Kalya,
Linguistics is not my turf but as you insist on
discussing Harmatta, Misra and Mallory and the topic
happens to be related to Uralic/Finno-Ugric languages,
I cannot resist the temptation to add something to
this discussion.
First, I have not read Misra�s book but I have got the
impression that according to Misra �the borrowed
elements in the Uralic languages show borrowed Rgvedic
forms in 5000 BC�. If this is indeed Misra�s view, he
makes here two major errors: First, the dating of the
PU is even more uncertain than the dating of the PIE
and in fact scholars have tried to date the PU by
finding correlations with the PIE. Second, no linguist
of any repute seems to accept Misra�s claim that these
borrowings come from �Rgvedic forms�. I can assure you
that the Finnish linguists, indologists etc. of whose
work I have some knowledge would categorically reject
such ideas � read Koivulehto, H�kkinen, Parpola etc.
and you will see my point.
So much for Misra and Harmatta. Now to J.P.Mallory�s
�unresolved question�. To make this discussion
somewhat more interesting than what it has so far
been, I cite here Mallory from:
�Uralics and Indo-Europeans: Problems of Time and
Space; in �Uralics and Indo-Europeans: Problems of
Time and Space, in Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola
and Petteri Koskikallio (eds.), Early contacts between
Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and
archaeological considerations. (M�moires de la Soci�t�
Finno-Ougrienne, 242.) Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society,
2001):
�Uralicists have long discussed and debated the
presence of what would appear to be PIE words in
Uralic (or some subset of it, particularly the western
segments of the chain) and, therefore, this
presupposes that western Uralic was in contact with
undifferentiated IE (=PIE) somewhere in or near Baltic
region. But if the major changes that define the
individual subgroups of Balto-Slavic or Germanic did
not come into being until well into the second
millennium BC, this does not necessarily speak for an
early presence of western Uralic in the Baltic. We
have to be aware of unstable anchors that fix neither
the temporal nor spatial dimensions of Uralic but
merely let it float in some form of ill-defined
relationship with IE. Some specific examples should
make it clear how serious this issue is.
Both Jorma Koivulehto (this volume) and Pekka
Sammallahti (this volume) make a good case for setting
the westernmost Uralic languages in a contact
relationship with undifferentiated IE, i.e. language
state which is to all intents equivalent with PIE.
This defines a period of loans before more recent
Balto-Slavic and then Germanic and individual Baltic
and Slavic loans. As the Corded Ware culture of
northern Europe is widely regarded as the
archaeological equivalent of late northern IE, i.e. a
linguistic ancestor to what would later emerge as
Meillet�s Northwest IE dialects (Germanic, Baltic,
Slavic), then it might be argued that this indicates
that the chain of Uralic languages extended to the
Baltic by this time if not somewhat earlier. The place
of the contact should be the east Baltic region.
The problem with this is twofold. As we have seen,
Late IE may have extended (must if one believes most
estimates) to 1500 BC or later in which case the
contact between undifferentiated IE and western Uralic
in the Baltic region need not have been anywhere as
early as imagined, i.e., a loanword from Late (western
European) Indo-European in the second millennium BC
could pass for Proto-Indo-European. Alternatively,
Uralicists must not ignore the fact that the
Fat�yanovo culture...extended eastwards throughout the
entire upper Volga region. As part of the greater
Corded Ware phenomenon, it may have been responsible
for undifferentiated IE loans entering western Uralic
in the third millennium BC. In this way Uralic or
later Finno-Ugric could have taken up loanwords from
undifferentiated IE near the Urals and then
Balto-Slavic and Germanic loans appeared
progressively, over space as well as time, as it
spread westwards towards the Baltic.
In short, the use of external contact dating depends
on temporal and spatial relationships that have often
assumed to provide better anchors that they
necessarily do.�
Yes, there are problems with �external contact dating�
and Mallory emphasises them. But he does not abandon
research in favour of �anything goes, so let us choose
the homeland and the history that makes us feel good�
� approach. Instead, Mallory proposes criteria for
acceptance for any proposed homeland solutions. In
fact, I have cited in my earlier post the above
article by Mallory, precisely for the purpose of
inviting comments on Mallory�s criteria and the OIT of
Indo-European dispersal. Here are Mallory�s criteria
once again:
(1) Temporal-spatial plausibility
(2) Exclusion principle (it is unlikely that the IE
homeland lay in a territory already occupied by a
non-IE language)
(3) Relationship principle (the IE homeland solution
must accommodate the inter-group relationships of the
IE family)
(4) Total distribution principle (the solution to the
IE home problem must explain all the languages
belonging to the IE family)
(5) Archaeological plausibility
Needless to say, but Mallory finds OIT unacceptable in
the light of his criteria.
P.S. You also wanted to know about the linguistic
situation in the Indian subcontinent around 3500 BCE.
Try Michael Witzel � he has many interesting thoughts
about this topic, too�
Regards, Juha
--- "S.Kalyanaraman <
kalyan97@...>"
<
kalyan97@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G"
> <petegray@...> wrote:> But
> what is not fun, is watching you repeat irrelevant
> or illogical
> material> over and over, paying no attention to what
> has been said.
> In my never> humble opinion, this is not "learning
> from experts".
>
> Well, the JIES seems to think differently and has
> published an
> article raising a lot of issues, just recently.
>
> I hope the Cybalist members will make their
> contributions to the
> journal on the issue to clarify the points raised
> (maybe, again and
> again, because the earlier answers are considered
> vague).
>
> Is there a ban on referring to Mallory's quote? The
> question raised
> by him has not been answered so far, I think, in my
> never humble
> opinion.
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/