Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor

On Sep 29, 4:09 pm, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 29, 3:01 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



In article
<0f93b213-e05c-40d6-bcf0-6c6e1ea0d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:37 pm, "ranjit_math...@xxxxxxxxx"
<ranjit_math...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 29, 10:54 am, Joachim Pense <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ranjit_math...@xxxxxxxxx (in sci.lang):

On Sep 14, 5:38 pm, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
PIIr never existed.

Proto-Indic is what the West calls PIE (or at least the Indian dialect
of it).

Did your proto-Indic have a [z]?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians
Among the sound changes from Proto-Indo-Iranian to Indo-Aryan is the
loss of the voiced sibilant *z

PIE is not supposed to have had *z, so what is the story of a *z in PII?

I don't know enough to say much about it; I was just quoting someone
else. Looking at this, it seems to be
mistaken:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian

This is cute:
dnghu.org/indo-european-schleicher-fable.pdf

That brings up an interesting question:

Would the (re)constructed "PIE" change in anyway if Iranian is
excluded?

If you subtract data and redo your analysis on the remaining subset,
the resulting analysis runs the risk of not being able to account for
the data you subtracted.

(This isn't guaranteed, of course.)

Nathan

--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams Collegehttp://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/-

But thats what happened with Hittite/Tocharian/Luwian didn't it? They
all changed our ideas of PIE or for that matter even its features on
being discovered. But based on what Peter has written it looks like
PIE can be reconstructed ignoring Iranian and then Iranian explained
from the PIE that was constructed without it.

Sorry, how did you arrive at that conclusion? PIE is based on
comparing the reconstructions of PII, PIt, PGmc, PBSl, PCltc, and
internally reconstructed Gk and Alb; as time went on, they were able
to add Arm, Toch, and PAnat.

You asked how PIE would be reconstructed without taking into account
Iranian.

You didn't ask what would happen if the Iranian languages were
subsequently discovered. The answer to that is that they would be seen
to be intimately related to the Indic languages.

The Tocharian and Anatolian languages, however, are not particularly
close to any of the other attested IE languages, so changes in the
reconstruction of PIE proved necessary.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... PIE can be reconstructed ignoring Iranian and then Iranian explained ... You didn't ask what would happen if the Iranian languages were ... attested languages that can generate through reconstruction the full- ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: open letter to the Google company, on the value of the scientific groups
    ... reconstructions that are PIE are actual "words" that were spoken by ... "PIE aims to reconstruct what they really spoke as accurately as we can" ... derive the daughter languages in an optimal manner". ... And what do you understand under the notion of "daughter languages"? ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... PIE can be reconstructed ignoring Iranian and then Iranian explained ... to be intimately related to the Indic languages. ... attested languages that can generate through reconstruction the full- ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... PIE can be reconstructed ignoring Iranian and then Iranian explained ... to be intimately related to the Indic languages. ... attested languages that can generate through reconstruction the full- ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... PIE can be reconstructed ignoring Iranian and then Iranian explained ... to be intimately related to the Indic languages. ... attested languages that can generate through reconstruction the full- ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading