Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@> wrote:

> > > Thus River Oder is named after Sanskrit Udra meaning an aquatic animal which in sanskrit neuter gender means water. In Polish it is called wydra (read vedra) and in english/german otter (oder).

> > > Why would European river name(s) have Sanskrit meanings?

> > Sanskrit, Germanic and Balto-Slavonic.

> This did not parse.

I meant that the 'otter' and 'water' meanings of related words are attested in Sanskrit, Germanic and Balto-Slavonic and Sanskrit.

> But no other European language, including Greek, can clarify all accent related discrepancies in Grimm's law. Only Sanskrit could.

I was not aware that the application of Verner's law matched Sanskrit better than the other branches when there was a discrepancy.

> So why would Germanic not be a descendant of Sanskrit?

Does Sanskrit actually have any descendants? There are a lot of minor discrepancies between modern Indian languages and Sanskrit, though Sanskrit was just very similar to their ancestor. The word for 'six' usually (always) does not match.

Sanskrit itself has far too many changes to actually be the ancestor of Germanic. The satem shift has gone too far to have been reversed, and, gh before front vowels and g^h have simplified to /h/, whereas they yield *g in Germanic. The denasalisation of syllabic nasals is also irreversible, e.g. English _hundred_ v. Sanskrit s^ata-. Assimilations such as *nizdos > Skt ni:d.a- (Pali nid.d.ha-) are also irreversible.

Of course, if you decide that a language can be arbitrarily called 'Sanskrit' all the way back to PIE, then your suggestion is fine, but Germanic cannot descend from any attested form of Sanskrit.

Richard.