--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
> > > Well, back to basics! Anyone here in a mood to prove the IE
> > > family?
>
> > Existence of a language family does not necessitate the existence
> > of a proto langauge.
> >
> > ""It is usually supposed that, at one time, there was a single
> > Indo-European language, the so-called Indo-European protolanguage,
> > from which all historically attested Indo-European languages are
> > presumed to descend. This supposition is contradicted by the fact
> > that, no matter how far we peer back into history, we always find a
> > multitude of Indo-European-speaking peoples.
>
> This is what is documented:
> At 1500 BC we find several Anatolian languages and an early version
> of Greek. At 1000 BC(?) we might suppose the Sanskrit we know was
> codified. Centuries after that we find the other members of the
> Indo-European language family. These are facts.
No they are *NOT* facts. They are hypotheses. The question of whether
Hittite is older or Sankrit is itself a matter of opinion.
"Many points of controversy surround the reconstruction of PIE, and
indeed surround any reconstruction effort. Some are methodological
questions (for example, how do we distinguish archaisms from
innovations?); some are philosophical (for example, what kinds of
evidence are admissible in reconstruction?); some are simply
differences of opinion based on the preconceptions and orientation of
the investigator (for example, which is more archaic, Hittite or
Sanskrit?)," (Baldi 1983, p. 14-15, parentheses in the original).
Whatever we ascribe
> to earlier times is reconstruction. At 3000 BC, approx, we find
> archaeologically similar finds at the rivers of the Ukraine.
We find them in the Sindhu-Sarasvati valley. See my review of McIntosh
(2001), McIntosh, Jane, (2001), A Peaceful Realm : The Rise And Fall
of the Indus Civilization, New York: Westview Press.
1. McIntosh agrees that the Indus Civilization should now be seen as
the Indus-Saraswati Civilization (p. 24, 53). "But in Indus times, the
Saraswati was a mighty river (p. 53). She cites Griffith's (1890)
translations of the Rig Vedic hymns regarding the Saraswati River, as
quoted by Possehl (1999).
2. McIntosh approvingly cites Dales (1964) who has mocked at Wheeler's
37 skeletons as proof that an "Aryan Invasion" had occurred (p, 178.
179).
3. The author draws upon Asko Parpola's work in connecting the Indus
artifacts to the Vedas. Regarding the trefoils on the robe worn by the
famous "Priest King" of the Indus, she says, " This robe was also
mentioned in the Vedas as being worn by kings during their
consecration. Parpola also argues that the trefoil could represent the
three-lobed hearth, used not only in the home but also in Vedic
sacrifices, and the Vulva or womb-the yoni symbol of the goddess Durga
and counterpart to the lingam, symbol of Shiva (p. 108)."
4. The author acknowledges that the Indus people had knowledge of
astronomy. "Asko Parpola and a number of other scholars relate this
(the systematic arrangement of streets) to the astronomical knowledge
of the Indus people and to the unknown (!)religious beliefs that must
lie behind this (p. 99, parentheses added)."
5. The author discusses Parpola's interpretation of a famous Indus
seal (color plate 10 in the book) as depicting goddess Durga, her
husband Shiva and the wives of the seven sages who are also the seven
stars of the Great bear (ref. 116-117).
6. The author admits that the discovery of fire alters which were
probably used for Vedic sacrifices has been an embarrassment to the
theory that the Indus civilization was pre-Vedic.
After all this, one would expect her to reach the logical conclusion
that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then.. It IS a duck.
That is the Indus and the Vedic people are the same. But hold on a
minute! McIntosh bows down the linguistic fables and fails to reach that
rather obvious conclusion.
"Their (Vedic) literature shows that they moved gradually from the
north, on the Iranian plateau, into the Panjab and hence farther into
the subcontinent.. (p. 128, parenthesis added),"
"This (the linguistic) evidence seems to show that the speakers of the
Indo-Aryan (also known as plain "Aryan") languages, a branch of the
Indo-European language family that covered Europe, Iran and Northern
India by the late 1st millennium BC entered the region in the Indus
region during the second millennium BC .. (p.128, first parenthesis
added)."
"The migrations of Indo-Aryan speakers can be traced in their early
literature the Vedas. The geographical information that they contain
shows that the Indo-Aryans (who it is thought came organically from
the area north of the Black and Caspian Seas) entered the northwest
during the 2nd millennium BC and thence moved eastward into the Ganges
Valley ... (p. 147)."
The author does not mention what this geographical information is and
how it shows the so called movement from northwest to the east. The
Rig Veda and the subsequent literature does not mention any such
migration in the present or past. One wonders what is so powerful
about these highly speculative linguistic theories that grips even
informed scholars to submit to them in favor of their scientifically
testable methods.
For
> these, we can assume one of two options: 1) they spoke languages
> that were sufficiently similar for them to understand each other, or
> 2) the languages they spoke were mutually incomprehensible. Given
> that the cultures are similar, option 1) should be preferred over 2).
> Trubetzkoy's statement, as it stands, is clearly wrong, we find no
> multitude of Indo-European-speaking peoples at the time of the
> dinosaurs, no matter what the Flintstones would have us believe.
That is a mockery of what Trubetskoy actually says. There have to be
*people* first before there can be "Indo-Euroepan" speaking peoples.
""It is usually supposed that, at one time, there was a single
Indo-European language, the so-called Indo-European protolanguage,
from which all historically attested Indo-European languages are
presumed to descend. This supposition is contradicted by the fact
that, no matter how far we peer back into history, we always find a
multitude of Indo-European-speaking peoples"
>
>
> > The idea of an Indo-European protolanguage is not absurd, but it
> > is not necessary, and we can do very well without it (Trubetskoy
> > 2001, p. 87)."
>
> I have no idea why Trubetzkoy said that. He doesn't provide any
> line of reasoning for this statement, nor do you. Therefore I
> can't comment on it.
Trubetskoy does provide a reasoning.
""There is therefore, no compelling reason for the assumption of a
homogeneous Indo-European protolanguage from which the individual
branches of Indo-European descended. It is equally plausible that the
ancestors of the branches of Indo-European were originally dissimilar
but that over time, through continuous contact, mutual influence, and
loan traffic, they moved significantly closer to each other, without
becoming identical (Trubetskoy 2001, p. 88).""
>
> > "Thus a language family can be the product of divergence,
> > convergence or a combination of the two (with emphasis on
> > either). There are virtually no criteria that would indicate
> > unambiguously to which of the two modes of development a family
> > owes its existence. When we are dealing with languages so
> > closely related that almost all the elements of vocabulary
> > and morphology of each are present in all or most of the
> > other members (allowing for sound correspondences), it is
> > more natural to assume convergence than divergence (Trubetskoy
> > 2001, p. 89)."
>
> Why is it 'more natural'? Not to mention the fact that the
> question of the mode of genesis of a language is independent of
> and irrelevant to the question of its existence.
>
>
> > ""The only scientifically admissible question is, How and where
> > (Trubetskoy does not say when) did the Indo-European linguistic
> > structure arise? And this question should and can be answered by
> > purely linguistic methods. The answer depends on what we mean by
> > the INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUSITIC STRUCTURE (Trubetskoy 2001, p. 91,
> > emphasis in the original, parenthesis added).""
>
> Aha. And what does he mean by INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUSITIC STRUCTURE?
Trubetskoy mentions five criteria of an IE linguistic structure.
Please consult Trubetzkoy, N. S. (2001), Studies in General
Linguistics and Language Structure," Anatoly Liberman (Ed.),
translated by Marvin Taylor and Anatoly Liberman, Durham and London:
Duke University Press.
>
>
> > ""In specific, reconstructing a "protolanguage" is an exercise that
> > invites one to imagine speakers of that protolanguage, a
> > community of such people, then a place for that community, a
> > time in history, distinguishing characteristics, and a set of
> > contrastive relations with other protocommunities where other
> > protolanguages were spoken.
>
> That is certainly true.
>
>
> > FOR ALL THIS, NEED IT BE SAID, THERE IS NO SOUND EVIDENTIARY
> > WARRANT (Lincoln 1999, p. 95, emphasis added)"
>
> Because?
Because the key word is "imagine." Linguistics is a tool to study
langauge evolution not to "imagine" and conoct entire groups of people
and their cultures that may never have existed.
"In specific, reconstructing a "protolanguage" is an exercise that
invites one to imagine (Lincoln, 1999).
>
> > It is at best an impossible task to locate a proto language in time
> > and space based on *four* reconstructed words (Melchert, 2001)
> > three of them irrelevant to the problem.
>
> Who proposed that?
The four words are bovine, yoke, horse, and wool. Looking at the map
of where the "IE" langauges are spoken today would be able to locate a
proto langauge based on these?
>
> > If such proto language must be reconstructed, then IEL H. H. Hock
> > has already said that it could very well have been spoken in South
> > Asia (Elst, circa 2000).
> >
>
> That means OIT.
>
>
> > "For now, I (Elst) must confess that after reading Prof. Hock's
> > presentation, the linguistic problem which I have always considered
> > the most damaging to an Indocentric hypothesis, doesn't look all
> > that threatening anymore. I do not believe that the isoglosses
> > discussed by him necessitate the near-identity of the geographical
> > distribution of the PIE dialects with the geographical
> > distribution of their present-day daughter languages, which
> > near-identity would indeed be hard to reconcile with an
> > out-of-India hypothesis."
>
> As far as I know, Elst is considering OIT. Do you realize that?
Of course. This is what I wrote earlier:
If such proto language *MUST* be reconstructed
If a proto langauge and a proto people etc. MUST be imagined then the
OIT is as good a theory as any of the other.
M. Kelkar
>
>
> Torsten
>