[tied] Re: Genetic Studies and Aryan Migrations

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:

>
> --- 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.
> >
> > 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 date when a langauge was first written down has nothing do with
> how old that langauge is.

Obviously. Why should this be relevant here?

> >
> >
> > > 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'.
> >
>
> No I do not. The archaism/innovation gimmick can be used to keep
> languages apart into separate families or combine them into one
> family depending on the need of the hour. That is why Greek and
> Armenian are not one family because it ruins the pretty picture of
> an imangined Greek invasion from the north.

?? Please elaborate.

> > > > 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'?
>
> Quoting from your message above "archaeologically similar finds."

You misunderstood me. I meant 'similar among themselves'.

> "Whatever we ascribe to earlier times is reconstruction" can
> and has been found in the Sarasvati-Sindhu valleys. >
> >

You misunderstood me. I meant 'whatever we ascribe to earlier times in
the field of linguistics'. I wasn't talking about archaeology.

> > How is this relevant to the question of the existence or not of a
> > Proto-Indo-European language?
>
> The exitence of a PIE language is taken as a fact by IEL. The dried
> up river channels of the Sarasvati river, the trefoils, the three
> lobed hearths, the knowledge of astronomy, the north south burial
> grounds can be used as evidence to prove that *in fact* the PIE was
> spoken in the SS civilization.

No, because those elements are not found outside the Indo-Iranian
branch of the PIE lanmguages.

> > 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?
>
> Indian langauges or "Indo-Aryan" languages?

Indian languages.

> Did English completely replace all the existing lagnauges similar
> to "what happened in 1500 BCE?"

Have the Indo-Aryan languages even today replaced all those languages
that were spoken earlier in India?

> "Indo-Aryans" did not even have artilary back then.

No, they had cavalry.

> >
> > > > > ""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.
>
>
> Historical linguistics is especially prone to politically motived
> abuse because this stuff is simply ain't good enough.

Non sequitur.


See below:

>
> "The search for the homeland has been tainted by ethnic and
> nationalistic biases prompting Demoule (1980, p.120) to quip, "we
> have seen that one primarily places the IE's (Indo-Europeans) in
> the north if one is German….

They don't anymore.

in the east if one is Russian, and in the middle if,

> being Italian or Spanish, one has no chance of competing for the
> privilege (as quoted by Lal 2005, p.64)."

Hm. That would make Piotr a Bavarian.


According to Garrett (n.d.),

>
> "It is a truism that the discovery of Indo-European and the
> foundation of the academic discipline of linguistics were
> substantially fuelled by nationalism. I suggest that the
> nationalist ideologies lurking behind our field refract the same
> sociological forces that shaped its object of study. Our conception
> of Indo-European emerged from the analysis of national literatures
> and cultural traditions, and the canonical branches of the family
> emerged through the creation of national identities."
>

Actually it was the other way round. Linguistics and the national
romantic wave in the arts created interest in one's national
background created probably the most intellectually fertile period in
Europe's history. Because of the rising nationalism of national
minorities in multi-ethnic states, the dominant ethnos of those states
created a new, value-laden version of it which claimed that some
nationalities. eg. by chance their own, was intrinsically better and
therefore destined to rule the others. This latter version was
especially popular with people like the Nazis in Germany and Hindu
Nationalists in India. Unfortunately for the latter, after 1945,
linguistics went back to its original nationalist claim that all
nations are intrinsically of the same value, which meant the Hindu
Nationalists couldn't use it any more to claim superiority over other
nations in India, which is why they since 1945 have been stauchly
anti-nazi, like yourself. I'm afraid you've got the shoe on the wrong
way.

> > > > > 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?
>
>
> This is Darden's (2001) secondary products revolution theory. He
> tries to establish a (writing from memory) terminus post quem for
> PIE dispersal depending on the products and technologies that they
> were familiar with based on reconstructed words, of course. Out
> of the many words discussed by Darden, only the above four meet
> the stringent criteria for secure reconstruction (Melchert, 2001).
> Two of them bovine and yoke are not useful because there is no
> special technology associated with them. Controversy about the
> horse is well known. There are five roots for the word horse in IE
> langauegs. It is not clear whether the reconstructed word refers to
> a domesticated or wild animal. Horse bones have been found in many
> places including South Asia thus eliminating the usefulness of this
> word.


>
> That leaves "wool." Based on the work of Barber, sheep did not
> become wooley till after the neolithic. Which means the dispersal
> of PIE cannot be dated as early as 7000 BCE as Renfrew proposes.
> Renfrew response: sheep had hair; Anatolians were familiar with
> fleece and the reconstructed work *hwln could have meant fleece and
> not wool.

Hans Kuhn notices that the words for many things that must have
arrived late in PIE culture are thematic stems. Personally I think
since the thematic class was probably the 'open class' into which new
words were placed, that these things were late arrivals in PIE culture.


Torsten