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:
> >
> > --- 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.
>
> How would you derive Greek and German vowels from Sanskrit <a>?

Just like in the Gypsy language.

http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ait/ch32.htm

"The second element in the progressive separation of Sanskrit from PIE
was the impression that the [a/e/o] differentiation in Latin and Greek
was original, and that their reduction to [a] in Sanskrit was a
subsequent development (as in Greek genos corresponding to Sanskrit
jana). Satya Swarup Misra argues that it may just as well have been
the other way around, and unlike the palatalization process, this
vowel shift is indeed possible in either direction.13 Mishra cites
examples from the Gypsy language, but we need look no farther than
English, where [a], still preserved in "bar", has practically become
[e] in "back" and "bake", and [o] in "ball"."

Their

> morphology? Personally I would support a Greco-Armenio-Indo-Iranian
> dialect subgroup but it probably wouldn't have differed much from PIE
> (a common innovation would be the augment in verbs). But Armenian and
> Greek would have split pretty early on.

If they split off as a family it would help the Indian homeland case.

M. Kelkar

>