Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Avestan and Vedic

Expand Messages
  • Ram Varmha
    Avestan and Vedic are obviously twin languages. Notice the similarity from Avesta to Sanskrit in the sample below: tem amavantem yazatem surem damohu seviytem
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 8, 2007
      Avestan and Vedic are obviously twin languages. Notice the similarity from Avesta to Sanskrit in the sample below:
       
      tem amavantem yazatem
      surem damohu seviytem
      mithrem yazai zaothrabyo
      'Mithra that strong mighty angel, most beneficent to all creatures, I will worship with libations'.
       
      Becomes when rendered word for word in Sanskrit:
      tam amavantam yajatam
      yuram dhamasu yavistham
      mitram yajai hotrabhyah
       
      They may have a common root, somewhere. What is generally considered to be that common language? Does it exist in traces or has it become an isolate?
       
      It is well known that the 'S' in Vedic is transferred as 'H' in Avestan. Examples:
      Asura > Ahura
      Saraswati > Harahwati
      etc, etc
       
      It would seem to me, that the conversion from S to H is more of a logical directional transfer than from H to S, because, 'Sah' to 'Ha' is easily followed, than v.v.
       
      If that be the case, will it not be logical to assume that their 'parent' language may have been more akin to Vedic than Avestan; in other words, is Avestan later than Vedic?
       
      Any thoughts on this from the experts?
       
      Ram

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

    • Paul Kekai Manansala
      ... creatures, I will worship with libations . ... This is trick linguistics, used often to prove languages are related. If the sample given above could be
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 8, 2007
        --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Ram Varmha <varmha@...> wrote:
        >
        > Avestan and Vedic are obviously twin languages. Notice the
        similarity from Avesta to Sanskrit in the sample below:
        >
        >
        > tem amavantem yazatem
        > surem damohu seviytem
        > mithrem yazai zaothrabyo
        >
        >
        >
        > 'Mithra that strong mighty angel, most beneficent to all
        creatures, I will worship with libations'.
        >
        > Becomes when rendered word for word in Sanskrit:
        >
        >
        > tam amavantam yajatam
        > yuram dhamasu yavistham
        > mitram yajai hotrabhyah
        >


        This is "trick" linguistics, used often to "prove" languages are
        related.

        If the sample given above could be generalized to both languages, then
        they would simply be dialects of one another. However, it is suggested
        that their is signficant distance between the two. For example, here
        is the classification found in Ethnologue:



        Indo-Iranian - Indo-Aryan
        |
        Iranian


        Indo-Aryan - Sanskrit

        Iranian - Eastern Iranian - Northeastern Iranian - Avestan


        Notice that Avestan is four splits down from Indo-Iranian. The same
        classification suggests only three splits from English to
        Proto-Indo-European.


        >
        >
        > If that be the case, will it not be logical to assume that their
        'parent' language may have been more akin to Vedic than Avestan; in
        other words, is Avestan later than Vedic?
        >
        >

        It's irrelevant if one accepts the commonly-given linguistic genealogies.

        However, Vedic literature by most estimates is considered older than
        Avestan literature in most cases by 500 to 1000 years.

        The dating of both is highly speculative as the extant sources do not
        date back before medieval times.

        Regards,
        Paul Kekai Manansala
        Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
        http://sambali.blogspot.com/
      • Ravindra Jaju
        Not entirely on topic, but in some parts of Rajasthan (limited to what I know of), replacing S with H is prevalent even today! -- jaju
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 9, 2007
          Not entirely on topic, but in some parts of Rajasthan (limited to what I know of), replacing S with H is prevalent even today!

          --
          jaju

          On 1/8/07, Ram Varmha <varmha@...> wrote:
          Avestan and Vedic are obviously twin languages. Notice the similarity from Avesta to Sanskrit in the sample below:
           
          tem amavantem yazatem
          surem d amohu seviytem
          mithrem yazai zaothrabyo

          'Mithra that strong mighty angel, most beneficent to all creatures, I will worship with libations'.
           
          Becomes when rendered word for word in Sanskrit:

          tam amavantam yajatam
          yuram dhamasu yavistham
          mitram yajai hotrabhyah
           
          They may have a common root, somewhere. What is generally considered to be that common language? Does it exist in traces or has it become an isolate?
           
          It is well known that the 'S' in Vedic is transferred as 'H' in Avestan. Examples:
          Asura > Ahura
          Saraswati > Harahwati
          etc, etc
           
          It would seem to me, that the conversion from S to H is more of a logical directional transfer than from H to S, because, 'Sah' to 'Ha' is easily followed, than v.v.
           
          If that be the case, will it not be logical to assume that their 'parent' language may have been more akin to Vedic than Avestan; in other words, is Avestan later than Vedic?
           
          Any thoughts on this from the experts?
           
          Ram

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com


        • Ram Varmha
          Attached below is a link to Avestan dictionary. Even those with a nodding acquaintance with Vedic/Sanskrit can find a significant list of word-cognates between
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 9, 2007
            Attached below is a link to Avestan dictionary. Even those with a nodding acquaintance with Vedic/Sanskrit can find a significant list of word-cognates between Avesta and Vedic/ Sanskrit; some words being exactly the same in both languages.
             
            Now, if Avesta is later than Vedic, then did the cognate structure between the two languages occur because of common contact between the Vedics and Avestans or were they carry overs from before or after the split or were they dialects of each other?
             
            We still need a reason for the Sa > Ha transfer from V/S to A?
             
            How does English being three splits from PIE enter into this discussion? 
             
            Ram
             
             


            Paul Kekai Manansala <p.manansala@...> wrote:
            --- In IndiaArchaeology@ yahoogroups. com, Ram Varmha <varmha@...> wrote:
            >
            > Avestan and Vedic are obviously twin languages. Notice the
            similarity from Avesta to Sanskrit in the sample below:
            >
            >
            > tem amavantem yazatem
            > surem damohu seviytem
            > mithrem yazai zaothrabyo
            >
            >
            >
            > 'Mithra that strong mighty angel, most beneficent to all
            creatures, I will worship with libations'.
            >
            > Becomes when rendered word for word in Sanskrit:
            >
            >
            > tam amavantam yajatam
            > yuram dhamasu yavistham
            > mitram yajai hotrabhyah
            >

            This is "trick" linguistics, used often to "prove" languages are
            related.

