Re: Implications of Bangani

From: stlatos
Message: 57637
Date: 2008-04-18

--- In, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> On 2008-04-18 07:26, stlatos wrote:
> > Is there any evidence that this is a substratum within another
> > language instead of native words in a non-Indic, non-Ir language that
> > was fairly heavily influenced by Indic recently?
> Bangani is a perfectly ordinary Mod.IA language.
> > Though the "centum" words have drawn the most attention, they are
> > certainly not the only words showing unusual (non-Indic) features, and
> > the oddities are so varied and scattered throughout both basic and
> > other vocabulary it seems impossible they are borrowings.
> Have a heart. You should learn something about Indic _before_ you start
> such wild speculation. Quite a few of your "non-Indic, non-Ir"
> etymologies involve common IA words in no way restricted to Bangani and
> with boringly normal pedigrees

I gave 17 words, 8 examples of the supposed 'substrate'. If you
think I meant that "non-Indic, non-Ir" words have no cognates at all
in Indic or Iranian, that's not so. I just wanted to show the
particularly close relationship between certain languages. I know that

r.n. > r.

khowàr purà; Ban por.- 'full'

is related to pu:rn.a-, etc.

If I compare Ban bOr- 'much, many' with Koh bóór` that doesn't mean
no other language had bahu-, etc.

Ban bet.i 'daughter', Koh bíré 'girl'

Not all were certain, but if you only look at the least certain and
so say none of it could be right you're ignoring the oddities of the
centum words even if borrowings. What would the rules be to give the
modern forms whatever their path of origin?

Consider the relation between Bangani, Khowar, and Kohistani (Kalami):

Ban bas^t.u
Kho bat.s.Hól.
Koh bátsHóòr 'calf'

Now, obviously something occurred like:


with differing outcomes such as s.r. > s. > s^ then metathesis, etc.

The point is that these are all borrowings from Indic, not native.
None of these languages has (masculine) singular -o: endings (Koh
-zero; Kho -zero / -a; Ban -O). Aspirated ts > tHs > c^H etc. from
Middle Indic. Kho doesn't have w>b. Native short a > back A > Koh A;
Kho o; Ban O but a here. Native Koh A becomes a only before plural
*-E due to umlaut. Similarly, Kho a remained a only word-finally or
before -a.

Kho loses the R after s() in native words:

*petr.o+ > *patsr.à+ > pòt.s. 'leaf'

*tr.ekWtlo+ > *tsr.attrà+ > *tsHàtr > tsHàtur 'spindle for cotton'

Ban. has O in both the native grammar and supposedly borrowed centum
words but a<a and u<o: in words known to be borrowed from Indic in
other similar languages.

-O m. s.

In *vátsar.o: >> bas^t.u
In devo: >> dewu 'god'
In mánus. >> manuc^ & Koh mánùt.s.


What situation do you propose for the V-system in the substrate and
Indic languages at the time of borrowing to account for this?