From: mkelkar2003
Message: 46745
Date: 2006-12-24
>It is relevant because Sanskrit can be and is older than the Hittite
> --- 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 "Greek invasions" from the north which again are totally
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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.
>That argument can be turned on its head very easily. Everything in
>
> > > > > 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.
>Oh dear! Back to invasions by horse riding nomads again? The expert
>
>
> > > 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.
>exercise
>
>
> > >
> > > > > > ""In specific, reconstructing a "protolanguage" is an
> > > > > > that invites one to imagine speakers of that protolanguage, aOther nations within India? It is cynical to wish for India to break
> > > > > > 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 GermanÂ….
>
> 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.
>Great! So that would support Anatolian homeland theory.
>
> >
> > 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
>