Linguistics Forum

Reply to topic

 
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
mojobadshah
Top-Notch Linguist


Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 198
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:52 pm
Post subject: Why the Avestan Language is a Rich Language
Reply with quote

The archeologists place the language of the Aryans or Avestan as early as 1500 BCE. This would make the Avestan language the oldest Indo-European language that is still used in liturgy and that lives on in Pashto one of the two official languages of Afghanistan (Pashto preserves Avestan reflexes). The Avesta was composed in Aryana Vaejah the homeland of the Aryans on part where the Irano-Afghans including the Pashto language family lives today. There is no reference to an Aryan homeland in Indic texts until centuries after the Avestan and Vedic period. Avestan is classified as an East Iranian language.

The undeniable truth is that the Avestan language and the rest of the Indo-European languages like English are related. Whereas everything else, tracing these languages back to Proto-Indo-European, is left to theory. In other words we can prove that the Avestan word Azam "I" and the English word I "I" are related morphologically or in sound and meaning and that the Avestan Azam "I" preceded the English I but there is no sure way to prove that both of these forms descended from a common ancestor.

It may well have been the Irano-Afghans who spread the languages we know as Indo-European throughout the world. Avestan is an East Iranian language. The language of the Scythians are also classified East Iranian speakers. The Scythians lived on part where the Slavs and Celto-Italic speakers later rose. They were members of the aristocracy in India. The Purusha are equated with the Pashtuns of Afghanistan. Buddha was known as the Great Sakyamuni or Scythian. There is evidence of East Iranian tribes names, loans, in the earliest form of Greek known as Myceneaen. At one time Armenian was thought to be an Irano-Afghan dialect. Lithuanian is similar to Sanskrit and therefore Avestan. And Albania was a Satrap of the Parthians also a Scythian people and Albanian literature wasn't attested until centuries later.

For all we know the English I did descend from the Avestan Azam. The Avestan forms are primal registers of the English and Indo-European languages and Intellectual Property Law is the higher segment of language planning. It dictates who can say what an where.
The rightful custodians of the ancestral Avestan forms, however, are not the English, but the Aryans and considering over half the world speak one Indo-European language or another this would make an Aryan word enterprise a very profitable enterprise.

This is what makes Avestan language a rich language and what sets the Avestan language apart every language in the world
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
djr33
Chomsky


Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 4004
Location: Illinois, USA
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:16 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Do you have any citations for any of this? Certain parts of your post are highly improbable (like suggesting English descended from Avestan). Others are just poetic and descriptive, such as your use of "rich"-- all languages are rich, and none are rich. Certainly there is a lot about Avestan (and the modern languages) that is special, but that's not different than any other language.

There's also nothing special about Avestan still having reflexes in modern languages-- the same can be said about Proto-Indo-European, or any of the other PIE branches (eg, Proto-Germanic), or for that matter any language. For example, the Basques claim their language is very old-- and that's true, but the "age" of a language really isn't relevant-- all languages are old, in the same way that Spanish (or French, Italian, etc) is really just modern Latin, or modern Proto-Indo-European.

It's true that it's perhaps the oldest Indo-European language used for modern purposes, but there are others that are arguably in a similar situation, such as Greek (depending on which time period is relevant in which situation). And how actively used is Avestan anyway? I'm interested in that detail (and I don't know the answer). Another interesting case, in Semitic, is Coptic, which is the modern descendant of Ancient Egyptian (and is still spoken by a handful of people in remote places in Egypt, but actively used in church services). Also within Semitic is Aramaic.

Most other places in the world simply don't have written history long enough to preserve languages that long, although the next longest would be Chinese, but again it's debatable how old the earliest "still used" form is-- and I'm far from an expert on that.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
mojobadshah
Top-Notch Linguist


Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 198
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:47 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Daniel Ross wrote: Do you have any citations for any of this? Certain parts of your post are highly improbable (like suggesting English descended from Avestan). Others are just poetic and descriptive, such as your use of "rich"-- all languages are rich, and none are rich. Certainly there is a lot about Avestan (and the modern languages) that is special, but that's not different than any other language.


You agree that Avestan is older than English and that both languages are related right? What I'm saying is that whatever rules and laws linguists have used to determine that English is a Germanic language and Avestan is an Aryan language and that these two subfamilies Germanic and Avestan descended from Proto-Indo-European is theory and not fact.

Daniel Ross wrote: There's also nothing special about Avestan still having reflexes in modern languages-- the same can be said about Proto-Indo-European, or any of the other PIE branches (eg, Proto-Germanic), or for that matter any language. For example, the Basques claim their language is very old-- and that's true, but the "age" of a language really isn't relevant-- all languages are old, in the same way that Spanish (or French, Italian, etc) is really just modern Latin, or modern Proto-Indo-European.