            If the sample given above could be generalized to both languages, then
            they would simply be dialects of one another. However, it is suggested
            that their is signficant distance between the two. For example, here
            is the classification found in Ethnologue:

            Indo-Iranian - Indo-Aryan
            |
            Iranian

            Indo-Aryan - Sanskrit

            Iranian - Eastern Iranian - Northeastern Iranian - Avestan

            Notice that Avestan is four splits down from Indo-Iranian. The same
            classification suggests only three splits from English to
            Proto-Indo-European .

            >
            >
            > If that be the case, will it not be logical to assume that their
            'parent' language may have been more akin to Vedic than Avestan; in
            other words, is Avestan later than Vedic?
            >
            >

            It's irrelevant if one accepts the commonly-given linguistic genealogies.

            However, Vedic literature by most estimates is considered older than
            Avestan literature in most cases by 500 to 1000 years.

            The dating of both is highly speculative as the extant sources do not
            date back before medieval times.

            Regards,
            Paul Kekai Manansala
            Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
            http://sambali. blogspot. com/


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

          • Paul Kekai Manansala
            ... nodding acquaintance with Vedic/Sanskrit can find a significant list of word-cognates between Avesta and Vedic/ Sanskrit; some words being exactly the same
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 9, 2007
              --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Ram Varmha <varmha@...> wrote:
              >
              > Attached below is a link to Avestan dictionary. Even those with a
              nodding acquaintance with Vedic/Sanskrit can find a significant list
              of word-cognates between Avesta and Vedic/ Sanskrit; some words being
              exactly the same in both languages.
              >

              So what does that mean?

              I can give a long list of Latin and Greek words in English. But these
              languages belong to entirely different branches of Indo-European.

              > Now, if Avesta is later than Vedic, then did the cognate structure
              between the two languages occur because of common contact between the
              Vedics and Avestans or were they carry overs from before or after the
              split or were they dialects of each other?
              >

              Actually what we know of these languages originates at about the same
              time in the late medieval period. It is basically a theory that both
              languages are much older.

              There are of course Persian inscriptions dating back to the Persian
              empire, and Sanskrit inscriptions dating to the Saka period. But
              these are quite different from Avestan and Vedic.


              >
              > How does English being three splits from PIE enter into this
              discussion?
              >
              >

              I gave the example to demonstrate the proposed distance between
              Avestan and Vedic. Languages split due to diversification/variation
              i.e., differences between the languages.

              Avestan is four splits from Indo-Iranian so it is not that closely
              related to Vedic. It should be no closer to Vedic than Italian is to
              Swedish actually. So any very close resemblances should be explained
              by borrowing or due to the fact that both are contrived literary
              languages (my explanation).

              Regards,
              Paul Kekai Manansala
              Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
              http://sambali.blogspot.com/
            • Ram Varmha
              What are the basic grammatical differences between Avesta and Vedic? The best one I could find on the web is the following:
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 11, 2007
                What are the basic grammatical differences between Avesta and Vedic?
                 
                The best one I could find on the web is the following:
                 
                 
                Ram

                Paul Kekai Manansala <p.manansala@...> wrote:
                --- In IndiaArchaeology@ yahoogroups. com, Ram Varmha <varmha@...> wrote:
                >
                > Attached below is a link to Avestan dictionary. Even those with a
                nodding acquaintance with Vedic/Sanskrit can find a significant list
                of word-cognates between Avesta and Vedic/ Sanskrit; some words being
                exactly the same in both languages.
                >

                So what does that mean?

                I can give a long list of Latin and Greek words in English. But these
                languages belong to entirely different branches of Indo-European.

                > Now, if Avesta is later than Vedic, then did the cognate structure
                between the two languages occur because of common contact between the
                Vedics and Avestans or were they carry overs from before or after the
                split or were they dialects of each other?
                >

                Actually what we know of these languages originates at about the same
                time in the late medieval period. It is basically a theory that both
                languages are much older.

                There are of course Persian inscriptions dating back to the Persian
                empire, and Sanskrit inscriptions dating to the Saka period. But
                these are quite different from Avestan and Vedic.

                >
                > How does English being three splits from PIE enter into this
                discussion?
                >
                >

                I gave the example to demonstrate the proposed distance between
                Avestan and Vedic. Languages split due to diversification/ variation
                i.e., differences between the languages.

                Avestan is four splits from Indo-Iranian so it is not that closely
                related to Vedic. It should be no closer to Vedic than Italian is to
                Swedish actually. So any very close resemblances should be explained
                by borrowing or due to the fact that both are contrived literary
                languages (my explanation) .

                Regards,
                Paul Kekai Manansala
                Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
                http://sambali. blogspot. com/



                Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now.

              • Paul Kekai Manansala
                ... For info on Old Avestan: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/aveol-TC-R.html Regards, Paul Kekai Manansala Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
                Message 7 of 25 , Jan 11, 2007
                  --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Ram Varmha <varmha@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > What are the basic grammatical differences between Avesta and Vedic?
                  >
                  > The best one I could find on the web is the following:
                  >
                  > http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/parsiscriptures.html
                  >
                  >

                  For info on Old Avestan:

                  http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/aveol-TC-R.html

                  Regards,
                  Paul Kekai Manansala
                  Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
                  http://sambali.blogspot.com/
                • munnubanerjee
                  I have noticed this in assamese also. I dont know if its possible to designate vedic as being older than avestan based on one trait. vedic may prserve some
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jan 12, 2007
                    I have noticed this in assamese also.

                    I dont know if its possible to designate vedic as being older than
                    avestan based on one trait. vedic may prserve some archaic traits and
                    at the same time avestan may preserve others. We could make such a
                    claim if vedic prserves more archaic traits on average than avestan.


                    Arguments somewhat similar to this have been used to give a relative
                    chronology of vedic within the ie family tree. witzel claims that
                    dialects at peripheries of liguistic family distribution are usually
                    more innovative then the ones at the center.

                    there is no such empirical truth. real languages dont follow such
                    clean rules. Moreover vedic can be classified as both conservative or
                    innovative based on what trait you pick.

