--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
wrote:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
> wrote:
>
> > A classic philologically tautological argument. Because the
> > "Indo-Aryans" are nomads they are not traceable and why are they
> > nomads? because they are not traceable. The non-IA substrate in
> Vedic > proves the immigration of Indo-Aryans; and what proves the
> non-IA > substrate in Vedic? The immigration of IA speakers of
> course!
>
> No tautology here. The non-IA character of the substrate words in
> the Rgveda as first listed by Kuiper is argued on the basis of their
> unexplainability in terms of IE or IIr. Substrate words in the
> Rgveda are defined as such on the basis of their structure, which is
> deemed to be irreconcilable with the structure of OIA words and to
> fit not the IE structure of OIA words 'proper'.
>
> Kuiper's list of about 300 non-IA words in the Rgveda, corresponding
> to about 4% of its vocabulary, is available online at
>
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/kuiper.pdf
>
> Moreover, as announced by Michael Witzel on the Indo-
> Eurasian_research List a few days ago:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/2215
> "[A] growing on-line dictionary of Indian substrate words [is] in
> preparation by F. Southworth, D. Stampe, and M. Witzel, [and will] be
> announced within the next few weeks."
>
> Since this long-awaited resource will be the first specimen of a
> kind of joint effort made by, respectively, a leading Vedicist, a
> leading Dravidian linguist, and a leading Munda linguist to list all
> of the putative substrate words in Indian languages, I am confident
> you and Kalyanaraman will promptly incorporate a detailed discussion
> of it in your _magnum opus_ by resorting to your masterly linguistic
> expertise...
>
> Regards,
> Francesco Brighenti
>
The hunt for substratum and adstratum in "Indo-Aryan" presuposses the
following:
1. The current genetic tree model of "Indo-European" languages is true
2. All other models of language development are false
3. The so called "Indo-Aryan" languages are necessarily foreign in
their present locations.
Some quotes from proto vedic continuity theory (pvct).doc (p. 38)
"Emeneau said: "[vocabulary loans from Dravidian into Indo-Aryan] are
in fact all merely 'suggestions.' Unfortunately, all areal etymologies
are in the last analysis unprovable, are 'acts of faith', ...It is
always possible, e.g. to counter a suggestion of borrowing from one of
the indigenous language families by suggesting that there has been
borrowing in the other direction," (Emeneau, MB, 1980, Language and
Linguistic Area, Stanford, Stanford University Press, p. 177)."
"(Kuiper, FBJ, 1955, p. 185). Kuiper says that there are 380 loans in
the R.gveda; Thieme says that there are no loans at all. "
Please see section 8.2.1 of pvct.doc for more details.
Selected quotes from Talageri (2000)
"Linguistic Substrate in Indo-Aryan"
"But P. Thieme (1994) examined and rejected Kuiper's list in toto,
gave Indoaryan or Sanskrit etymologies for most of these words, and
characterized Kuiper's exercise as an example of a misplaced "zeal for
hunting up Dravidian loans in Sanskrit". In general, Thieme sharply
rejects the tendency to force Dravidian or Austric etymologies onto
Indoaryan words, and insists (1992) that "if a word can be explained
easily from material extant in Sanskrit itself, there is little chance
for such a hypothesis".
Rahul Peter Das (a believer in the Aryan invasion theory), likewise
rejects (1994) Kuiper's list, and emphasises that there is "not a
single case in which a communis opinio has been found confirming the
foreign origin of a Rgvedic (and probably Vedic in general) word".
Chapter 7 section V of Talageri (2000) is available in its entirity at
the link below (estimated reading time 8.5 min).
<
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/rig/ch7.htm>
M. kelkar
We also have Indianlexicon already available online.
http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati
The precise point is that we have to look upon Proto-vedic as an
interacting area with Munda (Austric) and Dravidian, an area in which
a lot of work remains to be done.
Some leads:
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tm17/paper459.htm The
Austroasiatics in Ancient South China: Some Lexical Evidence (Jerry
Norman, 1976)
http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/faculty/stampe/aa.html The Austroasiatics
in Ancient South China: Some Lexical Evidence
See
http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/sarva/entrance.html Indian Substratum:
South Asia Residual Vocabulary Assemblage (SARVA) , a compilation of
ancient Indian words lacking apparent Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, or
Austroasiatic origins, in progress by Franklin Southworth, Michael
Witzel, and David Stampe.
Before jumping to Austro-Asiatic Invasion Theories or genetics between
Munda and Mon-Khmer, let us first understand the glosses.
Dr. Kalyanaraman