Re: beyond languages

----- Original Message -----
From: "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:05 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: beyond languages






--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti"
> <frabrig@...> wrote:
> >
> > Those who lump together Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Munda languages
> > under the label "Indic languages" are usually Hindu nationalists
> > and/or crackpot scholars who aim at disintegrating the recognized
> > language families of South Asia in the name of a
> > misunderstood "Linguistic Area" concept -- see Shubash Kak at
> >
> > http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/indic.pdf
>
> I fail to see anything objectionable in Kak's assertion. Bomhard
> has convincingly demonstrated that, if Dravidian is not
> necessarily Nostratic, it certainly can be related to Nostratic.


This kind of linguistic "theories" elaborated by Indians *never*
refer to the possible relation of Indo-European and Dravidian at the
Nostratic level as the ultimate reason of the typological
similarities between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages. On the
contrary, they assume that a given language can belong
simultaneously to *two* language families respectively defined on
the basis of two different orders of typologies. See this other
brilliant conclusion by Kak:

http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/ary2.pdf
"The Indian linguistic evidence requires the postulation of two
kinds of classification. The first is the traditional Indian
classification where the whole of India is a single linguistic area
of what used to be traditionally called the Prakrit family.
Linguists agree that based on certain structural relationships the
North and the South Indian languages are closer than Sanskrit and
Greek (Emeneau, 1980). Second, we have a division between the North
Indian languages that should really be called North Prakrit (called
Indo-Aryan by the linguists) and the South Indian languages that may
be called South Prakrit (or Dravidian) (Figure 2). There is also the
Indo-European family to which the North Prakrit languages belong.
Likewise, Dravidian has been assumed to belong to a larger family of
agglutinative languages."

Therefore, according to him (see Fig. 2 on p. 59 of the paper) Indo-
Aryan would simultaneously belong to the "Indic" and the Indo-
European language families, and Dravidian, to the "Indic" and
Dravidian language families. Of course, the term "Indic" is not used
here as a synonym of "Indo-Aryan" as is done by linguists. It rather
denotes the "India-ness" of the language it refers to, giving for
granted that "India" is a linguistic area and that a linguistic area
is another (apparently non-genetic) kind of language family.

So, do you agree with this kind of view, Patrick?

Regards,
Francesco

***

Patrick:

I think previous contacts, which I did not share, have sensitized some of us
on the list.

I read what he is writing as meaning that all of India is a study of areal
influence and areal similarities. Is it not?

Then he separates out what he calls North Prakrit, and specifically
identifies _only_ it as Indo-Aryan.

No real problem with that, either.

He does not try to connect Dravidian with Indo-Aryan except as sharing areal
characteristics.

I do not really know if they do or not - at least to the extent he implies
but what is objectionable there?

"Family", of course, implies genetic commonality but I think he is merely
being a bit nationalistic about Grossindien. By using 'family' in the sense
of areal influence, and again as genetic relationship, certainly does not
aid clarity.

I do not care for his terminology; and, for anyone but an Indian, it would
certainly be misleading. Peccadilloes, I think.

Do we really need to patent the term "Indic"? I think we can live without
it.

I find all this quite harmless.

We are constantly blathering about the melting pot here in the US. Same type
of thing, I think.

So, finally, I have nothing against his view as expressed above but a large
problem with his terms, Indic excluded.


***

****