From: Alexander Stolbov
Message: 158
Date: 1999-11-03
This is not what I believe to be the case. In particular, I didn't wish to imply that Anatolian was more closely related to the steppe groups than to the rest of IE. In fact, I believe the first split was into (Proto-)Anatolian and non-Anatolian IE. The latter (possibly after the separation of Proto-Tocharians, though it's extremely difficult to place Tocharian anywhere in any schema) underwent differentiation into two blocks; let's call them Western and Eastern.The Western group arose as a result of a migration up the Danube basin. After a few hundred years of independent existence it was divided into three major dialectal groupings. We need new names at this point, so let's call these groups Pannonian (the ancestor of Illyrian, Messapic and other extinct languages), Italo-Celtic (north of the Alps, on the upper Danube and Rhine, including odd fellows like Venetic, probably a northern subbranch of Italic) and Northern (possibly more than one branch, occupying the lower courses of the main rivers of the North European Plain, the only surviving group is Germanic, originally a periferal northernmost subbranch; this branch is responsible for most of the so-called Old European hydronymy).What does force you to postulate that Northern (and actually we can discuss only Germanic) group belongs to the Westrn block?There are evidences of the closeness of Germanic to both Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavic. It seems to be obvious that one (either first or second) of such similarities is caused by the common genetic origin and another one by mutual influences (Sprachbund). I believe to those linguists who proves a close genetic kinship of Germanic and Balto-Slavic but the opposite opinion is respected too if one explains similarity between them by establishment of a Sprachbund as you do below:<<Interaction between distantly related languages occurred frequently in the North European Plain, where the Northern, Balto-Slavic and northward-migrating Pannonian dialects formed a Sprachbund during the late Neolithic.>>And thereafter you write:<<The beginning of the Iron Age was marked by a Celtic expansion in Western and central Europe; they wiped out the northern Veneti and established contacts with the survivors of the Northern branch (the Germani).>>This means that you postulate a Sprachbund of Celtic and Germanic although you explained already the similarity between them by common origin. Probably you need to do this under pressure of archaeological and historical evidences? Thus you draw together Celtic and Germanic twice. Not too wasteful? Maybe it is better to locate Germanic (with other Northern) in the Eastern block together with Balto-Slavic? Germanic with its *h at the place of *k is not Satemic? And Iranian with the same *h is?<<... some distinctly "Indic" Aryas were present in Anatolia and Babylonia before 1500 BC.>>Do you mean anything besides (and earlier than) Mitanni Aryas? I'm ready to expect some Aryas there about 18th c. BC but have no evidence.I mean -- in addition to the Mitanni, of course -- the more-or-less contemporaneous Kassite ruling clans in Babylonia. Their lists of official divinities include such familiar Aryan names as Surias 'Sun God' and Maruttas 'War God'.Great! It is exactly that what I expected while Kassite were the first in Mesopotamia who used war chariots. As far as I know Kassite language can't be attested as IE. Perhaps the story was the same as in Mitanni wuth the Hurrites? If you know any datails please inform me.Another place where I expect to find Aryan traces in the same period are Hyksos tribes (apparenly of Semitic origin but Aryan elite dominance could take place).Alexander Stolbov