Re: [tied] Anatolian and Indo-Aryan: some pointers on chronology

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:36:54 -0000, "kalyan97" <kalyan97@...>
wrote:

>"...the Anatolian documents, present the following Indo-Aryan forms.
>It will be observed that in several forms the Hurrian suffix --ni/nu
>is appended. The forms are given below with their Sanskrit cognates
>shown in parenthesis:
>was~annas~aya 'of stadium (Skt vasanasya)
>aratiyanni 'part of cart' (Skt rathya + Hurrian -ni)
>asuwaninni 'stable-master' (Skt as'va-ni + Hurrian -ni)
>babrunni 'red-brown' (Skt babhru + Hurrian -nu)
>baritannu 'golden yellow' (Skt bharita + Hurrian 'nu)
>pinkarannu 'red-yellow, pale' (Skt pingara, cf. pin~jara + pin:gala +
>Hurrian -nu)
>urukmannu 'jewel' (Skt rukma + Hurrian -nu)
>zirannu 'quick' (Skt ji_ra + Hurrian nu)
>makanni 'gift' (Skt magha + Hurrian -ni)
>maryannu 'young warrior' (Skt marya + Hurrian -nu)
>matunni 'wiseman' (cf. mati 'wisdom'; mata 'opinion')
>
>Besides the following names are also of Indo-Aryan origin:
>s~utarna (Skt sutaran.a or sutra_n.a)
>Pars~as~atar (Skt pras'astra)
>S`aus~s~attar (Skt sus'astra or saus'astra)
>Artadama (Skt r.tadha_ma)
>Tus~ratha (Skt tus.-ratha)
>mativasa (Skt mati-Va_ja)
>Artamna (Skt r.tamna)
>Bardas~va (Skt Vr.dh-as'va)
>Biryas~ura (Skt. vi_rya-s'u_ra or vi_rya-su_ra)
>purus~a (Skt Purus.)
>S~aimas~ura (Skt sima-su_ra or saimasu_ra)
>S~atava_za (Skt s'atava_ja)
>
>A linguistic analysis of all these Indo-Aryan borrowed forms in
>Anatolian, as quoted above, depicts a language of the following
>characteristics.
>1. The language is conclusively Indo-Aryan. It is not Iranian nor
>Indo-Iranian.

If it's Indo-Aryan, then it's also Indo-Iranian.

>2. The following linguistic features reveal that the language belongs
>to an early Middle Indo-Aryan stage or to a transitional stage
>between Old Indo-Aryan and Middle Indo-Aryan.
>Dissimilar plosives have been assimilated; e.g. satpa > satta...
>Semivowels and liquids were not assimilated in conjuncts with the
>plosives, semi-vowels or liquids like first MIA; e.g. vartana >
>wartana; rathya >aratiya-, vi_rya > Birya-, Vardhas'va > Bardas'va
>Nasals wree also not assimilated to plosives/nasals unlike first MIA
>and like OIA...rukma > urukma-nnu; r.tamna > artamna
>Anaptyxis was quite frequent; e.g Indra > Indara, smara > s~umara..

The anaptyxis is purely orthograpic. These words and names are
recorded in syllabic cuneiform script, The only way to write /indra/
in cuneiform is /in-da-ra/. Hittite cuneiform also has no way of
distinguishing between /s/, /s./ or /s'/, no symbol for syllabic /r./,
etc.

>Therefore, a linguistic analysis of the borrowed Indo-Aryan forms,
>attested in the Anatolian records, does not leave any doubt that the
>forms are Indo-Aryan. There is no scope to think that they are
>Iranian or Indo-Iranian...Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is comparable to
>this language to a great extent...Middle Indo-Aryan stage of the
>language has already started by 2000 BCE and Old Indo-Aryan belongs
>to much earlier date. Thus the date of RV, therefore, goes much
>beyond 2000 BCE."(pp. 9-10)

No such conclusion can be drawn. The Mitanni words and names are
consistent with the Old Indo-Aryan language stage, and in some cases
are closer to Old Iranian than to Old Indo-Aryan (wasanna- "stadium"
is closer to Iranian <wazana-> "road" than to Vedic <va(:)hana->
"ship, beast of burden"). The only parallel with "Middle Indo-Aryan"
is the assimilation of sapta > satta, but such a phenomenon is too
commonplace to put any wight on it at all.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...