Re: Retroflex Consonants in P.I.E. (was [tied] Re: A New language t

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

From: david_russell_watson

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:36 AM

Subject: Retroflex Consonants in P.I.E. (was [tied] Re: A New language tree)

<snip>

Well I know little about Nostratic besides the fact that
Nostraticists must work backwards from P.I.E. and other
properly reconstructed proto-languages, and not the other 
way around. Therefore one can't demonstrate the existence
of retroflexes in P.I.E. solely on the basis of their
being useful to one or another Nostratic theory.

***

Patrick writes:

 

Well, I hope that is not what I am doing.

 

Let me be explicit about what I think. Perhaps that will eliminate the need for some discussion of some points.

 

For apical (coronal) consonants only: believing I had observed a correlation between Nostratic *Co and retroflexion in Proto-Dravidian (retroflex) and Proto-Afro-Asiatic (retroflex -> emphatic,as manifested in Arabic), I speculated that PIE _might_ have had a similar response.

 

1) The only indication for this was the existence of cerebrals (retroflex) in Old Indian.

 

    a) I acknowledge that the Old Indian cerebrals, if descended from PIE, would be the only possible evidence of which I am aware for retroflex articulation in PIE.

 

 

2) I was vaguely aware of the RUKI theory.

 

3) I assumed that Old Indian had three classes of cerebrals:

 

    a) those derived from contact with Dravidian;

    b) those derived from RUKI;

    c) and those which might have been inherited from PIE.

 

        1)) For any Old Indian cerebrals that could not be demonstrated to be derived from Dravidian or 

             from RUKI, they would suggest that PIE had retroflexion that was subsequently lost in all derived

             languages except Old Indian;

             or that Old Indian independently innovated. 

        2)) If it could be proved that Old Indian independently innovated along the lines of RUKI but with some

             other rationale, the matter of PIE retroflexion could be closed since there would be _no_ evidence to

             suggest it.

        3)) If that could not be proved, then Nostratic patterns observable in Proto-Dravidian and Proto-Afro-

             Asiatic might have once also obtained in PIE, for which the "unexplained" cerebrals of Old Indian

             would be an indication but not necessarily a proof. 

 

Now, I believe your position is roughly:

 

1) Virtually all Old Indian cerebrals can be explained as a result of RUKI, contact with Dravidians, and contact with Munda-speakers.     

 

    a) Apparent exceptions to the operation of RUKI can also be explained.

    b) and you add the thought, new to me, that the earliest source of retroflex articulation will have beenre it

        Munda and other Austro-Asiatic languages, for both Proto-Dravidian and earliest Old Indian so that

        whatever the Dravidian influence on Old Indian, the ultimate source is Austro-Asiatic.

Presumably you will grant that for speakers of Old Indian, retroflexion was a mark of low register, and some effort over time would have been made to eliminate it in Old Indian - whether the source was Austro-Asiatic contact or secondary Austro-Asiatic contact _through_ Dravidian; or RUKI generated.

    

---------

Does that fairly summarize our respective positions?

 

---------

 

Now, my comments on the above points.

 

1) That retroflexion has been retained in Old Indian where RUKI predicts it is, not of itself, completely convincing. Let us bear in mind that RUKI was formulated to account for actual retroflexion not theoretical retroflexion. So we would expect to see retroflexion where RUKI "predicts" (really "observes") it. Could you agree that there is a certain circularity here.

 

    a)) All that notwithstanding, if you can confidently assert that there is no observable tendency to

         eliminate retroflex articulation where it is observed in earlier stages of Old Indian, based on your greater

         familiarity with Indian matters generally, I am prepared to give up the idea that retroflexion is perceived

         as a marker of low register, and that some attempts to limit or suppress have been made. That was a

         purely theoretical speculation, not based on any solid data.

 

2) Whether PIE had retroflex articulation or not has no bearing on my reconstruction of Nostratic. 

