Retroflex Consonants in P.I.E.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>
> 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.

Well I've made no more than the most casual and superficial
examination of Nostratics, and so simply don't know enough
to form an opinion on whether it had retroflexes or not. I
only say that I see no evidence that P.I.E. ever had them.

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

But it really isn't an indication unless there's some sort
of correlation between specific Indo-Aryan forms containing
retroflexes, and the specific P.I.E. forms for which you
posit retroflexes.

> 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;

No, I think it would still only indicate some sporadic
process or unexplained source within Indo-Aryan alone.
Without some sort of correlation with forms from at least
one other I.E. language, it wouldn't be methodologically
proper to attribute them to some distinction in P.I.E.

> 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.

Well the RUKI change affected all of the Satem group, not
just Indo-Aryan.

> 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 -

No, not at all. I know of no evidence that retroflexion was
ever connected with low register. The ancient Indians left
at least a few mentions of regional dialectal variations,
and sometimes even of the supposed character of the speakers
of some of those dialects, but in none of it is there any
hint that retroflex consonants were a mark of low register.

I understand your reasoning of course, which is that since
the retroflex pronunciation originated with the supposedly
conquered speakers of Indo-Aryan substrates, it would
naturally have become associated with a low register.
However that's only an assumption, and one moreover
based on the prior assumption of a full-blown military
conquest of India by invading Aryans. Since it's really
another topic all its own, I won't go into detail now as
to why I don't give much credence to the classic Aryan
invasion model. I will ask though: if any ancient Indians
ever actually believed it was desirable to replace the
retroflex consonants in their speech with the respective
dental counterparts, and they were able to do so, why
wouldn't they have then done so with each and every one
of them, instead of only a few, and moreover only a few
out of those arising outside of the results of the RUKI
change? For example, if I admired and wanted to emulate
the speech of the upper-class British, I would trill
every one of my 'r'-s, not just a few in select words.

I recommend Madhav Deshpande's 'Sociolinguistic Attitudes
in India: An Historical Reconstruction', if you can get
a hold of it.

> Does that fairly summarize our respective positions?

More or less.

> 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.

No, I don't see the circularity, but then I don't quite
understand your paragraph here either. For one thing, I
don't understand the difference between "actual" and
"theoretical" retroflexion.

> 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.

I don't have any table or word lists before me or anything
like that, but my understanding is that the number of forms
with retroflexes in Sanskrit actually increased over time,
not decreased.

> > 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!

More than that, I think it's the one and only way you have
available to make a case. I think maybe T. Burrow lists
some unexpected occurences of retroflexes in the back of
his 'Sanskrit Language'. You might look there.

> 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.

You're welcome.

> Sometimes, we have hazy, unconnected thoughts that only crystallize
> into an organized position when they are investigated by another

party.

Yes, it's often a distinguishing mark of crackpots that
they believe they can make great breakthroughs all on
their own and disdain peer review and criticism. Such
people must imagine that they know everything, that they
can never miss any angle, and that they can never make
any mistake in reasoning. Personally, I'm always happy
to get as much help as I can.

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

L.O.L. Yes, I guess that would please the Russian
slavicists most of all.

David