[tied] Re: Bangani

From: richardwordingham
Message: 14758
Date: 2002-08-29

--- In cybalist@..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: richardwordingham
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:52 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Bangani

I may need some tutoring.

> > Piotr: ... what is otherwise an inconspicuous Indo-Aryan

But according to Abbi (
http://www.umich.edu/~pehook/bangani.anvita.html ),

'One thing is certain, the syntax and the word list of Bangani show
layers of structures some of which may be relic of the past as it
neither fits in a typical Indo Aryan group nor as a part of the areal
phenomenon. I think more linguists should work on this language,
especially descriptivists and historico-sociolinguists.'

(I don't think syntax peculiarities argue one way or another.)

> It's a substrate.

To me, "The Centum element is a substrate." means that speakers of a
Centum language switched to a (locally) higher status non-Centum
language. Is this what you mean, or have I misunderstood the term?

>>> <kOtrO> is supposedly related to Celtic *catu- and Germanic
(OE heaþu) 'battle', with an *-r- extension visible in German
Hader 'quarrel', Balto-Slavic (OCS kotora 'fight', Lith.
kata~ryti 'beat') and Sanskrit (<s'atru-> 'enemy'). The Balto-Slavic
words may be Centum loans themselves, and the ultimate reconstruction
would then be *k^at-u- ~ *k^at-(o)r- (Pokorny's *k^at- 'fight,
struggle). This works for the Bangani substrate.

> > How well does Greek kótos (2nd declension) 'grudge, spite' fit in
with the /kOtrO/ words? I can't see how to reconcile the Celtic and
Greek vowels without upsetting the Sanskrit correspondence.

> I can't see how to reconcile Greek with the rest of the set either,
and so I think the connection should be abandoned.

Germanic, Balto-Slavonic and Sanskrit do not distinguish PIE /a/
and /o/ in the contexts we have here. Only Celtic indicates /a/. If
we ignore the Celtic, the only problem I see with the Greek is how
kótos is formed from *k^ot-u- ~ *k^ot-(o)r-. I can see two options:

*k^ot-u-o- >* k^otwo- > kotos (is this grammatical PIE?)
*k^ot-o- > kotos

It would be nice to derive Celtic *catu from pre-Grimm's law pre-
Germanic *katu- < *kotu-, but I don't know how plausible that is. It
goes against the usual flow of loanwords.

Does *k^at- have a problem? I thought we could write PIE with only
e/o/e:/o:/& vowels, but how do we render *k^at? Would *k^h2etru-
give Sanskrit s'atru? (If so, this fully eliminates Greek as a
source, for we would then be looking for *khatr- &c as the Greek
cognate, and Bangani has voiceless aspirates.)