Re: [tied] Re: Dating PIE

Greek is HIPPOS is a paradoxal word. Such usual word *ek^wos must have been
*ep(p)os, or *ekkos in Greek, without anomalies. I think some anthroponyms
in Epi- were corrupted forms of a prefix *Epo- "horse". Hippos points to a
intermediary *hik^wos (< *sik^wos?, *yik^wos?). A form *yik^wos would be
similar to Tocharian yäkwe. Perhaps a Tocharian-like language was spoken in
Greece before the Greeks. It's stated that Tocharian was akin to
Italo-Celtic, may we assume that a Tocharo-Italo-Celtic stock have branches
in Greece?

----- Original Message -----
From: S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 3:14 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Dating PIE


> --- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > People on Cybalist know that I favour a Danubian homeland and a
> link > with the Linear Pottery culture, with ca. 5600 BC as the "root
> date" > (the separation of Anatolian) and something close to 4500 BC
> for the > latest common ancestor of the non-Anatolian branches. 2600-
> 2000 BC > would be the formative period of Proto-Indo-Iranian, with
> common > Iranian and Indo-Aryan as distinct languages after the
> latter date. > In brief, here is my (approximate) timeline for the
> history of Indic > (BP = before present):
> >
> > 7600 BP --- PIE
> > 6500 BP --- non-Anatolian IE
> > 5000 BP --- Proto-Satem
> > 4600 BP --- Proto-Indo-Iranian
> > 4000 BP --- Proto-Indo-Aryan
> > 3700-3200 BP --- Rigvedic Indo-Aryan
> > 3200-2500 BP --- late Old Indo-Aryan
> > 2500-900 BP --- Middle Indo-Aryan
>
> For an alternative view on the Homeland and the Chronology problem by
> another linguist, here are Aron Doglopolsky's views.
>
> Those who need the full article in pdf format, please email:
> kalyan97@...
>
> "Mallory's main argument for settling on the 5th millennium as the
> date of PIE is the alleged PIE words for 'wheeled vehicles', 'horse',
> and 'copper' (pp. 158-9, 179-80). But the words connected with
> the 'wheeled vehicles' and 'horse' appear in Western (= Non-
> Anatolian) languages only and can thus be ascribed to Late IE only,
> rather than to proto-IE. The word *wogho-s 'vehicle' is represented
> only in Greek (Homeric wochos) and in Slavic *vozu. This noun is
> derived from the *wegh-, which in Late IE meant 'to transport in a
> vehicle' (> Old Indian vahati 'transports in a vehicle', Avestan
> vazaiti id., Lith. vezu, Old Church Slavonic vezp 'I transport in a
> vehicle/on horseback'). In Hittite-Luwian the verb is not present,
> hence it cannot be ascribed to PIE. The same holds true for the terms
> for 'wheel': *kwekwlo- (represented in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Germanic
> and Tokahrian, but not in Anatolian) and *rotHo- (represented in Indo-
> Iranian, Celtic, Latin and Baltic, but again not in Anatolian). The
> word *ekwo-s 'horse' is represented in Latin, Baltic, Germanic, Greek
> (loan-word?), Cletic and Indo-Iranian, but not in Anatolian (except
> for Hieroglyphic Luwian as'uwa-, which is obviously a loan either
> from Phrygian (where IE *k was assibilated) or from some Indo-Iranian
> language, as suggeste by its phonetic shape: in Indo-Iranian the IE
> stem *ekwo- yields *as'wa- whence Old Indian as'va- and Avestan aspa-
> ). Consequently, the word *ekwo- can be reconstructed for the non-
> Anatolian branch of IE, rather than for PIE. More than that, there is
> no evidence proving that *ekwo-s denoted the domestic rather than the
> wild horse. There is one typological argument which suggests that the
> word originally referred to a wild horse: in languages of horse-
> breeders there are usually different stems for 'horse', 'mare'
> and 'foal' (as in English, French, Russian, Turkish, Mongolian,
> etc.), which is explaiend by the importance of the sex difference and
> age of horses for horse-breeders. But in Proto-IE there are no
> special stems for 'mare' and 'foal', which suggests that the
> stem '*ekwo-s originally denoted a wild horse. As for the alleged PIE
> word for 'copper', it actually did not exist. The word *ayes- did not
> mean 'copper', but conveyed a vague idea of metal in general, as
> suggested by its reflexes: Old Indian ayas 'metal, ore', Latin
> aes 'copper', Gothic aiz 'ore', OHG e_r 'ore', Old Norse eir 'ore,
> copper', and probably also Old Assyrian as'i'u 'meteorite iron' (a
> loan from language of Anatolia, as suggested by unambiguous textual
> indications that as'i'u- metal was brought by Assyrian merchants from
> Anatolia -- cf. Dolgopolsky 1987-9). Hence, none of these words can
> serve as evidence for dating Proto-IE...
>
> "...The genetic relationship between Indo-European and Uralic (or
> Finno-Ugric) cannot prove that Proto-Indo-European was in the
> geographic vicinity of Proto-Uralic or Proto-Finno-Ugric (as Mallory
> argues on pp. 147-9). The same holds true of the relationship of Indo-
> European and Semitic. The relationship between Indo-European and
> Semitic (which Mallory erroneously rejects) has no bearing on the
> homeland problem. What matters here is not the relationship between
> languages, but the existence of absence of loan words: if one
> language-borrowed words from another, and these are not names of
> trade goods, which can be Wanderworter, it strongly suggests direct
> communication between the two speech communities, and hence their
> geographical vicinity. What happens in the case of Indo-European and
> Finno-Ugric? These two languages have common inherited words and
> morphemes (such as pronouns, markers of persons and cases, words
> for 'water', 'to carry' etc), which proves their genetic
> relationship, but has nothing to do with the geographical location of
> Indo-European and Uralic (just as in the above case of Germanic and
> Old Indian). In Finno-Ugric there are several dozen words of Aryan
> (Indo-Iranian)origin, which suggest that proto-Indo-Iranian (but not
> Proto-Indo-European) was once spoken in the vicinity of Finno-Ugric.
> These words are not an argument for determining the homeland of proto-
> Indo-European. What really matters is the fact that there are no
> proto-Indo-European loanwords in Uralic (or Finno-Ugric) and no
> Uralic or Finno-Ugric loans in proto-Indo-European. It strongly
> suggests that there was no territorial vicinity between PIE and proto-
> Uralic or proto-Finno-Ugric, that is that PIE was not spoken in or
> near the Volga or Ural region, including the steppes to the north of
> the Caspian sea (Gimbuta's 'IE homeland')..."
>
> Dolgopolsky, Aron, University of Haifa, 'More about the Indo-European
> homeland' in: Mediterranean language review. Vol. 6-7, 1990-1993, pp.
> 230-248
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>