Proto-Bangani

Thu Sep 9 15:26:17 UTC 1999

What's this business about the "great Prof. Hock"?  Let's drop these
cutisms, please.

I have stated something on Bangani, quite some time ago and on another list
(24 Feb 1997 17:04:19 -0600, on the old Indo-European list).  Below is the
entire quote.  Please bear in mind the concluding paragraph in which I
suggest that more evidence is needed before we can be sure of the presence
of a kentum layer in Bangani.  (The reason for my caution lies in the fact
that, as the recent controversies over Greenberg's comparative methodology
have underlined, there are is the very difficult issue of chance
similarities; to make sure that given similarities in vocabulary are not
due to chance etc., we generally need relatively massive evidence.  The
problem of course is, "How massive is massive?"  And that is an issue over
which scholars can legitimately disagree.)

You may find my assumption of outside origin of the kentum words
questionable; but that's another issue which must be addressed in a much
more comprehensive fashion.  At this point, I believe that the evidence so
far presented for a kentum layer in Bangani is suggestive, but not
conclusive.  To use the evidence of Bangani as the foundation for or
against AIT is therefore as problematic as using the evidence of putatively
non-IE elements in the Rig-Vedic vocabulary for or against AIT or for or
against a Dravidian subversion theory, for that matter.

With best wishes,

Hans Henrich Hock

("You can't prove that the platypus doesn't lay eggs by showing a picture
of a platypus not laying eggs", attributed to Paul Postal)

***************************************************************

To anyone concerned with the question of Bangani,

The issue of Bangani has recently been revived through discussion on the
Vyakaran list (as well as elsewhere).  The following observations were sent
earlier to the Vyakaran (S. Asia) list and may be of some interest to
subscribers to the Indoeuropean list, too.

                                                                ***On Bangani***

The controversy over Bangani and the authenticity of its apparent evidence
for a centum language in northern South Asia does not seem to be coming to
an end.  In the opinion of some scholars, the claims by Dr. George van
Driem and Dr. Suhnu Ram Sharma that their own fieldwork shows Dr.
Claus-Peter Zoller's centum forms in Bangani to be spurious has in effect
laid the claim -- and the controversy -- to rest.  Recent fieldwork by
Professor Anvita Abbi (Linguistics and English, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi) supports Zoller's evidence and in so doing casts
doubt on the fieldwork and/or claims of van Driem and Sharma.  As a
consequence, Zoller's evidence must be taken seriously and its implications
for Indo-European comparative linguistics and for South Asian linguistic
prehistory must be carefully considered.

As is well known, in the course of fieldwork on Bangani, a language of
northern South Asia, Zoller unearthed lexical items that appear to show
centum developments of PIE palatalo-velars, instead of the satem outcomes
expected in an Indo-Aryan language.  At the same time, the language also
contains lexical layers that are clearly Indo-Aryan and therefore satem;
some of these result from recent influence of languages such as Hindi,
others exhibit features typical of the northern languages belonging to the
Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian family.

Among the forms with centum features are various words derivable from PIE
*GenH-, such as OgnOM 'unborn' and gOnNO 'give birth', as well as kOtrO
'fight' (cf. Skt. Zatru-, Gaul. catu- 'battle') and dOkru 'tear'
(*(d)aKru).  [O = open _o_; G(h), M = nasalization, N = retroflex nasal, z
= s with hacek, Z = palatal voiceless sibilant, S = retroflex voiceless
sibilant, K = PIE palatalo-velars, uu = long [u:], I = Slav. front jer.]

While some of the forms are marked as doubtful, either by Zoller or by
Abbi, and some other forms involve etymologies from Pokorny that many
Indo-Europeanists would consider uncertain, there remains an impressive
residue.  What is especially interesting is that dOkru 'tear', with its
initial d-, suggests affiliation with a western Indo-European language (cf.
Gk. dakru, Lat. dacruma > lacrima, Germ. Zaehre, Engl. tear), while more
eastern members show forms without d-: Skt. aZru, Av. asru, Lith. azara,
Toch. B akruuna.  More western affiliation is also suggested by lOktO
'milk' and gOsti 'guest (of honor)', which have good correspondences in Gk.
galakt-, Lat. lact- and Lat. hostis, Gmc. *gasti-, OCS gostI, but not in
more eastern Indo-European languages.  Note that these forms do not
necessarily contain original palatalo-velars (the fact that OCS has _gostI_
may be attributable to the transition-area status of Slavic and Baltic
between satem and western centum languages); but they are nevertheless
important, since they suggest western IE (rather, than, say Tocharian or
even Indo-Iranian) origin.

