Indo-Aryan words in Hurrian

[George Thompson]

Like others on this List I have benefited from and welcome this series of
posts from Bjarte Kaldhol.  Of course, we Indologists must make ourselves
better informed about the Hurrian data.  No question.

But as a student of Indology rather rather than a student of Hurrian, I would
like to remind Bjarte Kaldhol that what matters in this context for
Indologists is the fact that there is in any case *some* trace of IA in these
Hurrian and Hittite texts.  Now, it may turn out that this trace is very much
less than what has been claimed in the popular handbooks.  I certainly
appreciate BK's efforts to call our attention to the exaggerations found in
these handbooks.  But the point, it seems to me, is that the value of this
trace remains undisputed -- as long as it does not reach the zero point.  The
little evidence that we have points to an important fact: this trace in
Hurrian or Hittite texts [what difference does it make that the Kikkuli text
is in Hittite?] confirms a specifically IA presence there rather than an
Iranian presence: *aika* is attested only in Indic after all, and *satta*
even if a so-called Prakritism in any case CAN NOT BE an Iranian word for
'seven.'   Likewise the sibillant in the form *na-Sa-at-ti-ia-an-na [for Skt.
nAsatya] confirms an IA presence rather than an Iranain one. Etc.  This is
solid evidence re the divergence of the IA and Iranian branches of the
Indo-Iranian branch of IE.  Important for us of course if not for you.

The dating, even if late, is firm, isn't it?  Indologists are grateful for
such chronological firmness, so rare in the Old Indic texts that we work with.

The model that we draw from these vestigial IA forms in Hurrian, Hittite,
etc., may well need to be modified in light of your critique.  But as long as
the number of such forms does not reach the limit of zero, we can confidently
assert an IA presence in these texts at a known date.  This provides us with
a much needed anchor for our speculations about Indo-Iranian origins, etc.

So please be patient with our naive interest in your field.  The little
crumbs that may survive your critique will contiinue to be of use to us.

Or so it seems to me.

Best wishes, and please do continue.

George Thompson