[tied] Re: Genetic Studies and Aryan Migrations

> > > > 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.

We find inscriptions of Hittite from that time.
And Sanskrit began to be written down in the early centuries of
the first millenium. Fact.

> 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).

You misunderstand Baldi. 'Archaic' doesn't mean 'old'.

> > 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.

Which 'them'?

> 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.

How is this relevant to the question of the existence or not of a
Proto-Indo-European language?

> > 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.

You don't say.
It is usually supposed that, for any given person, one had a
great-great-great-grandfather from which all existing members of
one's family are presumed to descend. This supposition is
contradicted by the fact that, no matter how far one looks around
in the world, one always finds a multitude of present relatives.
I wonder what Trubetzkoy had been smoking.

> ""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.

I asked for 'a line of reasoning', not for a line of something
called reasoning, which furthermore you, as always, confuse
with worthy unreasoned conclusions by excellent professors.
If this is the future of science, then God help my poor continent.
The operative word here is 'because'.

> ""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).""

As the British stayed on in India, did a language made up as mixture
of Indian languages and English arise, or did they communicate by
learning the other party's language?

> > > "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.

No, you consult it. If you can't render them intelligibly here,
refrain from referring to them.

> > > ""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.

The branch called historical linguistics studies languages,
compares them and imagines what they might once been.
They also try to find out what the speakers of those imagined
languages were like. Then it tries to find arguments to back up
what they imagined. What it doesn't do is worry about the political
implications of the things it has imagined and argued for.

> "In specific, reconstructing a "protolanguage" is an exercise that
> invites one to imagine (Lincoln, 1999).

Good thing, then.

> > > 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?

Exactly. I repeat the question: Who proposed that?


Torsten