All languages are as old as the forms in which they were transmitted. The Avestan compositions are much older than the story of Beowolfe. The Avestan compositions were recorded in Bakhdi (ancient Balkh) where King Vishtaspa "the Constantine of Zoroastrianism" ruled, on part where the Afghans live today.

Daniel Ross wrote: It's true that it's perhaps the oldest Indo-European language used for modern purposes, but there are others that are arguably in a similar situation, such as Greek (depending on which time period is relevant in which situation). And how actively used is Avestan anyway? I'm interested in that detail (and I don't know the answer). Another interesting case, in Semitic, is Coptic, which is the modern descendant of Ancient Egyptian (and is still spoken by a handful of people in remote places in Egypt, but actively used in church services). Also within Semitic is Aramaic.


Myceneneaen the oldest Greek died out. Homer's works were composed in Ionian 800BCE, but today's Greek languages mainly descend from Attic Greek 500 BCE.

Coptic is to ancient Egyptian what Pashto is to Avestan. Egyptian is a Afro-Asiatic language like Aramaic, but much older.

Daniel Ross wrote: Most other places in the world simply don't have written history long enough to preserve languages that long, although the next longest would be Chinese, but again it's debatable how old the earliest "still used" form is-- and I'm far from an expert on that.


The Aryans and Indics preserved their compositions like human tape recorders careful to preserve even pronunciation of their hymns. The Aryans believed their compositions to be an injunction against deceivers. They demanded meed or compensation for their works. The Indo-Europeans believed their compositions were magical formulas powerful enough to slay dragons.

Daniel Ross wrote: And how actively used is Avestan anyway?
Avestan is really only used by the Zarathushtrian priests. It's almost a dead language, but not quite, which is in part what makes it so sacred.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
djr33
Chomsky


Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 4004
Location: Illinois, USA
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:02 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote: You agree that Avestan is older than English and that both languages are related right? What I'm saying is that whatever rules and laws linguists have used to determine that English is a Germanic language and Avestan is an Aryan language and that these two subfamilies Germanic and Avestan descended from Proto-Indo-European is theory and not fact.
My opinion isn't a fact, but I strongly believe that all three components are true-- they're related, they're both descended from PIE, and they're from separate branches. In fact, there's more reliable evidence that Germanic forms a branch than that those languages are related to PIE. Believe what you want, but what you're saying is implausible to me. One of the biggest practical issues is explaining the human migration from central Eurasia to where Germanic came from (somewhere in Northwestern Europe). Assuming lots of long migrations is only logical if we have some reason to believe that it's necessary.

Quote: All languages are as old as the forms in which they were transmitted.
That's one definition. I'm not sure it's that simple, but you can use that definition if you want. Under that definition, do you assume active use or just some sort of record? Other languages are older, like Sumerian, although they're not currently used in any way. (But how is Avestan used?)

Quote: Myceneneaen the oldest Greek died out. Homer's works were composed in Ionian 800BCE, but today's Greek languages mainly descend from Attic Greek 500 BCE.
Well, it's all Greek and there was some earlier Greek. It's unclear what that means exactly. You're talking about records of languages, I guess, so you're right in some sense, but the availability of records isn't really my focus in this.

Quote: Coptic is to ancient Egyptian what Pashto is to Avestan. Egyptian is a Afro-Asiatic language like Aramaic, but much older.
What I wrote wasn't clear, yes. Aramaic is Semitic (a subbranch of Afro-Asiatic) and Coptic/Ancient Egyptian is just Afro-Asiatic (not within Semitic).

Quote: The Aryans and Indics preserved their compositions like human tape recorders careful to preserve even pronunciation of their hymns. The Aryans believed their compositions to be an injunction against deceivers. They demanded meed or compensation for their works. The Indo-Europeans believed their compositions were magical formulas powerful enough to slay dragons.
Hmm... do you have sources for this, or for any of the rest of your claims? They're interesting, not that I believe them yet-- I might with more evidence, at least for some of the claims.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
mojobadshah
Top-Notch Linguist


Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 198
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Daniel Ross wrote:
Quote: You agree that Avestan is older than English and that both languages are related right? What I'm saying is that whatever rules and laws linguists have used to determine that English is a Germanic language and Avestan is an Aryan language and that these two subfamilies Germanic and Avestan descended from Proto-Indo-European is theory and not fact.
My opinion isn't a fact


In a court of law your opinion would not hold up, nor would a theory against the facts which I have presented. I'm talking about what we know for sure. You're opinion is based on what the rules and laws of linguists says happened, but anything could have happened. For example language changes that we didn't account for could have taken place we just don't have evidence of the intermediary stages of those developments.

Daniel Ross wrote:
Quote: All languages are as old as the forms in which they were transmitted.
That's one definition. I'm not sure it's that simple, but you can use that definition if you want. Under that definition, do you assume active use or just some sort of record? Other languages are older, like Sumerian, although they're not currently used in any way. (But how is Avestan used?)


Homer was recorded and transmitted in the oral tradition the same way Avestan was transmitted. Oral tradition is the form in this case. Sumerian was recorded on tablets and passed down to us in tablets this form.

Quote: Myceneneaen the oldest Greek died out. Homer's works were composed in Ionian 800BCE, but today's Greek languages mainly descend from Attic Greek 500 BCE.
[quote="Daniel Ross"]
Quote: Well, it's all Greek and there was some earlier Greek. It's unclear what that means exactly. You're talking about records of languages, I guess, so you're right in some sense, but the availability of records isn't really my focus in this.


In other words the Greek spoken today is the living language of Ionion in part, but mainly Attic (and Greciano, which I forgot to mention is the living language of the Spartans). So although Myceneaen may be a candidate for the primal Indo-European language it has no living descendents. Pashto is the living language of the Avestan people and Avestan is itself is still used to recite liturgy.

Quote: Coptic is to ancient Egyptian what Pashto is to Avestan. Egyptian is a Afro-Asiatic language like Aramaic, but much older.
[quote="Daniel Ross"]
Quote: What I wrote wasn't clear, yes. Aramaic is Semitic (a subbranch of Afro-Asiatic) and Coptic/Ancient Egyptian is just Afro-Asiatic (not within Semitic).


And Aramaic resembles Ancient Egyptian which was attested long before Aramaic was attested.

Quote: The Aryans and Indics preserved their compositions like human tape recorders careful to preserve even pronunciation of their hymns. The Aryans believed their compositions to be an injunction against deceivers. They demanded meed or compensation for their works. The Indo-Europeans believed their compositions were magical formulas powerful enough to slay dragons.
[quote="Daniel Ross"]
Quote: Hmm... do you have sources for this, or for any of the rest of your claims? They're interesting, not that I believe them yet-- I might with more evidence, at least for some of the claims.


Avesta cf. wisdom, history, evidence (but see also http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3424500273/avesta.html) The Avestan hymns were an injunction against evil. Who and what was evil? The Drug or liers.

...he [Zarathushtra] refers to "the correct uttering of the words" (Y.31.19) which may be understood as an allusion to the injunction (still observed today) to pronounce correctly the prescribed ritual words lest the ritual itself is vitiated. - Peter Clark, Zoroastrianism: an introduction to an ancient faith pg. 3

Avestan mizda cf. meed (see http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/aveol-BF-R.html) Zarathushtra was a Zaotar or bard.

"The most powerful force in the orld view of the Indo-Europeans as the spoken word. If the dragon or serpent is conceived of as a monstrous sort of worm, then the mythographic formula, the paean which proclaims the death of the dragon can assure by verbal magic, by the ower of the spoken word, the destruction of the worm." - Calvert Watkins, How to Kill a Dragon pg. 521

If you want me to site anything else just ask.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
djr33
Chomsky


Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 4004
Location: Illinois, USA
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:31 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote: In a court of law your opinion would not hold up, nor would a theory against the facts which I have presented. I'm talking about what we know for sure. You're opinion is based on what the rules and laws of linguists says happened, but anything could have happened. For example language changes that we didn't account for could have taken place we just don't have evidence of the intermediary stages of those developments.
That makes you sound delusional. Of course my opinion is just my opinion. But so is yours. And what's to say that linguistic methods are any more reliable than cultural history/myths-- we just don't know any of this for sure. I'm happy to admit that, but you seem to want to privelage your opinions. I can't argue with that-- you're welcome to believe it, but then there's really nothing to discuss.

Quote: Homer was recorded and transmitted in the oral tradition the same way Avestan was transmitted. Oral tradition is the form in this case. Sumerian was recorded on tablets and passed down to us in tablets this form.
Regarding oral tradition, the only thing we know for sure is that what people are saying must be based on something. We don't know what/where/when/who it was, and we can barely even prove that they're related (and isn't that using linguistic methods)? Sumerican writing is at least provably writing and we have the tablets. So there's no real quesiton that it existed, and in general we know when/where. We don't know much else, but starting from there is at least something.

