Re: beyond langauges

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "kishore patnaik"
<kishorepatnaik09@...> wrote:

> I am not denying the Aryan element in Mittanni. Cf my earlier posts.

> Also, it is universally agreed that there is no Aryan aristocracy in
> Mitanni. It is also agreed that there is no Iranaian influence on

Mitannis.

> (cf the recent discussions in IER. I am yet to read the discussions

in Ind

> Arch, the thread there also was initiated by me)
> Yet, the Indic Aryan element (which was present solely in Royal and

warfare

> issues in 15th c itself ) is yet to be explained correctly, though

Bjarte

> has made some effort. I have offered a socialogical explanation

earlier.

> Now, the core issue revolves round two things, former of them being

accepted

> by main stream westerners: one,. that the mitannis somehow

determine the

> dating of RV and two, that if the influence of an Indic aryan (not

Ilr or

> Iranian) is clearly present on mitannis, without the presence of the

Aryans

> themselves, then where were they?

I must confess it is not obvious to me how this Indo-Aryan adstrate
helps date the RV. The -zd- cluster has different fates in Old Indic
- the [z] vocalises in Sanskrit and assimilates in Pali (Pali _niDDha_
'nest', Sanskrit _ni:Da_). Thus it *might* simply be a late retention
in this adstrate. One must also hope that it is not the equivalent of
using 21st century English 'master' to date 19th century French 'maître'.

Incidentally, what is the evidence that the [z] in Pre-Sanskrit -zd-
vocalised before the composition of the RV? Is it the unetmyological
-e- in weak perfect stems? Am I overlooking a metrical effect?

> This postulation was made because of the similarities between Iranian
> and Indic languages and hence, suggestions of a homeland, which is
> theoritically is where the branching is not existant.

Who make this the definition of a homeland?

> However, presence of
> only Indic Aryans (without Ilr or Ir) suggests that the branching,

if any,

> must have taken place much earlier and this led the author to

suggest that

> the branching must have been made at homeland itself !!!! In othere

words,

> the very defintion of homeland is negated and it means there is no

homeland

> at all.

Let us look at the Iberian Romance languages from the perspective of
South America. Where is their homeland? I would say that the
homeland was the Iberian peninsula. However, Portuguese and Spanish
are and were distinct in the peninsula. The distinction goes back to
Northern Iberia at the start of the Reconquista. Does this mean we
have to take the homeland back to Latium? Can we ignore the dialect
divisions within Latium, or do they disqualify Latium? Is there then
no homeland for the Romance languages?

Richard.