[tied] Re: Sanskrit and e, a, o

>For example, PIE *oi is reflected as Skt. e [e:],
>Gk. oi, but also Balt. *ai, OIr. oi/oe,
>OLat. oe, Gmc. *ai, Av. ai.<

Is there any reason it can't have gone from e > oi, ai, etc. Apart
from the 1 > many direction -- that's a different issue.

>The vowel was monophthongised in some languages
>(e.g. > Slavic *e^, Arm. e:
>[both different from inherited *e]<, Welsh u, Mod.Gk. i)<

How are they different from *e?

> but in such cases there is sufficient evidence of its derivation

from an older diphthong<


What is this evidence?

>As regards the comparative aspect, Skt. and correspond to
>diphthongal *ai and *au in Iranian and even in Mitanni
>Indo-Aryan (Mit.IA aika- = Skt. eka-),

What alphabet are the Mitanni texts in? Cuneiform? Did it distinguish
between e and ai?

>And do learn something about historical
>linguistics before you question its methods and results;

As you may have noticed most all of the threads I start center
around questions from reading the textbooks you have recommended. The
texts just mention the results and give a few examples to prove their
point. I want to know more about how they came to their conclusions.

>it's putting the cart before the horse if you
>don't quite know what you are arguing against.

Well you see, I just want to steal a few gems from the seat of the
cart and you are not only trying to sell me the whole cart but a huge
stinking horse as well!

If you look at the vast range of topics this thread covers, you'll
see that it would take hundreds of pages of reading to cover what we
have covered in just a few messages. And frankly, it's a lot more
interesting to do it in the Cybalist socratic format. There are a few
areas of controversy in the Indo-Aryan branch these days and I'm
trying to focus just on those to see if there is any weakness in the
arguments.

>they tended to
>confuse vowel and syllable quantity (the Greeks, if that's any
>comfort, were still less clear about the difference).

Well at least I'm in good company. :-)

> Do you know of any really long lists of where this happens plus any

exceptions?

>See the relevant handbooks. Too little space here.

The handbooks don't really cover this in enough detail. I'd like to
see really long lists to see if there are any exceptions.

>Vedic (as well as Proto-Iranian) /a/ does not derive
>directly from it, but from the merger of _more recent_
>(but still PIE) *e, *o and *a. I won't bore the list >

with the proof: the releveant facts have been presented

>more than once, and anyone interested in them may search the archive.

Do you have any tips for what we should search for? This is an
interesting topic.

>which I suppose means that if only prof. Misra would admit of an
>earlier stage of Sanskrit where some a's were pronounced as more
>close than the rest, European linguists would have to take him more
>seriously.

Could you please elaborate on why this is so important and also in
which environments this other a's might be found?

>Misra apparently once subscribed to the scientifically-sound view.
>It makes you wonder if he hasn't being motivated by the present
>political atmosphere in India, especially when we hear such
>disturbing news as that of N. S. Rajaram's inclusion in the Indian
>Council of Historical Research.

Misra passed away some time ago.

Please don't automatically assume that anyone who strongly believes
in the Indigenous Aryan theory is also a Hindu nationalist fanatic.
It is insulting to those who distance themselves from that and does
nothing to further the scholarly debate. Linguistic theories should
be judged solely on the merits (or lack of merits, in this case) of
the arguments and not on any presumed "hidden agenda" which is
irrelevant to historical linguistics anyway; although it is certainly
pertinent to a current affairs newsgroup.

>He would also have to admit that some a's were more rounded

(allowing for

>PIE /o/ > Skt long /a:/ in open syllables). He would also have to

admit

>quite a bunch of other stuff!

Can you list a few more of the things he would have to admit. This is
a much better critique of his work than Hock, IMHO.

Thanks everyone for taking the time!

MD