Quote:
In other words the Greek spoken today is the living language of Ionion in part, but mainly Attic (and Greciano, which I forgot to mention is the living language of the Spartans). So although Myceneaen may be a candidate for the primal Indo-European language it has no living descendents. Pashto is the living language of the Avestan people and Avestan is itself is still used to recite liturgy.
And Proto-Greek? Why do you care so much about what is attested? Proto-Greek certainly existed (whatever and wherever it was), so all of this is a descendant of it. Can you explain why you want to privelage languages that were recorded?

Quote: If you want me to site anything else just ask.
Thanks. I appreciate having something concrete to talk about. The only problem is that a lot of this is also conjecture, perhaps right, but uncertain. I'll agree that at least we can generally know that the Avestans existed and had oral traditions, but I'm not sure why that is central/important in this discussion, as I said above when I asked why you want to privelage languages that were recorded. That's fine if you want to, but I'm just not clear on the reason.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
mojobadshah
Top-Notch Linguist


Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 198
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:43 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Daniel Ross wrote:
Quote: In a court of law your opinion would not hold up, nor would a theory against the facts which I have presented. I'm talking about what we know for sure. You're opinion is based on what the rules and laws of linguists says happened, but anything could have happened. For example language changes that we didn't account for could have taken place we just don't have evidence of the intermediary stages of those developments.
That makes you sound delusional. Of course my opinion is just my opinion. But so is yours. And what's to say that linguistic methods are any more reliable than cultural history/myths-- we just don't know any of this for sure. I'm happy to admit that, but you seem to want to privelage your opinions. I can't argue with that-- you're welcome to believe it, but then there's really nothing to discuss.


You agree that Avestan is older than English and that the two languages are related right? I'm saying that we can't prove beyond theory that English isn't directly descended from Avestan. Why is that more delusional than creating a hypothetical common ancestor of all the Indo-European languages including Avestan which would undermine the significance of an ancestral Indo-European language like Avestan? Why not just accept that Avestan is the ancient English and leave it at that?

Quote: Homer was recorded and transmitted in the oral tradition the same way Avestan was transmitted. Oral tradition is the form in this case. Sumerian was recorded on tablets and passed down to us in tablets this form.
Regarding oral tradition, the only thing we know for sure is that what people are saying must be based on something. We don't know what/where/when/who it was, and we can barely even prove that they're related (and isn't that using linguistic methods)? Sumerican writing is at least provably writing and we have the tablets. So there's no real quesiton that it existed, and in general we know when/where. We don't know much else, but starting from there is at least something.[/quote]

I've heard of using radio carbon dating to determine the date of ink in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, but to the best of my knowledge there is no chemical process to determine how old the Sumerian tablets are. So when it comes to determining the date of the Avestan compositions and the Sumerian compositions they are on the same page. Some have even proposed that there are Aryan loans in Sumerian. I can show you a list of cognates I'm sure you would agree are cognates if you want.

It doesn't matter so much whether Homer or Zarathushtra existed. What matters is that their compositions did, and that their compositions contained words and expressions that are primal to the words and expressions that we use today.

Quote:
In other words the Greek spoken today is the living language of Ionion in part, but mainly Attic (and Greciano, which I forgot to mention is the living language of the Spartans). So although Myceneaen may be a candidate for the primal Indo-European language it has no living descendents. Pashto is the living language of the Avestan people and Avestan is itself is still used to recite liturgy.
And Proto-Greek? Why do you care so much about what is attested? Proto-Greek certainly existed (whatever and wherever it was), so all of this is a descendant of it. Can you explain why you want to privelage languages that were recorded?[/quote]

Proto-Greek did not certainly exist. Myceneaen did exist, we have the evidence to show it. Proto-Greek is a theoretical language.

Quote: If you want me to site anything else just ask.
Quote: Thanks. I appreciate having something concrete to talk about. The only problem is that a lot of this is also conjecture, perhaps right, but uncertain. I'll agree that at least we can generally know that the Avestans existed and had oral traditions, but I'm not sure why that is central/important in this discussion, as I said above when I asked why you want to privelage languages that were recorded. That's fine if you want to, but I'm just not clear on the reason.


