word) is not
> > attested till 3000 years later. So why must the proto language be
> > reconstructed to accomodate all three?
>
> They aren't going back and forth.

Does the chronology of attestation make a difference? b and dh in
Sanskrit came first, p and th in Greek came second and b and d in
Germanic came third.

So PIE should have *b, *dh; *b, *dh> p, th in Greek and *b, *dh> b, d
in Germanic. So the family tree would be PIE--->Sanskrit--->branching
off into Greek and Germanic.

> Since all three languages attest the form, and they are related by
> regular sound changes, and there's no reason to suspect a borrowing,
> then the most rational assumption is that the word is reconstructable
> for the proto language.
>
>
> > Now PIE is not real. Why the insistance on fitting reality to a
> > hypothetical reconstruction? The hypothetical reconstruction should
> > fit reality. Please read the above again "the FACT that no other
> > Indo-European langauges have Grassman's law."
>
> This indicates that Grassman's Law did not operate in PIE.
>
> > Now that is NOT A FACT because PIE is not a FACT. In other words where
> > is the guarantee that the "deaspiration in Greek took place after the
> > change of
> > > > Proto-Indo-European *bH, dH, gH to /pH, tH, kH"
>
> This is actually quite easy to explain. If the deaspiration to place
> before the devoicing then the Greek would have a voiced stop instead
> of a voiceless stop. You'd have bH > b instead of bH > pH > p.
>

Here is comparison of Grimm's law and Glottalci theory.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Grimm's%20Law%20vs.%20Glottalic%20Theory

"However, contends Gamkrelidze, "recent evidence now places the
probable origin of the Indo-European language in western Asia." In
deciphering numerous texts in dozens of ancient languages from Turkey
and surrounding areas, it has become "necessary to revise the canons
of linguistic evolution." Given a profundity of linguistic evidence,
Gamkrelidze postulates that the homeland of ancient Indo-Europeans
was, in fact, the ancient Near East."

I find this the MOST disturbing to say the least. A guy thinks that
PIE originated in western asia, so now he wants to chnage the
reconstruction to a new set of stops. Whether or not he is right is
another issue. But is this the way it should work? The stops are
determined by where the PIE is supposed to have originated?

Then why do the European Sanskritist who support the Aryan
Invasion/Migration Theory insist that PIE branched off into IIr and I
and Ir etc when the branching itself is determined by the PIE
reconstruction which in turn is determined by where the PIE originated?


M. Kelkar