Bangani The Kentum In India
DEBATE ON ARCHAISM OF SOME SELECT BANGANI WORDS
Anvita Abbi
ABSTRACT
An old debate on Bangani being related to Kentum group of languages or not (Zoller 1988, 1989, 1993, Beekes 1995 and van Driem and Sharma 1996) is worth investigating into the lexicon, specially those words that belong to the 'basic word list' known to be typically most resistant to change. The author conducted a couple of field trips personally to investigate the phenomenon. The paper discusses the results of this investigation.
As RUKI rule is claimed to be inoperative in many Bangani words, the author has investigated, among others, words that should have gone through the Rule but do not. The author, surprisingly, confirms the existence of most, if not all, the words listed in Zoller (1988) with specified meanings. Some semantic variations was noticed though not totally disturbing the original thesis. It is observed that near total multilingualism due to language contact with Himachali and Hindi, (the languages of the vicinity) at times, motivatesinformants to oscillate between one form and other. The paper is descriptive and not historical in nature and thus avoids to attempt to establish the archaism of the disputed words. At best, it expresses the multilayered lexicon of the language indicative of long and stable multilingual communities in close contact.
Yog.
The van Driem Enigma
DEBATE ON ARCHAISM OF SOME SELECT BANGANI WORDS
Anvita Abbi
ABSTRACT
An old debate on Bangani being related to Kentum group of languages or not (Zoller 1988, 1989, 1993, Beekes 1995 and van Driem and Sharma 1996) is worth investigating into the lexicon, specially those words that belong to the 'basic word list' known to be typically most resistant to change. The author conducted a couple of field trips personally to investigate the phenomenon. The paper discusses the results of this investigation.
As RUKI rule is claimed to be inoperative in many Bangani words, the author has investigated, among others, words that should have gone through the Rule but do not. The author, surprisingly, confirms the existence of most, if not all, the words listed in Zoller (1988) with specified meanings. Some semantic variations was noticed though not totally disturbing the original thesis. It is observed that near total multilingualism due to language contact with Himachali and Hindi, (the languages of the vicinity) at times, motivatesinformants to oscillate between one form and other. The paper is descriptive and not historical in nature and thus avoids to attempt to establish the archaism of the disputed words. At best, it expresses the multilayered lexicon of the language indicative of long and stable multilingual communities in close contact.
Yog.
The van Driem Enigma
Or: In search of instant facts
Claus-Peter Zoller
George van Driem and Suhnu R. Sharma published in the last issue of the Indogermanische Forschungen the first part of an article ("In Search of Kentum Indo-Europeans in the Himalayas"; IF 101:107-146) which not only tries to refute my claims on archaic words in Bangani but moreover attempts to discredit my character. The gist of their article - if I understand correctly what is said more or less overtly as well as between the lines - is (1) that I manipulated the Banganis with the help of alcohol in order to get pseudodata with which I tried to lead scholars up the garden path. Besides, they claim that I am not a qualified field researcher and that I "misheard" the crucial words in the examples quoted by me. Since all the words I "misheard" are - with a few exceptions - those for which I have suggested exceptional antiquity, their suggestion that I "misheard" them intentionally is more than obvious. (2) Since my claims could have fairly far-reaching scientific consequences, they felt it was their mission to verify them. Thus, they decided - at least this is what they say - to go to Bangan and conduct an objective and independent examination of my data. Since they describe themselves as qualified field-workers - in contradistinction to me - they imply that their "findings" must have authoritative status. Moreover, they contend in a very self-congratulatory tone, that they were able to procure enough evidence to show that I have published false data and that consequently all my claims are unfounded.
In response to all these accusations I allege that all their claims are wrong and baseless, and that their article is a collection of untruthful statements. Moreover, I allege that both van Driem and Sharma display in their article a lack of knowledge of even the most basic and elementary facts of Indo-Aryan, especially Pahari linguistics. Since the editor of Indogermanische Forschungen has accepted a detailed rejoinder from my side I will concentrate here only on some of the most crucial points and will not, for instance, elaborate at this moment on the question why their article only partially tries to maintain a scientific tone and frequently lapses into a language of hatred.