The Avestan language is a primal register of its English relative and all the other Indo-European languages (apart from Anatolian which is long dead). In IP. Law the rights to copyright or trademark go to the owner of the primal register of the copy or mark, not the owner of a junior register.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
djr33
Chomsky


Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 4004
Location: Illinois, USA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:14 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote: You agree that Avestan is older than English and that the two languages are related right? I'm saying that we can't prove beyond theory that English isn't directly descended from Avestan. Why is that more delusional than creating a hypothetical common ancestor of all the Indo-European languages including Avestan which would undermine the significance of an ancestral Indo-European language like Avestan? Why not just accept that Avestan is the ancient English and leave it at that?
Your argument is incredibly misleading. The only evidence that Avestan and English are related is linguistic evidence, then you want to deny the rest of the linguistic evidence that Avestan is not "ancient English"... you can't pick and choose what evidence you want to consider and what you want to ignore. I'll either believe that English and Avestan descend from PIE and are related, or I'll believe neither.

Quote: Proto-Greek did not certainly exist. Myceneaen did exist, we have the evidence to show it. Proto-Greek is a theoretical language.
I completely disagree. Proto-Greek is whatever was spoken before the first attested form of Greek was spoken. Unless you claim that Greek magically came into being and nothing was before it (thus it is unrelated to the other IE languages), there's no point in claiming that. The details of Proto-Greek are up for debate, and we will never be sure, but something did exist, and that's all that, as a name, Proto-Greek means. Furthermore, it seems completely reasonable to think that languages that look like Greek are also descendants of Proto-Greek, whatever it may have been.

Quote: The Avestan language is a primal register of its English relative and all the other Indo-European languages (apart from Anatolian which is long dead). In IP. Law the rights to copyright or trademark go to the owner of the primal register of the copy or mark, not the owner of a junior register.
What do you mean by "register", and, yes, it's very interesting historically, but not more than anything else, such as, for example, Anatolian. Unfortunately we don't have as much evidence for the others, but to me that makes them perhaps more interesting, not less interesting. Avestan is also interesting, I don't disagree, but I don't see it as special compared to the others.
As for IP, I don't see what your point is. Languages aren't copyrighted and they never will be. The closest case I'm aware of is Klingon, still very controlled by its creator-- take a look into that if you're interested.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
mojobadshah
Top-Notch Linguist


Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 198
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:42 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Daniel Ross wrote:
Quote: You agree that Avestan is older than English and that the two languages are related right? I'm saying that we can't prove beyond theory that English isn't directly descended from Avestan. Why is that more delusional than creating a hypothetical common ancestor of all the Indo-European languages including Avestan which would undermine the significance of an ancestral Indo-European language like Avestan? Why not just accept that Avestan is the ancient English and leave it at that?
Your argument is incredibly misleading. The only evidence that Avestan and English are related is linguistic evidence, then you want to deny the rest of the linguistic evidence that Avestan is not "ancient English"... you can't pick and choose what evidence you want to consider and what you want to ignore. I'll either believe that English and Avestan descend from PIE and are related, or I'll believe neither.

I'm not trying to mislead anyone. I understand as well as you do that according to convention Avestan and English descended a common ancestor. According to the same convention Avestan is ancestral to English. Convention would make Avestan out to be a great great uncle rather than a great great grandfather of the English language. But the rules and laws of linguistics that dictate Avestan is not the great great grandfather is purely theoretical. All we know for sure is that Avestan is older than English according to the same rules, and that English resembles Avestan. Do you understand that there's a difference between a theoretical language like a Proto-language and a language like Avestan or Myceneaen?

Quote: Proto-Greek did not certainly exist. Myceneaen did exist, we have the evidence to show it. Proto-Greek is a theoretical language.
I completely disagree. Proto-Greek is whatever was spoken before the first attested form of Greek was spoken. Unless you claim that Greek magically came into being and nothing was before it (thus it is unrelated to the other IE languages), there's no point in claiming that. The details of Proto-Greek are up for debate, and we will never be sure, but something did exist, and that's all that, as a name, Proto-Greek means. Furthermore, it seems completely reasonable to think that languages that look like Greek are also descendants of Proto-Greek, whatever it may have been.

Exactly, WE will never be sure what Proto-Greek looked like for sure because the language was never attested. For all we know the linguists the missed something and Avestan IS the great great grandfather of English. As a matter of fact I was just reading about how the first Greek speakers came from the Danube. The same place the Celto-Italic speakers originated and the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) Scythians dwelt.

