From: mkelkar2003
Message: 47891
Date: 2007-03-16
> > What should MY PIE stops be in order to make India (Pakistan and
> > Bangaldesh) as its homeland?
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...> wrote:
>
> Voiceless, voiced and implosive? That should then match
> Austroasiatic. But be careful to keep the 'labiovelars' as labialised
> velars and not true labiovelars, or we'll be looking at West Africa!
Thanks for these suggestions. Interestingly Munda, an AA language has
been widespread in India and the AA family could even be indigenous to
eastern India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Asiatic_languages
"Austro-Asiatic languages have a disjunct distribution across India,
Bangladesh and Southeast Asia, separated by regions where other
languages are spoken. It is widely believed that the Austro-Asiatic
languages are the autochthonous languages of Southeast Asia and the
eastern Indian subcontinent,"
But AA has voiced stops just like the traditional IE system based on
Grimm's law.
<http://home.att.net/~lvhayes/Langling/langpg4.htm>
Anyhow, this issue (Grimm vs.glottalic) seems irrelvant to the Indian
homeland scenerio.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory>
"Current OIT proponents propose that there is no necessary link
between the fact that Sanskrit is not the oldest form of IE and the
hypothesis that India is not the oldest habitat of IE. It is perfectly
possible that a Kentum language which we now label as PIE was spoken
in India, that some of its speakers emigrated and developed Kentum
languages like Germanic and Tokharic, and that subsequently the PIE
language in its Indian homeland developed and satemized into Sanskrit
(Elst 1996-227)."
"Mainstream opponents to the OIT (e.g. Hock[11]) agree that while the
data of linguistic isoglosses do make the OIT improbable it is not
enough to unequivocally reject it[12], so that it may be considered a
viable alterative to mainstream views, similar to the status of the
Armenian or Anatolian hypotheses."
"Additionally, Graeco-Aryan isoglosses seem suggestive that Greek and
Indo-Iranian may have shared a common homeland for awhile after the
splitting of the other IE branches. Such a homeland could be
northwestern India (which is preferred by proponents of the OIT)"
The key to Indian homeland is getting the IIrGk into one family. Its
always good to know where the battle lines are drawn.
M. Kelkar
>
> > "In the original Proto-Indo-European proposal, there was a fourth
> > phonation series, aspirated /pH, tH, k^H, kH, kWH/, assumed to exist
> > by analogy with Sanskrit, which at the time was thought to be the most
> > conservative Indo-European language."
>
> Please conform to the list's typographical conventions. You should
> use the Latin-1 character set unless there is a very good reason to do
> otherwise. I've corrected the notation above.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottalic_theory
> >
> > I notice that Gamkrildze has got these back in in the Table titled
> > "Proto Indo-European plosives recent." He has also got rid of the
> > voiced stops which are abundant in Sanskrit. I know from reading the
> > debate between Grimm/glottalic that the farther PIE gets from Sanskrit
> > the closer its homeland gets to India.
>
> The Wikipedia article's current statement on trends in stop
> development is a little doubtful. Note that [d] > [t] etc. and [d] >
> [tH] are quite common - much of Eastern Asia (large chunks of
> Austroasiatic, Tai-Kadai and Sin0-Tibetan) have recently lost voicing
> contrasts. Do Gamkrelidze and Ivanov really write superscript 'h' to
> indicate variability? It's normally written superscipt to show that
> one is not writing a cluster, just like 'j' for palatalisation.
>
> Richard.
>