--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
wrote:
> Piotr Gasiorowski, a linguist active on the cybalist
group: "Strictly > speaking, Nahali (spoken on the upper Tapti) is
not an isolate, though > it's classified as such e.g. on the SIL
site. Present-day Nahali is > genetically an Indo-Aryan language
whose lexicon shows several layers > of absorbed substrates..."
Yes, and the Indo-Aryan lexical stratum is *the most recent*, being
formed for the greater part by words coming directly form Marathi or
a Hindi dialect (*New* Indo-Aryan languages!).
> Quotes from G. van Driem, _Languages of the Himalayas_, Leiden-
Boston-Köln, > Brill, 2001, Vol. I, pp. 248 to 253 are excellent and
support the > questions raised in our Protovedic monograph.
Nothing in van Driem's quotes support the thesis that Nahali
incorporates a 'Proto-Vedic' substratum, whatever this may mean in
your personal linguistic views. Just a large New Indo-Aryan
superstratum.
> Is Kurku north-Munda or north-Dravidian?
Well, you -- the authors of such a grandiose _magnum opus_
on 'Bharatiya' languages -- should know that! Kurku (or Korku) is a
North Munda language, but it is not part of the traditionally
defined 'Kherwarian' sub-grouping of Munda dialects (including
Mundari, Santali, Khorwa etc.).
Has enough investigation been > done on the relationships between
Munda and Dravidian?
Alas, no.
> How can a language such as Nahali be assumed to be a language
isolate > when the glosses contain a fair representation of language
x, indo-aryan, munda and dravidian?
It is the unrecognized non-Austroasiatic, non-Dravidian, non-Indo-
Aryan substratum that makes of Nahali a 'language isolate'. Of
course, Piotr is right in saying that present-day Nahali is
typologically a New Indo-Aryan language.
> Does language X used for many > agricultural terms of all
bharatiya languages make them all language > isolates?
Colin Masica's 'Language X' has never been inferred to represent a
substrate language for Nahali. You are the first to do so (based on
which data?). Moreover, Masica's linguistic hypothesis is that a
'Language X' constituted a substrate language for *Hindi*, not for
all "Bharatiya" (i.e. South Asian) languages!
> The question is: is it possible to isolate the layers which
> are relatable to Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic and
chalcolithic > periods with particular reference to cultural
underpinnings: say, > words for flora and fauna, words related to
organized farming, words > related to social group, words related to
smithy or mint, buildings, > bricks, plaster, tools and weapons. If
there is a clear progression in > artifacts realized through
archaeological investigations of many sites > in Bharat, going back
to Paleolithic times, it should be possible to > start naming these
artifacts in the local languages, such as Nahali, > Hemacandra
des'i, Sauraseni, apabhrams'a, Ardhamagadhi, Pali, Tamil, > Oriya,
Telugu, Konkani.
You have been lightened by Mario Alinei's 'Palaeolithic Continuity
Theory' like St. Paul on his way to Damascus, and now you are eager
to apply Alineai's 'lexical self-dating' principle to the study of
the linguistic prehistory of South Asia. I look forward to seeing
the results of your forthcoming painstaking efforts.
Regards,
Francesco