Re: Witzel and Sautsutras (was: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of

At 6:39:07 AM on Friday, October 26, 2012, Trond Engen wrote:

> Brian M. Scott:

>> At 3:00:03 PM on Thursday, October 25, 2012, shivkhokra wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
>>> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

>>> [..]

>>>> Among items that I offered, Shiv doesn't tell why
>>>> retroflexed consonant sets do not show up in IE languages
>>>> that are not from the subcontinent.

>>> For the same reason:

>>> a) That British after living in India for many years did
>>> not pick up retroflex consonants. See the hindi spelling
>>> of Pune where the n is retroflex and contrast it with how
>>> british wrote it.

>> Not comparable: the British were a superficial layer of
>> Indian society that maintained continuous close ties with
>> England.

> Actually it's a good example, but not the way he thinks.
> You just have to take it a little longer, to current
> Indian English. The language of a ruling elite from
> outside is acquired by speakers of local languages, who
> bring substrate features into the language.

Well, I'd say that that's a different (albeit historically
related) example, but I agree that it's a good one.

[...]

>>> d) Lastly do retroflex stops in Swedish and Norwegian
>>> count?

>> For what? They're retroflex stops. They have nothing to
>> do with Rick's question, however.

> But they do show that retroflexion can develop without
> substratal influence.

True, but I didn't think that that was in doubt.

> Wasn't there a serious suggestion a few years ago that the
> Indic retroflexes could be an internal development, maybe
> acquired north of the subcontinent, and the much stronger
> retroflexion in Dravidian either independent or
> borrowed-and-developed?

That does ring a faint bell.

Brian