Re: [tied] Retroflex Consonants in P.I.E.

david_russell_watson wrote:

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

There's no evidence for RUKI in Albanian or Armenian, so it actually
affected Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.

> 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.

Would you, David? Uppercrust UK English is non-rhotic, just like
mainstream RP. If there's anything peculiar about its /r/'s, it's the
old-fashioned tapping of those in <very>, <hurry>, <far away>, <the idea
[r] is> etc. (i.e. when intervocalic before an unstressed syllable, and
in sandhi).

Piotr

>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>