Of course, I cannot produce here counterproofs against the "counterproofs" of the two authors, but can only refer to the elaborate and serious fieldwork on Bangani conducted by Professor Abbi from the Jawahar Lal Nehru University in New Delhi. A short description of her work can be found at this webpage. What I can do, however, is to point out some of the crassest untruths, manipulations, and distortions produced by the two. Unlike the archaisms, for which I still claim - even if I may be again accused of mystification - that some of them cannot be verified without a certain investment of time and effort, I maintain that all the following points can easily be examined by everybody who wishes to.
Yog.
Is Bangani a V2 language?
Claus Peter Zoller
The West Pahari language Bangani, spoken in the western Garhwal Himalayas of Uttarakhand between the rivers Tons and Pabar, has been a topic of controversy (see Zoller 1999). The controversy relates mainly to the question of whether Bangani contains Indo-European but non-IndoAryan vocabulary or not. I would like to continue the discussion on remarkable aspects of Bangani with two more articles. This first one discusses a central aspect of Bangani syntax, namely the relatively common occurrence of the predicate in verb-second sentence position. The article thus tries to answer the question: is Bangani a V2 language?.
Yog.
Bangani Page.
In response to all these accusations I allege that all their claims are wrong and baseless, and that their article is a collection of untruthful statements. Moreover, I allege that both van Driem and Sharma display in their article a lack of knowledge of even the most basic and elementary facts of Indo-Aryan, especially Pahari linguistics. Since the editor of Indogermanische Forschungen has accepted a detailed rejoinder from my side I will concentrate here only on some of the most crucial points and will not, for instance, elaborate at this moment on the question why their article only partially tries to maintain a scientific tone and frequently lapses into a language of hatred.
Of course, I cannot produce here counterproofs against the "counterproofs" of the two authors, but can only refer to the elaborate and serious fieldwork on Bangani conducted by Professor Abbi from the Jawahar Lal Nehru University in New Delhi. A short description of her work can be found at this webpage. What I can do, however, is to point out some of the crassest untruths, manipulations, and distortions produced by the two. Unlike the archaisms, for which I still claim - even if I may be again accused of mystification - that some of them cannot be verified without a certain investment of time and effort, I maintain that all the following points can easily be examined by everybody who wishes to.
Yog.
Is Bangani a V2 language?
Claus Peter Zoller
The West Pahari language Bangani, spoken in the western Garhwal Himalayas of Uttarakhand between the rivers Tons and Pabar, has been a topic of controversy (see Zoller 1999). The controversy relates mainly to the question of whether Bangani contains Indo-European but non-IndoAryan vocabulary or not. I would like to continue the discussion on remarkable aspects of Bangani with two more articles. This first one discusses a central aspect of Bangani syntax, namely the relatively common occurrence of the predicate in verb-second sentence position. The article thus tries to answer the question: is Bangani a V2 language?.
Yog.
Bangani Page.
7 comments:
Hi Nirjhar
Bangani is cool, and it pulls linguistic centre of gravity of PIE to the southeast, if you are debating the PIE homeland on those grounds. But it is entirely irrelevant to the question of Uralic contact with Indo-Iranian.
Now you posted as examples of specifically Vedic loans in Uralic: Seta, Asira, Arwa, Tehnu, Orjo. What features do these reflect that are found in Vedic but *not* in Proto-Aryan?
Hi!
''What features do these reflect that are found in Vedic but *not* in Proto-Aryan?''
Your question should be what features those word have that make them Proto-Aryan:).
They all are present in Vedic and their Vowel changes are typical from original AIU.
It doesn't matter if they are *present* in Vedic, if they are present and regularly inherited from PIE then by definition they were present in Proto-Aryan.
If we can't distinguish between Proto-Aryan and Vedic forms, then proper answer is not to claim they are one or the other, but simply that we don't know.
Jaska has explained why *sern'a does not reflect *svarna, so the Proto-Aryan root of hiranya makes sense.
I honestly have no idea why this is a problem for you. What difference does it make for your favoured homeland whether it was Vedic or some Proto-Aryan dialect that was in contact with Uralic? Surely the latter would be more likely in any case?
Regarding vowel changes from original *a/i/u, there is no problem with e/o deriving from a. That is perfectly normal, you don't have to quote examples.
The problem is explaining the *correspondences* among the various IE daughter languages in the absence of original difference in vowels. What conditions the vowel splits?
