Re: Origin of Sanskrit

It's not the same situation, if You want to get rid of the
großindogermanisch Model out of the four (or two) theoretically
possible.
Mallory's view applies to any Bronze Age language, and according
to the großindoermanische Hypothese (which is presently under
discussion, I suppose) IE dialects were in fact of that very size.
Please always keep in mind that the difference between IE dialects
immediately before their first historical attestations is *greater*
(much greater) than the difference between present-day Germanic
languages, for instance. The North American parallel case confirms
that individual languages, and not families, are meant here.
Consequently, this would apply to Common PIE only if we
previsouly had the certainty that it was spoken in Bronze Age, but
this is precisely what we are questioning.
Of course, if Common PIE had been a Bronze Age, it would have
occupied a small area; in not, it would have occupied a small area
much earlier. Such small area could indeed be a bit larger when
population was ten or more times less than in Bronze Age - e.g. during
the Palaeolithic. Population size comes before pure area. A
Palaeolithic language can be spoken on a small strip from the Near
East to NW India. But all this is only relevant for the protolanguage
of all IE languages.
Now, to the secondary protolanguages. All we know about them is
that they surely represent a stage in diachronic phonological
development. We DON'T know whether they were a single language or a
complex of isoglosses. We can SUPPOSE that, since lexical differences
between languages of one and the same class - e.g. Indo-Aryan - CAN go
back to PIE times, these languages CAN go back as well, as
individuals, to Prehistory (the alternative possibility is that they
don't. By no way they *CAN'T*, so they can, they may go back to
Prehistory).
ONLY IF we postulate (postulate) that all IA languages go back to
a single PIA language we can discuss about the size of such Homeland
(and still I don't see any demonstration on whatever side); if we
postulate that they don't go back to a single PIA language, PIA is
necessarily to be seen as a wide diasystem (diasystems have no
territorial limits, cf. Proto-Amerind if You believe in it).
Since we have no means to decide, we do better - I think - to keep
all possibilities as valid working hypotheses. At a theoretical level,
no hypothesis is better than the other ones.
So why do I prefer the großindogermanische Hypothese? Because I
insist that for Celtic we do have such demonstration - that Celtic
languages developed in situ from IE dialects; if Celtic is a
demonstrated case and there are no cases testifying to the contrary, I
think I'm allowed to prefer - just prefer - an in-situ-development
hypothesis. That's all for now. A possible test would be a diachronic
phonological analysis of developments implied by IA place-names in
different places: if they show traces of 1) having been coined in situ
(for their motivation), and 2) having passed through every
transformation from PIE to IA, then we'll have our desired
demonstration.


2012/10/10, Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...>:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I mean that the Proto-Indo-Aryan dialectal Continuum (in
>> fact, different dialects of PIE descent and with shared specific
>> Common Indo-Aryan structural and lexical innovations, spread through
>> normal wave dynamics) covered a huge area and that secondary
>> Proto-Languages (= Proto-Languages entailing an area out af a larger
>> dialectal continuum) are by no means to be thought as small-size.
>> The highest amount of population of Central and Western Eurasia at
>> the end of Chalcolithic was equal to no more than a couple of
>> modern European *districts*.
>
> See Mallory, _In Search of the Indo-Europeans_, pp. 63-65 and 144ff.
> ('Defining the Homeland'). He writes that evidence shows that a major Bronze
> Age language covered 250,000 – 500,000 square kilometres, based on the
> historical disposition of Near Eastern languages:
>
> "When we estimate the territory of each of these language families they
> approximate an area roughly equivalent to that of Germany or Poland or
> Japan."
>
> For Iron Age Europe, Mallory writes, "the size of individual linguistic
> territories would fall, on average, between 500,00 - 750,000 square
> kilometres." He also cites Sydney Lamb's figures for North American
> languages at 4,000 BCE, which according to him (Mallory) would suggest an
> average size of 160,000 square kilometres at best. He concludes:
>
> "Consequently, we may postulate the size of the PIE homeland falling within
> the range of about 250,000 - 1,000,000 square kilometres... A similar area
> is also suggested for the homelands of many other language families."
>
> In my view, the same geographical constraints also apply to secondary and
> tertiary proto-languages as Proto-Indo-Iranian (and, in a subsequent phase,
> to its sub-branches Proto-Indo-Aryan, Proto-Iranian, and Proto-Nuristani).
> And, in conclusion, this is not the same size of territory you claim to have
> been covered by your "Proto-Indo-Aryan Dialectal Continuum" (which, let me
> recall, according to you would have extend from the steppe/taiga belt
> interface zone in southwestern Siberia (Arkaim-Sintashta) to the savannahs
> of the Indus Valley in South Asia and the peaks of the Hindu Kush and
> Karakorum. A little too much for one proto-language!?
>
> Indo-Aryan must have had a relatively confined 'homeland', defined as
> corresponding to a particular ecological or otherwise geographically-defined
> region.
>
> According to Gamqrelidze & Ivanov (_Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans_,
> vol. 1, p. CIV), the original range of any common source linguistic system
> must lie in a particular 'homeland' area, more *compact* than the range of
> the daughter languages/dialects:
>
> "The size of the territory and the gradual dissolution of the community both
> depend on the culture, the geography, and the ecological conditions of the
> tribes that spoke the common language. Thus identifying the original range
> of a reconstructed language and identifying the migratory routes of the
> tribes speaking its dialects are the historical and geographic side of the
> specifically linguistic problem of dissolution of linguistic unity."
>
> Postulating an Indo-Aryan dialectal unity going from Siberia to the Indus at
> any given point in time goes against these linguistic principles.
>
> Best,
> Francesco
>
>> This hypothesis holds true for every secondary Proto-Language
>> (Proto-Indo-Aryan is therefore by no means an exception). The real
>> Proto-Language is PIE, just like Roman Latin for Romance Languages;
>> PIE could (*could*!) very well start from a strip of lands between the
>> NEar East and North-West India and from there expand as PIE to the
>> whole of Centrale and Western Eurasia (just like Roman Latin to the
>> whole of Southern Europe); secondary Proto-Languages like
>> Proto-Western Romance never covered a small area and secondary IE
>> Proto-Languages like Proto-Indo-Iranian or Proto-Celtic represent a
>> similar phase
>>
>> 2012/10/10, Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...>:
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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)
>> >
>> > Do you mean the Proto-Indo-Aryan language was spoken in an area
>> > encompassing
>> > NW South Asia, Afghanistan, and the whole of southern Central Asia? I'm
>> > asking you this question because this is the logical consequence of a
>> > denial
>> > of any IA expansions. If IA co-evolved in situ in the whole region
>> > between
>> > the Steppes and India, the language from which all of them derived must
>> > have
>> > been covered the same huge region.
>> >
>> > Yet, I was taught proto-languages usually cover far smaller geographic
>> > areas
>> > -- let's say, the size of a small European nation. Why should
>> > Proto-Indo-Aryan be an exception?
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> > Francesco
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>