Re: Gypsies again

I just received the following message from a former member. The 2nd and 3rd
references of his are relevant for Romany origins, so I'm passing on
*without comment* the claim that pre-Sanskrit never had an a/e/o split. I
can't remember us actually spending any significant time discussing it.

Incidentally, we still haven't tried Kazanas's test paper - the question on
the perfect in Section 14 of
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/SPIE.pdf does not look simple
to answer!

Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: <smykelkar@...>
To: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 10:11 PM
Subject: Gypsies again


> dom is IA not Dravidian. It mean to entertain. Marathi has the word
> dombari (entertainer) from the root dom.
>
> see below:
>
> http://vepa.us/dir8/Sanskrit%20ssmisra2.htm
>
> http://www.paulpolansky.nstemp.com/gypsies.htm
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/language.htm
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/friends.htm
>
> http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch32.htm
>
> "The second element in the progressive separation of Sanskrit from PIE was
> the impression that the [a/e/o] differentiation in Latin and Greek was
> original, and that their reduction to [a] in Sanskrit was a subsequent
> development (as in Greek genos corresponding to Sanskrit jana). Satya
> Swarup Misra argues that it may just as well have been the other way
> around, and unlike the palatalization process, this vowel shift is indeed
> possible in either direction.13 Mishra cites examples from the Gypsy
> language, but we need look no farther than English, where [a], still
> preserved in “bar”, has practically become [e] in “back” and “bake”, and
> [o] in “ball”."
>
> http://www.gypsy-traveller.org/pdfs/booklist.pdf
>
> M. Kelkar