--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Edgard Bikelis" <bikelis@...>
wrote:
> >
> > Urgh. Some people seem too affected by invasions, migrations or
> any other > > kind of movement.
>
> Not "some people;" a lot of "people" including recognized
> archaeologists, historians and geneticists.
Since Mayuresh is inundating all the discussion forums he has a
membership in with this stuff, I'd urge informed List members to
comment on the linguistic validity of the "lexical self-dating
principle" Mario Alinei's Palaeolithic Continuity Theory is, as per
his (Alinei's) own admission, almost entirely based upon. One could
start from the "test example" of his methodology -- the name
for 'tar' in Germanic languages -- he deemed appropriate to offer to
the audience of the European Association of Archaeologists 3rd
Annual Meeting (Ravenna 1997):
http://www.continuitas.com/invasionless.pdf
<< Linguistic differentiation by Mesolithic times is one of the main
points of my book, and will also be of the following volume. I have
proved this point by using a very simple linguistic principle
(called lexical self-dating), by which the names of all tools,
techniques and notions, the beginning of which can be dated with
certainty to the Late Paleolithic or Mesolithic (such as arrow,
needle, awl, tar, harpoon, net, amd the like), can be dated to the
same period, provided certain stringent linguistic conditions are
satisfied.
By using this method, for example, most Germanic names of fishing
tools and working techniques, which continue without essential
modifications Mesolithic innovations, should be dated to the
Mesolithic.
Let me give at least one example of this kind of analysis: given the
fact that the production of tar from trees begins to be documented
only in Mesolithic, it is quite significant to note that the name
for 'tar' in Germanic languages (Engl. tar, Germ. Teer, Du. teer,
dan. tjÏre, sved. tjära and so on) represent a specific Germanic
development from a word of common IE stock designating the tree. It
is thus different from words for 'tar' in other IE language groups.
Isn't it then much simpler and more elegant to suppose that this
Germanic innovation took place at the time of the technical
innovation in Mesolithic, rather than to wait first until the IE
invaders come to Europe in Calcholithic times, and after that
differentiate by te Bronze Age, and finally proceed systematically
to rename all the techniques and products that had existed for
several millennia?
There is more. Given the fact that the main application of tar was
for the glueing of parts of Mesolithic composite tools, it is also
interesting to note that the same Germanic word family of tree and
tar also include such words as trust and true,
originally 'reliable'. Traditionally, these words have been
connected to tree, without any pertinent arguments. More concretely
and significantly, both trust and true 'reliable' could be connected
with glueing techniques, and reflect the impact of this innovation
on the mind of Germanic Mesolithic fishers and hunters.
If Germanic was already separated from other IE language groups by
the time Mesolithic fishers and hunters discovered tar, then the
same can be said of Latin pix 'pitch' coming from pinus 'pine', and
of Latin (of Celtic origin) bitumen 'pitch' coming from Celtic
betulla 'birch'. These three parallel developments are absolutely
meaningless in a Bronze-Age cultural framework.
This Mesolithic reading of the linguistic record seems to me much
more illuminating than the traditional one, which places such
semantic developments in a no man's land, and leaves them entirely
unexplained. >>
For the "traditional" etymology of the Germanic words
for 'tar'/'tree'/'trust'/'true' proposed by IE linguists, which
Alinei considers less "simple" and "elegant" than his own, see
http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE87.html
Thanks.
Francesco Brighenti