Quote: The Avestan language is a primal register of its English relative and all the other Indo-European languages (apart from Anatolian which is long dead). In IP. Law the rights to copyright or trademark go to the owner of the primal register of the copy or mark, not the owner of a junior register.
What do you mean by "register"


proof of form... by "primal register" I mean proof of the earliest form of an Indo-European language that is claimable. The claimants or rightful custodians in this case would be the Aryan people. Just like the Greeks would be the rightful custodians to Greek mythology, and the Germanics would be the rightful custodians of Nordic mythology, etc...
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
djr33
Chomsky


Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 4004
Location: Illinois, USA
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:50 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote: But the rules and laws of linguistics that dictate Avestan is not the great great grandfather is purely theoretical.
Yes, and those are the same rules that dictate that they two languages are related. Believing one and not the other is illogical-- it's a single analysis, not two. The comparative method gives us both, showing that they are related and that the Germanic languages are related in a way that the Indo-Aryan languages are not.
Quote: Do you understand that there's a difference between a theoretical language like a Proto-language and a language like Avestan or Myceneaen?
Yes, except that we have evidence for all of them. I haven't heard any of them myself, so I can't prove that any of them existed. I can just use the evidence available to assume that they did, such as stone carvings, myths, audio recordings, oral traditions, or whatever might be available. For some languages, we have direct evidence, and for others we only have linguistic evidence. But I don't agree with denying that Greek had an ancestor just because we don't know what it was-- it was Proto-Greek-- that's the label we give it specifically because we don't know what it was. Do you know what the "Proto-" label means? That convention is used specifically for the reasons you're arguing about-- it means "assumed language" rather than "attested language". And regardless, we know something existed, not necessarily its properties. (We don't *know* this, if you want to assume that Greek came into being magically, but I reject that assumption.)

Quote: Exactly, WE will never be sure what Proto-Greek looked like for sure because the language was never attested. For all we know the linguists the missed something and Avestan IS the great great grandfather of English. As a matter of fact I was just reading about how the first Greek speakers came from the Danube. The same place the Celto-Italic speakers originated and the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) Scythians dwelt.
1. For all we know, the linguists might have gotten it wrong and Aryan comes from Proto-Germanic. Fine. But that's not the most straightforward analysis, nor is yours. You might be right about the location, but that shows that they're related, not that Aryan is the ancestor of the rest. For one thing, you may have your dates mixed up-- I agree that the ancestor of Aryan is also the ancestor of Greek (and English), but I don't see why we should jump to the conclusion that Avestan itself is the ancestor of anything. It's related, but not the origin.
If it was the origin, you should be able to use linguistic evidence to defend these. Go ahead, and I'm sure you'd get that published if you have a reasonable explanation. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you have not convinced me because there are more straightforward explanations. Why assume anything complicated, when there is something equally explanatory and simpler?

Quote: proof of form... by "primal register" I mean proof of the earliest form of an Indo-European language that is claimable. The claimants or rightful custodians in this case would be the Aryan people. Just like the Greeks would be the rightful custodians to Greek mythology, and the Germanics would be the rightful custodians of Nordic mythology, etc...
The history of Indo-European study is filled with people trying to claim rights to it. To be completely blunt, I don't care. We're all descended from the IE people, and our languages are all descended from PIE. There's no reason to think of any one subbranch as more important than the others.

I've worked on subbranchings of PIE and it's complicated, but one thing is clear-- we can arbitrarily call any branch the "center" and then assume everything else is a deviation. That's not interesting, though. What's interesting is how related each language is to others and that they all, eventually, trace back to PIE itself.

From my research, I have found that in fact it does look like the Indo-Aryan branch split off earlier from the main PIE group than other branches, but not that Avestan was PIE. So in that sense, you could argue it is the most related to PIE and also the most distanct from the other branches of PIE. But I'm well aware that my research is based only on the evidence that is available. If you'd like to see my (unpublished) paper (that I wrote for a class), I'd be happy to share it. Here's the tree (in HTML) if you want to see it, with reasoning in the paper. It's a preliminary grouping, but a solid start, I think.
http://ci-pro.com/pie/
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
Dennis
Chomsky


Joined: 30 Aug 2009
Posts: 2417
Location: U.S.
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:13 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

mojobadshah wrote: proof of form... by "primal register" I mean proof of the earliest form of an Indo-European language that is claimable. The claimants or rightful custodians in this case would be the Aryan people. Just like the Greeks would be the rightful custodians to Greek mythology, and the Germanics would be the rightful custodians of Nordic mythology, etc...

I think that there are no claimants, no rightful, and no custodians. Why do you think that there are, and what rights do you think that they should have?
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Pusan
Linguist


Joined: 14 Nov 2011
Posts: 22
Location: INDIA
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:28 am
Post subject: Re: Why the Avestan Language is a Rich Language
Reply with quote

mojobadshah wrote: This would make the Avestan language the oldest Indo-European language that is still used in liturgy and that lives on in Pashto


Vedic (Ancient Sanskrit) is older (~1900 BC) and still used in liturgy.

