Re: Para-Munda Substrate k/s' (was: PIE homeland in northwest India

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham
<richard.wordingham@...>" <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>"
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > In Witzel's Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan I find that he
> > mentions k/s´ alternations in Para-Munda(?) loans in Vedic:
> >
> > S´arkot.a / Karkot.a "snake demon"
> > karkat.a "crab"
> > Kambota / S´amban "name of demon"
> > kabara / s^abara
> > ki:sta / s^i:s.t.a "shell"
> > kirata / Cilata "a mountain tribe"
> > Kimidin / S^imida "demon" / "a demoness"
> > Kiknasa "ground grain" / cikkasa "barley meal"
> >
> > where he assumes an original Para-Munda phoneme that became /k/
> > and /c/ in Vedic. But the easier assumption would be that Vedic

had

> k
> > > c in that period and re-borrowed the roots, or?
>
> The change k > s' is the Satem change, so the simple borrowing
> hypothesis would imply Satem or earlier out of India.
>
> I must admit I can't see how given the Sanskrit opposition k ~ c ~
> s', a sound would become /k/ or /s'/ on borrowing, but not /c/.
> However, let us consider the evolution of oppositions from PIE to
> Sanskrit. State 1 is PIE, Stage 6 is Sanskrit.
>
> 1. kWa ~ kWe ~ kWi ~ k^a ~ k^e ~ k^i
>
> 2. ka ~ ke ~ ki ~ ca ~ ce ~ ci (Satem)
>
> 3. ka ~ ke ~ ki ~ s'a ~ s'e ~ s'i
>
> 4. ka ~ ce ~ ci ~ s'a ~ s'e ~ s'i (Law of palatals)
>
> 5. ka ~ ca ~ ci ~ s'a ~ s'i
>
> 6. ka ~ ca ~ ki ~ ci ~ s'a ~ s'i (/ki/ by analogy?)
>
> Witzel proposed that the Para-Munda phoneme was [k^].
>
> At Stage 2, [k^a/e/i] would be borrowed as [ca/e/i], yielding
> [s'a/i], or [ka/e/i], yielding [ka/ca/ci].
>
> At Stage 3, [k^a/e/i] would be borred as [ka/e/i], yielding
> [ka/ca/ci].
>
> At Stage 4, [k^a] would be borrowed as [ka] or [s^a], [k^e/i] as
> [ce/i], the latter yielding [ca/i].
>
> At Stage 5, [k^a] would be borrowed as [ka] or [ca], [k^e] as [ka]

or

> [ca], and [k^e] as [ci].
>
> At Stage 6, [k^a/e/i] would yield [ka/i] or [ca/i].
>
> Thus:
> [k^a] yields ka, s'a or ca.
> [k^e] yields ka, s'a or ca.
> [k^i] yields ki, s'i or ci.
>
> However, if we assume that by Stage 5, Para-Munda [k^] has hardened
> to [k], we then get:
> [k^a] yields ka or s'a.
> [k^e] yields ka, s'a or ca.
> [k^i] yields ki, s'i or ci.
>
> However, this assumes that Para-Munda [e] (or something similar)

was

> borrowed as [e] while pre-Sanskirt had such a vowel. If there were
> no such borrowing, then we would have the alternations ka ~ s'a and
> ki ~ s'i ~ ci that we see.
>
> Can anyone enviage a better mechanism? I must admit I don't like
> this explanation of the phenomenon; it suggests a very long period

of

> borrowing.
>
> Richard.

cf.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nostratica/message/235

the -kW- in Bushman and Hausa, if this is really a wander-around-
Africa word, would suggest that this phoneme is the original one. But
Para-Munda would most likely have had -k-. Suppose IA at the time
had, besides paradigms alternating k/c^, also some alternating kW/k.
The borrowed "round stuff" word gets fit into such a paradigm and
that paradigm's -kW- form gets re-borrowed and travels around Africa
(with crabs and heads and horns)?

Torsten