From: kalyan97
Message: 12236
Date: 2002-02-03
--- In cybalist@..., "michael_donne" <michael_donne@...> wrote:
...is it possible that PIE may have had some satem forms of these
> words instead?
In his recent linguistic analysis of Aryans in the Rigveda,
Kuiper concludes that Sanskrit itself "had long been *an Indian
language* when it made its appearance in history" (1991:94). "The
inherited Vedic *culture*, however, must for a long time have
remained dominant, notwithstanding the foreign influence that
made itself felt: a foreign myth could only be adopted by
transforming it into an Indra-myth and non-Aryan sorcerers were
incorporated and became Vedic [rshis], authors of a separate
collection of hymns.... As a sociological term 'Aryan' denotes
all those who took part in the sacrifices and festivals. There is
nothing novel in this definition. Not always, however, may it
have been realized that many among these 'Aryans' had non-Aryan
names and that this fact points to some inescapable conclusions.
Statements to the effect that the Rigveda was no longer purely
Aryan (...) are therefore correct to the extent that they refer
to the language and ethnic components: both were 'Aryan'.
*Culturally*, however, the Rigvedic society was Aryan without
quotes, but this reveals how ambiguous the term is" (KUIPER
1991:96).
In the list of over 300 words listed by Kuiper, many are satem forms.
The problem of the acquisition/loss of cerebrals in Vedic Sanskrit is
also not satisfactorily explained.
Can't Anatolian be explained in the context of the maritime/riverine
movements of people across the Persian Gulf and the Tigris-Euphrates
rivers?