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

Anatolian [was: PIE Ablaut [was] Re: Gypsies again]

Expand Messages
  • Grzegorz Jagodzinski
    Patrick Ryan wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: Miguel Carrasquer To: Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 7, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Patrick Ryan wrote:
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
      > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:51 PM
      > Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE Ablaut [was] Re: Gypsies again
      >
      >
      >> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:59:25 -0500, Patrick Ryan
      >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
      >>
      >>> ----- Original Message -----
      >>> Patrick:
      >>>
      >>> I should have stated more precisely that there are _no_ traces of
      >>> the _vocalic_ expressions of this Ablaut-phoneme in Anatolian or
      >>> Indian. No one
      >>> can doubt a *V/*Ø variation based on the stress-accent occurs in
      >>> Anatolian
      >>> and Indian.
      >>
      >> And no one can doubt there is e/a variation in Anatolian.
      >> I see no reason to treat Hittite any differently here than
      >> all the other languages which have merged /o/ and /a/
      >> (Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian). Furthermore, /o/ and
      >> /a/ had not merged in Proto-Anatolian: Lycian has */o/ > /e/
      >> and */a/ > /a/.
      >
      > ***
      > Patrick:
      >
      > I guess you may call me Noone. Am I correct assuming that the basis
      > for your claim that PIE /*o/ and /*a/ had not merged in
      > Proto-Anatolian is based on the alleged Lycian equivalence /*o/ > /e/?
      >
      > In view of PIE /*e/ > Lycian /e/, it looks to me as if the
      > Proto-Anatolian from which Lycian developed did not maintain or
      > perhaps ever have the PIE /*e/~/*o/ Ablaut variation. Perhaps you can
      > convince me with something other than dubious particles and
      > inflections?

      Some Anatolian languages preserved the distinction PIE *k^ : *k, and some
      had not. Some Anatolian languages preserved *a : *o, and some did not. Maybe
      we should ponder on whether the Anatolian group (or: subfamily) existed at
      all? As far as I know, most Anatolian languages are known rather
      fragmentarily. Can we really reconstruct, say, Lycian or Luwian inflexion so
      much satisfactorily to maintain the hypothesis that Proto-Anatolian ever
      existed?

      One of the most popular views is that the Proto-Anatolian language community
      separated from the rest and migrated into Anatolia while the remaining IE
      dialects still evolued together. If yes, why particular Anatolian languages
      (including those newer ones) have common features with, e.g., Greek (a : o)
      and Armenian (k^ : k) while the others have not? Perhaps "the Anatolian
      group" was rather a language league than a group of genetically related
      languages. If we took such an assumption, particular Anatolian languages
      might appear (genetically) closer to particular IE groups that to one
      another, and their common features (hey! how many of them were there?) might
      be a result of secondary influences.

      Grzegorz J.



      ___________________________________________________________
      To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
    • glen gordon
      ... Well, actually... I think the issues you re having with all of this is that you are subconsciously imagining IE dialect areas with strict, immalleable
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 7, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Grzegorz:
        > Some Anatolian languages preserved the distinction
        > PIE *k^ : *k, and some had not. Some Anatolian
        > languages preserved *a : *o, and some did not.
        > Maybe we should ponder on whether the Anatolian
        > group (or: subfamily) existed at all?

        Well, actually...

        I think the issues you're having with all of this
        is that you are subconsciously imagining IE dialect
        areas with strict, immalleable boundaries.

        In reality, dialects in any language modern or ancient
        are nothing more than "bundles of idiosyncratic
        features" in a particular region. If you think about
        dialects in this way, then we can understand both how
        dialects can each have their own boundaries while
        also recognizing that *some* of the features of one
        dialect may overlap into other neighbouring dialect
        regions (or even other language groups) by way of
        simple areal influence.

        Try this: Instead of drawing out a dialect map of
        IE for yourself, try drawing out an isogloss map.

        You'll start to understand that the word "dialect"
        is a vague term because there are as many dialects as
        there are isoglosses that you wish to pay attention
        to. If you want to split IE into five notable
        features, then you have five dialects. Ten isoglosses?
        Then you have ten dialects, och så vidare, und so
        weite, and so on, et cetera, yadayada.

        So, in respect to the topic of Anatolian, you're
        correct. There wasn't any "Anatolian" dialect area
        in the strictest sense. Only a region from which
        sprang the later Anatolian languages we now call
        Hittite, Palaic, Luwian, Lycian, Lydian, etc. For
        simplicity, we refer to that region and general
        dialect area as Proto-Anatolian.

        This same reasoning goes for all IE dialects.


        > Can we really reconstruct, say, Lycian or Luwian
        > inflexion so much satisfactorily to maintain the
        > hypothesis that Proto-Anatolian ever existed?

        We can legimately reconstruct Proto-Anatolian in
        the same way that we can Proto-IE, as long as we
        recognize that language is fluid. In other words,
        when we reconstruct a language, we are merely
        reconstruct the *general* features of the family
        as a whole, or rather of the region from which the
        language family originated.

        How precise one wishes to be with the reconstruction
        depends on how small a region you want to focus on,
        whether it be Proto-IE as a whole or specifically the
        region where Proto-Anatolian dialects were first
        spoken.

        To get a more precise picture of Proto-IE, you have
        to realize that there was *always* dialectal
        differences from region to region. This doesn't
        negate the efforts of Proto-IE. It only makes things
        less Hollywood than most people are used to on TV :)


        = gLeN




        __________________________________
        Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.