                    --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Ravindra Jaju"
                    <ravindra.jaju@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Not entirely on topic, but in some parts of Rajasthan (limited to what I
                    > know of), replacing S with H is prevalent even today!
                    >
                    > --
                    > jaju
                    >
                    > On 1/8/07, Ram Varmha <varmha@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Avestan and Vedic are obviously twin languages. Notice the
                    similarity from
                    > > Avesta to Sanskrit in the sample below:
                    > >
                    > > *tem amavantem yazatem
                    > > surem damohu seviytem
                    > > mithrem yazai zaothrabyo*
                    > >
                    > > 'Mithra that strong mighty angel, most beneficent to all
                    creatures, I will
                    > > worship with libations'. Becomes when rendered word for word in
                    > > Sanskrit:
                    > >
                    > > *tam amavantam yajatam
                    > > yuram dhamasu yavistham
                    > > mitram yajai hotrabhyah*
                    > >
                    > > They may have a common root, somewhere. What is generally
                    considered to be
                    > > that common language? Does it exist in traces or has it become an
                    isolate?
                    > >
                    > > It is well known that the 'S' in Vedic is transferred as 'H' in
                    Avestan.
                    > > Examples:
                    > > Asura > Ahura
                    > > Saraswati > Harahwati
                    > > etc, etc
                    > >
                    > > It would seem to me, that the conversion from S to H is more of a
                    logical
                    > > directional transfer than from H to S, because, 'Sah' to 'Ha' is
                    easily
                    > > followed, than v.v.
                    > >
                    > > If that be the case, will it not be logical to assume that their
                    'parent'
                    > > language may have been more akin to Vedic than Avestan; in other
                    words, is
                    > > Avestan later than Vedic?
                    > >
                    > > Any thoughts on this from the experts?
                    > >
                    > > Ram
                    > >
                    > > __________________________________________________
                    > > Do You Yahoo!?
                    > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    > > http://mail.yahoo.com
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Ram Varmha
                    Here is an old text on Avesta grammar and comparison with Sanskrit. http://www.avesta.org/kanga/grammar_opf_files/ Ram ... For info on Old Avestan:
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jan 12, 2007
                      Here is an "old" text on Avesta grammar and comparison with Sanskrit.
                       
                      Ram


                      Paul Kekai Manansala <p.manansala@...> wrote:
                      --- In IndiaArchaeology@ yahoogroups. com, Ram Varmha <varmha@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > What are the basic grammatical differences between Avesta and Vedic?
                      >
                      > The best one I could find on the web is the following:
                      >
                      > http://www.derafsh- kaviyani. com/english/ parsiscriptures. html
                      >
                      >

                      For info on Old Avestan:

                      http://www.utexas. edu/cola/ centers/lrc/ eieol/aveol- TC-R.html

                      Regards,
                      Paul Kekai Manansala
                      Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
                      http://sambali. blogspot. com/



                      Never miss an email again!
                      Yahoo! Toolbar
                      alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

                    • raonath
                      ... There are quite a few IE-ists who claim that the center is more innovative than the periphery. You will find such claims in the cybalist (on Yahoo groups).
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jan 13, 2007
                        --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "munnubanerjee"
                        <munnubanerjee@...> wrote:
                        > witzel claims that
                        > dialects at peripheries of liguistic family distribution are usually
                        > more innovative then the ones at the center.

                        There are quite a few IE-ists who claim that the center is
                        more innovative than the periphery. You will find such claims
                        in the cybalist (on Yahoo groups). I don't know if either one
                        has empirical support.

                        To go back to the question of innovations in Vedic vs Avestan:
                        If language A is in all respects more innovative than B, it is
                        likely that A evolved from B. In case of sister branches in IE,
                        it is always the case that one "preserves" some traits more
                        than the other. ["preserves" is in quotation marks because there
                        may be changes but starting from a more archaic point.] Thus,
                        in Sanskrit word-medial consonsnat clusters are generally
                        better preserved, but word-final clusters are drastically
                        simplified (compared to Greek and some extent Avestan).
                        Iranian (including Avestan) merge *d and *dh (for example),
                        but Sanskrit merges *g^ (>z in Avestan) and j from the secod
                        palatalization. It is impossible to use these things for
                        dating.

                        Nath Rao
                      • ayachitman
                        Similarly, Mittani Indo-Aryan language is considered older than Vedic or Avestan because it has aika instead of eka. Vedic is supposed to have merged ai to
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jan 14, 2007
                          Similarly, Mittani Indo-Aryan language is considered older than Vedic
                          or Avestan because it has aika instead of eka. Vedic is supposed to
                          have merged 'ai' to 'e', hence younger. But at the same time Mittani
                          contains satta for seven that corresponds to sound changes in
                          prakrits, which is much later than Vedic. But lingusists somehow came
                          to the conclusion that Mittani Aryan was older than Vedic. They also
                          base their conclusion based on one or two words and take that one
                          word as a proof of their assumption while ignoring others.

                          regards,
                          Mandar

                          --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "raonath" <raonath@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "munnubanerjee"
                          > <munnubanerjee@> wrote:
                          > > witzel claims that
                          > > dialects at peripheries of liguistic family distribution are
                          usually
                          > > more innovative then the ones at the center.
                          >
                          > There are quite a few IE-ists who claim that the center is
                          > more innovative than the periphery. You will find such claims
                          > in the cybalist (on Yahoo groups). I don't know if either one
                          > has empirical support.
                          >
                          > To go back to the question of innovations in Vedic vs Avestan:
                          > If language A is in all respects more innovative than B, it is
                          > likely that A evolved from B. In case of sister branches in IE,
                          > it is always the case that one "preserves" some traits more
                          > than the other. ["preserves" is in quotation marks because there
                          > may be changes but starting from a more archaic point.] Thus,
                          > in Sanskrit word-medial consonsnat clusters are generally
                          > better preserved, but word-final clusters are drastically
                          > simplified (compared to Greek and some extent Avestan).
                          > Iranian (including Avestan) merge *d and *dh (for example),
                          > but Sanskrit merges *g^ (>z in Avestan) and j from the secod
                          > palatalization. It is impossible to use these things for
                          > dating.
                          >
                          > Nath Rao
                          >
                        • Ravindra Jaju
                          ... Seems like a pretty standard approach in proving one s point in such (may I call it) speculative science fields. Unlike pure sciences, deviations can be
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jan 14, 2007
                            On 1/14/07, ayachitman <ayachitman@...> wrote:
                            Similarly, Mittani Indo-Aryan language is considered older than Vedic
                            or Avestan because it has aika instead of eka. Vedic is supposed to
                            have merged 'ai' to 'e', hence younger. But at the same time Mittani
                            contains satta for seven that corresponds to sound changes in
                            prakrits, which is much later than Vedic. But lingusists somehow came
                            to the conclusion that Mittani Aryan was older than Vedic. They also
                            base their conclusion based on one or two words and take that one
                            word as a proof of their assumption while ignoring others.

                            Seems like a pretty standard approach in proving one's point in such
                            (may I call it) speculative science fields. Unlike pure sciences, deviations
                            can be easily termed as exceptional or creative traits - or vice versa. Exceptions
                            are cited as rules, and much evidence to the contrary termed as exception. And then a page
                            full of samples (which are relatively pretty small - and ambiguous to boot!) are
                            repeated ad nauseum - in various forms - to get established.

                            It's amusing to see to what level the (English! ;-)) language of these people stoops down
                            (especially coming from the supposedly well-established scholars) to be
                            able to stick to one's theory.

                            regards,
                            Ravindra
                          • mkelkar2003
                            ... That vowel merger is an the gypsey language behaves in an opposite manner) which is itself based on another dubious theory of reconstructing laryngeals
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jan 14, 2007
                              --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "ayachitman" <ayachitman@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > Similarly, Mittani Indo-Aryan language is considered older than Vedic
                              > or Avestan because it has aika instead of eka. Vedic is supposed to
                              > have merged 'ai' to 'e', hence younger.

                              That vowel merger is an the gypsey language behaves in an opposite
                              manner) which is itself based on another dubious theory of
                              reconstructing laryngeals into "PIE>"

                              http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/SPIE.pdf

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language

                              Two additional articles "Furture of Grimm's law" and "Colonial
                              Linguistiics" have been posted in the files section of Cybalist.

                              Thanks!

                              M. Kelkar



                              But at the same time Mittani
                              > contains satta for seven that corresponds to sound changes in
                              > prakrits, which is much later than Vedic. But lingusists somehow came
                              > to the conclusion that Mittani Aryan was older than Vedic. They also
                              > base their conclusion based on one or two words and take that one
                              > word as a proof of their assumption while ignoring others.
                              >
                              > regards,
                              > Mandar
                              >
                              > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "raonath" <raonath@>
                              > wrote:
                              > >
                              > > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "munnubanerjee"
                              > > <munnubanerjee@> wrote:
                              > > > witzel claims that
                              > > > dialects at peripheries of liguistic family distribution are
                              > usually
                              > > > more innovative then the ones at the center.
                              > >
                              > > There are quite a few IE-ists who claim that the center is
                              > > more innovative than the periphery. You will find such claims
                              > > in the cybalist (on Yahoo groups). I don't know if either one
                              > > has empirical support.
                              > >
                              > > To go back to the question of innovations in Vedic vs Avestan:
                              > > If language A is in all respects more innovative than B, it is
                              > > likely that A evolved from B. In case of sister branches in IE,
                              > > it is always the case that one "preserves" some traits more
                              > > than the other. ["preserves" is in quotation marks because there
                              > > may be changes but starting from a more archaic point.] Thus,
                              > > in Sanskrit word-medial consonsnat clusters are generally
                              > > better preserved, but word-final clusters are drastically
                              > > simplified (compared to Greek and some extent Avestan).
                              > > Iranian (including Avestan) merge *d and *dh (for example),
                              > > but Sanskrit merges *g^ (>z in Avestan) and j from the secod
                              > > palatalization. It is impossible to use these things for
                              > > dating.
                              > >
                              > > Nath Rao
                              > >
                              >
                            • Paul Kekai Manansala
                              ... My belief based on discussion on the old ANE list is that no Mitanni or Near East specialists believe in Mitanni Aryan anymore. It s mainly
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jan 15, 2007
                                --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "ayachitman" <ayachitman@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > Similarly, Mittani Indo-Aryan language is considered older than Vedic
                                > or Avestan because it has aika instead of eka. Vedic is supposed to
                                > have merged 'ai' to 'e', hence younger. But at the same time Mittani
                                > contains satta for seven that corresponds to sound changes in
                                > prakrits, which is much later than Vedic. But lingusists somehow came
                                > to the conclusion that Mittani Aryan was older than Vedic. They also
                                > base their conclusion based on one or two words and take that one
                                > word as a proof of their assumption while ignoring others.
                                >
                                >

                                My belief based on discussion on the old ANE list is that no Mitanni
                                or Near East specialists believe in 'Mitanni Aryan' anymore.

                                It's mainly Indo-Europeanists still holding on to this theory.

                                Regards,
                                Paul Kekai Manansala
                                Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
                                http://sambali.blogspot.com/
                              • munnubanerjee
                                Minor mittani aryan presence among majority hurrian speaking must have been blown out of proportion by IEists. But that does not mean we have to swing the oher
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jan 15, 2007
                                  Minor mittani aryan presence among majority hurrian speaking must have
                                  been blown out of proportion by IEists. But that does not mean we have
                                  to swing the oher way and rule mittani aryan speakers out completely.

                                  Mittani Aryan is a good assumption because the number of syllables and
                                  words used in a sentence that resemble sanskrit reduces the probablity
                                  of it being a coincidence.


