[Ind-Arch] Status of PIE. IE is a myth created by indologists -- Review of a new book

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadhji and Utkalji,

 

Now that our discussions on " Indus script linguistically Dravidian: Expert- Iravatham Mahadevan" led us to PIE, it is at the right time that we have the following news.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. BHattacharjya

 

--- On Thu, 10/8/09, S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97 wrote:

S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97[ind-Arch] Status of PIE. IE is a myth created by indologists -- Review of a new bookThursday, October 8, 2009, 9:12 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a stop press report on the death-throes of IE.

 

A remarkable debate is ongoing in the field of

IE linguistics, questioning the very method on which the non-falsiable

discipline is founded, making IE virtually a myth. Indigenous evolution

of Indians is NOT a myth. Aryan invasion is a myth. IE is a myth.

I am referring to a recent book.

 

Angela Marcantonio, 2009, The Indo-European Language Family: questions about its status, Washington DC, Institute for the study of Man, Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, No. 55.

 

 

Let me cite from the introduction in this remarkable book:

 

 

"Conclusion. The reader has seen in this book a variety of views

about IE, ranging from the belief that it represents the language of a

real pre-historical community; through the thesis that it is only a

model to embody linguistic correlations; all the way to statistical

evidence that (many) linguistc correlations themselves may be merely an

artefact of the method of analysis. In fact, when the various

components of the theory are brought together so that they can be seen

holistically, it is hard to pin down what the foundations of the theory

are actually supposed to be. For example, one of the founding

principles of the traditional version of the theory was the assumption

that morphological paradigms cannot be borrowed, and therefore it is

possible to trace genetic inheritance through them. However, we have

seen evidence of wholesale paradigm borrowing, based on studies of

languages in contact. In any case, some scholars now hold that

morphology is less relevant than other actors -- but it is at present

unclear whether, or how, these other factors may be verified or

falsified. It has been the purpose of this book to bring to the fore

these contradictions and open questions associated with the theory. It

is for the reader and the linguistic community to decide the way forward."

 

Yes, Angela Marcantonio, IE is a big theory.

The way forward is to start focussing on semantics, instead of treating

morphology as relevant and relate the semantics to the cultural

settings which determine the formation and evolution of languages. Take

a look at my Indian Lexicon, for example. About 4000 of the so-called

Dravidian etyma have Indo-Aryan and Austro-asiatic cognates. Then, why

persist with the aryan-dravidian- munda divide within the Indian linguistic area?

 

Angela Marcantonio should be

complimented for the bold statement she has made by editing a set of

contributions which should make all linguists (and, indologists dealing

with IE, in particular) re-think, introspect on the limitations of

their discipline.

 

 

Table of contents:

 

 

 

Introduction by Angela Marcantonio

The satem languages of the Indo-European Northwest by Henning Andersen

Ideology, the Indian homeland hypothesis and the comparative methodd by E. Annamalai and SB Steever

The Indo-Aryan migration debate by Edwin Bryant

Indo-European vowel alternations: (ablaut/apophony) by Onofrio Carruba

Verbal inflection from 'Proto-Indo-European' to the Indo-European languages: a matter of coherence? by Paolo Di Giovine

Stratified reconstruction and a new view of the family tree model by Bridget Drinka

The origin and spread of the Indo-Germanic people by Alexander Hausler

Indo-European linguistics and Indo-Aryan indigenism by Nicholas Kazanas

Evidence that most Indo-European lexical

reconstructions are artefacts of the linguistic method of analysis by

Angela Marcantonio

Defining the limits of grammatical borrowing by Yaron Matras

Iranian archaisms vs. Vedic innovations and the Indo-Iranian unity by Rudiger Schmitt

 

 

 

Bye-bye, IE, the myth. It is time to restore language studies into

a cultural framework instead of indulging in verbal juggleries called

morphological studies resulting in false classifications of language families.

 

For anyone interested, I will be happy to email excerpts from selected, specific contents of the book.

 

Kalyanaraman