[INDOLOGY] new article: EJVS 26

Agnes Korn agnes.korn at cnrs.fr
Mon Aug 22 08:06:35 UTC 2022

Dear all,

Mayrhofer's EWA is freely available on 
(vol. 1), 
(vol. 2).


Le 21.08.2022 à 21:12, Caley Smith via INDOLOGY a écrit :
> Dear Geoffrey,
> A typological approach seems valid to me, although it could require 
> the same semantic change to happen independently.
> It is not an inevitable change, of course, cognates Greek allos, Latin 
> alius/alter, English else never became semantically specialized in the 
> way ari- eventually does. I don't think we can chalk it up to having a 
> backup like anya- as another "other" since English has another "other" 
> too: other < *antero-. I have always seen the shift of ari- as 
> occurring in a specific political context where the other clan is not 
> exactly an enemy but a rival for position within the coalition of the 
> clans (thus ari > ārya "the political ceremony you do with the ari"), 
> ārya of course is never pejorized like later ari-. Btw, I am happy to 
> send you pdfs of Mayrhofer's EWA.
> Best,
> Caley
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 2:24 PM Geoffrey Caveney 
> <geoffreycaveney at gmail.com> wrote:
>     Dear Caley,
>     Thank you very much for your critical feedback; I appreciate it
>     very much.
>     Regarding the semantic development of ari-, I appreciate and I am
>     grateful for Caley's observations about the etymology and
>     historical semantic development of this form in Indo-Aryan. I am
>     curious, does this mean that you claim that Monier-Williams was
>     mistaken in his definition of *2. a-rí-* as "'not liberal,'
>     envious, hostile, RV.; (/ís/), m. an enemy, RV." (M-W p. 87,
>     bottom of 3rd column, long final entry in the column)? My
>     interpretation of this entry would be that according to
>     Monier-Williams, this word appears in the Rigveda (RV) with the
>     meaning "an enemy". Does this mean that MW's interpretation of the
>     relevant passage of the Rigveda was incorrect? Changing the
>     meaning of a word from "enemy" to "guest" seems to be a
>     significantly major alteration that would drastically change the
>     meaning of the passage of RV in which it appears.
>     But if we accept that MW is indeed mistaken on this semantic
>     point, as Caley suggests that Mayrhofer indicates, then we may
>     still return to the presumably original meaning "other" or "other
>     person". It still seems plausible to me that there may well
>     possibly have been an independent semantic development in the
>     Mediterranean in the Bronze Age that could have been parallel to
>     the later post-Vedic in situ semantic development: "other
>     (person)" > "enemy" seems to be a natural enough semantic
>     development that could have occurred independently in different
>     times and places from the same Indo-Aryan root word.
>     As a typological comparison, we may consider the semantic
>     development of Proto-Indo-European *gʰóstis, which developed to
>     mean /hostis/ 'enemy' in Latin, but which developed to mean
>     /gasts/ 'guest' in Gothic, /gestr/ 'guest' in Old Norse (from
>     which indeed English "guest" is derived), гость 'guest' in Old
>     Church Slavic, etc. Likewise we may consider the semantic
>     development of Polish /obcy/ 'foreign; stranger' and dialectal
>     Ukrainian /ві́бчий/ 'foreign', both from
>     Proto-Slavic *obьťь 'common', a meaning retained in Old Church
>     Slavic and other Slavic daughter languages. Another example is
>     Proto-Slavic *ťȗďь 'foreign, alien, strange' (e.g., OCS щоуждь,
>     Russian чужой, чуждый) from PIE *tewtéh₂ 'people, tribe'; Baltic
>     cognates largely retain the original PIE meaning or develop it to
>     mean 'land, country', but one extended meaning of Latvian
>     /tauta/ is 'people from another region'. (The PIE root is the
>     ancestor of German /Deutsch/, Proto-Italic *toutā, Irish /tuath/,
>     Welsh /tud/, etc.)
>     The point is that numerous typological examples demonstrate that
>     the meaning 'enemy', 'hostile', 'foreign', etc., can frequently
>     arise independently from a process of historical semantic
>     development from roots with more neutral original meanings. Thus
>     it seems plausible to me to suggest that the semantic development
>     'other (person)' > 'enemy' and/or 'other (person)' > 'guest' >
>     'enemy' could have occurred independently in Minoan Indo-Aryan at
>     an early stage and in post-Vedic Sanskrit at a later stage.
>     Best,
>     Geoffrey
>     On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 10:14 AM Caley Smith
>     <smith.caley at gmail.com> wrote:
>         Dear Michael,
>         A minor point, as I have not yet read the paper in
>         detail---but I am curious as to why Monier-Williams is used as
>         the semantic base instead of Mayrhofer's EWA. For instance,
>         based on MW the author renders ari- as "enemy," when it really
>         could not be so as that is a post-Vedic in situ semantic
>         development. At the hypothesized phase of the language, it
>         should mean something like "other" (following Thieme "other
>         (person)" > RV "guest") and any local semantic developments in
>         the Mediterranean would proceed from that sense.
>         Best,
>         Caley
>         On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:13 PM Witzel, Michael
>         <witzel at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>             We are happy to announce another installment of the
>             Electronical Journal of Vedic Studies, Vol. 26 (2022):
>             Geoffrey Caveney, Evidence of Indo-Aryan dialect in 10
>             Minoan Linear A inscriptions …
>             Please critically read this exploratory paper!
>             It will now be uploaded at Heidelberg
>             (https://hasp.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/ejvs/).
>             M.WItzel
>>             ============
>>             Michael Witzel
>>             witzel at fas.harvard.edu
>>             <www.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm
>>             <http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewitzel/mwpage.htm>>
>>             Wales Prof. of Sanskrit
>>             Dept. of South Asian Studies, Harvard University
>>             1 Bow Street,
>>             Cambridge MA 02138, USA
>>             phone: 1- 617 - 495 3295, fax 617 - 496 8571;
>>             my direct line:  617- 496 2990
>             _______________________________________________
>             INDOLOGY mailing list
>             INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>             https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20220822/dba8a6a0/attachment.htm>

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list