Re: Divergence vs. convergence (was: Witzel and Sautsutras)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>
wrote:

>
> > The problem is the "PIE" reconstructed by IE-ists isn't the same

thing

> > than the *real* PIE, i.e. "Kurganic", because a very significant

portion

> > of it comes from pre-Kurganic languages, i.e. "Paleo-IE".
>
> There is no "Paleo-IE" in the sense of a second, unrelated
> protolanguage (or language family) that underlies *all*
> branches of IE. In fact, there must have been many different
> substratum languages, some related to each other, others not.
> It is IMHO ridiculously unlikely that the substratum the
> Indo-Aryans met in India had anything to do with the
> substratum the Insular Celts met in the British Isles, for
> instance.
>

The label "Paleo-IE" is meant to include all the languages which
contributed to the IE lexicon other than Kurganic (i.e. "PIE").

> What I consider plausible is a pre-IE substratum family that
> covered most of Central and Western Europe - it has left traces
> in the Old European Hydronymy. This family (which I have named
> "Aquan") would have exerted an influence on most European IE
> languages - Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic. That
> means that many words that are found only in these branches but
> not in Greek or Indo-Iranian probably come from there.
>

Not only in OEH but also in the lexicon.

> > The so-called "Mediterranean substrate" (which IMHO is mostly
> > Vasco-Caucasian) has been studied by scholars such as Johannes
> > Hubschmidt, and loanwords from this source can be found in Basque,
> > although Trask and others consider them to be "Romance" loanwords,
> > because they don't conform to native Basque phonetics.
>
> Can you point me to useful references? That matter sounds interesting.
>

Trask's view can be found in his book "The history of Basque". As you
might know, he strongly advocates against any proposed relationships
with Basque, even Iberian.

> Indo-Uralic 10,000 years
> IU + Eskimo-Aleut etc. 12,000 years
> Altaic 10,000 years
> Eurasiatic 15,000 years
>
> Vasco-Caucasian 40,000 years
>
> But that are just more or less educated guesses.
>

Most Vasco-Caucasian lexicon is from *Neolithic*, but older layers are
shared with Eurasiatic, so these chronologies should be reversed.

> > A very interesting thing I've gathered from Starostin is the
> > correspondence between NEC sibilant affricates and IE palatalized
> > velars, which are a feature of Kurganic alone. In Paleo-IE these
> > consonants merged with dental stops, as you and Bomhard already

know.

>
> I know about Bomhard's correspondences, but I am not convinced
> of them in all points. Bomhard's work, like so much work on
> Nostratic, is centered on the IE-Afrasian axis, which may turn
> out to be illusionary.
>

This just one a Neolithic Paleo-IE from Neolithic, also including
Wanderwörter from Middle East languages.

> Also, Bomhard says *nothing* about your "Paleo-IE" because he
> does not work with such a hypothesis.

I'm speaking about his "Nostratic" correspondences. See above.

> Likewise, he says nothing
> about sound correspondences between NEC and IE, because he does
> not consider NEC to be a member of Nostratic.

This is Starostin's, not Bomhard's.

> Please do not misrepresent other scholars this way!
>

Actualy, it's you who got it wrong.

> Certainly, PIE borrowed from other languages, and its daughter
> languages also did so too, in substantial amounts, and sometimes
> from sources related to those found in other IE languages.
> >
> > One thing is the "reconstructed PIE" and another one is the *real*

PIE,

> > which is only a subset of the former.
>
> You are repeating this like a mantra ;) As I have said above,
> I *am* aware of the difference between reconstructed PIE and
> the real PIE. But it is the *reconstruction* that is a subset
> of the real thing, because it misses many details that are hard
> to recover.
>

Not exactly. The reconstructed PIE is the sum of Kurganic (i.e. the real
"PIE") as well as several Paleo-IE layers.