Re: [pieml] Sanskrit and IE a and Indo-Iranian palatals

Am I dreaming? I have just explained in what ways Misra's "counterargument" (concerning the "much later date" of Greek and Latin) is illogical. Now you are posting it again without even attempting to rebut my explanation, but adding some pathetic propaganda in the opening lines. By declaring Misra a winner you can't change reality. I am sorry to have to say it, but Misra does not even seem to understand the weight of Hock's objections. Rather than moderate his crackpot views, he merely parades some more examples of a > e/o/a/... splits, as if anybody doubted that such things are possible in general, and reiterates what he has claimed since the 1960 and what everybody is sick of hearing again by now. India deserves better scholars.

I think we've had enough of Misra. There are several competent linguists on these lists, and if any of them has a kind word to say about Misra's style of doing historical linguistics, I will eat my keyboard.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----

From: kalyan97

To: pieml@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 5:38 AM

Subject: [pieml] Sanskrit and IE a and Indo-Iranian palatals

Misra's bold formulation proposing a great antiquity for Sanskrit a and questioning the Law of Palatals seems to be a winner. Here is the central issue. In the Univ. of Mich. conference, 1996, Misra was criticised by Hock by special invitation without giving Misra an opportunity to rebut. Now Misra has delivered 10 lectures reiterating his views and proposing that IE homeland could likely have been Bha_rata. Hock (1996 U Mich conf.) criticized the earlier views of Prof. Misra: `Indo-Iranian palatalization can only explained if we reconstruct an earlier stage with contrasting e- and a- or a- vowels. As noted earlier, it is this evidence which provides crucial support for reconstructing Proto-Indo-European with a triple contrast e:a:o and for assuming that the corresponding single a vocalism of Indo- Iranian results from the merger' (p. 11 in: Bronkhorst and Deshpande, eds., Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia). Prof. Misra counters this in Lecture 6 (1999): The change of Iranian a in Avestan may be shown as follows: Examples: 1. a > A when followed by m,n,vi_ but preceded by any sound except y,c,j,z~ Av kAm cp Skt kam: Av barAn cp Skt (abharan; Av sAvis~to cp Skt s'avis.t.hah 2. a> I when followed by m,n,vi_ and preceded by y,c Av yim cp Skt yam: Av va_cim cp Skt va_cam; Av drujim < Iranian drujam cp Skt druham <*drujham; Younger Avestan druzinti < Iranian drujanti cp Skt druhyanti 3. a > e after y when immediate next syllable had I_,e,y,c,j or Nh (=Skt sy) Av yeidi/yedi cp Skt yadi; Av yehe/yeNhe cp Skt yasya; Av iTyajah cp Skt tyaj; Av yesnya cp Skt yajn~iya 4. a > o sometimes after labial sounds when the next syllable had u/o Rarely also a>o when the next syllable had a conjunct preceded by r. Av vohu cp Skt vasu; Av mosu cp Skt maks.u; Av pouru <*poru (<Iranian paru < Iir pr-ru) cp Skt puru; Gathic Avestan corAt <*cort <*cart cp Skt kah <kart 5. a > a in all other situations Av apa, cp Skt apa; Av asti, Skt asti. The change of a to several vowels a,e,o etc in Avestan was conditioned by definite situations. But the change of a to a,e,o in Greek, Latin and to a,e in several other languages was a change for which no condition can be determined. This shows that these languages belong to a much later date, when there were generalisations and several other phonological and morphological changes.(pp.46-47).