                                  --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Kekai Manansala"
                                  <p.manansala@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "ayachitman" <ayachitman@>
                                  > wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Similarly, Mittani Indo-Aryan language is considered older than Vedic
                                  > > or Avestan because it has aika instead of eka. Vedic is supposed to
                                  > > have merged 'ai' to 'e', hence younger. But at the same time Mittani
                                  > > contains satta for seven that corresponds to sound changes in
                                  > > prakrits, which is much later than Vedic. But lingusists somehow came
                                  > > to the conclusion that Mittani Aryan was older than Vedic. They also
                                  > > base their conclusion based on one or two words and take that one
                                  > > word as a proof of their assumption while ignoring others.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > My belief based on discussion on the old ANE list is that no Mitanni
                                  > or Near East specialists believe in 'Mitanni Aryan' anymore.
                                  >
                                  > It's mainly Indo-Europeanists still holding on to this theory.
                                  >
                                  > Regards,
                                  > Paul Kekai Manansala
                                  > Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
                                  > http://sambali.blogspot.com/
                                  >
                                • Paul Kekai Manansala
                                  ... I don t agree. There never was really any argument for an Aryan presence in Mitanni. The linguistic evidence was always very weak, but the conjecture
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jan 16, 2007
                                    --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "munnubanerjee"
                                    <munnubanerjee@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Minor mittani aryan presence among majority hurrian speaking must have
                                    > been blown out of proportion by IEists. But that does not mean we have
                                    > to swing the oher way and rule mittani aryan speakers out completely.
                                    >
                                    > Mittani Aryan is a good assumption because the number of syllables and
                                    > words used in a sentence that resemble sanskrit reduces the probablity
                                    > of it being a coincidence.
                                    >
                                    >

                                    I don't agree. There never was really any argument for an "Aryan"
                                    presence in Mitanni. The linguistic evidence was always very weak,
                                    but the conjecture necessary to support the Aryan horse theory.

                                    Regards,
                                    Paul Kekai Manansala
                                    Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
                                    http://sambali.blogspot.com/
                                  • Francesco Brighenti
                                    ... The linguistic evidence for Mitanni Indo-Aryan -- i.e., an Old Indo- Aryan language spoken by a section, no matter how small that was, of the population of
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jan 18, 2007
                                      --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Kekai Manansala"
                                      <p.manansala@...> wrote:

                                      > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "munnubanerjee"
                                      > <munnubanerjee@> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > Minor mittani aryan presence among majority hurrian speaking
                                      > > must have been blown out of proportion by IEists. But that does
                                      > > not mean we have to swing the oher way and rule mittani aryan
                                      > > speakers out completely.
                                      >
                                      > I don't agree. There never was really any argument for an "Aryan"
                                      > presence in Mitanni. The linguistic evidence was always very weak,
                                      > but the conjecture necessary to support the Aryan horse theory.

                                      The linguistic evidence for Mitanni Indo-Aryan -- i.e., an Old Indo-
                                      Aryan language spoken by a section, no matter how small that was, of
                                      the population of the Kingdom of Mitanni -- may have been "weak",
                                      but it is yet there and needs to be explained (please note that the
                                      scholarly debate on this subject is still open and that few scholars
                                      would subscribe to the idea that the Hurrians of Mitanni had
                                      an "Aryan" ruling elite today). I fully agree with Mannu on this
                                      point.

                                      It is beyond dispute that there was some prestige connected with the
                                      Mitanni Indo-Aryans' expertise as charioteers and horse trainers
                                      (part of which was no doubt imported from the east, and more
                                      precisely, as per a widely accepted scholarly paradigm, from Central
                                      rather than from South Asia). This is not a "conjecture" -- check
                                      the relevant literature on Mitanni Indo-Aryan --, and your
                                      proclaiming the inexistence of an "Aryan" (= Old Indo-Aryan)
                                      linguistic element in the Kingdom of Mitanni (and, by extension, of
                                      the people who spoke the concerned language) is unacceptable, more
                                      so because you claim that this linguistic hypothesis was only
                                      devised "to support the Aryan horse theory".

                                      Exactly the reverse is true, namely, it is Mitanni Indo-Aryan's
                                      distinctive association with horse-training and chariots that
                                      reinforces what you call the "Aryan horse theory".

                                      Regards,
                                      Francesco
                                    • Paul Kekai Manansala
                                      ... This is not a conjecture -- check ... Indeed it is only conjecture. The Mitanni literature itself makes no mention of Aryans and as I ve stated,
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jan 19, 2007
                                        --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti"
                                        <frabrig@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Kekai Manansala"
                                        > <p.manansala@> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "munnubanerjee"
                                        > > <munnubanerjee@> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > >


                                        This is not a "conjecture" -- check
                                        > the relevant literature on Mitanni Indo-Aryan --, and your
                                        > proclaiming the inexistence of an "Aryan" (= Old Indo-Aryan)
                                        > linguistic element in the Kingdom of Mitanni (and, by extension, of
                                        > the people who spoke the concerned language) is unacceptable,

                                        Indeed it is only conjecture.

                                        The Mitanni literature itself makes no mention of "Aryans" and as I've
                                        stated, experts in Mitanni language have refuted the so-called "Aryan"
                                        elements in the language.

                                        It is part of a theory unsupported by physical evidence connecting
                                        horses, chariots, etc. with Indo-Europeans.

                                        Regards,
                                        Paul Kekai Manansala
                                        Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
                                        http://sambali.blogspot.com/
                                      • mkelkar2003
                                        ... I do not know what widely accepted scholarly paradigm is being referred to here. Horses were introduced to the near east by Hurrians not the Mittani and
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Jan 19, 2007
                                          --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti"
                                          <frabrig@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Kekai Manansala"
                                          > <p.manansala@> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "munnubanerjee"
                                          > > <munnubanerjee@> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > > Minor mittani aryan presence among majority hurrian speaking
                                          > > > must have been blown out of proportion by IEists. But that does
                                          > > > not mean we have to swing the oher way and rule mittani aryan
                                          > > > speakers out completely.
                                          > >
                                          > > I don't agree. There never was really any argument for an "Aryan"
                                          > > presence in Mitanni. The linguistic evidence was always very weak,
                                          > > but the conjecture necessary to support the Aryan horse theory.
                                          >
                                          > The linguistic evidence for Mitanni Indo-Aryan -- i.e., an Old Indo-
                                          > Aryan language spoken by a section, no matter how small that was, of
                                          > the population of the Kingdom of Mitanni -- may have been "weak",
                                          > but it is yet there and needs to be explained (please note that the
                                          > scholarly debate on this subject is still open and that few scholars
                                          > would subscribe to the idea that the Hurrians of Mitanni had
                                          > an "Aryan" ruling elite today). I fully agree with Mannu on this
                                          > point.
                                          >
                                          > It is beyond dispute that there was some prestige connected with the
                                          > Mitanni Indo-Aryans' expertise as charioteers and horse trainers
                                          > (part of which was no doubt imported from the east, and more
                                          > precisely, as per a widely accepted scholarly paradigm, from Central
                                          > rather than from South Asia).


                                          I do not know what "widely accepted scholarly paradigm" is being
                                          referred to here. Horses were introduced to the near east by Hurrians
                                          not the Mittani and horses were ridden in the region long before the
                                          famed Hiittite "horse texts." Read on:

                                          "Recent evidence from the Khabur region of northeastern Syria strongly
                                          suggests that here at least the horse arrived in association with
                                          Hurrian-speaking peoples (not the Mittani!), first identified in the
                                          cuneiform records at the time of Naram-Sin (c. 2554-18 BC). Certainly
                                          there are important Hurrian city-states in this region by the last
                                          quarter of the third millennium (Buccellati and Kelly-Buccellati 1997;
                                          Oates et. al. 2001, 393-4) while, as we have seen, the earliest
                                          written documentation of the horse belongs to the last century of this
                                          period. In a recent paper Ivanov (1998) discusses the name of the
                                          horse in Hurrian, and comments on the possible relationships, inter
                                          alia, of Sumerian anse.zi.zi, Akkadian sisu (sisa'um) (*sisa'um),
                                          Hurrian esse, Armenian es (`donkey'), Luwian assuwa. Unfortunately,
                                          our knowledge not only of the early domestication of the horse but
                                          also the spread of the North Caucasian, Hurrian, and satam dialects is
                                          at present inadequate to resolve these questions.

                                          We can conclude, however, that the domestic horse had certainly been
                                          introduced into northern Syria and Mesopotamia by the last century of
                                          the third millennium BC. Nor is there any doubt that in the second
                                          millennium BC horses were both ridden and used to pull spoked-wheeled
                                          chariots, indeed that the riding of the horse precedes by hundreds of
                                          years the horse-training manual of the Mitannian Kikkuli and other
                                          Hittite `horse-texts' of the Late Bronze Age (Kammenhuber 1961; Starke
                                          1995). The military employment of horses as cavalry dates from at
                                          least as early as the Assyrian armies of the ninth century BC (Oates
                                          2003, pp. 123-124)."

                                          Oates, Joan (2003), "A Note on the Early Evidence for Horse and the
                                          Riding of Equids in Western Asia," in Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation
                                          and the Horse," Marsha Levine, Colin Renfrew, and Kati Boyle (Eds.),
                                          Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

                                          M. Kelkar





                                          This is not a "conjecture" -- check
                                          > the relevant literature on Mitanni Indo-Aryan --, and your
                                          > proclaiming the inexistence of an "Aryan" (= Old Indo-Aryan)
                                          > linguistic element in the Kingdom of Mitanni (and, by extension, of
                                          > the people who spoke the concerned language) is unacceptable, more
                                          > so because you claim that this linguistic hypothesis was only
                                          > devised "to support the Aryan horse theory".
                                          >
                                          > Exactly the reverse is true, namely, it is Mitanni Indo-Aryan's
                                          > distinctive association with horse-training and chariots that
                                          > reinforces what you call the "Aryan horse theory".
                                          >
                                          > Regards,
                                          > Francesco
                                          >
                                        • Francesco Brighenti
                                          ... Did I hold that Indo-Aryan speakers living in the Kingdom of Mitanni *introduced* horses in Syria/N. Mesopotamia? I confined myself to saying that there
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Jan 21, 2007
                                            --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
                                            <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:

                                            > Horses were introduced to the near east by Hurrians
                                            > not the Mittani and horses were ridden in the region long before
                                            > the famed Hittite horse texts.

                                            Did I hold that Indo-Aryan speakers living in the Kingdom of Mitanni
                                            *introduced* horses in Syria/N. Mesopotamia? I confined myself to
                                            saying that "there was some prestige connected with the
                                            Mitanni Indo-Aryans' expertise as charioteers and horse trainers
                                            (part of which was no doubt imported from the east...)".

                                            The distinctive association of the *linguistic material*
                                            denominated "Mitanni Indo-Aryan" -- because it unfortunately IS a
                                            form of Old Indo-Aryan (slightly earlier than Vedic Sanskrit, as it
                                            is apparent) -- with horse-training and chariots makes it very
                                            likely, as was recognized long ago, that an Indo-Aryan presence
                                            closely connected with the latter technical abilities was felt,
                                            directly OR indirectly (or both), in the Hurrian state of Mitanni.

                                            The fact that horses were already known in the region before the
                                            earliest attestations of Mitanni Indo-Aryan words in Near Eastern
                                            texts, does not alter the picture.

                                            Regards
                                            Francesco
                                          • mkelkar2003
                                            ... Mitanni Indo-Aryans expertise as charioteers and horse trainers ... You are holding that Mitanni Indo-Aryans expertise as charioteers was no doubt
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Jan 22, 2007
                                              --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti"
                                              <frabrig@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
                                              > <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > Horses were introduced to the near east by Hurrians
                                              > > not the Mittani and horses were ridden in the region long before
                                              > > the famed Hittite horse texts.
                                              >
                                              > Did I hold that Indo-Aryan speakers living in the Kingdom of Mitanni
                                              > *introduced* horses in Syria/N. Mesopotamia?


                                              "Mitanni Indo-Aryans' expertise as charioteers and horse trainers
                                              > (part of which was no doubt imported from the east, and more
                                              > precisely, as per a widely accepted scholarly paradigm, from Central
                                              > rather than from South Asia)."

                                              You are holding that Mitanni "Indo-Aryans' expertise as charioteers
                                              was no doubt imported..as per widely accepted scholarly paradigm from
                                              ...Central Asia"

                                              What "widely accepted scholarly paradigm" holds that? The Pontic
                                              Steppe theor *.assumes* that "IA" came from Central Asia and hence
                                              everything they brought came from there.

