marcantonio repudiating linguistic evidence aryan hypothesis

8/7/2019 Marcantonio Repudiating Linguistic Evidence Aryan Hypothesis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marcantonio-repudiating-linguistic-evidence-aryan-hypothesis 1/36

Repudiating the linguistic evidence

for the Aryan hypothesis

Angela MarcantonioUniversity of Rome La Sapienza

Presented at: A Symposium on Indo-European Linguistics

Wednesday, July 28th, 11:00 AM-12:00 PM

Salem State College, Central Campus, Building One, Room # 225



Introduction

The Aryan Hypothesis

And our objective today



The Indo-Aryan debate

Indo-Aryans were ...? ± Indigenous

± Migrants (from the Indo-European area)

Seems impossible to resolve the debate

Bryant 2009 ± There is nothing in Indian archaeology that supports

the assumed migration of peoples

± The entire issue is a derivative consequence of the

family tree presuppositions of historical linguistics ± Scholars have become exhausted with the polemical

and emotional element of the discussions



What textbooks say

Sanskrit Greek Latin Gothic English

Bhár--mi Phér- Fer- Bair-a (I) bear

ásmi eimí sum im (I) am

ésti est est ist (he) is

pitár patér pater fadar father

tráyah treis trs rija three

Examples of word similaritiesMost similarities include Greek Sanskrit

Many also include Latin

Other languages also represented



Cutting the Gordian knot

Received wisdom is that Sanskrit derivedfrom Indo-European

No evidence from archaeology, palaeo-anthropology or genetics

The only evidence is linguistic We will examine the linguistic theory

± it is based on mistaken evidence

± It fails Sir Isaac Newtons criterion for anacceptable scientific model - it is unfalsifiable

The time has arrived to challenge the Indo-European theory ± May cut the Gordian knot

± Allow space for alternative models for the originof Sanskrit



The linguistic evidence (1)

Many claimed Indo-European words



Widely cited example: Father

LANGUAGE WORD

Sanskrit janaka, Pitár-, taataH

Old Avestan (modern day Iran) Pta (later patar/pitar)

Greek PatrLatin Pater

Slavic, Albanian (missing)

Lithuanian (missing)

Old Irish Athir

Gothic (4th century) Atta (except once: O Father)

Old high German (9th century) Atto ~ Fater

Modern German VaterBible translation:

Latin or Greek ->

Germanic

One of the Sanskrit forms is similar to Greek

Greek influenced Latin (eg classical writers bilingual)

Latin then permeated Germanic area



Geographical distribution of father

c

Indo-Greek states

Father

Bilingual

Greek -

Sanskrit

Matches the Indo-Greek states



Conclusion on father

Claimed as evidence for the Indo-European theory

But an entirely different history is equally possible

± Indo-Greek states used Sanskrit and Greek as official

languages ± Policy of intermarriage

± Opportunity for the word to spread

± Then Latin modelled on Greek

± Then helped to spread via church influence (O Father hasstrong religious meaning)

The Indo-European inheritance explanation is not theonly possible one!



More on word correspondences

Many more words are like father ± Greek and Sanskrit are the bedrock of the theory

About 1000 nouns (Pokorny 1959-1969) ±

But Ringe: evidential standards are lamentably lax 683 safely reconstructed IE verbs (Rix 1998)

± But 29% are evidenced in only one language or branch

± 34% are evidenced in only 2 languages or branches

±This indicates most claimed words are of local origin,not Indo-European

We will return to this topic ...



The linguistic evidence (2)

Sound laws



Introduction to sound laws

Exceptionless laws of sound change from IE into the

various languages ± Founding laws

1822: Grimms law

1876: Verners Law

± Today: many laws

Verners Stunning paper ± Roger Lass, 1997

Critical for uncovering language relations ± Hoeningswald, 1990

Sanskrit Greek Latin Gothic English

Bhár--mi Phér- Fer- Bair-a (I) Bear



What does Verners Law say?

1822: Grimms Law

± Indo-European p, t, kp Germanic f, , h~

1870s: counter-evidence to Grimms Law published

± Verner thought he detected a systematic pattern ± Claimed to turn exceptions into apparent exceptions

1876: Verners Law

± Germanic f, , h~ p b, d ~ , g

± voiceless consonant from Grimms Law becomes voiced ± In medial position only

± Unless the corresponding consonant in the supposed IEancestor word is preceded by an accent



Verners Law in action

First must reconstruct the IE accent

± Not reconstructable (IE languages differ too much)

± Verner says I must use Sanskrit (does not say why)

±

But Sanskrit has tones, not a stress accent Verner uses the tone that is transcribed like a stress accent!

