--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> No, it's a very small number. Especially considering the fact that
> they only occur in peripheral vocabulary (plant and animal names,
> personal, tribal and geographical names).
Southworth and Cardona point to a Language 'x' to explain about 80 %
of 'agricultural' words in Hindi.
> >If such words have also been found in some of the Prakrit
> >lexicons (say, Hemacandra des'ina_mama_la_), treating them as
> >offspring from Pre-Indo-Aryan substrate -- PIAS), can't some
> >progress be made?
> > Threating _what_ as offspring from "PIAS"?
Treating the 'non-Indo-Aryan loan' words in Prakrits as offspring
from PIAS.
> At> the same time, the presence of at least two non-IE languages
> (Burushaski and "language X") right in the middle of what
partisans of> the IVC-language = Early Indo-Aryan hypothesis
consider to be the IE> Urheimat, and the absence of any trace of non-
Indo-Iranian IE> languages (with the possible exception of pre-
Bangani) is> problematical to say the least.
Together with Nahali, are we not dealing with an antique stratum in
India?
If three non-IE languages [assuming Nahali also to be one such --
even though Piotr considers this to be an Indo-Aryan language? --,
apart from Burushaski and Language 'x'] can explain PIAS, a good
percentage of PIAS vocabulary may be accounted for, say, to create a
vocabulary for material artefacts unearthed from archaeological
sites? The archaeologists seem to be agreed that the culture of IVC
continued in the region, with an east-ward shift to the Ganga-Yamuna
doab.
Is there a way to differentiate beteen a non-IE language and non-
Indo-Iranian IE language?
In a contact area of IVC, across the gulf, there are some hints that
a substrate language may explain Sumerian words: sanga 'priest';
simug 'blacksmith' and tibira 'copper smith'; engar 'farmer',
apin 'plow' and absin 'furrow; nangar 'carpenter', a:gab 'leather
worker'; kish 'name of a city'.
Thanks a lot Miguel.