                                              M. Kelkar



                                              I confined myself to
                                              > saying that "there was some prestige connected with the
                                              > Mitanni Indo-Aryans' expertise as charioteers and horse trainers
                                              > (part of which was no doubt imported from the east...)".
                                              >
                                              > The distinctive association of the *linguistic material*
                                              > denominated "Mitanni Indo-Aryan" -- because it unfortunately IS a
                                              > form of Old Indo-Aryan (slightly earlier than Vedic Sanskrit, as it
                                              > is apparent) -- with horse-training and chariots makes it very
                                              > likely, as was recognized long ago, that an Indo-Aryan presence
                                              > closely connected with the latter technical abilities was felt,
                                              > directly OR indirectly (or both), in the Hurrian state of Mitanni.
                                              >
                                              > The fact that horses were already known in the region before the
                                              > earliest attestations of Mitanni Indo-Aryan words in Near Eastern
                                              > texts, does not alter the picture.
                                              >
                                              > Regards
                                              > Francesco
                                              >
                                            • mkelkar2003
                                              ... Speaking of Mittani Indo-Aryans : They have closer connection with Pakistan/India than to a presumed non demonstrable connection with Central Asia. Check
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Jan 22, 2007
                                                --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti"
                                                <frabrig@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
                                                > <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > Horses were introduced to the near east by Hurrians
                                                > > not the Mittani and horses were ridden in the region long before
                                                > > the famed Hittite horse texts.
                                                >
                                                > Did I hold that Indo-Aryan speakers living in the Kingdom of Mitanni
                                                > *introduced* horses in Syria/N. Mesopotamia? I confined myself to
                                                > saying that "there was some prestige connected with the
                                                > Mitanni Indo-Aryans' expertise as charioteers and horse trainers
                                                > (part of which was no doubt imported from the east...)".

                                                >
                                                > Regards
                                                > Francesco

                                                Speaking of Mittani "Indo-Aryans": They have closer connection with
                                                Pakistan/India than to a presumed non demonstrable connection with
                                                Central Asia.

                                                Check the following quotes from Kak (2004)

                                                M. kelkar



                                                "The Mitanni

                                                The Mitanni, who worshiped Vedic gods, were an Indic kingdom that had
                                                bonds of marriage across several generations with the Egyptian 18th
                                                dynasty to which Akhenaten belonged. The Mitanni were known to the
                                                Egyptians as the Naharin (N'h'ryn'), connected to the river (nahar),
                                                very probably referring to the Euphrates. At its peak, the Mitanni
                                                empire stretched from Kirkuk (ancient Arrapkha) and the Zagros
                                                mountains in western Iran in the east, through Assyria to the
                                                Mediterranean sea in the west. Its center was in the region of the
                                                Khabur River, where its capital, Wassukkani was probably located
                                                (Figure 1).

                                                The first Mitanni king was Sutarna I (good sun). He was followed by
                                                Baratarna I (Paratarna, great sun), Para´suksatra (ruler with axe),
                                                Saus­tatar (Sauksatra, son of Suksatra, the good ruler), Paratarna II,
                                                Artad ama (Rtadh aman, abiding in cosmic law), Sutarna II, Tushratta
                                                (Da´saratha), and finally Matiwazza (Mativ aja, whose wealth is
                                                thought) during whose lifetime the Mitanni state appears to have
                                                become a vassal to Assyria. The early years of the Mitanni empire were
                                                occupied in the struggle with Egypt for control of Syria. The greatest
                                                Mitanni king was Sauksatra who reigned during the time of Tuthmose
                                                III. He was said to have looted the Assyrian palace at Ashur. Under
                                                the reign of Tuthmose IV, more friendly relations were established
                                                between the Egyptians and the Mitanni.

                                                "How do we know that the Mitanni were Indic and not Iranian? There are
                                                several reasons, but to be brief, I shall only give three: 1the
                                                deities Indra, Mitra, Varuna, and N asatya are Indian deities and not
                                                Iranian ones, because in Iran Varuna is unknown and Indra and N asatya
                                                appear as demons; 2the name Vasukh ani makes sense in Sanskrit as a
                                                "mine of wealth" whereas in Iranian it means "good mine" which is much
                                                less likely; 3satta, or sapta, for seven, rather than the Iranian word
                                                hapta, where the initial `s' has been changed to `h'.

                                                Why could not the Mitanni be the descendents of a pre-Vedic people as
                                                in the Gimbutas model8 of the spread of the Indo-Iranian people from
                                                the Kurgan culture of the steppes of Central Asia? They would then
                                                have had no particular affinity for Indic deities. If the pre-Vedic
                                                people in Central Asia already had Indin deities, how would these
                                                small bands of people impose their culture and language over what was
                                                perhaps the most densely populated region of the ancient world.
                                                Furthermore, that view does not square with our knowledge of the
                                                astronomical tradition within India. The Vedic Samhitas have very
                                                early astronomical and its geography is squarely within India. The
                                                Vednga Jyotisa, a late Vedic text, already belongs to the middle of
                                                the second millennium BC. The earlier texts remember events within the
                                                Indic geographical area going back to the third and the fourth
                                                millennia BC.9 The theory of a proto-Indoaryan people in Iran from
                                                whom the Aryans of India descended10 in the second millennium BC does
                                                not work for the same reasons."
                                              • Francesco Brighenti
                                                ... The connection of the Mitanni-IA linguistic element with Central Asia (more exactly, with the BMAC area in the centuries after the decline of that culture
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Jan 23, 2007
                                                  --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
                                                  <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:

                                                  > Speaking of Mittani "Indo-Aryans": They have closer connection with
                                                  > Pakistan/India than to a presumed non demonstrable connection with
                                                  > Central Asia.

                                                  The connection of the Mitanni-IA linguistic element with Central
                                                  Asia (more exactly, with the BMAC area in the centuries after the
                                                  decline of that culture complex) is inferred on the basis of the
                                                  older form of attested Mitanni-IA words with respect to the
                                                  corresponding R.gvedic Sanskrit forms. A case in point is Mitanni-IA
                                                  aika- instead of Indic eka- 'one', with the former reflecting the
                                                  Proto-Indo-Iranian form *Hai-ka-/*Hai-ua-. Yet, other attested
                                                  Mitanni-IA terms have been long since recognized as Indo-Aryan, not
                                                  as common Indo-Iranian (though Prof. H.H. Hock expressed his
                                                  skepticism on this issue).

                                                  See related discussions on the old Liverpool Indology List:

                                                  http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa

                                                  > Check the following quotes from Kak (2004):
                                                  >
                                                  > "The Mitanni, who worshiped Vedic gods, were an Indic kingdom..."

                                                  Pace S. Kak (wow! what an authorithy in comparative linguistics you
                                                  chose!), I have already pointed out that there are very few scholars
                                                  today who would insist on the hypothesis that the Kingdom of Mitanni
                                                  was ruled over by an Indo-Aryan-speaking elite...

