STATUS OF PIE. IE IS A MYTH CREATED BY INDOLOGISTS - REVIEW OF A NEW BOOK *** Jai Maharaj posts
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Status of PIE. IE is a myth created by indologists -- Review of a new book
This is a stop press report on the death-throes of IE.
A remarkable debate is ongoing in the field of IE linguistics,
questioning the very method on which the non-falsiable discipline is
founded, making IE virtually a myth. Indigenous evolution of Indians
is NOT a myth. Aryan invasion is a myth. IE is a myth.
I am referring to a recent book.
Angela Marcantonio, 2009, The Indo-European Language Family:
questions about its status, Washington DC, Institute for the study of
Man, Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, No. 55.
Let me cite from the introduction in this remarkable book:
"Conclusion. The reader has seen in this book a variety of views
about IE, ranging from the belief that it represents the language of
a real pre-historical community; through the thesis that it is only a
model to embody linguistic correlations; all the way to statistical
evidence that (many) linguistc correlations themselves may be merely
an artefact of the method of analysis. In fact, when the various
components of the theory are brought together so that they can be
seen holistically, it is hard to pin down what the foundations of the
theory are actually supposed to be. For example, one of the founding
principles of the traditional version of the theory was the
assumption that morphological paradigms cannot be borrowed, and
therefore it is possible to trace genetic inheritance through them.
However, we have seen evidence of wholesale paradigm borrowing, based
on studies of languages in contact. In any case, some scholars now
hold that morphology is less relevant than other actors -- but it is
at present unclear whether, or how, these other factors may be
verified or falsified. It has been the purpose of this book to bring
to the fore these contradictions and open questions associated with
the theory. It is for the reader and the linguistic community to
decide the way forward."
Yes, Angela Marcantonio, IE is a big theory. The way forward is to
start focussing on semantics, instead of treating morphology as
relevant and relate the semantics to the cultural settings which
determine the formation and evolution of languages. Take a look at my
Indian Lexicon, for example. About 4000 of the so-called Dravidian
etyma have Indo-Aryan and Austro-asiatic cognates. Then, why persist
with the aryan-dravidian-munda divide within the Indian linguistic
area?
Angela Marcantonio should be complimented for the bold statement she
has made by editing a set of contributions which should make all
linguists (and, indologists dealing with IE, in particular) re-think,
introspect on the limitations of their discipline.
Table of contents:
Introduction by Angela Marcantonio
The satem languages of the Indo-European Northwest by Henning
Andersen
Ideology, the Indian homeland hypothesis and the comparative
methodd by E. Annamalai and SB Steever
The Indo-Aryan migration debate by Edwin Bryant
Indo-European vowel alternations: (ablaut/apophony) by Onofrio
Carruba
Verbal inflection from 'Proto-Indo-European' to the Indo-European
languages: a matter of coherence? by Paolo Di Giovine
Stratified reconstruction and a new view of the family tree model
by Bridget Drinka
The origin and spread of the Indo-Germanic people by Alexander
Hausler
Indo-European linguistics and Indo-Aryan indigenism by Nicholas
Kazanas
Evidence that most Indo-European lexical reconstructions are
artefacts of the linguistic method of analysis by Angela Marcantonio
Defining the limits of grammatical borrowing by Yaron Matras
Iranian archaisms vs. Vedic innovations and the Indo-Iranian unity by
Rudiger Schmitt
Bye-bye, IE, the myth. It is time to restore language studies into a
cultural framework instead of indulging in verbal juggleries called
morphological studies resulting in false classifications of language
families.
For anyone interested, I will be happy to email excerpts from
selected, specific contents of the book.
S. Kalyanaraman
End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
hari....@indero.com
contradictions and open questions associated with the theory. It is for
the reader and the linguistic community to decide the way forward."
This says it all. Any science is constantly under flux as information
changes and as ways to analyze it change. What the author observes is
the normal way of things in any science.
It reminds me of the fundamentalist who wants to refute evolution. They
find some author who has even a slightly different take on things in
this normal process of science and then proclaim that evolution is
refuted.
