Re: [tied] Indoeuropeans vs. Uralians: pigs, honey and salt

----- Original Message -----

From: David Sánchez

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 1:02 AM

Subject: [tied] Indoeuropeans vs. Uralians: pigs, honey and salt

 

I think the three major hypothesis concerning IE Urheimat are:

 

(1) Hypothesis of Childe and M. Gibumtas. In 1926 Childe from de evidences of the names of animal, plants and some patrimonial words related to weather supposed in his book The Aryans, that the IE were a group of nomadists and cattle raising that lived in some indeterminated place among Black Sea and Baltic Sea or in the Russian Steppes. Marija Childe also used archaeological arguments. More recently Marija Gibumtas of UClA have collected many archaelogical data and has claimed that it is very reasonable to identified ancient IE peoples with de Culture of Kurgans (BC 4000 - BC 3000). This idetification is based on the material culture of the Kurganic people that seem very similar to that reconstruted form linguisticical evidences for IE peoples.

 

(2) Hypothesis of C. Renfrew. The archaeologist C. Renfrew have propposed recently a theory completely different from that of Childe. For Renfrew the IE spreading was relatively pacific and was associated with an agricultural revolution. Each generation moving away a certain distance from paternal house in a king of Random Walking spreaded IE culture (supposing 20 km in average, random direction from fahter's house and 25 years for generation have been calculated that about 1500 years are needed for the spreading from Anatolia to North Europe; in good accordance with archaleological data!)

 

(3) Hypothesis of Gramkelidze and Ivanov. These linguists reexaming linguistic data have given support that these data are more coherent with an Anatolian place, than with an Stepparian place. For these authors Anatolia have been colonized by proto-hitites about BC 2000 and a few centuries later have been formed the hitite empiere. Except for Greek peoples that migrated across Dardanels, the main stream of IE peoples turned around Caspian Sea. I think this hypothesis explain much better similarities among the different IE subfamilies.

 

But, which data must be explaind by theories (1), (2) and (3), for linguistic purposes:

 

(a) The hitite language represent a type of more archaic indoeuropen language, in wicht gender and other grammatical cathegories had not yet formed (previously it was suggeted that this were consecuences of loses and innovations in Anatolian group, but nowadays is commonly accepted that these facts represent an ancient status of things).

 

(b) Reconstruted PROTO-URALIC (pU) curiously show IE loanwords like that for 'pig', 'honey' and 'salt' that were borrewed from a satem dialect (this shows that was pU that borrowed for pIE and no otherwise). This may suggets that IE were technologically more advanced at the time of the contact and it was from IE peoples that Uralians adopted pigs, honey and the word for '100' (pU has <*sata> that seems borrowed from a "sanscritoid" satem dialect <*s'ata(m)> (but general IE <*kntom>).

 

pU <*s'ata> '100' [Finnish <sata>, Hungarian <száz>, Lappish <c'uotte>] <<<  SatemIE <s'ata>

pU <-des'ä> (?) '10' [Finnish <-deksän>, Mari <-deše>]

pU <*mete> 'honey' [Finnish <mete>, Hungarian <mez>, Komi <ma>] <<<< IE <*medhu> (?)

pU <*porsas> 'pig' [Finnish <porsz>] <<<< IE <*porkos> (?)

pU <*sol> [Finnish <suoloa>, Komi <sol>] <<< IE soH2l (?)

pU <*orb-> 'orphan' [Finnish <orpo>, Hungarian <árva>]

 

(c) Loanwords in PROTO-KARTVELIAN (Meridional Caucasian) [and the very intelligent reconstruction of Gramkelidze and Ivanov of IE stops in a more logical fashion] suggest a direct contact with meridional caucasic.

 

<*mk'erd> 'breast' related to IE <*kerd> 'heart'

<t'ep-> 'warm' related to IE <tep-> 'warm'

 

(d) GENETICAL STUDES [and also linguistical ones] suggest that pIE might be related to proto-AfroAsiatic (pAA) [formerly hamito-semitic] and Dravidian [both groups of languages are supposed originated in the Middle East]-

 

According to these four exigences (a), (b), (c) and (d) the explicativeness of theories (1), (2) and (3) [see at the map]:

 

(1) Childe-Gibumtas: (a) is poorly explained / (b) pse pse / (c) very poorliy expl. / (d) very poorly expl.

(2) Renfrew: (a) well explained / (b) poorly explained / (c) regularly explained / (d) well explained

(3) Gramkelidze-Ivanov: (a) well explained / (b) well explained / (c) very well explained / (d) well explained

 

David Sánchez

(Sorry, for my awful English!)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.