Wait a minute. It happens that I've read and read Witzel and I
teach this matter; morevore I haven't denied the presence of
Indo-Iranian in the Eurasian plains. So everything is in order.
What we agree upon is that:
1) sound-laws are regular, because otherwise no reconstructions (only
textual philology) would be possible;
2) reconstruction means a) back-project as many features as possible,
and b) in case of disagreement between features, back-project the more
/ most marked ones.
Anyone who disagrees with this is out of our group and can only
disturb our discussion.
That said, what we know is that no Indo-European language can be
the proto-language of all other IE languages. It follows that the
version of the Out-of-India Theory by which the IE linguistic family
is seen as Indo-Aryan is untenable (it's falsifiable, falsified and
therefore false).
We know, moreover, that at least since 60,000 years Before
Present Modern Man was in Asia. Did he speak? If no, stop computing;
if yes, continue.
What language(s) did he speak? When and where? Short answer: we
don't know; detailed answer: read following lines.
(Important: if anyone has positive linguistic data from the period
60.000-6,000 years BP, please let him show such data)
If we have to make an educated guess, we have a spectrum of
possibilities between precisely identifiable extremes. All these
possibilities are without counter-examples and theoretically
falsifiable, but alas we lack positive evidence, so we can have
personal preferences, but cannot discard anything. (OK?)
Almost all depends on a) one's ideas about Glottochronology, and
b) one's openness in postulating entities.
General ideas about Glottochronology:
i) Common Sense: Glottochronology exists (but we can't call it
that way) and is based upon what we know from European languages in
the last two millennia (i.e., language changes very thoroughly every
millennium and we can't reconstruct anything before, say, five/six
millennia BP);
ii) Swadesh Glottochronology: PIE dispersal about 10,000 years BP;
iii) Schleicher's Organicism: PIE about 20,000 years BP;
iv) non-Schleicherian Sociology: language change depends on
extra-linguistic factors, there's no internal clock nor any fixed rate
of change; generally speaking, Prehistory was slower than History.
All this is matter of generalization and, beyond a certain point, of faith.
Since this list is devoted to PIE, let's focus on it.
1) Mallory/Anthony's Model: minimal area for PIE, maximal area for
anything non-IE; rush IE expansion on non-IE families during the
Chalcolithic Period. Archaeological association: Kurgan Cultures.
(Therefore: Neolithic Cultures = non-IE but one; Palaeolithic Cultures
= non-IE but a Nostratic one.)
2) Renfrew's Model: slow IE expansion from Anatolia during the
Neolithic Period (therefore: Neolithic and Kurgan Cultures = PIE;
Palaeolithic Cultures = non-IE but a Nostratic one.)
3) Otte/Alinei's Model: slow PIE expansion from the Near East
during the Upper Palaeolithic Period, then transformation into
'Modern' IE languages (therefore: Kurgan Cultures = Altaic; Neolithic
Cultures = Semitic; Palaeolithic Cultures = Vasconic, PIE, and
Finno-Ugrian.)
4) Großindogermanische Hypothese: slow PIE expansion from the Near
East during the Upper Palaeolithic Period, second expansion from
Anatolia during the Neolithic Period, third expansion (like in
Renfrew's Model) from the Steppes during the Chalcolithic Period
(therefore: Hunter-Gatherers = Common PIE; Farmers = one or more PIE
dialects among PIE dialects; Kurgany = still more PIE dialects).
(1) is based on Common Sense Glottochronology (i); (2) is based on
Swadeshian Glottochronology (ii); (3) is based on Schleicherian
Organicism (iii); (4) is based on a socially-related acceleration of
Language Change (iv).
All this is only indirectly matter of faith, because it depends on
one's choice between (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) (which is in fact, at
least partially, matter of faith).