Verners Law applied to father

± Sanskrit (assumed = IE) Pitár

± (by Grimms law) fiar

± (by Verners law) fidar n becomes d because

no Sanskrit accent before

These laws do not consider vowels



Verners evidence (1) kinship terms

Meaning Sanskrit Verners

Germanic

pridiction

Attested

Gothic

Attested

Old High

German

Father pitár fadar Fadar

Brother bhrátar brar Brar

Mother-in-law var- swigar swigar

Father-in-

law

váura- swehur swehur

?

?

?

?If there is no

Sanskrit accent

beforehand ...

... Then the

Germanic consonant

becomes voiced

Verner

claimed a

perfect match

But what

about

these?

Gothic bible (4

th

century): Father = atta (Fadar attested once: O Father)





Germanic

pridiction

Attested

Gothic

Attested

Old High

German

Father pitár fadar Atta Atto~fater

Brother bhrátar brar Brar bruoder

Mother-in-law var- swigar swaihro swigar

Father-in-

law

váura- swehur swaihra swehur

Verners proof obtained by omitting

all the evidence that does not match!

Exactly 50% do not match - expected by chance!



Verners evidence (2) : conjugation of verb

Meaning Sanscrit as cited byVerner

Verners Germanicreconstruction

To go Bhédana * Lan

I go bhédmi * la

You go bhédasi * lis

He goes bhédati * li

We go bhédmas * lam

You go bhédatha * li

They go bhédanti * land

I went (past) bibhéda * lai

You went (past) bibhéditha * laist

He went (past) bibhéda * lai

We went (past) bibhidimá * lidum

You went (past) bibhidá * lidu

They went (past) bibhidús * lidun

... Then the

Germanic consonant

becomes voiced

voiceless

voiced

If there is no

Sanskrit accent

beforehand ...




How isGermanicreconstructed?

Gothic ± All voiceless

± merger

Old English ± Does not

match

± Analogy

OHG ± Inverted

alternation

± Not explained

Germanicforced to

match!


Verners Germanicreconstruction

To go Bhédana * Lan

I go bhédmi * la

You go bhédasi * lis

He goes bhédati * li

We go bhédmas * lam

You go bhédatha * li

They go bhédanti * land

I went (past) bibhéda * lai

You went (past) bibhéditha * laist

He went (past) bibhéda * lai

We went (past) bibhidimá * lidum

You went (past) bibhidá * lidu

They went (past) bibhidús * lidun





To go Bhédana

I go bhédmi

You go bhédasi

He goes bhédati

We go bhédmas

You go bhédatha

They go bhédanti

I went (past) bibhéda

You went (past) bibhéditha

He went (past) bibhéda

We went (past) bibhidimá

You went (past) bibhidá

They went (past) bibhidús




Verner

conjugates

to go as

class 1

But in fact it

is Class 7!


To go Bhédana

I go bhédmi

You go bhédasi

He goes bhédati

We go bhédmas

You go bhédatha

They go bhédanti

I went (past) bibhéda

You went (past) bibhéditha

He went (past) bibhéda

We went (past) bibhidimá

You went (past) bibhidá

They went (past) bibhidús




Verner

conjugates

to split as

class 1

But in fact it

is Class 7!


Attested Sanskrit

To go Bhédana bhindaná

I go bhédmi bhinádmi

You go bhédasi bhinátsi

He goes bhédati bhinátti

We go bhédmas bhindmás

You go bhédatha bhin(t)thá

They go bhédanti bhindánti

I went (past) bibhéda bibhéda

You went (past) bibhéditha bibhéditha

He went (past) bibhéda bibhéda

We went (past) bibhidimá bibhidimá

You went (past) bibhidá bibhidá

They went (past) bibhidús bibhidús

Verner forcedthe Germanic

reconstruction

to match the

wrong Sanskrit!



Summary of Verners evidence

Kinship terms ± Perfect match obtained by omitting all counter-

evidence

Verbal conjugation ± Verner reconstructs a prehistoric Germanic

conjugation But it does not accord with any attested ones

± Crates a Perfect match with an erroneous Sanskrit

conjugation! Conclude Verners Law is invalid

± contradicted by all the evidence in the original paper



More on sound laws

Many further laws are based on similar methods ± rescuing procedures when the data do not match

± Able to match almost any data

If an attested word appears to be an exception ± Add a special event in word development

Eg father lost initial p in Old Irish Athir

± Add a sub-law (contextual specification) Today there are over 200 laws and sub-laws

± Add some intermediate rules

Perhaps like Verners rules for reconstructing Gmc conjugation If all else fails

± call it not cognate

± Therefore still not an exception



Newton rejected models like this

There are today more than 200 laws and sub-laws

± In fact there are more laws & sub-laws than words to

be explained in Rix dictionary

This fails Newtons test for a valid scientific model

± What certainty can there be in a Philosophy which

consists in as many Hypotheses as there are

Phaenomena to be explained.

