Unmasking AIT

[Bodhi]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->----- Weitergeleitete Mail ----
Von: Ram Gupta <r.e.gupta@...>
An: nofsanet <nofsa-nett@...>
CC: Eirik Welo <eirik.welo@...>
Gesendet: Dienstag, den 3. März 2009, 09:37:22 Uhr
Betreff: [NoFSA]ROIEL inviterer til gjesteforelesning

Guest lecture, Univ. of Oslo:

Cladistic and Acladistic Reconstruction
Implications for Indo-European
-------------------------------
Bridget Drinka (University of Texas, San Antonio)
Arr: PROIEL (www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/proiel/)

In this paper, three related arguments are presented: first, that the
family tree model as it stands is an inadequate depiction of the complex
relationships of the Indo-European languages, and that a new model is
needed; secondly, that the stratification of archaic vs. innovative
structures allows us not only to recognize the Indo-European languages as
related, but also to acknowledge that some Indo-European languages, like
Indo-Iranian and Greek, must have remained in contact longer than others;
and, finally, that this late contact constitutes one more piece of
evidence that the "Out of India" theory, whether referring to the
indigeneity of Indo-Aryan on the Indian subcontinent or the origination of
proto-Indo-European itself in that location, is untenable.

Tid: onsdag 11.3.2009, kl. 12.15-14.00
Sted: Harriet Holters hus, seminarrom 114
Universitetet i Oslo

Alle interesserte er hjertelig velkommen!

Eirik Welo
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: "Koenraad Elst" <koenraad.elst@...>

OIT refuted?

In a university with no OIT advocate in sight, they find it necessary to devote
time to refuting the OIT. Since a few years, we are in the second phase of
acceptance of a new theory: first it is ridiculed, and of that the OIT has truly
had its share; then it is fiercely opposed; and finally it is accepted with airs
as if every had never thought otherwise. So now the OIT is in the phase of being
fought. Thus, we've had the JIES mobilizing a handful of scholars to refute
Nicholas Kazanas, and HH Hock trying to refute our linguistic arguments, in turn
responded to by Talageri and myself.

Contentswise, the argument presented in the Oslo lecture apparently boils down
to this: the IE tree model, with each branch radially branching out from the
origin on its own road of development unaffected by the other branches (an
ideal-type which nobody ever took literally), needs to be amended, with
recognition of influence between branches at later stages. On some points, this
makes reconstruction technically complex, but on the most common level of
borrowing, viz. vocabulary, it is obvious and was never in doubt.

>In this paper, three related arguments are presented: first, that the
family tree model as it stands is an inadequate depiction of the complex
relationships of the Indo-European languages, and that a new model is
needed;<

PIE linguistic reconstruction as such is not put in doubt:

>secondly, that the stratification of archaic vs. innovative
structures allows us not only to recognize the Indo-European languages as
related,<

But:

>but also to acknowledge that some Indo-European languages, like
Indo-Iranian and Greek, must have remained in contact longer than others;<

Of course, and the basis of so much extant reconstruction effort, e.g. by
Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1985.

>and, finally, that this late contact constitutes one more piece of
evidence that the ?Out of India? theory, whether referring to the
indigeneity of Indo-Aryan on the Indian subcontinent or the origination of
proto-Indo-European itself in that location, is untenable.<

Haha, how predictable. The speaker thinks that this somehow disproves the
possibility of a common IE homeland in India (while most linguistic data have no
geographical implications). Most linguists have this impression because even
when evaluating rivaling Homeland theories, they look at the data through
East-European-Homeland glasses. Thus, when Donald Ringe argues that Germanic
"path" is a loan from Iranian, they exclaim that this proves Iranian originates
in East Europe along with Germanic; when in fact it is perfectly compatible with
a common stay of Iranian and Germanic somewhere in Central Asia, on the Oxus
river or thereabouts. (That Germanic shows traces of an Asian itinerary, has
been argued convincingly by AIT believer Arnaud Fournet, pointing out Germanic's
links with Yeniseian, Altaic, Chinese and Uralic.) If Greek and Indo-Iranian
have late innovations in common, it is automatically ruled out that their common
development could have taken place in Afghanistan rather than Ukraine. But that
assuymption does not "constitute one more piece of evidence", it is just
circular reasoning. So far, no AIT upholder seems to have made the mental
exercise of fully imagining the OIT scenario which he claims to be refuting. The
OIT version that they argue against, is one hampered and handicapped by AIT
assumptions.

The man drawing attention to this lecture, CP Zoller, has himself contributed
mightily to the OIT with his discovery of Proto-Bangani, a kentum language in
India, very difficult to reconcile with current AIT assumptions. Most AIT
adherents have never faced the implications of Proto-Bangani, again from being
stuck too deeply in inertial thought habits. When reading Talageri's or Kazanas'
pro-OIT argumentations, I used to amuse myself with thinking up arguments that
AIT defenders might offer the day they condescend to responding to the OIT at
all. That day is now upon us, but the best counter-arguments imaginable still
don't come up because the AIT party does not succeed in getting out of its AIT
trenches and taking a truly unbiased fresh look at the data.

Kind regards,

KE<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->