What does the author mean by asserting that
the language is not Indo-Iranian? Surely both Indo-Aryan and Iranian are
Indo-Iranian by definition.
It is quite clear that the source of the
Mitannic loans was an Indo-Aryan dialect. The compound <aika-wartana->
(<a-i-ka-ua-ar-ta-an-na>) contains the Indic shibboleth *aika- 'one'
as opposed to Iranian *aiwa-. But the same word demonstrates that the
dialect is not Middle IA. The monophthongisation of *ai > e is
definitely pre-Middle IA (if the pra:tis'a:kHyas are anything to go by, Old
Indo-Aryan /e/ was already monophthongal). There are other strikingly archaic
traits in Mitanni Indo-Aryan, e.g. the preservation of the sequence *-azdH-
(which developed into Skt. -edH- via *-aidH-), or the pronunciation of the
reflex of *g^H as a coronal fricative (*zH, spelt <s^>, as in
<was^anas^s^aya>), while Skt. lenited /h/ (vahanasya-).
To sum up, Mitanni Indo-Aryan is _more
conservative_ than Sanskrit in several respects. No characteristically Middle IA
changes (cluster simplification, substitution of /l/ for /r/) are visible in the
material. The only possible exception is *-pt- > -tt- in <satta-> (I
think there is no reason why Hurrian orthography should not have represented the
*p if it had been pronounced), but this kind of assimilation is too common to
carry much weight. If not a Hurrian development, it may have taken place
independently in Mitanni IA. The fact that Italian has <sette> for 'seven'
does not make it Middle IA. The replacement of initial *w- by <b-> or *r-
by <ar-> show loanword adaptation to Mitanni Hurrian phonotactics and
orthography. The cases of alleged "anaptyxis" are purely orthographic (the
modern transliteration of Hurrian should not be confused with phonetic
transcription).
No-one claims that Mitanni Indo-Aryan is
the _ancestor_ of Sanskrit; but its archaic features prove that it cannot be a
_descendant_ of Sanskrit, let alone an early Prakrit. It represents a surviving
offshoot of the earliest stage of Indo-Aryan, separated from the rest of the
group before the Indo-Aryans moved into India.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 12:36 PM
Subject: [tied] Anatolian and Indo-Aryan: some pointers on
chronology
"...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.
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..
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)