Note that (1) has the lowest cost with regard to PIE, but the
highest cost with regard to other families (it postulates an enormous
Urheimat for every non-IE family or even for completely non-attested
language families), while its opposite extreme (4) has a medium with
regard to both PIE and every other family (best if attested families)
(the highest cost with regard to PIE would be a fictive hypothesis n°
5 of a PIE Urheimat from Africa to Americas, with all other families
confined to small pockets).
Everyone will have a personal (speculative) preference (according
to his own acceptance of Glottochronology), but cannot discard
anything of the above unless under a detailed demonstration which, up
to present, is still lacking.
Please note that the real difference between languages implies a
few centuries at the phonological level, but an at least ten times
deeper differentiation than from, say, Proto-Germanic to historically
recorded Germanic languages with respect to lexicon. This means that
under "PIE" we are conflating a ten times more complex linguistic
history than Medieval and Modern Europe's history; the only unifying
factor is the sum of reconstructible phonological features, which by
definition must have remained unaltered since Common PIE down to the
beginning of Bronze Age.
Now, for India the same scheme has to be implemented with the
Nostratic variant. The result is as follows:
I) only unknown families during Upper Palaeolithic, then
"Dené-Caucasian", then "Nostratic" (to-become Dravidian) (Neolithic),
then Indo-Aryan (Chalcolithic);
II) "Dené-Caucasian" or "East Asian" (to-become Munda-Mon-Khmer
and Sino-Tibeto-Burman) (Upper Palaeolithic), then "Nostratic" >
Dravidian (Neolithic), then Indo-Aryan (Chalcolithic);
III) "East Asian" and "Nostratic" (to-become Dravidian and PIE)
since Upper Palaeolithic; all linguistic boundaries developed in situ
(PIE including hte Eurasian steppes, development to Indo-Iranian and
to Indo-Aryan in both the Steppes and Iran with North-West India).
Within this frame, an Out-of-India Theory can only be a theory by
which PIE Urheimat stretched form the Near East to North-West India
and from there expanded as PIE in Upper Palaeolithic towards Central
Asia and Europe, a very different theory from the Indo-Aryan version
of Out-of-India.
I think I have kept the discussion in a polite way, and I hope
anyone who will point to errors or mistakes will do the same
2012/10/9, Rick McCallister <
gabaroo6958@...>:
> Only someone who has never bothered to read the evidence could say that.
> What about the lndo-Iranian and its obvious presence in the Eurasian plains?
> Read Witzel and others instead of making up incoherent stories
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...>
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Origin of Sanskrit (was: Mapping the Origins and
> Expansion of...)
>
>
> I notice everyone takes as granted that the Indo-Aryans *expanded*,
> wherever from; the logical possibility that they co-evolved in situ,
> starting as PIE dialects (in the whole region between the Steppes and
> India) is scarcely - and never operatively - taken into account
> (although this could reconcile any kind of positive evidence)
>
> 2012/10/9, Francesco Brighenti <mailto:frabrig%40yahoo.it>:
>>
>>
>> --- In mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> --- On Tue, 10/9/12, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Because the ancestors of the Mitanni, the putative pre-Iranian
>>> > Indians and putative Crimean "Bosphorus Aryans" were never in
>>> > India. They moved in from Central Asia. Indo-Aryan is part of
>>> > Indo-Iranian, which was originally located in the Eurasia
>>> > steppe. Read Witzel and overcome your lack of knowledge
>>>
>>> ****GK: He doesn't want to overcome his lack of knowledge. He want
>>> to overcome your lack of "knowledge" (:=))*****
>>
>> He just wants to challenge/irritate you cybalist folks. I have discussed
>> the
>> same topics with him _ad nauseam_ on this an other lists. Whatever one
>> writes, he never cares. Beware you guys!
>>
>> Francesco
>>
>> P.S. If you want to enjoy a nice reading about this and other topics,
>> download (in pdf format) the full book by archaologist E.E. Kuz'mina you
>> find here:
>>
>> http://www01.us.archive.org/details/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranians
>>
>> Don't advertise it too much, or else Brill will remove it from the
>> Internet
>> (they have already done so on other Websites that housed the same book).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>