Talk:Graeco-Aryan

Comments

Linguistic evidence? 惑乱 分からん 01:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Such language never existed. We can only speak about Proto-Italo-Greek language (Centum language), i.e. proto-language of Latin and Greak languages on one PIE branch and Proto-Indo-Balto-Slavic language (Satem language) on other branch. The proto-cognate of Celtic languages is under question, but most likely there was Proto-Italo-Graeco-Celtic language (Centum language). Roberts7 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's no evidence for "Proto-Satem" either, and least of all for "Proto-Centum" (considering Tocharian and Hittite were centum as well!). —Angr 19:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Proto-Satem is not a language. It is now known that satemization was an areal feature which spread through late PIE speaking areas affecting different branches to different extents. Indo-Iranian became completely satemized as did Balto-Slavic but with anomalies. Armenian was partially satemized and Greek shows mild traces of the process. This implies that these languages must have formed a linguistic continuum in the late PIE stage (3000 - 2500 BCE). Indo-Iranian probably occupied the eastern part while Greek was on the western edge with Armenian in between. The dialects that would become Balto-Slavic probably existed to their north. Italic-Celtic, Anatolian, Tocharian and Germanic were already fully separated from the PIE core and did not take part in the satemization process at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.249 (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but then one must admit that the PIE is also very hypothetical language which is mainly reconstructed on phonetical basis of Greek language (what's not correct, imho, because Sanskrit (Vedic) is phonetically older) and grammatical basis of Classical Sanskrit, the older Vedic Sanskrit grammar is simply ignored. So reconstructed PIE actually is Proto-Italo-Graeco-Celtic language (romanized/greekized Sanskrit language) not PIE. Speaking about Proto-Satem, of course there are some problems of Proto-Satem reconstruction which concern PIE g' and k' development (Sanskrit & Lithuanian š /ž (< č /dž), Iranian, Slavic & other Baltic s /z (< ts /dz)). But then we cannot speak about Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Baltic and Proto-Balto-Slavic languages either. Roberts7 12:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally shared (or convergent) developments can and do occur. Evidence has to be weighed here: which of Greek-Italic connections (such as aspirate devoicing), Greek-Sanskrit connections (such as Grassmann's Law), Greek-Iranian connections (such as *s > h), Greek-Armenian connections (such as the amount of shared lexicon) etc. are best attributable to chance or later influence, and which are most likely to signal common descent?

Anyway, for linguistic evidence, I added a mention of GL. I'm not sure if *s > h is worth noting, given that Indo-Iranian is not a seriously contended grouping & the change obviously does not occur in PII. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

That the Hellenic and Indo-Iranian branches have a later common ancestor with each other than with other Indo-European branches does not fit well with the Kurgan hypothesis; how can the homeland have been smack-dab-in-the-middle of Greece and South Asia in that case? GSMR (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean, "how"? The model here is waves of expansion, and the Greeks and Indo-Iranians would both correspond to the same wave of expansion out of the steppe dating to around 2500 BC. Proto-Greek was spoke in in the Balkans (say, Bulgaria, or Macedonia). Proto-Indo-Iranian was spoken in Kazakhstan. South Asia has nothing to do with this (in fact, the Proto-Greeks were rather closer to the Proto-Indo-Iranians than the Punjab, to reach which took them another 1000 years). The Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian homelands are about 1500 km apart, or some 700 km in either direction from the Dnepr. Even with cattle herds and ox carts, it will take you less than a month to travel 700 km. The model allows for 500 years. Go figure. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

References?

• Critical evaluation of the Greco-Aryan hypothesis (Old Irish is presented as evidence against): Kim McCone, The Indo-European origins of the Old Irish nasal presents, subjunctives and futures (1991).

--dab (𒁳) 11:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Graeco-Aryan or Graeco-Aryan model?

This article has me somewhat confused. Is this about a hypothetical node on the IE tree, or is about what is commonly referred to as the "Graeco-Aryan model" of (P)IE reconstruction? While I'm familiar with the latter, the former has me somewhat mystified. Help? --Aryaman (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. The "Graeco-Aryan model" says that shared features in Greek and IIr are just archaisms lost by the other branches. A Graeco-Aryan node would claim them as common innovations. It's a good question, but I am afraid the two concepts get mixed up more often than not. I seem to understand that McCone (1991) is criticizing the Graeco-Aryan node by pointing out that Old Irish also has vestiges of features reconstructed from the "Graeco-Aryan model".

We just need more references until the picture becomes clearer. I guess the "Graeco-Aryan node" is a feature of the Kurgan model, which says "Late PIE = Kurgan IV", so that Greco-Aryan would have been the dialect continuum of the steppe in the early 3rd millennium. The non-Greco-Aryan dialects, i.e. Germano-Italo-Celtic, and Balto-Slavic would have left the steppe before that, in the 4th millennium (and yet earlier Tocharian and Anatolian, in the 5th?) If you don't like the Kurgan model with its waves, you probably won't like the "Graeco-Aryan node" and settle for the "Graeco-Aryan model". --dab (𒁳) 17:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Graeco-Aryan model" as a term was coined after it was realized that the reconstructions performed up to the beginning of the 20th century - which had relied heavily upon Greek and Sanskrit (hence: "Graeco-Aryan") and did a good job of explaining Latin, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic and Armenian - did not provide a very good basis for explaining several important aspects of the recently deciphered Hittite. This led to widesweeping criticism of the earlier reconstructions, which was presented as an attack on the newly-designated "Graeco-Aryan model" of IE reconstruction, as opposed to a model which placed more importance on the role of Anatolian. This is an ongoing discussion, and not much substantial progress has been made yet. Brief mentions of the core issues are made in standard works such as Meier-Brügger's Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft (2002:164) and Clackson's Indoeuropean Linguistics (2007:115). Cf. also Tichy's Indogermanisches Grundwissen (2004:11). This is almost certainly what Bammesberger is referring to in the quote attributed to him in the first footnote, i.e. that, despite its shortcomings in regard to the Anatolian information, the Graeco-Aryan model of reconstruction remains at the centre of IE linguistics. I realize I'm probably not saying anything you don't already know, but felt it was worth saying anyway. Cheers --Aryaman (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to point this out: Bammesberger is referring to the Graeco-Aryan model of PIE reconstruction, which is indeed widespread and effectively (for want of a better alternative) largely consensus in IE linguistics (admittedly, objections have been raised to the idea that every verbal category or combination of verbal categories that happens to be attested in Greek and Indo-Iranian, such as the conjunctive or optative of the perfect, must be projected back to PIE, and some post-PIE reorganisation of the verbal system – though not exclusively limited to Graeco-Aryan – is assumed by both the Rix school and Jasanoff, and apparently even Ringe, and similar things are being suspected about the nominal system), but irrelevant to the proposal of an exclusive Graeco-Aryan node (even if it might include Armenian and perhaps Phrygian), as the Graeco-Aryan model does not treat the Graeco-Aryan commonalities as innovations but, quite the opposite, as retentions! Bammesberger cannot be adduced as a witness for this proposal at all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)