--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> 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.
Maybe, but Paul Thieme has demonstrated differently based on R.gveda
texts, and seems to lend support to Misra's views.
On the terms, Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian, Misra has views which
differ from some others'. He sees a 2000 year gap between Veda and
Avestan/OP. Here is why (whatever may be the opinions on Misra's
method of doing linguistics):
"...Iranian is much less archaic than Sanskrit and deserves a much
later date than Sanskrit, inspite of being placed earlier than Greek
etc. Iranian also presents several linguistic changes and thus, it is
comp-arable to Middle Indo-Aryan, to some extent.
Avestan has several developments from a as shown above. Besides, it
shows other linguistic changes, some of which may be taken up here.
1. Avestan shows spirants for voiceless aspirates e.g. Skt sakha_ av
haXa_
2. Av deaspirates the voiced aspirates, e.g Skt bhra_ta Av bra_ta
3. Final vowels are lengthened in Gathic Avestan and shortened in
Younger Avestan, hence the quantity of final vowels cannot be
determined in Avestan.
4. a stem influences other stems in Av like MIA. Thus the Ablative
singular at- is extended to others e.g. Av XraTvat- (of a-stem) after
mas~ya_at- (of a stem)
Old Persian no doubt retains original a as a. But it also has many
linguistic changes comparable to MIA.
1. OP drops all final consonants (like MIA) except m,r,s~ MIA drops
all final consonants except m.
2. It also shows spirants for voiceless aspirates like Avestan, e.g.
Skt sakha_ OP haXa_ In MIA Niya Prakrit shows spirants sometimes:
Niya anega (=aneGa) < Skt aneka
3. It also deaspirates all voiced aspirates like Avestan e.g. Skt
bhra_ta_ OP bra_ta_ In MIA Niya shows deaspiration, eg. buma < bhu_mi
4. The dative is lost and replaced by genetive in OP like MIA
5. The alternative instrumental plural ending -ais of -a stems is
fully replaced by -bhis in OP like MIA
6. In OP also the imperfect and Aorist have merged to form a
preterite like MIA.
7. The Perfect tense is almost lost in OP, like MIA.
8. Passive voice often takes active endings in OP like MIA, replacing
the original middle endings.
In this way Iranian also, although more archaic than other IE
languages, is much less archaic than Sanskrit and is like the eldest
daughter of Sanskrit, from the point of view of archaism.
Therefore, if India was original home of the Aryans (or Indo-
Europeans) and the migration started from India to outside through
the North-West, then Iran was the first place of their destination.
This is proved by the movement of the Gypsies who firstly reached
Iran going through the North West as shown in Lecture 5.
In Indian tradition, there is no hint even about the Indo-Aryans
coming to India from outside. But in Avestan, we have evidence of the
Iranians coming from outside. Iranian presents evidence of several
rivers of Rigveda, e.g. Sindhu (Av.OP, Hindu), Sarayu (Av Haroyu, OP
Harayu) Sarasvati (Av HaraXvaiti, OP Harauvatiy). These are often
shown in Iranian evidence as names of areas. Rigveda normally does
not speak of any such place of Iran. Thus as the Iranians refer to
the Vedic areas, Vedic people never refer to the Iranian areas, which
shows that Iranian culture is a later phase of the Vedic culture. In
other words the original homeland of the Iranians must have been the
Vedic lands.
PL Bhargava (The comparative antiquity of Mitra and Varun.a, Ludwig
Sternback Felicitation Volume, Lucknow, pp. 59-61) has come to the
same conclusion on the basis of another important evidence. He has
shown that the first chapter of Vendidad enumerates sixteen holy
lands, created by Ahuramazda, which were later rendered unfit for the
residence of man (i.e. the ancestors of the Iranians) on account of
different things created there in by Angra Mainyu, the evil spirit of
the Avesta. This clearly means that the ancestors of the Iranians had
lived turn by turn in all these lands. One of these lands was of
severe winter and snow. This may be a reference to NW Himalayan pass
by which they went to Iran. Another was Hapta-Hindu the land of seven
rivers. Excessive heat created in this region by Angra-Mainyu was the
reason for which the ancestors of Iranians left this country. Thus,
the Iranians lived i the region of Sapta-Sindhu of Rigveda before
going to Iran.
This gives us sufficient evidence that India was the original home of
Iranians and also of Indo-Aryans. Avestan also refers to Airyana
Vaeja which means the original land of the Aryans and which also
indicates that Iran was not their original home and thus indirectly
show that India was their original home.
In Sanskrit deva means god and asura means demon. But in the Rigveda
asura is also used as an epithet of some of gods. In Iranian deva (Av
daeva, OP daiva) means 'devil/demon' and asura (Av and OP ahura) is
used for 'god'. The word deva originally signifies god in Indo-
European cp Lat deus, 'god', Lith devas 'god' etc. The Iranian use of
deva 'devil' is definitely an innovation. It is quite natural that
when the Indo-Aryan and Iranians differed from each other
dialectically and could not remain amicably, the Iranian sleft for
Iran adn settled there. There they might have developed an extremely
antagonistic attitude towards the Indo-Aryans (who remained in India)
and consequently in Iranian the use of the words deva and asura were
reversed which resulted in special sets of words called ahura and
daeva words in Avestan.
R. Ghirshman (Iran and the Migrations of Indo-Aryans and Iranians,
EPHCA, pp. 140-144) has shown on the basis of archaeological evidence
that the Indo-Aryans were present in lower reaches of Volga in 4000
BCE and Iranians came there in 2000 BCE. He, however, takes the lower
reaches of Volga as the original home of Indo-Iranians. But there is
no evidence in his analysis for the original home. On the basis of
archaeological evidence a date can be decided showing presence of
some people or certain things in an area. But the place from which
they have come to that place cannot be decided. Therefore it is
likely that the Indo-Aryans went to that place from India since their
presence in that place is shown by the archaeological evidence of
chariot and equine bones, signet horn etc. as shown by Ghirshman.
Iranians reached there 2000 years later in 2000 BCE after they were
separated from Indo-Aryans in language and culture...Indo-Aryans
werre going out to various places in different periods beginning from
5000 BCE as the Uralic evidence and other evidences reveal." (1999,
pp. 48-51)