Because the model can flex to match any data

± Newton: New Hypotheses may be devised that shall

seem to overcome new difficulties



Conclusion



The Gordian knot Received wisdom is that Sanskrit derived from

Indo-European

No evidence from archaeology, palaeo-anthropology or genetics

The only evidence is linguistic

We examined the linguistic theory ± it is based on mistaken evidence

± It fails Sir Isaac Newtons criterion for an acceptablescientific model - it is unfalsifiable

± Many claimed IE correlations are in fact due tocontact

Challenge the Indo-European theory ± There is no evidence for the existence of an Indo-

European speech community

± May cut the Gordian knot

± Allow space for alternative models for the origin of Sanskrit



Thank you

Angela Marcantonio

University of Rome La Sapienza



Verners 1876 proof of his founding Law of IE

Law (simplified) says: Germanic t changes into d unless the correspondingconsonant in the Sanskrit word is preceded by an accent ± Also: p to b and k to g

± But Sanskrit has tones, not a stress accent

Verners preliminary proof uses father ± Sanskrit Pitár -> Germanic f ad ar

He selectively omits to mention contradictions to his law ± Atta = father contradicts his theory

± So he uses f adar even though cited once only (O Father)

± In fact, his preliminary proof uses 4 kinship terms. 50% of the attestedGermanic forms contradict his theory but are not mentioned

Verners backbone evidence is also forced ±

Conjugates bhid- ( to split, smash, break) as class 1 (its class 7)! ± Uses this mistaken conjugation to predict t ~d etc. in the assumed

corresponding Germanic Strong conjugation

± But the attested Germanic conjugations do not match this prediction

± Reconstructs hypothetical prehistoric Germanic conjugation that preciselymatches this mistaken Sanskrit conjugation and seems to prove his law

± Today this reconstruction is widely cited in textbooks as proof of Verners Law



Linguistic evidence (2): Sound laws

regular and systematic sound-changes inside IE words,governed by sound-laws ± Describe changes from IE -> Skt, IE->Greek etc.

± Sound changes claimed to be regular and systematic

±This enables you to transform the attested words so that theyseem to match precisely

Father is one of the key items of evidence (detail later)!!

Another widely quoted example: to carry, bear ± Skt bhara-mi Greek pher-o, Latin f er-o, OHG bir-u

±Claimed similarities across root and conjugation

± (again selective choice of Sanskrit word)

But to the naked eye these are different! ± The method seems to be able to justify this difference

± How?



Summary (1) - methodology

Problems with the linguistic evidence for IE ± forced similarities do not match common sense or the

archaeological evidence

Unfalsifiable theory ± Not actually supported by evidence, but theres always an

excuse

The common sense approach ± Look at geographical distribution of words (isoglosses)

± Look at opportunities for word to spread

± If they match, investigate why

What if your evidence contradicts the IE theory? ± Dont be afraid to publish your data

± The linguistic evidence does not trump yours!





Germanic

pridiction

Attested

Gothic

Attested

Old High

German

Father pitár fadar Atta(fadar=1 citation)

Brother bhrátar brar Brar

Mother-in-

law

var- swigar swigar

Father-in-

law

váura- swehur swehur



Verners founding law of Indo-

European

Angela Marcantonio

University of Rome La Sapienza



Introduction

Hypothesis of Indo-European speech

community became scientific with creation

of sound laws



Example 1: subsistence word: Rye

Crop grows incoldtemperatures

All bordering the

sea in NorthernEurope

North Europeansea trading

communityprovidedopportunity forword to spread



Forced interpretation of a local word (Rye)

as Indo-European Ry e in three IE language

groups (Russian, Germanic,Baltic) so must be IE!

But cant reconstruct theIE word ± Reconstruct IE god

*Deiwos- caused rye fieldsto ripen

But contradicted bypresence in Finnish ± Borrowed into Finno-Ugric

at an early date

Unfalsifiable theory ± Not actually supported

by evidence, but theresalways an excuse

marcantonio repudiating linguistic evidence aryan hypothesis

Documents