bones and flesh

[Michael Witzel]

At 9:24 -0800 12/6/99, Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>Michael Witzel wrote:

P. Manansala:
>>... Munda did not originally have retroflexes....
>>  This theory does not take
>> >linguistic drift into adequate account.
>>
>> Well, one simply cannot *reconstruct* them for Proto-Munda, with the
>> exeption of retroflex D, -- which is a strange dissymetry in the consonant
>> system ( t : no d , no T but D...).
>
>That seems difficult to believe, but I'm not one for reconstruction
>anyway.

A good theory PREDICTS. Comparative historical linguistics have predicted,
before texts were found with the predicted characteristics ,
eg. Archaic Greek (Mycenean) *kw  or IE  larungeals (h1-3), at lest one
type of which was subsequently found in Hittite pehur = Greek puur = fire.

Anybody who cannot see that this theory works better keeps quiet. We had
that sort of discussion in teh Thirties & Forties. They are on teh dustbin
of  history by now.

Or one should join one of the  'anything goes' lists. Opinions are not
required here, arguments are. The rejection of reconstruction makes most of
the following arguments obsolete.

>Munda has retroflexion in its infix system

which ones? I do not know of any -D- infix...

>which we know did not come from "Aryan" or modern Dravidian.

>Of course, it come have come
>from another extinct language, but this is doubtful since infixation is
>found throughout Austro-Asiatic and even Austric.

That's quite another matter.  an infix -n- is not an infix -D-....

>Generally speaking, I would agree with SK Chatterji that people
>tend to borrow words or languages but retain their own sound systems.

It seems to look like that frequently but proof is another matter. Easily,
circular arguments...

>This was the reason the latter gave for retroflexion in "Aryan"
>languages (Munda Dravidian people speaking foreign language).

This confuses ethnicity (or even 'race'??) with language. A cardinal sin
these days.


>If retroflexion was not native to Munda, then we either have to accept
>that modern Munda speakers were originally non-Munda speakers who
>borrowed  Munda languages,

Note the many cahnges in Munda from monosyll, root & word structure to one
with  more complex words, from a basically prefixing & infixing to a
suffixing language etc. etc.  Note the geminata not typical for Munda but
existing in Masica's Language X" in the Gangetic basin... etc. (see ejvs,
Sept 1999).

>or that all Munda languages, but one,
>borrowed extensive retroflex sounds into their own language.

This is still going on... from Hindi & Bengali, and from Telugu in the South.

> These sounds would even have been incorporated into native infixes and
>vocabulary.

Please show 'native' infixes. I have not seen any -D-. Native vocab. would
involve words built from reconstructed Munda (or preferably even
Austro-Asiatic) roots...

>> >Also, the use of initial retroflexes in Munda and "Aryan" languages
>> >as opposed to the non-initial retroflex system in the south.

>> Modern IA and modern Munda. Not in Vedic.  Just a time difference of some
>> 3500 years....

>Well,  my point is the North-South division of retroflexion.
>If we subscribe to the theory that Dravidian was "pushed" southward
>by invading Indo-Aryans, when did they lose (or did northerners gain?)
>initial retroflexion?

You do not need any 'pushing' Aryans, there are many other models of
language transfer.
And were do you get your 'initial retroflexion'? On what basis? This is
just an empty assumption.



 ==========================================================================
Michael Witzel                          Elect. Journ. of Vedic Studies
Harvard University                  www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
my direct line (also for messages) :  617- 496 2990
home page:     www.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm