Anatolian [was: PIE Ablaut [was] Re: Gypsies again]
- Patrick Ryan wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----Some Anatolian languages preserved the distinction PIE *k^ : *k, and some
> From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
> To: <email@example.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 -----
>>> 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
>>> 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/.
> 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
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
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.
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
> Some Anatolian languages preserved the distinctionWell, actually...
> 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?
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 LuwianWe can legimately reconstruct Proto-Anatolian in
> inflexion so much satisfactorily to maintain the
> hypothesis that Proto-Anatolian ever existed?
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
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 :)
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005