From: John L. Berry
Message: 18521
Date: 2003-02-07
----- Original Message -----
From: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 6:45 AM
Subject: [tied] Digest Number 1222
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: soft heart
From: "P&G" <petegray@...>
2. Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
From: "Daniel J. Milton <dmilt1896@...>" <dmilt1896@...>
3. Re: Hydronyms and toponyms of Vedic area
From: Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
4. Re: Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
From: Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
5. Re: Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
From: Juha Savolainen <juhavs@...>
6. Re: Hydronyms and toponyms of Vedic area
From: george knysh <gknysh@...>
7. Re: Why are Horses Vedic Again?
From: Juha Savolainen <juhavs@...>
8. Re: Why are Horses Vedic Again?
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...>
9. Re: Why are Horses Vedic Again?
From: Juha Savolainen <juhavs@...>
10. Re: Laryngeal theory as an unnatural
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
11. Re: Laryngeal theory as an unnatural
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
12. Re: Laryngeal theory as an unnatural
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
13. Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
From: "S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>" <kalyan97@...>
14. Re: Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
From: george knysh <gknysh@...>
15. ROOTS AT LAST!!!
From: x99lynx@...
16. Re: ROOTS AT LAST!!!
From: Andrew Howey <andyandmae_howey@...>
17. Re: ROOTS AT LAST!!!
From: "S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>" <kalyan97@...>
18. Why Nahali? Why not? It is INDIC !
From: "S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>" <kalyan97@...>
19. Re: Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
From: Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
20. When did 'arya' become 'aryan' ?
From: "S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>" <kalyan97@...>
21. Re: Laryngeal theory as an unnatural
From: Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
22. Re: Fw: Latin versus *Proto-Romance
From: "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...>
23. Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
From: "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...>
24. Re: ROOTS AT LAST!!!
From: "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...>
25. Re: Para-Munda Substrate k/s' (was: PIE homeland in northwest India?)
From: "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 19:39:09 -0000
From: "P&G" <petegray@...>
Subject: Re: soft heart
>Arab matnuN "the middle ..."
matn is "half"
Peter
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:40:49 -0000
From: "Daniel J. Milton <dmilt1896@...>" <dmilt1896@...>
Subject: Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
Being a geologist rather than a linguist, I'm entertaining myself
by looking into the Sarasvati question. If I come to any conclusions
I'll post them (but from what I've read so far I'm likely to end up as
confused as when I started).
In one study,"Did the Sarasvati ever flow to the Sea?" by G. L.
Pohssehl, I read:
"The image created by the Rgveda for the Sarasvati River is of a
powerful, full flowing river, not easily reconciled with the literal
meaning of the name, 'Chain of Pools'."
Would someone explain this etymology? Have others been suggested?
Dan Milton
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 21:03:51 +0100
From: Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
Subject: Re: Hydronyms and toponyms of Vedic area
----- Original Message -----
From: "george knysh" <gknysh@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Hydronyms and toponyms of Vedic area
> *****GK: What about RV 1.87.5; 3.31.10; 3.38.9; 3.58.1; and 8.6.30?*****
In these cases it's translatable as "primeval" (esp. in collocation with
<retas-> as in 3.31.10 and 8.6.30, or with <pitar-> in 1.87.5) or as "ancient" =
belonging to the mythical past.
Piotr
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 21:47:06 +0100
From: Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
Subject: Re: Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
----- Original Message -----
From: <dmilt1896@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:40 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
> Being a geologist rather than a linguist, I'm entertaining myself by looking
into the Sarasvati question. If I come to any conclusions I'll post them (but
from what I've read so far I'm likely to end up as confused as when I started).
> In one study,"Did the Sarasvati ever flow to the Sea?" by G. L. Pohssehl, I
read: "The image created by the Rgveda for the Sarasvati River is of a
powerful, full flowing river, not easily reconciled with the literal meaning of
the name, 'Chain of Pools'."
> Would someone explain this etymology? Have others been suggested?
The suffix <-vati:> is the feminine form of <-vant-/-vat->, forming adjectives
of possession (< *-went-, fem. *-wn.t-ih2). "X-vant-" = 'abounding in X', more
of less. This means that <sarasvati:> has a natural interpretation as 'having
many "sarases"'. The neuter noun <saras> means 'pool, pond', and is usually
reconstructed as *seles-, nom.sg. selos, because of Gk. helos 'marshy meadow,
backwater'. I have myself suggested an alternative etymology, involving
hypothetical *seros (*seres-) 'waterflow' (from *ser- 'to flow', as in Skt.
sisarti, sarati), but I have to admit the usual one is better supported.
At any rate Skt. sarasvati: is etymologically identical with Iranian
*harah-vati: (Av. haraxWaiti:) in Afghanistan.
Piotr
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:59:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Juha Savolainen <juhavs@...>
Subject: Re: Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
Hi Dan,
Unfortunately, I have next to nothing to add to the
interesting etymological question. However, I cannot
help pointing out a review that must be interesting
for a geologist intrigued by the Saraswati debates. I
refer to A. B. ROY´s review of "Saraswati: The River
that Disappeared" by K. S. Valdiya (at CURRENT
SCIENCE, VOL. 83, NO. 7, 10 OCTOBER 2002 902)
http://tejas.serc.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/contents.htm
In his review A.B.Roy once again reaffirms his belief
in the existence of the "Mighty Saraswati River" in
Rajasthan:
"All these very explicit geological evidences firmly
establish the fact about the existence of a mighty
Himalayan river in the Thar Desert region of western
Rajasthan. The geological description of this
prodigious river system matches well in all aspects
with the Saraswati River, which finds so vivid a
portrayal in the Rig Vedic hymns.