Van Driem and Sharma claim that their fieldwork suggests that Zoller's
forms are spurious, that some are based on misidentification and others are
simply non-existent.  In a recent summary of arguments pro and con, Dr.
Kevin Tuitte further suggests that Zoller may have fallen victim to
fieldwork consultants' tendency to provide evidence that they think may
please the investigator.  Even a priori, however, the latter suggestion is
dubious, since it would be hard to imagine how illiterate villagers would
be able to know that words like _dOkrO, lOktO, gOsti_ would please an
investigator (to have that knowledge would require more than a superficial
understanding of comparative Indo-European linguistics).

In January 1997 I had the opportunity to meet with Abbi and to go over some
of her Bangani notes from fieldwork that she recently conducted in situ.
She will provide a fuller report on her work in due course, but has asked
me to provide a preliminary report, so as to set the record straight.
While van Driem and Sharma appear not to have actually entered
Bangani-speaking territory but limited themselves to interviewing Bangani
speakers on the fringes of the territory, Abbi went into the territory and
interviewed, among others, at least one monolingual speaker of Bangani.
According to her fieldwork, most of Zoller's forms are genuine.

Her fieldwork also confirms that the lexicon of Bangani contains at least
three layers:  Words of the type _dOkrO, lOktO, gOsti_, words that exhibit
"northern" Indo-Aryan features, and words that seem to be borrowed from
more southern Indo-Aryan languages, such as Hindi.

Given these circumstances, Bangani poses several challenges to linguistics.

First, there is the question of what appears to be western centum
influence.  At this point, the evidence for this influence is highly
suggestive; but a larger amount of words of the same type would certainly
be helpful to allay worries that we might be dealing with chance
similarities.  (Zoller's data also contain a number of words in which RUKI
apparently fails to apply.  But RUKI-_S_ merges with dental _s_ (and with
_Z_) in most of Indo-Aryan, and there are well-known problems with RUKI in
Nuristani; as a consequence, words of this type do not provide unambiguous
evidence -- unless we were dealing with words of the type _dOkrO, lOktO,
gOsti_ which, qua words, seem to indicate western IE origin.)

A related question is the nature of the western centum influence.  Words
like _gOsti_ seem to rule out Greek influence (and thus the possibility
that we are dealing with linguistic echoes of Alexander's army); _lOktO_
would eliminate Germanic and Celtic; and _kOtrO_ would eliminate Greek and
Latin.  That is, no known western centum language could be the source for
all of the relevant words.  At the same time, the fact that *a and *o
exhibit the same outcome (O, no doubt via *a, see below) suggests possible
affiliation with the Balto-Slavo-Germanic group (or possibly with
Antalolian?).

The fact that *a and *o are reflected as O further suggests that, whatever
the source of the words, they participated in the Bangani change of earlier
*a to O and that therefore they must have entered (the ancestor of modern)
Bangani prior to that change.  But that change may be a very recent one.
The question of what time these words entered Bangani therefore cannot be
satisfactorily answered at this point.

Moreover, it is not at all clear whether the words in question actually
entered Bangani, or whether they are part of the original lexicon of the
language, and the northern Indo-Aryan lexical layer is a later accretion,
comparable to the clearly secondary layer of southern Indo-Aryan words.

It is to be hoped that more extensive field work on Bangani will unearth
evidence that will make it possible to answer some of these questions, or
at least to make it possible to more clearly establish the nature of the
different lexical layers of Bangani and their relationship to each other.
Moreover, as noted earlier, the evidence for western IE influence or origin
at this point is still rather limited; if more evidence could be found this
would definitely strengthen the claim that Bangani contains a significant
layer of centum vocabulary.

>Prof. Hock,
>
>Thanks for your kind advice.  I will do my best to abide by it.
>
>Now that I have the opportunity to address the great Prof. Hock (words of a
>former student of yours, also a list member), one thing I've been wanting to
>ask you for a while, concerns what is tentatively called proto-Bangani.
>Though the data are controversial as well as very limited in quantity, you
>might perhaps have developed an opinion (and if it is in writing, the
>reference will do) on whether such a proto-Bangani Kentum language did
>indeed exist, and whether it was indeed spoken in India while still a living
>language?  In particular, do you think it has any relevance to the Aryan
>invasion debate?
>
>Yours sincerely,
>Koenraad Elst
>http://members.xoom.com/KoenraadElst/

Hans Henrich Hock
Professor of Linguistics and Sanskrit
Linguistics, 4088 FLB MC-168, University of Illinois
707 S. Mathews, Urbana IL 61801-3652
telephone: (217) 333-0357 or 333-3563 (messages)
e-mail: hhhock at staff.uiuc.edu
fax: (217) 333-3466