Note: I'm not claiming that Avestan descends from Vedic. I think both are sister languages that have a common parent.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
mojobadshah
Top-Notch Linguist


Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 198
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Why the Avestan Language is a Rich Language
Reply with quote

Daniel Ross wrote:
Quote: But the rules and laws of linguistics that dictate Avestan is not the great great grandfather is purely theoretical.
Yes, and those are the same rules that dictate that they two languages are related. Believing one and not the other is illogical-- it's a single analysis, not two. The comparative method gives us both, showing that they are related and that the Germanic languages are related in a way that the Indo-Aryan languages are not.
Quote: Do you understand that there's a difference between a theoretical language like a Proto-language and a language like Avestan or Myceneaen?
Yes, except that we have evidence for all of them. I haven't heard any of them myself, so I can't prove that any of them existed. I can just use the evidence available to assume that they did, such as stone carvings, myths, audio recordings, oral traditions, or whatever might be available. For some languages, we have direct evidence, and for others we only have linguistic evidence. But I don't agree with denying that Greek had an ancestor just because we don't know what it was-- it was Proto-Greek-- that's the label we give it specifically because we don't know what it was. Do you know what the "Proto-" label means? That convention is used specifically for the reasons you're arguing about-- it means "assumed language" rather than "attested language". And regardless, we know something existed, not necessarily its properties. (We don't *know* this, if you want to assume that Greek came into being magically, but I reject that assumption.)/


It's not the same kind of evidence. One e.g. Avestan has been handed down to us, the other Proto-Greek is a reconstruction. It's not an priori language. It's an apriori language. It's really newer than Myceneaen. You catch my drift? And I'm not denying Greek had an ancestor. It could have been Avestan. Maybe Scythian was an offshoot of Avestan, being that they were both East Iranian languages, the Scythians settled the Danube, and the earliest Greek language stems from there….

You should look through an etymology dictionary sometime. You'll notice that the earlier languages really don't look that different from each other.

Daniel Ross wrote:
Quote: Exactly, WE will never be sure what Proto-Greek looked like for sure because the language was never attested. For all we know the linguists the missed something and Avestan IS the great great grandfather of English. As a matter of fact I was just reading about how the first Greek speakers came from the Danube. The same place the Celto-Italic speakers originated and the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) Scythians dwelt.
1. For all we know, the linguists might have gotten it wrong and Aryan comes from Proto-Germanic. Fine. But that's not the most straightforward analysis, nor is yours. You might be right about the location, but that shows that they're related, not that Aryan is the ancestor of the rest. For one thing, you may have your dates mixed up-- I agree that the ancestor of Aryan is also the ancestor of Greek (and English), but I don't see why we should jump to the conclusion that Avestan itself is the ancestor of anything. It's related, but not the origin.
If it was the origin, you should be able to use linguistic evidence to defend these. Go ahead, and I'm sure you'd get that published if you have a reasonable explanation. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you have not convinced me because there are more straightforward explanations. Why assume anything complicated, when there is something equally explanatory and simpler?/


Its not so complicated. Its actually simpler. There is language A and language B. Language A came before language B, and language B resembles language A. Therefore language B descended from language A. OR at the very least language A is ancestral (Great Great Uncle) to language B.

Quote: proof of form... by "primal register" I mean proof of the earliest form of an Indo-European language that is claimable. The claimants or rightful custodians in this case would be the Aryan people. Just like the Greeks would be the rightful custodians to Greek mythology, and the Germanics would be the rightful custodians of Nordic mythology, etc...
[quote="Daniel Ross"]
Quote: The history of Indo-European study is filled with people trying to claim rights to it. To be completely blunt, I don't care. We're all descended from the IE people, and our languages are all descended from PIE. There's no reason to think of any one subbranch as more important than the others./


Is it really. Thats news to me. I've heard of Indic claims, but there rather far fetched. For one thing there's hardly any evidence that the Indics were anywhere other than India. The Scythians on the other hand were present as far as Ireland to Japan and the Steppes to Cambodia. I've also heard of people trying to co-opt the Aryan national designation...