The recent geomorphologic and geological studies in
northern Gujarat and western Rajasthan have thus
greatly helped in lifting the veil of uncertainties
over the existence of the Vedic river, so Saraswati
can no longer be considered as a legendary tale of a
mythical river. "
However, after this promising start Roy goes into a
vigorous attack against the established "Mighty
Saraswati River" story, this time elaborated by
Valdiya:
"The weakest link of the present book is the
uncritical acceptance of the 'popular' view regarding
the location of the Vedic Saraswati. It is now well
known that R. D. Oldham was one of the earliest to be
on the trail of the Vedic river after he read Max
Müller's translation of the Rigveda (J. Asiat. Soc.
Bengal, 1886, 55, 322-343). When he came across a
small rain-fed stream called 'Sarsuti' in the northern
reaches of the River Ghaggar, he thought that it could
be the remnant stream of the Vedic Saraswati. The name
presumably suffered distortion with the passage of
time. More than the uncritical acceptance of Oldham's
assumption on the remnant of the Vedic Saraswati, the
findings of a very large number of Harappan cultural
sites around the dry channels of the
Ghaggar-Hakra-Nara seem to have greatly influenced the
author's highly flavoured viewpoint. Apparently, it is
have constrained the author to accept the dry and
rain-fed river basin as the channel of the river
referred to in the Rigveda
without any reservation. The recognition of the
Ghaggar-Hakra-Nara channel as that of the Vedic
Saraswati by the author, like many others, is clearly
based on the firm belief that the Harappan and the
Vedic cultures were not only contemporary but also
identical. In fact, in the entire book beginning from
the page one, the author used the names, Saraswati
(the Vedic river) and Ghaggar (the dry channel
of a rain-fed river), quite synonymously. This
uncritical acceptance of the 'popular view' to say the
least, not only is questionable but also has pinched
much of the charm out of the book. Even the title of
the book may help raising eyebrows of some sceptic
readers who may know about a number of rivers by the
same name. Surprisingly, all of these rivers seem to
have disappeared from the present-day scenario. It may
be worth specifically mentioning about the presently
non-existent Saraswati River at the Triveni Sangam
near Allahabad. There are other 'Trivenis' in our
country with one missing river bearing the name
Saraswati. Certainly, the author is not talking about
these missing rivers!"
Besides reminding his readers of the many "Saraswati"
rivers (and hence affirming that also river-names
migrate), Roy unwittingly lets the cat out of the bag:
"The debate on the relative antiquity of the Vedic and
the Harappan cultures is important as it is the only
way, in absence of any other scientific means, to find
out the age of events relating to migration and final
extinction of the Vedic Saraswati."
I have already commented the going in circles-style
reasoning of the indigenists. Here Roy asserts that,
in the absence of any other scientific means, "Vedic
Saraswati" must be dated by archaeology. But that is
just the problem for the indigenists. In the light of
the archaeological evidence, the indigenist view is a
non-starter. Appeals to the "Mighty Saraswati River"
became popular precisely to overcome the objectionable
archaeological evidence and turn it evidence in favour
of the indigenist view. But now we are told that the
magical trick, dating by the "Mighty Saraswati" is
entirely dependent on archaeology. Anyway, to defend
his own idea of the "Mighty Saraswati River" flowing
in Rajasthan during Harappan times, Roy has this to
say:
"It may sound curious that all the geological and
geomorphologic evidences about the mighty Himalayan
river come from western Rajasthan and northern
Gujarat. In this context, it will be too naïve to
assume that the entire history of the mighty Himalayan
river in Rajasthan as implied in the book, is only a
part of pre-Vedic proto-history. That the author
preferred to remain elusive on the issue
is clear from his remark (p. 83): 'In my humble
opinion, the proximity in space and time of Dwarka and
Prabhas of the Mahabharata with the Harappan port
cities of Dholavira and Lothal has a great bearing on
the relationship between Harappan and Vedic cultures.'
There is hardly any doubt that the statement of the
author would leave a 'not-so-informed' reader totally
nonplussed on the possible
link between the destruction of the Harappan cultural
sites in the Gujarat region with the extinction of the
Himalayan river that flowed through in the Thar
Desert region in the north.
The author makes a brief discussion on the tectonic
movements that shook the region west of the Aravalli
Mountains possibly during the last 10,000 years.
Nonetheless, virtually no attempt was made to relate
these movements with the actual process of migration
and extinction of the Vedic river. The statement
that the shifting of the river course took place over
the past 1.5 million years, has no scientific basis.
He mentions about the river Lavanavati (Luni), but did
not consider the fallacy in the name of the river. No
flowing river can have saline water. On the other
hand, we might say that it was only because of the
withdrawal of the water from the channel, the riverbed
turned into pools of saline water. Water flows through
the present Luni 'channel' only during heavy rains.