It did not say anything particularly
for the historical revisionist wanting to find comfort in the book.
The revisionists will with bloody fingernails cling unto any even small
bit of information. That train has left the station and to change the
track it is on will require some very significant information to the
contrary that is not even on the horizon but a product of wanting
history to fit dearly held ideas for non-scientific reasons.
It did not say the author dismisses the theory, but only his take on the
status of the evidence at hand; which is one single view of course and
not the concensus in the field.
M. Ranjit Mathews
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
> Thursday, October 8, 2009
> Status of PIE. IE is a myth created by indologists -- Review of a new book
Even if it be a myth, it wasn't created by Indologists.
Indology is the academic study of the languages and literature,
history and cultures of the Indian subcontinent (most specifically
including the modern-day states of India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and
Pakistan), and as such a subset of Asian studies. The beginnings of
Indology date back to the Persian anthropologist and historian Abū
Rayhān al-Bīrūnī (973-1048).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indology
What makes Saussure an Indologist?
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Ferdinand-de-Saussure
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> questions about its status, Washington DC, Institute for the study of
> Man, Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, No. 55.
Her expertise doesn't seem highly regarded, to put it mildly:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-1963.html
In brief, Angela Marcantonio's attempt to undermine the genetic
affinity of the Uralic languages can be characterized as unconvincing,
to say the least. The following fatal weaknesses in her argumentation
can be singled out:
Flaw #1: Insufficient competence in diachronic linguistics.
The author is apparently not fully acquainted with the terminology and
theoretical concepts of comparative linguistics. This is immediately
revealed by the incorrect usage of basic terms, an example of which is
the title of the sixth chapter, "Reconstructing the sound structure
and lexicon of the Uralic family tree" (sic!). Such mistakes do not
seem to result from inadvertence, because the argumentation is also
hampered by more fundamental misunderstandings related to central
theoretical issues.
Some examples:
a) The author constantly mistakes 'sound correspondences' for 'sound
laws' (i.e. 'sound rules'). Furthermore, she does not seem to fully
understand that 'correspondences' and 'laws' normally apply to
individual phonological segments and can be conditioned by
environmental factors. Thus, combinations of two distinct vowel
correspondences applying for different syllabic positions are
incorrectly interpreted as 'vowel rules' (chapter 4 passim).
b) The central concepts of 'regularity' and 'irregularity' are
not understood. E.g., it is claimed that sound changes which have
affected only certain dialects of a language but not others are "not
regular" because "they are in the process of diffusing"
(p. 111). Presumably, a confusion between 'lexical diffusion' and
'areal diffusion' underlies this strange statement. In another passage
the author discusses a "Neo-grammarian principle" according to which
"borrowed words can be identified because... they are mostly
'irregular' " (sic!). This non-existent principle, then, is supposedly
"contradicted by modern research" (p. 155; no reference is
provided). Apparently, the author is not acquainted with the basic
methods of etymological research.
c) The author considers it significant that certain sound changes
in Uralic languages are 'shared' with non-Uralic languages, e.g. the
shifts *s- > zero and *p- > f- in Hungarian and Manchu (p. 112). (One
can only wonder why a link between Hungarian and Germanic is not
suggested on the basis of the 'shared' change *p- > f-). It is
self-evident that such parallels can arise through chance or areal
contact, and as regards genetic relationship, they imply nothing.
Flaw #2: Defective knowledge of Uralic data and research in Uralic
linguistics.
The author's command of issues related to Uralic studies appears to
be no better than her competence in historical linguistics in general.
