Status of PIE. IE is a myth created by indologists -- Review of a new book

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, Whether it be Science, Lingustics, Cultural developments or what ever that be - always - a mesh would be the truth (i.e. a grid of interconnected causes and effect) - and never a linear chain. It is a string/mesh/net theory that is required in every field and that only will hold good. One cause for one effect is a very old and newtonian concept - which cannot lead to a realistic understanding of reality - what ever be the field of study. In the same way a single origin theory can never hold good - whether it be PIE or something else. But ofcourse, almost every rejected argument holds some truth and so would be PIE as well. Love and regards,Sreenadh , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> 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 book> > Thursday, 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>