The very name of the river, Lavanavati, is indicative
of the fact that the transformation
must have been witnessed by the civilized man, and
therefore it cannot be a part of the proto-history."
At the end of the review Roy takes issue with attempts
to "revive" the Saraswati River:
"Certain statements made by the author in the book may
not stand scientific scrutiny. Some of these 'wrong'
statements may even send off-beam signals to readers
who may be interested in trapping the 'flowing sweet
water channel' in solving
the acute water crisis in the region. On page 4, the
author writes about the 'subterranean flow of
freshwater in abundance'. Even the most remote
possibility of this may help strengthening the
conviction (based only on faith!) of certain
people that the Vedic Saraswati had plunged
underground and is now having a subterranean flow.
Those who may be willing to subscribe to this view
with the hope of getting perennial water supply, may
take note of the fact that the isotopic study of the
groundwater collected from the 'Saraswati
palaeo-channels' indicated that the sampled water was
only 22,000 to 6,000 years old (referred to in the
book being reviewed). These old dates (albeit that
these are not very well constrained dates!) only help
to disprove the fact about subterranean flow in
replenishing the present day groundwater reserve."
Unfortunately for Roy, he seems to have forgotten why
and how Harappan civilization was identified with the
"Saraswati civilization" in the first place: most of
the Harappan sites were supposed to lie on the
Ghaggar-Hakra paleochannels. Is Roy going to relocate
them to somewhere else, then? Well, that is easier
said than done! Or should we rather conclude that the
Great Saraswati Seeking has turned out to be a Wild
Goose Chase?
Best regards, Juha Savolainen
--- "Daniel J. Milton <dmilt1896@...>"
<dmilt1896@...> wrote:
> Being a geologist rather than a linguist, I'm
> entertaining myself
> by looking into the Sarasvati question. If I come
> to any conclusions
> I'll post them (but from what I've read so far I'm
> likely to end up as
> confused as when I started).
> In one study,"Did the Sarasvati ever flow to the
> Sea?" by G. L.
> Pohssehl, I read:
> "The image created by the Rgveda for the
> Sarasvati River is of a
> powerful, full flowing river, not easily reconciled
> with the literal
> meaning of the name, 'Chain of Pools'."
> Would someone explain this etymology? Have
> others been suggested?
> Dan Milton
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:20:13 -0800 (PST)
From: george knysh <gknysh@...>
Subject: Re: Hydronyms and toponyms of Vedic area
--- Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "george knysh" <gknysh@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Hydronyms and toponyms of Vedic
> area
>
>
>
> > GK: What about RV 1.87.5; 3.31.10; 3.38.9;
> 3.58.1; and 8.6.30?
>
> In these cases it's translatable as "primeval" (esp.
> in collocation with <retas-> as in 3.31.10 and
> 8.6.30, or with <pitar-> in 1.87.5) or as "ancient"
> = belonging to the mythical past.
>
> Piotr
*****GK: Indeed. These are the terms of the Griffith
translation, which are very much in line with the
implications of the contexts. And that is why I'm not
sure that the translation of RV 1.30.9 as "former"
rather than as "ancient" is sustainable. "Former"
would be exciting of course (esp. when linked to "our"
i.o. "his" dwelling/homeland), as one of the very few
Rigvedan texts which might intimate a consciousness of
"having come in from elsewhere". Otherwise, one can
fall back on Sarasvati/Harahvaiti, which I still think
is simply an alternate name for the Indus, a
reminiscence of the Afghan Harahvaiti.******
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:29:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Juha Savolainen <juhavs@...>
Subject: Re: Why are Horses Vedic Again?
Piotr,
One of the most interesting aspects of the whole
Saraswati issue is the importance given to certain
rivers by the Vedic (and indeed by the Old Iranian)
people.
"Saraswati" is not just a river (or perhaps a type of
river?) but also a River Goddess and also a place
where their culture is flourishing. Do you (or any
other IEF participant) have ideas about the role of
rivers in (Proto)/Indo-European thinking? Was this
common also among the other branches of the IE family?
Best regards, Juha
--- Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <kalyan97@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 2:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Why are Horses Vedic Again?
>
>
>
> > Reference to Piotr's question: "Errr...Steve, are
> you into this "Indus_and Sarasvati_ terminology?" I
> may add that out of 2,600 archaeological sites
> unearthed so far, over 2,000 are found on the banks
> of River Sarasvati and 600 on the banks of River
> Sindhu (Indus).
>
> I'm not going to discuss these numbers now (they do
> seem seriously exaggerated). But you actually mean
> the Ghaggar-Hakra area (I won't say "palaeochannel",
> since there had been several channels before the
> river dried up. There are two assumptions above, and
> I find reasons to question both. One is that the old
> riverbeds in the Ghaggar-Hakra area are identifiable
> with "Sarasvati" in any of the senses of the name
> (let alone "the mighty Sarasvati", "the mother of
> the Seven Rivers", comparable with the Indus or
> larger).
>
> The other questionable assumption, implied by your
> use of numbers, is that the density of settlements
> discovered along the Ghaggar points to the centre of
> the Indus Valley civilisation. What the
> archaeologists say is that the civilisation had
> local concentrations (at different places during
> different periods), but no single capital or core
> area. The richness of finds on what you believe to
> be the course of "the Sarasvati" may be due to the
> exceptionally good preservation conditions in an
> area that was desiccated and abandoned at an early
> date, and only sparsely settled in more recent
> times. The sites have not been flooded, ploughed or
> otherwise disturbed ever since.
>
> > What is wrong with Indus and Sarasvati terminology
> even in a linguistic setting when we are talking of
> languages such as Nahali
> on the River Tapi (not far from Gulf of Khambat with
> Lothal, Padri and scores of civilization sites) on
> the coastline of Sindhu Sa_gara (Arabian Sea)?
>
> I fail to see what Nahali has to do with the Indus
> or the Sarasvati. As for the rest, the term "the
> Indus Valley (or Harappan) Civilisation" represents
> traditional usage, justified by the fact that most
> of the cities of that civilisation were located
> within the Indus system. Of course there were also
> coastal sites quite far from the mouths of the Indus
> (and Harappa was not the only major city of the
> civilisation), but as long as we know what we are
> talking about there's no particular need to change
> the conventional name. At any rate, by changing it
> to "the Indus-Sarasvati Civilisation" you merely
> express your belief in the mighty River Sarasvati
> and the Vedicness of the IVC, and since both of
> these convictions are widely contested, don't be
> surprised if people see the renaming as an attempt
> to promote your agenda by terminological means.
>
> > We are dealing with a maritime-riverine
> civilization -- aka Indic (in linguistic
> terminology).
>
> This is begging the question. Where's the
> demonstration that the IVC was linguistically Indic?
> You can't simply _assume_ it. The fact that the
> Vedic Indo-Aryans became familiar with the sea does
> not make them Harappan or move them back to Harappan
> times.
>
> > In all the discussions on IE and PIE linguistics I
> find little attention being paid to the Gulf
> (Meluhha, Magan, Dilmun) which was a highway which
> linked the civilization to Mesopotamia (land of two
> rivers).
>
> This is because there's no indication of any IE
> language being used on the Gulf in Harappan times.
>
> Piotr
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 23:21:59 -0000
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...>
Subject: Re: Why are Horses Vedic Again?
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Juha Savolainen <juhavs@...> wrote:
> One of the most interesting aspects of the whole Saraswati issue is
the importance given to certain rivers by the Vedic (and indeed by the
Old Iranian) people.
>
> "Saraswati" is not just a river (or perhaps a type of river?) but
also a River Goddess and also a place where their culture is
flourishing. Do you (or any other IEF participant) have ideas about
the role of rivers in (Proto)/Indo-European thinking? Was this common
also among the other branches of the IE family?
Of course river deities were quite common in IE mythologies, e.g. in
Greece, where actual rivers (e.g. the Achelous) as well as
mythological or half-mythological ones (the Styx) were personified and
appeared as characters in myths. Among the important Iranian deities,
the goddess Anahita was connected with a great river (possibly the
Oxus, or indeed _any_ river of local importance). The identification
of an area with its main river, and the deification of that river as
the protector or (perhaps more often) protectress of the country was
common among the Celts, whose tutelary river goddesses (Matrona,
Sequana, Sabrina, Brigantia, etc.) are many and well known.
I tend to agree with George that at least some aspects of the Rigvedic
Sarasvati (as an actual river) should be identified with the Indus,
which certainly flows all the way from the Himalayas to the ocean, is
a really huge river and can with reason be regarded as the "mother" of
the Saptasindhu, its upper basin being also the cradle of the Aryan
culture as we know it. Such was certainly the opinion of early
Sanskritologists (including Hermann G. Grassmann, for example).
Various other rivers may have been referred to as <sarasvati:> at one
time or another, especially if we regard the word as an epither rather
than a proper name. Ironically, the idea of the Sarasvati as a mighty
river lost in the Indian desert was conceived in the late 19th century
by European scholars (such as C.F. Oldham) and popularised in the
1940's by Sir Aurel Stein.
Piotr
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:06:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Juha Savolainen <juhavs@...>
Subject: Re: Why are Horses Vedic Again?
Yes, that was my understanding also...river gods are
widespread among the IE cultures...
About "Saraswati" as an epithet: I tend to believe
that (a) many Indo-European groups (certainly the
Indo-Iranians) were not happy to borrow river-names
from indigenous/native populations because of the
religious associations of these and also (b) that many
of the names which look at first sight proper names
are really epithets...
So, it is still very easy to find the "Saraswati" of
NE Gujarat on the map...Still, we must be cautious
here: there is even a "Saraswati Glacier", but this
name was given to the glacier in 1996...;)
And the good old Oldham would undoubtedly be surpised
to know that he has become a central figure in the
indigenist rebellion against the colonial yoke of Max
Muller...;)
Cheers, Juha
--- "Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Juha Savolainen
> <juhavs@...> wrote:
>
> > One of the most interesting aspects of the whole
> Saraswati issue is
> the importance given to certain rivers by the Vedic
> (and indeed by the
> Old Iranian) people.
> >
> > "Saraswati" is not just a river (or perhaps a type
> of river?) but
> also a River Goddess and also a place where their
> culture is
> flourishing. Do you (or any other IEF participant)
> have ideas about
> the role of rivers in (Proto)/Indo-European
> thinking? Was this common
> also among the other branches of the IE family?
>
> Of course river deities were quite common in IE
> mythologies, e.g. in
> Greece, where actual rivers (e.g. the Achelous) as
> well as
> mythological or half-mythological ones (the Styx)
> were personified and
> appeared as characters in myths. Among the important
> Iranian deities,
> the goddess Anahita was connected with a great river
> (possibly the
> Oxus, or indeed _any_ river of local importance).
> The identification
> of an area with its main river, and the deification
> of that river as
> the protector or (perhaps more often) protectress of
> the country was
> common among the Celts, whose tutelary river
> goddesses (Matrona,
> Sequana, Sabrina, Brigantia, etc.) are many and well
> known.
>
> I tend to agree with George that at least some
> aspects of the Rigvedic
> Sarasvati (as an actual river) should be identified
> with the Indus,
> which certainly flows all the way from the Himalayas
> to the ocean, is
> a really huge river and can with reason be regarded
> as the "mother" of
> the Saptasindhu, its upper basin being also the
> cradle of the Aryan
> culture as we know it. Such was certainly the
> opinion of early
> Sanskritologists (including Hermann G. Grassmann,
> for example).
> Various other rivers may have been referred to as
> <sarasvati:> at one
> time or another, especially if we regard the word as
> an epither rather
> than a proper name. Ironically, the idea of the
> Sarasvati as a mighty
> river lost in the Indian desert was conceived in the
> late 19th century
> by European scholars (such as C.F. Oldham) and
> popularised in the
> 1940's by Sir Aurel Stein.
>
> Piotr
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 00:26:05 +0000
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
Subject: Re: Laryngeal theory as an unnatural
Miguel:
>As I explained earlier, the change was actually /a:~/ > /a/ (as
>opposed to non-nasalized /a:/ > /o/). You can compare West-Germanic
>*bra:~hta, *þa:~hta > German/Dutch bracht(e), dacht(e) (as opposed to /a:/
> > /O:/ > /uo/ in *ma:ter- > moeder,
>Mutter).
Pre-IE nasalization. Granted. You seem to also be implying that
this nasalization was both an anticipatory and progressive change
of the vowel like that of laryngeals. (Both *xe & *ex > *xa & *ax)
Given the latter assumption, instances of *mo and *no should be
unexpected as well as occurences of *om and *on. Afterall, they
should have all become *ma/*na and *am/*an. Please explain the
following small sample of counterexamples:
*-mon-
*-kontx "-ty; decad"
*domo- "house"
*-om [gen.pl]
*kmtom "100"
*-ont(i) [3pp]
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 00:26:55 +0000
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
Subject: Re: Laryngeal theory as an unnatural
Miguel:
>Goodbye is from God-be-with-ye. It never had anything to do with
>"good".
Exactly :)
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 00:34:42 +0000
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
Subject: Re: Laryngeal theory as an unnatural
Miguel:
>Whereas you, on the other hand, have been perfectly willing to
>accept any counterexamples offered, as long as they are not compounds. Or
>derivatives (collectives). Or numerals. Or attested in Armenian. Or
>anything to do with dogs...
I've already stated my logical rejection of all derivatives
as valid counterexamples and there is nothing like **pkw-os as
a genitive, nor is there **pd-os. One numeral counterexample is
little to go on since "one" is too much like a third person
pronoun and pronominal declensions naturally retain
irregularities.
Second, last time I checked, it's bad methodology to use a
single language (whether it be Armenian or not) as the sole
basis for a reconstruction when other available daughter
languages even counter it.
And I don't know where you're going with this dogs thing. You're
taking this discussion to the dogs. **pkwo:n doesn't exist. What
don't you get??
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 03:11:15 -0000
From: "S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>" <kalyan97@...>
Subject: Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Juha Savolainen <juhavs@...> wrote:
> > Hi Dan,>
> Unfortunately, I have next to nothing to add to the> interesting
etymological question. However, I cannot> help pointing out a review
that must be interesting> for a geologist intrigued by the Saraswati
debates. I> refer to A. B. ROY´s review of "Saraswati: The River
> that Disappeared" by K. S. Valdiya (at CURRENT> SCIENCE, VOL. 83,
NO. 7, 10 OCTOBER 2002 902)
>
> http://tejas.serc.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/contents.htm
It is fine to read the critique contained in the book review.
Won't it be a good idea to read KS Valdiya's cute little book and
quote from it too see what he has to say after 50 years of
geological studies?
On the numbers of sites on River Sarasvati, read Gregory L. Possehl,
A Gazetter of Sites (over 250 pages) in Indus Age -- The Beginnings.
The list includes three sites on the river which are larger either
Mohenjodaro or Harappa (100 ha. each): Rakhigarhi (225 ha.),
Gurnikalan (200 ha.), Hasni (200 ha.), Ganweriwala (120 ha.). One
can speculate until the sites are fully excavated and documented.
About Haraxwaiti. Many Croats claim that they are descendants from
this region. Sarasvati > Haraxwaiti > Hravat > Kravat > Croat.
Counter? Nationalism!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:30:06 -0800 (PST)
From: george knysh <gknysh@...>
Subject: Re: Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
--- "S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>"
<kalyan97@...> wrote:
> About Haraxwaiti. Many Croats claim that they are
> descendants from
> this region. Sarasvati > Haraxwaiti > Hravat >
> Kravat > Croat.
> Counter? Nationalism!
*****GK: I believe there is a name (Khoroathos)
attested in the region of the North Caucasus prior to
500 AD, but I would need to check the source
(Ptolemy?). As for the Croats, there is little doubt
that most of them are of Slavic descent. My theory is
that when the Avars established their Empire in
Central Europe (568-->), they settled allied steppe
tribes on their northern and northeastern borders as
"guards" or "defenders" among the Slavs (I think there
is a word related to "Croat" in Slovak which retains
this meaning). The ethnicity of these steppe tribes
was likely mixed, but judging by the "ruling" names
preserved in Constantine Porphyrogenitus some may even
have been Turkic. As time passed they blended in with
a variety of local Slavic groups. The best known of
course are those who eventually settled in the former
Yugoslavia, but there was a string of "Croats" along
and beyond the Carpathians, esp. in Czechia, Poland,
and Ukraine. Only the "Yugoslav" Croats retained the
original (Iranic) name. I'm not sure if Khoroathos
implies the Afghan Harahvaiti, or some other. Perhaps
our linguists can say.****
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 01:11:03 EST
From: x99lynx@...
Subject: ROOTS AT LAST!!!
"S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...> writes:
<<About Haraxwaiti. Many Croats claim that they are descendants from this
region. Sarasvati > Haraxwaiti > Hravat > Kravat > Croat. Counter?
Nationalism!>>
I'm on the road, but this made things so clear that I had to write.
I'm not sure what being named after a river in India (or wherever) has to do
with Croat nationalism -- what did I miss the news? Are the Croats claiming
they have title to some land in India or something? -- but I do see a much
more telling genealogy revealed.
Just consider what impact THIS will have on our interpretation of history:
Sarasvati > Haraxwaiti > Hravat > Kravat....
Sarasvati > Sarosvatki > Sorotki > Sorok (!)
Kravat [i] Sorok!!! Mere coincidence? Ha! At last, the Urheimat of the
shirt and tie!! The birthplace of civilized men's fashions! Let's see what
the French have to say about that!!!
Counter? Abject haberdashery!!!
SL
PS - There may be a river named Ko-a-ton-a in Hawaii and if I were the
Croats -- with all due and much respect to the Indian nation -- I'd rather be
named after a river in Hawaii, especially if it gives you any kind of a claim
to ancestral land, particularly ocean-front.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 22:18:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Andrew Howey <andyandmae_howey@...>
Subject: Re: ROOTS AT LAST!!!
file://snip//
> PS - There may be a river named Ko-a-ton-a in Hawaii and > if I were the
Croats -- with all due and much respect to > the Indian nation -- I'd rather
be named after a river in > Hawaii, especially if it gives you any kind of a
claim to > ancestral land, particularly ocean-front.
Nope, no "t" in the Hawaiian language -- Koakona, maybe. :-)
Andy Howey
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 07:06:38 -0000
From: "S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>" <kalyan97@...>
Subject: Re: ROOTS AT LAST!!!
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, x99lynx@... wrote:> I'm on the
road, but this made things so clear that I had to write.
How could I guess that it was coming !
It is the economy, stupid, as the Americans would say. The guys from
the river bed named the region after that river and went on the road
searching for tin... desperately needed to harden copper.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 07:57:26 -0000
From: "S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>" <kalyan97@...>
Subject: Why Nahali? Why not? It is INDIC !
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:> I fail to see what Nahali has to do
with the Indus or the Sarasvati. As for the rest, the term "the
Indus Valley (or Harappan) Civilisation" represents traditional
usage, justified by the fact that most of the cities of that
civilisation were located within the Indus system.
Let me cite from Hans Henrich Hock, Pre-Rigvedic convergence between
Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit) and Dravidian? A survey of the issues and
controversies in: Jan E.M. Houben, 1996, Ideology and Status of
Sanskrit: Contributions to the History of the Sanskrit Language, EJ
Brill.
My hypothesis: multiple migrations to-and-fro from out of Bharat
absorbing retroflexion and alveolarization from a non-Indo-Aryan
prehistoric northwestern substratum, creating INDIC. (e.g.
Burushaski, Nahali)
I think the failure of the linguists in classifying Burushaski and
Nahali may hold the key to the decipherment of the language spoken
on the Sarasvati River Basin and in the coastal regions of Gulf of
Khambat, Gulf of Kutch and Makran Coast (South of Karachi).
[quote]South Asia is home to at least six distinct language
families: Indo-Aryan, Eastern Iranian, Tibeto-Burman, Austro-
asiatic, Munda, and Dravidian, plus an 'unaffiliated' language in
the extreme north, Burushaski. [Footnote: Nahali might constitute
the remnant of yet another language family -- Kuiper 1962, 1966 with
references]...Indo-Aryan and Iranian are closely related to each
other, and Munda is remotely related to Austro-Asiatic. For the
remaining language families, outside genetic relationship is at best
controversial. If they are related to each other, their relationship
is so remote that any shared similarities must be secondary...The
closest relatives of Brahui, thus, either migrated from the south or
are now located there. This fact lends credence to the Brahuis' own
tradition of foreign origin. As concluded in Hock 1975, 1984, we
therefore cannot take the present location of Brahui as guaranteeing
a Dravidian presence in the prehistoric northwest. [Note that
Emeneau (1962: 70, fn.10), while preferring to consider Brahui an
isolated relic, does admit the possibility that further work may
show the language to have migrated from a more southerly
position.]..In fact, various Indo-Aryan languages and their speakers
have likewise remigrated to the north, including Dumaki (close to
present-day Shina), Gandhari Prakrit (medieval Khotan and farther
east), and Parya in modern Uzbekistan (Comrie 1981). The most famous
group is that of the D.om (or 'Gypsies') who via Central Asia spread
all over Eurasia. The evidence cited above combined with the
possibility of remigration, however, casts doubt on the cogency of
what might have appeared the simplest explanation, namely that the
present-day location of Brahui coincides roughly with its location
in prehistoric times...Subversionists operate with the assumption of
unidirectional Dravidian influence on Indo-Aryan, affecting four
major structural features. Three of these are syntactic (SOV order,
absolutives, and quotative marking); one is phonological (the
contrast dental: retroflex)...Anti-Subversionists question the
cogency of the arguments for a prehistoric Dravidian presence in
northwest South Asia...Retroflexion is more problematic; but the
early Dravidian and Indo-Aryan phonological systems of retrofled
(and alveolar) sounds differ too much to be explainable by
Subversion...Overall, then, the Subversionist hypothesis is not
established beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. Finally, as shown especially
in 4.1 and 4.2, the claik that Subversion is the SIMPLEST account
meets with the objection that the simplest explanation is not always
the most accurate one. WHile many of the objections to the
Subversion hypothesis cast doubt on its cogency, they do
not 'disprove' it. Rather, they should be considered challenges for
Subversionists to improve their arguments or to find additional, and
better, evidence...In this regard, a few of the observations in 4.1-
9 may suggest possible new avenues for research. One of these is
Tikkane3n's claim (1987 with 1988) that the structural similarities
between Dravidian and Indo-Aryan are due to an unknown prehistoric
northwestern substratum, which is also responsible for the large
number of non-Dravidian (and non-Munda) borrowings in early Indo-
Aryan...As noted in 4.9, the testimony of the RigVeda suggests that
the early relation between Indo-Aryans and non-Indo-Aryans was not
as unequal as generally assumed, but may rather have constituted an
extended relationship of shifting alliances with each other,
requiring bi- or multi-lingual interaction as near-equals...In fact,
the Dravidian dental: alveolar: retroflex contrast and the Indo-
Aryan d3ental: retroflex contrast might very well be attributed to
prehistoric convergence -- if the hypothesis that these contrasts
arose through a JOINT innovation (4.8) can be supported by
additional arguments...avenues for further research therefore would
seem to lie in further pursing this 'Convergence Hypothesis'
regarding the origination of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian retroflexion
(and alveolarization). [unquote]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:54:08 +0100
From: Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
Subject: Re: Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
----- Original Message -----
From: <kalyan97@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 4:11 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
> About Haraxwaiti. Many Croats claim that they are descendants from this
region.
Not MANY Croats. A group of Croats running a website where they promote Croat
nationalism. One part of their message is that the Croats are not really Slavs
but a lost Iranian tribe from the Cloud-Cuckoo-Land of Arachosia.
> Sarasvati > Haraxwaiti > Hravat > Kravat > Croat.
Counter? Nationalism!
The name *xUrvat- may well be Iranian (at least it _looks_ Iranian), but,
enigmatic as it is, it can't have anything to do with Haraxwaiti. Several
etymologists (including Vasmer and Trubachev) have attempted to explain it in
various ways and with varying luck. I have myself contemplated a few
possibilities, e.g. a connection with Iranian *harva- (Av. hauruua-, Skt.
sarva-) 'whole, complete, healthy'. This would square quite well with
<kHoroatHos> from the Tanais inscription, and with George's idea that the
"original" Croats ewere regarded as borderguards or defenders. It should go
without saying, though, that whatever the origin of the name, that all Croats
are linguistically Slavic and the name is the only possibly Iranian thing about
them.
Piotr
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:41:58 -0000
From: "S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>" <kalyan97@...>
Subject: When did 'arya' become 'aryan' ?
'Arya' is a term denoting good conduct and cultured behaviour in the
R.gveda.
When did the term, 'aryan' as a linguistic category evolve -- a
categorisation which rapidly degraded into a people category?
Accordingto Labov (1994: 27), 'The close examination of the present
shows that much of the past is still with us. The study of history
benefits from the continuityof the past as well as from analogies
with the present." [Labov, William, 1994, Principles of Linguistic
Change, Volume I: Internal Factors. Language in Society 20 Oxford
UK, Blackwell.]
When did Sarasvats become Hravats? Earlier than the times of the
Behistun inscription which mention the latter category of people?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:53:54 +0100
From: Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
Subject: Re: Laryngeal theory as an unnatural
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 00:26:05 +0000, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:
>Miguel:
>>As I explained earlier, the change was actually /a:~/ > /a/ (as
>>opposed to non-nasalized /a:/ > /o/). You can compare West-Germanic
>>*bra:~hta, *þa:~hta > German/Dutch bracht(e), dacht(e) (as opposed to /a:/
>> > /O:/ > /uo/ in *ma:ter- > moeder,
>>Mutter).