I
will provide three examples.
a) The presented account of the history of the Uralic studies is
both incomplete and misleading. E.g., the significance of the lexical
and morphological comparison between Hungarian and Saami (Lappish) by
J. Sajnovics (1770) is not properly acknowledged. Moreover, the
distinction between the historical origins and the modern foundations
of Uralic linguistics is not taken into account. Thus, the presented
critique of J. Budenz's studies is of little relevance, because the
shortcomings of these early works are already known to every modern
Uralist. The author also suggests that political and ideological
motives (including e.g. communist sympathies) significantly
contributed to the eventual acceptance of the "Uralic paradigm"; this
appeal to a 'conspiracy theory' adds a pseudoscientific flavor to the
treatment.
b) The author stresses that she compares reconstructed forms to
primary lexical data from the attested languages, whereas previous
studies on Uralic historical phonology "have been primarily concerned
with reconstructed forms only" (p. 104), i.e. "reconstructions (rather
than actual attested forms) are usually compared against other
reconstructions" (p. 70). This statement is false: most fundamental
studies on Uralic historical phonology list cognates in the present
day languages, and the studies that explicitly operate only with
reconstructions make reference to other works where the attested forms
are listed. It is difficult to understand how the author has come to
this false belief that Uralic reconstructions are 'hanging in the air'
- does she actually think that linguists just invented the forms out
of their own heads?
c) After a very superficial discussion on the position of Saami
(Lappish), it is concluded that the relationship of Saami to the rest
of Uralic is uncertain. Thus, the author reveals her amazing ignorance
of the actual linguistic data involved in Uralic comparisons. Saami
happens to share a huge amount of cognate morphology with Finnic,
including case suffixes, possessive suffixes, person, number, mood,
and nominal form markers on verbs, and a wide array of derivative
suffixes. As if this were not enough to prove a genetic relationship,
there are also some 400-500 cognate lexemes displaying regular sound
correspondence, including basic vocabulary such as body parts, kinship
terms, basic objects of the natural world, verbs for elementary
actions, and numerals. Anyone can check this data in basic
handbooks. The existence of these pervasive parallels is, however,
left unmentioned in 'The Uralic Language Family'. I can only see two
possible reasons for this: the author either deliberately ignores
evidence that contradicts her claims, or simply does not know what she
is talking about.
Flaw #3. Invalid application of statistical methods.
One of the main aims of the book is to undermine the Uralic affinity
with the help of 'statistical methods'. Applying binomial analysis,
the author attempts to prove that the cognate sets presented as
evidence of the Uralic affinity turn out to be 'statistically
insignificant', i.e., that they can (at least for the most part) be
explained as a result of chance. However, the presented tables,
graphs, and statistical calculations are flawed to the extent that
they are completely invalid. I will mention three serious problems in
the method employed:
a) In chapter 4 the 'statistical insignificance' of Uralic vowel
correspondences is claimed to be demonstrated. However, the
statistical analysis is not in fact based on vowel correspondences at
all, but on the *combined* correspondences of the first and second
syllable vowels - which are incorrectly interpreted as 'vowel rules'
(see Flaw #1 above).
b) On the basis of this flawed analysis the author gets an excuse
to ignore vowel correspondences altogether in the next statistical
test she performs (chapter 5). Furthermore, she also discards a number
of consonant correspondences on obscure grounds "for the purpose of
the analysis". Thus, a cognate set such as [Finnish /suoni/ 'vein',
Saami /suotna/, Mordvin /san/, Hungarian /�n/] is reduced to a
"one-consonant match" (p. 141), even though it involves as many as
four recurring sound correspondences: 1) s/s/s/zero; 2) uo/uo/a/�;
3)
n/tn/n/n; 4) i/a/zero/zero.
c) The statistical calculations and the premises involved in
conducting them are often not clearly explained - indeed, the author
herself admits that her analysis involves "a certain amount of
personal intuition and subjectivity" (p. 141). To give an example of
what this 'subjectivity' means, in chapter 5 the author claims to have
tested her results against a "control case which is equivalent to
random words", which is provided nowhere in the book. It is difficult,
occasionally perhaps impossible, to check the author's analysis of the
data - a grave mistake in a scientific study.
Flaw #4. Inconsistency.
