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

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

>
> 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").
>
> That are, as Brian has pointed out, *many different* languages,
> and a label such as "Paleo-IE" is meaningless and misleading.
>

Brian is clearly exaggerating. From the ancient toponymy and hydronymy
we know at least some of these languages were close relatives (i.e. your
"Aquan"), as shown by the 'water' root series: *akW-a:, *ab-/ap-,
*up-/ub-, etc.

> 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.
>
> Of course. It did. There are numerous words common only to
> the five "northwestern" branches of IE, or even subsets
> thereof. Many of them are probably Aquan loanwords.
>

See above.

> > Most Vasco-Caucasian lexicon is from *Neolithic*, but older layers

are

> > shared with Eurasiatic, so these chronologies should be reversed.
>
> How do you know that the Neolithic terms in Vasco-Caucasian
> languages aren't Wanderwörter, comparing not languages but
> dictionaries?
>

I'm speaking about *substrate* loanwords from *extinct* Vasco-Caucasian
languages, probably spoken by agro-pastoralists which spread along
Mediterranean Europe in the Neolithic. By contrast, genuine VC words
relative to agriculture are rare or non-existent outside the Near East,
e.g. in Hurrian.

> And why do insist that Neolithic terms in IE
> languages are, despite the regularity of the sound
> correspondences? It is *you* who has it upside down.
>

Surely Neolithic Paleo-IE loanwords were absorbed by Kurganic before its
final fragmentation.

> > 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 agree with you that the agricultural terms that seem to be
> shared between IE and Afrasian probably are Neolithic
> Wanderwörter, and thus no valid evidence of a common ancestor.
>

Not exactly. The lexicon relative to agriculture (i.e. 'plough') had to
be brought by Neolithic farmers who came from the *Near* East à la
Renfrew's, as shown by Bomhard's correspondences between IE (actually
Paleo-IE) and Semitic. These include the merging of sibilant affricates
and dental stops you suggested for your "Europic".

However, these languages had also Wanderwörter from languages
previously spoken in the Near and *Middle* East, especially in the
Taurus-Zagros, where animals such as 'goat', 'sheep' and 'pig' were
domesticated.

http://vasco-caucasian.blogspot.com.es/2011/11/indo-european-horses.html

> 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.
>
> And those correspondences do not include your "Paleo-IE"
> - of course not, because "Paleo-IE" exists only in your
> imagination, and Bomhard thus cannot know about it.
>

I just translated things from his model to my own. ¿Habla Ud.
español? Sprechen Sie deutsch?

> > > 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.
>
> You were talking about Bomhard! Don't say "Bomhard" when you mean

"Starostin".

>

Please read me well. I *never* associated Bomhard and NEC.

> Please do not misrepresent other scholars this way!
>
> > Actualy, it's you who got it wrong.
>
> I mean, you attribute things to scholars who have *never* said
> anything like that! That is what I mean by "misrepresenting
> other scholars". This is not the first time you have done
> that. Remember when you cited Rodriguez Adrados as supporting
> your ideas on IE, until it turned out that he never did?
>

Once again, you're distorting what I say.

> > Not exactly. The reconstructed PIE is the sum of Kurganic (i.e. the

real

> > "PIE") as well as several Paleo-IE layers.
>
> Indeed, some Indo-Europeanists over-reconstruct and attribute
> words to PIE that really were borrowed from some other source
> (such as Aquan) into several branches of IE after the breakup
> of PIE, or even words that resemble each other only by chance.
> Pokorny, for instance, is a notorious case of that. This
> indeed needs to be sorted out.
>

I'm afraid most IE-ists have underestimated the amount of non-Kurganic
(i.e. non-PIE) lexicon in IE languages.