>
>Pre-IE nasalization. Granted. You seem to also be implying that
>this nasalization was both an anticipatory and progressive change
>of the vowel like that of laryngeals. (Both *xe & *ex > *xa & *ax)
Well, it's not as simple as that, far from it. The problem of /a/ is
a tough and subtle one, and simple rules do not apply.
>Given the latter assumption, instances of *mo and *no should be
>unexpected as well as occurences of *om and *on. Afterall, they
>should have all become *ma/*na and *am/*an. Please explain the
>following small sample of counterexamples:
>
> *-mon-
> *-kontx "-ty; decad"
> *domo- "house"
> *-om [gen.pl]
> *kmtom "100"
> *-ont(i) [3pp]
The only claim I made in my last post was for an Anlaut development
**má:- > *má- (instead of expected *mó-). I'm pretty sure it doesn't
apply to **na:- (> *no-). It also clearly doesn't apply to unstressed
**a: (*o) or to thematic *o. I'm not sure about **-má:- in internal
position.
There are cases of internal /á/ which may be explained as nasalized
**á:~, with the nasalization caused by a _following_ /m/ or /n/
(standard example: *g^hans-), and the conditioning there seems to be,
at least, that the nasal must be followed by yet another consonant
(possibly in the situation _before_ zero grade). Before a fricative,
the nasal is sometimes retained (*g^hans-, *dansos), before stops, it
appears to have disappeared (*labh-, *swad-), although there are
exceptions to the first rule (*k^as-, *nas-?).
The tentative rules I would formulate for now are:
1. **má:- > *má-
2. **-á:NC- > *-á(n)C-
The only relevant counterexample is *(d)k^omt-h2, the collective of
*dék^mt "10", where the /m/ and the /t/ possibly were not adjacent in
pre-zero-grade PIE (*d&ká:m&t-?).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:59:22 -0000
From: "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...>
Subject: Re: Fw: Latin versus *Proto-Romance
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <tgpedersen@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [tied] Latin versus *Proto-Romance
>
>
> > What are the names that are composed with Karl- (or Swain-, a
parallel example)? Anyway, if something was once down, now up, it
must have changed position at some time. Are you saying the word had
become meaningless at that time?
>
> No, what I'm saying is that a name identifies its bearer but is not
supposed to "mean" anything even if it has an etymological meaning.
We know virtually nothing about early Germanic slang. I would not
exclude the possibility that *karl- stood for something
like 'buddy', 'fellow' or 'lad', cf. Scots carl(e), carlie, Ger.
Kerl, and simply stuck to some individuals as a nickname before being
formalised (same with *swain-).
>
> Piotr
That sounds reasonable enough. But there's another thing: The Roman
emperors were officially Caesars (part of their name, even), but the
Carolingian kings were not titled Carls.
BTW in Danish a 'karl' is a farmhand. His employer, the farmer, is
(qua top man on the farm) his 'husbond'. Cf English. Same
relationship, the boss.
Torsten
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:08:55 -0000
From: "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...>
Subject: Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
>
>
>
The neuter noun <saras> means 'pool, pond', and is usually
reconstructed as *seles-, nom.sg. selos, because of Gk. helos 'marshy
meadow, backwater'.
Is that the same root as the one in the town of Lycksele, Sweden, and
Brussels (*brug-sele- "bridge pond"?)?
Torsten
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:19:07 -0000
From: "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...>
Subject: Re: ROOTS AT LAST!!!
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, x99lynx@... wrote:
> "S.Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...> writes:
> <<About Haraxwaiti. Many Croats claim that they are descendants
from this
> region. Sarasvati > Haraxwaiti > Hravat > Kravat > Croat. Counter?
> Nationalism!>>
>
> I'm on the road, but this made things so clear that I had to write.
>
> I'm not sure what being named after a river in India (or wherever)
has to do
> with Croat nationalism -- what did I miss the news? Are the Croats
claiming
> they have title to some land in India or something? -- but I do see
a much
> more telling genealogy revealed.
>
> Just consider what impact THIS will have on our interpretation of
history:
>
> Sarasvati > Haraxwaiti > Hravat > Kravat....
> Sarasvati > Sarosvatki > Sorotki > Sorok (!)
>
> Kravat [i] Sorok!!! Mere coincidence? Ha! At last, the Urheimat
of the
> shirt and tie!! The birthplace of civilized men's fashions! Let's
see what
> the French have to say about that!!!
>
> Counter? Abject haberdashery!!!
> SL
>
> PS - There may be a river named Ko-a-ton-a in Hawaii and if I were
the
> Croats -- with all due and much respect to the Indian nation -- I'd
rather be
> named after a river in Hawaii, especially if it gives you any kind
of a claim
> to ancestral land, particularly ocean-front.
Ah! To be on the road again! How I miss it. Nothing sweeter than
travelling; it clears your mind of other peoples' imagined sacred
borders and stupid claims to territories. But sweeter still to return
to your own little garden patch which hopefully hasn't been trampled
down by stupid other peoples in the meanwhile.
Torsten
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:45:03 -0000
From: "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...>
Subject: 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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/