The overall nature of the argumentation is disturbingly
inconsistent. The author sets extremely high standards for evidence
that is presented in support of the Uralic affinity. At the same time,
however, she posits competing hypotheses and makes references to
contradicting claims, no matter how spurious evidence they are based
upon. Random and superficial similarities of word stems and
inflectional endings between Uralic and other language families are
referred to as "flawless", "convincing", "striking", etc. Occasionally
this line of argumentation leads to sheer absurdity: e.g., the old and
duly forgotten comparison between Finnish /Suomi/ 'Finland' and the
toponym /Sumi/ in the Altai region is referred to as a "credible,
straightforward parallel" (p. 253).
Flaw #5. Misleading and erroneous quotes and references.
The most annoying feature of the book is the frequent occurrence
of misleading references. Often these seem to result from
misunderstanding or careless reading of the work referred to. However,
occasionally this misquotation is so pervasive that it is difficult to
see it as accidental, unless the author was totally blinded by her own
preconceptions. A revealing example is the table which is supposed to
paraphrase Juha Janhunen's comments on various kinds of "identified
problems" involved in twelve Uralic cognate sets (p. 72). A checking
of the original paper (Journal de la Soci�t� Finno-Ougrienne 77;
1981)
reveals that almost all the remarks are either cited out of context or
downright misquoted. I will give two examples: a) A comparison between
two words of identical meaning ('to rain') is said to involve
"semantic difficulties" (sic!); Janhunen says no such thing. b)
Another Proto-Uralic etymology is doubted on the grounds that,
according to Janhunen, "exact semantic reconstruction [is]
impossible". This quote is verbatim, but presented out of context.
Janhunen found no flaw in the comparison, which is based on words
meaning 'sun, day' on the one hand and 'warmth' on the other - a
perfectly transparent semantic match. The idea that a very close
semantic match would not suffice in the absence of an "exact semantic
reconstruction" is absurd, and it is even stranger that Marcantonio
should require such exactness from an Uralic etymology, as the
etymological comparisons she herself advocates are both semantically
and phonologically entirely inexact (see Flaw #4 above).
The errors discussed above are only meant to serve as examples of the
many problems that plague Angela Marcantonio's 'The Uralic Language
Family: Facts, Myths, and Statistics'. Hopefully, they suffice to
demonstrate that the author's claim of the unrelatedness of the Uralic
languages is rejectable. For more thorough critiques, I refer to the
reviews published and forthcoming (see above).
Marcantonio's work does, however, provoke an important
question. One can only wonder how this book passed a peer review
process and came to be published in a respected series such as
'Publications of the Philological Society'. There are other scientific
disciplines which employ strict referee practices, and this has only
contributed to their progress. Why should it be any different in
linguistics?
harmony
just pissed off they can't reconcile thay they are white and the aryans
were/are brown.
<use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20100101ZlqI6UDW1aT6FQT3CcjIHoM@Rq5s9...
hari....@indero.com
they are just pissed off they can't reconcile thay they are white and
the aryans were/are brown."
I count several flaws of fact or logic in the above. Extra points if
one flaw is spotted, a passing mark if all are found.
3 m blindness is a terrible thing to behold, or is it better said 3m
obsession?
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
House is only half white (although he has yet to show his long-form
birth certificate to prove eligibility).
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
In article <4b424062$0$5327$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> the europeans have a psychological need to be the origianal aryans. they are
> just pissed off they can't reconcile thay they are white and the aryans
> were/are brown.
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
M. Ranjit Mathews
> the europeans have a psychological need to be the original aryans.
Then, why did they originally claim that the Aryans invaded Europe
from Asia?
> they are just pissed off they can't reconcile thay they are white and
> the aryans were/are brown.
Then, how are they able to reconcile their being white with their
belief that man originated in Africa?
hari....@indero.com
House is only half white (although he has yet to show his long-form
birth certificate to prove eligibility). "
Jay stevens,aka dr. jai etc. is a white bigot.
Each state handles confirmation of birth. The state confirmed it, the
very state in which jay stevens,aka dr. jai etc. resides as an american
citizen .
Funny too that jay stevens,aka dr. jai etc. has in past refused to
provide the same information.
As he also refuses about claims in support of education and language
used and other bits of his self invented web image.
