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

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

From: david_russell_watson

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:35 PM

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

<snip>

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.  

***

Patrick writes:

Well, a few corresondences seemed to be there but some that were expected were not there.

 

I attributed this to the instability of the cerebrals generally, and am now beginning to think that my idea (former) really does not have sufficient justification.

>           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. 

***

Patrick writes:

 

I have to accept your conclusion.

***

 

 

> 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. 

***

Patrick writes:

 

Shamefacedly, I admit that I was not aware of the satem aspect of RUKI.

***

>   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.  

 

***

Patrick writes:

 

When someone, who is more familiar with Indian literature than I will ever be, tells me there is no mention of retroflexion as a mark of low register, I gladly accept the information. Of course, that means, I have to shelve my speculation as baselees.

***

>   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.   

***

Patrick writes:

 

Well, you have convinced me otherwise. But for clarity's sake only, what I was getting at is that the RUKI rule as I now superficially understand it explains retroflexion as a phonological modification due to the phonological environment, which it defines by actually looking at actual recorded retroflexes.

 

None of the examples you gave suggested to me that one could find a non-retroflex word, which, upon composition with another element which now created the required environment, became retroflex. But I suspect tnow that you could provide one or two of those. Please forgive if you did and I did not notice at the time.

***

<snip>

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.    

***

Patrick writes:

 

Well, at least I slipped under the wire on that one.

 

But let me thank you again for your thoughts and information. I have corrected my views accordingly.

 

With the breadth of what I am attempting to do, it is simply impossible for me to be more than passably familiar with all the materials that could inform me. I have to rely on people like yourself with real backgrounds in the various disciplines involved for feedback when I get off the rails.

 

Patrick