Benedetti claims it is a "monumental absurdity" that Sanskrit merged *e, o > a. This just an assertion, based on nothing. There is no reason a 4 or 5 vowel system cannot become a 3 vowel system. A quick Google suggests this has happened in both Philippine and Salishan languages, for instance (probably many more examples could be found, those were just the first that came up).
There are many, many theories about the PIE vowel system - for instance that it was a 3 vowel system with e/o arising from some original length distinction, or that e/o in a 4 vowel system were both central vowels that differed in height. And the consonants are of course also very much debated, with the glottalic theory only the most famous example. There is no such dogmatic fixation on one system as Benedetti claims. Even the most basic textbook on the subject will talk about these things.
It seems especially bizarre that he wants to throw out the laryngeals, which are precisely such conditioning factors as would *explain* the vowel splits, offering in their place only a hypothesis of vowel-colouring palatals. Well, palatals might indeed be vowel-colouring, but that only explains one very specific conditioning environment, and leaves us wondering why there remain *other* palatals that are *not* vowel-colouring.
Benedetti's post is mostly hot air. If he wants to put out a serious argument on the subject, with proper comparative evidence, then I'll be happy to read it.
Capra,
''If we can't distinguish between Proto-Aryan and Vedic forms, then proper answer is not to claim they are one or the other, but simply that we don't know. ''
That is one way to look at it.
''Jaska has explained why *sern'a does not reflect *svarna, so the Proto-Aryan root of hiranya makes sense.''
But i told you it is said like Sarna or Sorno in Indic yes Zaranya as in Avesta can be the source no doubt but wouldn't it be like *Seran'a instead of *sern'a then?? still either way possibilities you know...
''I honestly have no idea why this is a problem for you. What difference does it make for your favoured homeland whether it was Vedic or some Proto-Aryan dialect that was in contact with Uralic? Surely the latter would be more likely in any case?''
I think its a result of BMAC migrations towards Urals creating complexes like Sintastha and Arkaim, yes i know ultimately its not decisive for the Cradle like you pointed.
''Regarding vowel changes from original *a/i/u, there is no problem with e/o deriving from a. That is perfectly normal, you don't have to quote examples.''
ok:).
'' The problem is explaining the *correspondences* among the various IE daughter languages in the absence of original difference in vowels. What conditions the vowel splits? ''
Indo-Iranian is a large probably the largest group and the most anciently recorded prominent group and it does not agree with the hypothetical AIOUE system that's it there is not a dust particle of data in IIR and also some ancient IE dialects also like we see *a for *o in Albanian, Illyrian, Thracian, Phrygian, Germanic and Baltic, besides Indo-Iranian with also Tocharian has *a for *e in some cases, and also *a for *ō̆, as in Toch. A śtwar 'four' (PIE *kʷetu̯óres), or vak 'voice' (PIE *u̯ṓkʷs). that would suggests the popular notion should be taken as practical and evident! as he puts it-
''It seems that the average linguist is not aware of the problems of this theory and generations of linguists did not find anything strange in the fact that 'Indo-Iranians' have transformed every e and o without exception into a, which is also not very useful for distinguishing words. The only justification that I can imagine for such an incredible theory is that the substrate language did not know e and o, like Classical Arabic. But this would imply that the Indo-Iranians were practically unmixed with the original Indo-European speakers and we also wonder why did they develop those sounds later in every Indo-Iranian language. And how is it possible that no Indo-Iranian dialect preserved them? The case of Arabic is also interesting,...''
It IIR and other IE branches actually show the divergence of *o and *e from original *a..
For the rest of your suggestions i prefer you to have a friendly discussion with him in the blog as it will be fair and the correct approach!
He welcomes everyone and it is required to have such discussion to come to a common ground!
Well, man, do you not think that if "generations of linguists did not find anything strange" in it, maybe that is because it isn't so strange?
I don't have either the time or the expertise to debate this with Mr. Benedetti. There are many books and online sources you can read that go into great detail on Indo-European reconstruction, with all kinds of different theories. I just wonder why you take this one source as such an authority, when there are many many others who say quite the opposite, and you yourself are not an expert to judge between them.
Because its possible and that blog is created for people like us to share their thoughts freely....
Post a Comment