So not only is jay stevens,aka dr. jai etc. a white bigot, he is a
hypocrite.
harmony
"M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:be044629-e268-4f56...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 4, 2:24 pm, "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> the europeans have a psychological need to be the original aryans.
<Then, why did they originally claim that the Aryans invaded Europe
from Asia?>
the europeans started on this craze when they had an overpowering need to
disentagle themselves from kreepy, killer kirastanism, and hence to prove
they really had nothing to do with the mideast monotheist madness (tied to
the infamous 3m). the whites had had it with the missionarism, mullaism and
marxism. to make the matter worse, they had a thing about the jews too. in
other words the whites did not like their inner being. but of course, they
loved their outer layer.
> they are just pissed off they can't reconcile thay they are white and
> the aryans were/are brown.
<Then, how are they able to reconcile their being white with their
belief that man originated in Africa?>
africa --> mideast --> and then india. it takes a while to know that real
civilization (sanskriti) started from india in the satya yuga with the
ultimate civilizing language (sanskrit).
the white folks are laboring under the mistaken assumption that civilization
has been progressing from primitive in the stone age to the modern.
no, no, no.............
the best the world had was during satya uga where the humanity started fully
civilized, albeit slowly eroding. sanskrit wasn't for mere communication for
things comprehensible (even to the most advanced human minds), its greater
use was spiritual.
he iswhar gowray logon ko sadbuddhi deejo. next nobel prize in science
should go to some one who does some research on satya yuga.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
> he iswhar gowray logon ko sadbuddhi deejo.
They may have it but they just don't know how to look within for the buddhi.
> next nobel prize in science
> should go to some one who does some research on satya yuga.
Only a promise to do something is needed. Obama's Nobel demonstrates this.
harmony
<use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20100104SJ87u8sHN6hmnT0ohzMy1y8@WV73r...
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
all the yugs? But then, what in your opinion may not be known?
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
In article <4b42822c$0$5348$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> lol. i agree.
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
harmony
if they looked at right (which would mean they must first learn to
communicate in sanskrit language), then all the so-called linguists would
have to find real jobs.
<use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20100104UOpgw2L0yKT9gu8Kn9MqiBm@L7DNP...
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Sanskrit, but they know only its literal part. They rebel against
learning the spiritual since it is a divine language. Even the label
"language" is insufficient to describe it.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
In article <4b4289c3$0$5346$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> the white folks are looking at it from the wrong end.
> if they looked at right (which would mean they must first learn to
> communicate in sanskrit language), then all the so-called linguists would
> have to find real jobs.
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
Panu
> the europeans have a psychological need to be the origianal aryans. they are
> just pissed off they can't reconcile thay they are white and the aryans
> were/are brown.
In my native language, the word for slave is cognate with Aryan.
PaulJK
:-)))))
pjk
M. Ranjit Mathews
I like the expressiveness of your use of "cognate" but it is
technically an incorrect usage since your language and IE didn't get
the word from a common ancestral language.
Joachim Pense
Maybe they did. The "slave" word might be a loan from an IE word that's
cognate with "aryan".
Joachim
P. Rajah
> These racists are being cut down to size. Even the man in the White
> House is only half white (although he has yet to show his long-form
> birth certificate to prove eligibility).
Is there a rule that only white people are allowed in the White House?
Btw, it's rather intriguing that you claim to have attended IIT-Delhi
before there was an IIT-Delhi, based on your various claims like having
fought for Indian independence, having fought the Chinese, being the
oldest poster to Usenet, etc., etc. On your Google profile, you claim to
have begun your "practice" more than 50 years ago. IIT-Delhi did not
exist 50 years ago. Where are your certificates to prove any of your claims?
P. Rajah
> the europeans have a psychological need to be the origianal aryans. they are
> just pissed off they can't reconcile thay they are white and the aryans
> were/are brown.
That's funny. Nitwits like you have been at pains to convey that
"aryans" were simply those of noble character and not a race. As you and
your fellow bigots exemplify, brown people have plenty of ignobles among
them, so why would whites of noble character be excluded from being
called "aryans"?