Re: [tied] Re: Indo-Iranian

Now I seem to see: any "Dardic" language is genetically just an Indic language like Bengali or Gujarati, right?

Yes, a family tree is not the best way to describe the situation when dialects developed for a long time without proper isolation.

Still I'd like to clear up the situation for myself a little better.

Suppose we have a mother language which produced 2 dialects which were well isolated for a while, and then started to interact again intensively.

What can happen then? I see 2 variants:

1 - if these 2 languages (dialects) remained mutually intelligible, they form a dialectal continuity again;

2 - if they managed to change considerably, they remain 2 distinctive languages with extensive mutual borrowings.

Which scenario will be realized? It must depend on how long was this "while" (and on the intensity of changing both languages during the period of isolation, of course, but usually we can't measure it).

If the period of isolation was as short as 50 years, surely we get the first situation.

If the period of isolation was as long as 2000 years, surely we get the second situation.

Where is the border (approximately)? What is the critical period?

I guess the answer can depend on the epoque and on linguistic peculiarities. If so, let us restrict the question to the Indo-Iranian languages and the epoques of the Middle Bronze Age - the Early Medieval Age (about 2000 BC - 1000 AD).

Alexander

----- Original Message -----

From: Piotr Gasiorowski

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 1:42 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Indo-Iranian

14-06-03 22:32, Alexander Stolbov wrote:

Thank you, Piotr.

The order of branching is clear here.

I'd like to return to the Dardic problem now.

It was suggested to divide so called Dardic languages into 6 genetically homogeneous groups (Chitral, Kunar etc.). In other words we know now 8 different Indo-Aryan sub-branches - Mitanni IA, the Indic languages proper (the Prakrits, Sanskrit, Vedic and their descendants) and 6 other independent "Dardic" subgroups.

The first branch which split off was Mitanni IA.

What a branch was the second? We know it was not Indic proper - otherwise the Dardic languages would form a cluster.
Why's that? The Dardic languages are derived from the "Prakrits", i.e. the regional varieties of Middle Indic. Place them among "their descendants", not outside. They have no special status within modern Indic.

This means that some of the Dardic branches split off earlier, other remained a whole with Indic proper (future Prakrits).

The question is: which of the Dardic branches was the last one parted with Indic proper?
It's a bit futile to try to construct a finely detailed family tree for a dialectal network -- and that's what modern Indic is like. Early splits must have been largely obliterated due to areal convergence. As I said above, there's nothing peculiar about the Dardic languages, except for their eccentric geographical position. Piotr

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.