                                                  Regards,
                                                  Francesco
                                                • JK
                                                  Commenting on some discussion on the time frame of RV and Avesta, Rajesh Kochchar writes http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/?p=2249#comment-94190 While
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Jan 24, 2007
                                                    Commenting on some discussion on the time frame of RV and Avesta,
                                                    Rajesh Kochchar writes

                                                    http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/?p=2249#comment-94190

                                                    While discussing chronology of the Rgveda and its relation to Avesta,
                                                    a clear distinction needs to be made between the time of composition
                                                    and the time of the culture represented in the text.( Munshi Prem
                                                    Chand has written a story Shatranj ke Khiladi, which deals with a
                                                    period older than the writer's).Rv may contain material or references
                                                    that are as much as 1000 years older than the date of the hymn.(
                                                    Pururava ,e g , is mentioned in Rv as an ancient king.)
                                                    Avesta selectively rejects the "philosophy" articulated in the Rv. For
                                                    exam,ple, Indra is demonized , but his title vrtrahana appears in the
                                                    Avestan equivalent as a god . The Soma/Haoma cult is the same in the
                                                    two texts.
                                                    The oldest part of Avesta , the Gathas attributed to Zarathushtra
                                                    himself, must be as as old as Rv.
                                                    It must be kept in mind that it is impossible to make any firm
                                                    statement about chronology of amncient texts. ( The oldest firm date
                                                    in the Indian context is as recent as AD499, of the Aryabhatiya.)
                                                    The key point I am making is that the rituals , mythology etc , of
                                                    which we learn from Rv/Avesta, can be , must be , older than the date
                                                    of composition of the hymn , whatever that be.

                                                    --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "ayachitman" <ayachitman@...>
                                                    wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > Similarly, Mittani Indo-Aryan language is considered older than Vedic
                                                    > or Avestan because it has aika instead of eka. Vedic is supposed to
                                                    > have merged 'ai' to 'e', hence younger. But at the same time Mittani
                                                    > contains satta for seven that corresponds to sound changes in
                                                    > prakrits, which is much later than Vedic. But lingusists somehow came
                                                    > to the conclusion that Mittani Aryan was older than Vedic. They also
                                                    > base their conclusion based on one or two words and take that one
                                                    > word as a proof of their assumption while ignoring others.
                                                    >
                                                    > regards,
                                                    > Mandar
                                                    >
                                                    > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "raonath" <raonath@>
                                                    > wrote:
                                                    > >
                                                    > > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "munnubanerjee"
                                                    > > <munnubanerjee@> wrote:
                                                    > > > witzel claims that
                                                    > > > dialects at peripheries of liguistic family distribution are
                                                    > usually
                                                    > > > more innovative then the ones at the center.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > There are quite a few IE-ists who claim that the center is
                                                    > > more innovative than the periphery. You will find such claims
                                                    > > in the cybalist (on Yahoo groups). I don't know if either one
                                                    > > has empirical support.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > To go back to the question of innovations in Vedic vs Avestan:
                                                    > > If language A is in all respects more innovative than B, it is
                                                    > > likely that A evolved from B. In case of sister branches in IE,
                                                    > > it is always the case that one "preserves" some traits more
                                                    > > than the other. ["preserves" is in quotation marks because there
                                                    > > may be changes but starting from a more archaic point.] Thus,
                                                    > > in Sanskrit word-medial consonsnat clusters are generally
                                                    > > better preserved, but word-final clusters are drastically
                                                    > > simplified (compared to Greek and some extent Avestan).
                                                    > > Iranian (including Avestan) merge *d and *dh (for example),
                                                    > > but Sanskrit merges *g^ (>z in Avestan) and j from the secod
                                                    > > palatalization. It is impossible to use these things for
                                                    > > dating.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Nath Rao
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                  • mkelkar2003
                                                    ... That is exactly what I mean. It is a *presumed* relation based on linguistic reconstrcution and a hypothetical group of Indo-Iranians that no one can
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Jan 24, 2007
                                                      --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti"
                                                      <frabrig@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
                                                      > <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > > Speaking of Mittani "Indo-Aryans": They have closer connection with
                                                      > > Pakistan/India than to a presumed non demonstrable connection with
                                                      > > Central Asia.
                                                      >
                                                      > The connection of the Mitanni-IA linguistic element with Central
                                                      > Asia (more exactly, with the BMAC area in the centuries after the
                                                      > decline of that culture complex) is inferred on the basis of the
                                                      > older form of attested Mitanni-IA words with respect to the
                                                      > corresponding R.gvedic Sanskrit forms. A case in point is Mitanni-IA
                                                      > aika- instead of Indic eka- 'one', with the former reflecting the
                                                      > Proto-Indo-Iranian form *Hai-ka-/*Hai-ua-. Yet, other attested
                                                      > Mitanni-IA terms have been long since recognized as Indo-Aryan, not
                                                      > as common Indo-Iranian (though Prof. H.H. Hock expressed his
                                                      > skepticism on this issue).
                                                      >

                                                      That is exactly what I mean. It is a *presumed* relation based on
                                                      linguistic reconstrcution and a hypothetical group of "Indo-Iranians"
                                                      that no one can locate. Whether aika or eka came first depends on
                                                      which theory of linguistic reconstruction and vowel change seqence one
                                                      accepts, and whether one accepts laryngeals and other such problems
                                                      related to a hypothetical reconstruction. The connections between
                                                      Mittani and India pointed out by Kak (2004) are direct not based on a
                                                      reconstructed past.

                                                      M. Kelkar

                                                      > See related discussions on the old Liverpool Indology List:
                                                      >
                                                      > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa
                                                      >
                                                      > > Check the following quotes from Kak (2004):
                                                      > >
                                                      > > "The Mitanni, who worshiped Vedic gods, were an Indic kingdom..."
                                                      >
                                                      > Pace S. Kak (wow! what an authorithy in comparative linguistics you
                                                      > chose!), I have already pointed out that there are very few scholars
                                                      > today who would insist on the hypothesis that the Kingdom of Mitanni
                                                      > was ruled over by an Indo-Aryan-speaking elite...
                                                      >
                                                      > Regards,
                                                      > Francesco
                                                      >
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.