 

3) Whether Old Indian retroflexion is, in part, inherited, or whether all Old Indian retroflexion is due to combinatory phonology and Munda or Munda-inspired (Dravidian) contact, has no bearing on my reconstruction of Nostratic.

 

4) The origin of retroflex/emphatic articulation in Proto-Afro-Asiatic and Proto-Dravidian _does_ have a connection with my reconstruction of Nostratic. The nature of individual reconstructions is such that often multiple reconstructions of a given word seem possible. Any indication of vowel quality from whatever source helps to narrow the range of possibilities which is otherwise quite large.

 

    a) To give an example, in order to reconstruct Nostratic *tHo, I need as many confirming indications as I   

        can obtain from what I believe are cognates; in this case, t in Egyptian, tu in Sumerian, To (retroflex) in

        Proto-Dravidian, Sa (emphatic s) in Proto-Afro-Asiatic. PIE *t confirms the consonant but gives no

        indication of the vowel. And if the *tho is the second element in a root, Sumerian will give only t. If an

        Egyptian cognate cannot be found, in the absence of a Proto-Dravidian or Proto-Afro-Asiatic cognate

        with T(o) or S(a), the quality of the vowel in the second syllable cannot be identified, except

        theoretically. So I do have an investment in Dravidian cerebrals and Proto-Afro-Asiatic emphatics as a

        part of my Nostratic reconstruction. 

 

    b) I could accept that Dravidian cerebrals were purely occasioned by Munda if they were formed from

        Proto-Dravidian *to but _not_ from *ta or *te.

 

        a)) I would be reluctant to accept that Munda also occasioned cerebralization in Proto-Dravidian *ta

             and *te because there are many examples of Egyptian t corresponding Proto-Dravidian *T(o) and

             none, to my knowledge, corresponding to Proto-Dravidian *t(a) or *t(e).

 

    c) I could also accept that Proto-Afro-Asiatic emphatics (retroflexes) were a result of outside contact

        rather than inner development if the outside influence were restricted to *Co at a time before all

        inherited Nostratic vowels (*e, *a, *o) were leveled to Proto-Afro-Asiatic *a.

 

For better or worse, those are my thoughts of the moment.

 

***

>   That could account for a gradual elimination of originally
> inherited retroflexes - if there was such a phenomenon.

Such a process wouldn't discriminate between retroflexes
arising after RUKI, and retroflexes supposedly inherited
from P.I.E., but we see no such pattern. Where the rules
that I described require a retroflex, one almost invariably
appears. In the few instances where it does not, there
is usually a very convincing explanation why it does not.
For one thing, some are next to the morpheme boundary
following a prefix ending in one of RUKI. On the other
hand, where a retroflex occurs outside the context of
the RUKI change, there is usually a clear Dravidian or
Munda source. 

I'm sure a list of all of the unexplained retroflexes has
been made - though I don't know offhand where you might
locate it - the items on which you could compare to those
which you suppose had retroflexes in P.I.E., and see if
any pattern emerges. 

 

***

Good idea!

 

Summarizing, my idea that some Old Indian retroflexes were an inherited response from PIE was an attempt to explain Old Indian retroflexes rather than an attempt to reconstruct any part of Nostratic.

 

I want to thank you for the effort you have took to seriously discuss these questions. Sometimes, we have hazy, unconnected thoughts that only crystallize into an organized position when they are investigated by another party.

 

Your comments inspired me to organize my thoughts better on this subject, and I am grateful.

 

 

Patrick

***

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>   By the way, why not call it RUCKI? I would bet the Slavicists
> on the list would appreciate that.

The term was borrowed from the ancient Indian grammarians,
for whom the result of *c^ was 's^', and of the cluster
*c^s was 'kS' (S = retroflex 's') arising out of an older
*TS (T = retroflex 't'). Therefore they had no reason to
suspect the existence of an older *c^.  

***

Patrick writes:

 

Better yet: RUŠKI.

 

This is purely an _attempt_ at humor.

Patrick

***





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/