[quote="Daniel Ross"]
Quote: From my research, I have found that in fact it does look like the Indo-Aryan branch split off earlier from the main PIE group than other branches, but not that Avestan was PIE. So in that sense, you could argue it is the most related to PIE and also the most distanct from the other branches of PIE. But I'm well aware that my research is based only on the evidence that is available. If you'd like to see my (unpublished) paper (that I wrote for a class), I'd be happy to share it. Here's the tree (in HTML) if you want to see it, with reasoning in the paper. It's a preliminary grouping, but a solid start, I think.
http://ci-pro.com/pie/


Nice chart, but I question its accuracy. I don't recall the Indo-Iranian languages having branched off that early, but maybe I just don't have as good an understanding of it. Also I don't recall seeing the Persian having branched off earlier than Sanskrit. Could you explain to me how you know all this?

Dennis wrote:
mojobadshah wrote: proof of form... by "primal register" I mean proof of the earliest form of an Indo-European language that is claimable. The claimants or rightful custodians in this case would be the Aryan people. Just like the Greeks would be the rightful custodians to Greek mythology, and the Germanics would be the rightful custodians of Nordic mythology, etc...

I think that there are no claimants, no rightful, and no custodians. Why do you think that there are, and what rights do you think that they should have?


To say there are none. Is a very colonialist or post-colonialist attitude. You come to my land, impose yourself, and exploit my resources. Not in my book. Of course the Greeks would be the rightful heirs to the expressions embedded within Greek mythology. I'm arguing, however, that though the Greek language may be a Greek form it could have descended from an earlier known and not theoretical (Proto-) language. And therefore if anyone had a right to use the Greek language exclusively it would be the custodians of that earlier known language. What I call the "primal register." Borrowed languages or words are after all called "loans."

Pusan wrote:
mojobadshah wrote: This would make the Avestan language the oldest Indo-European language that is still used in liturgy and that lives on in Pashto


Vedic (Ancient Sanskrit) is older (~1900 BC) and still used in liturgy.

Note: I'm not claiming that Avestan descends from Vedic. I think both are sister languages that have a common parent.


How did you come at your date? Because based on reading both texts and Avesta and Vedas it would look to me like the Avesta was written in the Aryan homeland and then migrated south where there is no mention of an Aryan homeland or even a national identity and the use of the term Aryan has rather come to designate a priestly caste.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Dennis
Chomsky


Joined: 30 Aug 2009
Posts: 2417
Location: U.S.
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Why the Avestan Language is a Rich Language
Reply with quote

mojobadshah wrote:

I'm not denying Greek had an ancestor. It could have been Avestan.

Very funny.

mojobadshah wrote:
To say there are none. Is a very colonialist or post-colonialist attitude. You come to my land, impose yourself, and exploit my resources. Not in my book. Of course the Greeks would be the rightful heirs to the expressions embedded within Greek mythology. I'm arguing, however, that though the Greek language may be a Greek form it could have descended from an earlier known and not theoretical (Proto-) language. And therefore if anyone had a right to use the Greek language exclusively it would be the custodians of that earlier known language. What I call the "primal register." Borrowed languages or words are after all called "loans."

This seems quite funny to me. A colonialist, am I? You have quite a unique view of history. I do not agree with it at all. You have no rights to control any legacy, real or, in your case, quite conceived, of your ancient ancestors.

Your notion of primal register and loans may make sense to you, but surely you do not expect many others to agree with you. I certainly do not.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
mojobadshah
Top-Notch Linguist


Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 198
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Why the Avestan Language is a Rich Language
Reply with quote

Dennis wrote:
mojobadshah wrote:

I'm not denying Greek had an ancestor. It could have been Avestan.

Very funny.

mojobadshah wrote:
To say there are none. Is a very colonialist or post-colonialist attitude. You come to my land, impose yourself, and exploit my resources. Not in my book. Of course the Greeks would be the rightful heirs to the expressions embedded within Greek mythology. I'm arguing, however, that though the Greek language may be a Greek form it could have descended from an earlier known and not theoretical (Proto-) language. And therefore if anyone had a right to use the Greek language exclusively it would be the custodians of that earlier known language. What I call the "primal register." Borrowed languages or words are after all called "loans."

This seems quite funny to me. A colonialist, am I? You have quite a unique view of history. I do not agree with it at all. You have no rights to control any legacy, real or, in your case, quite conceived, of your ancient ancestors.

Your notion of primal register and loans may make sense to you, but surely you do not expect many others to agree with you. I certainly do not.


What I'm talking about may go outside the bounds of Cultural Heritage Law, but the way I see it it's the thought that counts. Nevertheless Cultural Heritage Law does seek to protect cultural expressions and forms from being appropriated by third parties. And practically every inter-governmental agency including UNESCO is on board with this line of thought. So what I'm talking about is not really that far fetched. You sound like a person that wants the right to something that really is not yours, or at leas the person that would defend that line of thought.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:   

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Reply to topic

Jump to:  

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum