--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> To sum up, it makes perfect sense to ask if Vedic Indo-Aryan is
more closely related to Mycenaean Greek than to Hittite -- this
question can in principle be answered by applying reliable methods.
All three languages are equally close relatives of PIE, being its
lineal descendants after the same length of time (give or take a
practically insignificant difference). The question which of them is
most _similar_ to PIE can only be answered if you explain what you
mean by "similarity" and how you propose to measure it in practice. I
am afraid the answer will depend on your subjectively preferred
metric. You may have heard of lexicostatistics, which uses the
statistical study of vocabulary to "measure" linguistic proximity.
Unfortunately, the "hard figures" it produces are of no real use in
reconstructing linguistic history: vocabulary diffuses easily and at
unpredictable rates, introducing errors that cannot be controlled.
Or, if Vedic Indo-Aryan is more closely related to Munda than to
Dravidian...
Is 'similarity' metric the only method for answering the question of
chronology relative to PIE? Why can't there be some means of
assigning weights to linguistic characteristics to provide for a
deeper understanding of 'similarities'; take for example, the unique
characteristic of 'retroflexion' in R.gvedic Sanskrit.
There are some cultural indicators in texts and as Kuiper notes, ways
to distinguish 'non-Aryan words' say, in the R.gveda and general
characteristics of 'words of foreign origin', i.e. foreign to PIE.
Here is one instance of the fundamental characteristic of
retroflexion which is emphatically pre-Vedic:
In suggesting an autochthonous evolution of Vedic culture in
Bha_rata, I am proceeding on the following linguistic analyses: (1)
Hock's acceptance of a reasonableness of a hypothesis that PIE
speakers were in Bha_rata; and (2) Kuiper's emphatic demonstration
that retroflexes had penetrated into Proto-Indo-Aryan in a
prehistoric ('pre-Vedic') period.
Hock suggests the evidence of Dumaki (Shina) and Romany (Gypsy)
indicating the corollary hypothesis of migrations of PIE speakers out
of Bha_rata. Kuiper analyses non-Aryan (both proto-Dravidian and
proto-Munda), non-Indo-European linguistic, cultural evidence in the
R.gveda.
Kuiper, for instance, demolishes Deshpande's study of 'Genesis of
R.gvedc retroflexion' (1979: 235-315) which argues against Kuiper's
earlier thesis that the original R.gveda was composed by Sanskrit-
speaking Dravidians.
"It is not always clear what exactly he (Deshpande) is about to
prove; there are what I regard as mirepresentations and
misrepresentations and there is in general a misconception about what
evidence can be expected from a text like the Rigveda, and what is
excluded. The main point, however, is that Deshpande accepts for the
Rigveda contacts with non-Aryans, loanwords, a non-Aryan myth, that
he 'entirely agree(s) with Emeneau that retroflexes in the existing
R.gveda can and must be explained by the Dravidianization of the
Aryan language' and even assumes that 'by the time of the Bra_hman.a
period, the speakers of the Sanskrit language were not pure Vedic
Aryans but were already a mixed people'. The only point on which he
disagrees is the date of the introduction of the new set of
phonemes, which in his opinion is post-Rigvedic...To prove that at a
certain time there was much uncertainty as to whether to pronounce
n.a or na, s.a or sa, Deshpande heavily leans upon Ait. A_r. III.2.6.
His theory is, indeed, that this tendency arose at the time when the
new phonemes were introduced into Sanskrit. As far as I can see, the
text proves just the reverse. It strsses the superiority of the
Sam.hita_-text and illustrates and confirms it by a myth that relates
how Praja_pati once upon a time fell under but put himself together
again (a_tma_nam samadadha_t) by means of the metres. His act
constitutes the mythic prototype and the essence of the Sam.hita_. Of
this Sam.hita_, n.a is the strength and s.a the breath and Self. What
then follows, viz. sa yo haitau n.aka_ras.aka_rau anusam.hitam r.co
veda sabala_m sapra_n.a_m sam.hita_m veda_ 'yus.yam iti vidya_t, can
hardly mean 'He who knows the verses in the Sam.hita_ and the letters
n. and s., he knows the Sam.hita_ with its breath and its
strength...'the double veda and the absence of ca, when compared with
the parallel text of S'a_nkh. A_r. VIII.11, are awkward. This text
reads: tau va_ etau n.aka_ras.aka_rau vidva_n anusam.hitam
r.co 'dhi_yi_ta_ 'yus.yam iti vidya_t 'Knowing these n.a and s.a
[that is, their mystic character of strength and breath], he should
recite the verses according to the Sam.hita_-text (and) that that
gives a long life.' The text of the Ait. A_r., as it stands,
expresses a similar idea as follows: 'He who knows [the mystic
character of] these syllables n.a and s.a (and) the verses according
to the Sam.hita_-text, he (or: and?) knows the Sam.hita_-text that is
full of strength and breath. He should know that that gives a long
life.' The text goes on to say sa yadi vicikitset san.aka_ram
brava_n.i_h an.aka_ra_m iti, san.aka_ram eva bru_ya_t 'Should he (or,
somebody) be in doubt whether to recite the text with n.a or with na,
he should recite with n.a' The stress laid on the Sam.hita_ only
makes sense in opposition to the Padapa_t.ha...n.a is doubtless the
older sandhi form. With the phonemicization of n.a and s.a it has
nothing to do. The text goes on to say te yad vayam anusam.hitam
r.co 'dhi_mahe, yac ca ma_n.d.u_keyi_yam adhya_+yam prabru_mas, tena
no n.aka_ras.aka_ra_ upa_pta_v iti ha sma_ha hrasvo ma_n.d.u_keyah,
in Deshpande's translation '...if we say [i.e. follow in recitation]
the teaching of Ma_n.d.u_keya, then the letters n.a and s.a are
obtained for us'. From these words Deshpande infers that if
Ma_n.du_keya was NOT followed, 'these sounds were not obtained in the
R.gveda'. What the author actually means to say is rather: 'Hrasva
Ma_n.d.u_keya said: in that we recite the verses according to the
Sam.hita_-text and in that we teach the way of reciting of the
Ma_n.d.u_keyas, thereby (tena) we have obtained n.a and s.a (strength
and breath).' In other words: 'The modern way of ignoring the
original sandhi makes the text powerless. Only if we stick to the old
traditional sandhi, the text has vigour and gives a long life.' What
the text refers to is the well-known importance of 'die korrekte und
damit allein magisch wirksame Rezitation vedischer Texts' (von
Hinuber 1989: 18)...There is no reason to doubt that they were
already a separate set of phonemes at the time when the hymns (or the
majority of them) were composed. It might also be asked how such
hapax legomena as X.28.8 kr.pi_t.a-n., VI.54.7 kevat.a- and VII.39.2
(VS) bi_rit.a- could have crept into the text if the poets themselves
had not pronounced them that way. The conclusion based on the
Rigvedic evidence that the retroflexes must have penetrated into Indo-
Aryan in a prehistoric ('pre-Vedic') period would consequently seem
to stand unchallenged." (FBJ Kuiper, 1991, Aryans in the Rigveda,
Rodopi, Atlanta, pp. 11-14)