From: Richard Wordingham
> --- In email@example.com, "etherman23" <etherman23@> wrote:No. Are you seriously suggesting we should derive Sanskrit from Pali
> Does the chronology of attestation make a difference?
> b and dh inDon't forget that Mycenean Greek and Hittite are *attested* earlier!
> 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, dThat was tried and found inadequate.
> 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 byAny possibility of [bH] > [p]? I'm not quite sure what happens if you
> > 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.
> > 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.
> "However, contends Gamkrelidze, "recent evidence now places theThe difficulty comes in fixing the actual sounds. The contrast [t] ~
> 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 AryanThere is no problem if you think of PIE *d as in some fashion
> 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?