User:Talskubilos: Difference between revisions
Talskubilos (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Talskubilos (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hi all, my name is Octavià Alexandre and I'm an amateur linguist, although not a conlanger. My own specialty is '''paleo-linguistics''', that is, the study of extinct languages, especially those poorly attested in writing or not attested at all, only surviving in loanwords to other better known languages. | Hi all, my name is Octavià Alexandre and I'm an amateur linguist, although not a conlanger. My own specialty is '''paleo-linguistics''', that is, the study of extinct languages, especially those poorly attested in writing or not attested at all, only surviving in loanwords to other better known languages. | ||
In addition to their native lexicon (i.e. the one inherited from its ancestor), all languages have '''loanwords''' from other languages, either resulting from language replacement (substrates) or contact (adstrates) processes. Thus | In addition to their native lexicon (i.e. the one inherited from its ancestor), all languages have '''loanwords''' from other languages, either resulting from language replacement (substrates) or contact (adstrates) processes. Thus they aren't actually monolythic but '''multi-layer''' entities (a term which I myself borrowed from the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir Georgiev, who first used it for describing Lycian, an Anatolian language). | ||
Unfortunately, most comparative linguists have chosen a monolythic approach when reconstructing proto-languages (which to some extent are conlangs), so they implicit assume all the lexicon is inherited from a single source. In the case of the IE (macro)family, the "PIE" reconstructed by specialists doesn't represent a real language spoken by real people but rather a '''cross-section''' of the last stages of IE. This can be exemplified by the huge gap between Anatolian and the rest of IE languages (cfr. Sturtervant's "Indo-Hittite"), which has lead to scholars such as the Spanish Francisco Rodríguez Adrados to propose a more refined model | Unfortunately, most comparative linguists have chosen a monolythic approach when reconstructing proto-languages (which to some extent are conlangs), so they implicit assume all the lexicon is inherited from a single source. In the case of the IE (macro)family, the "PIE" reconstructed by specialists doesn't represent a real language spoken by real people but rather a '''cross-section''' of the last stages of IE. This can be exemplified by the huge gap between Anatolian and the rest of IE languages (cfr. Sturtervant's "Indo-Hittite"), which has lead to scholars such as the Spanish Francisco Rodríguez Adrados to propose a more refined model than the traditional one (coined by Neogrammarians in the 19th century), with several splits and intermediate stages. | ||
By studying the ancient toponymy and hydronymy (including Karhe's Old European Hidronymy) of Europe and SW Asia, the Spanish IE-ist Francisco Villar (a former disciple of R. Adrados) has identified several '''Paleo-IE''' roots such as '''*akᵂā, *ap-/*ab-, *ub-/*up-''' 'water' representative of the languages spoken there by the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and the Neolithic farmers. IMHO these Paleo-IE layers (in plural) represent a very large amount of the IE lexicon, the rest coming from '''Kurganic''', i.e. the language of the Steppe People (who in the Mallory-Gimbutas theory of the IE homeland are the speakers of PIE), which is mostly eflected in the Indo-Greek group (we shouldn't forget that Neogrammarians' reconstruction was based on Greek and Sanskrit), specially Indo-Iranian itself. | |||
Revision as of 05:08, 11 September 2012
Hi all, my name is Octavià Alexandre and I'm an amateur linguist, although not a conlanger. My own specialty is paleo-linguistics, that is, the study of extinct languages, especially those poorly attested in writing or not attested at all, only surviving in loanwords to other better known languages.
In addition to their native lexicon (i.e. the one inherited from its ancestor), all languages have loanwords from other languages, either resulting from language replacement (substrates) or contact (adstrates) processes. Thus they aren't actually monolythic but multi-layer entities (a term which I myself borrowed from the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir Georgiev, who first used it for describing Lycian, an Anatolian language).
Unfortunately, most comparative linguists have chosen a monolythic approach when reconstructing proto-languages (which to some extent are conlangs), so they implicit assume all the lexicon is inherited from a single source. In the case of the IE (macro)family, the "PIE" reconstructed by specialists doesn't represent a real language spoken by real people but rather a cross-section of the last stages of IE. This can be exemplified by the huge gap between Anatolian and the rest of IE languages (cfr. Sturtervant's "Indo-Hittite"), which has lead to scholars such as the Spanish Francisco Rodríguez Adrados to propose a more refined model than the traditional one (coined by Neogrammarians in the 19th century), with several splits and intermediate stages.
By studying the ancient toponymy and hydronymy (including Karhe's Old European Hidronymy) of Europe and SW Asia, the Spanish IE-ist Francisco Villar (a former disciple of R. Adrados) has identified several Paleo-IE roots such as *akᵂā, *ap-/*ab-, *ub-/*up- 'water' representative of the languages spoken there by the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and the Neolithic farmers. IMHO these Paleo-IE layers (in plural) represent a very large amount of the IE lexicon, the rest coming from Kurganic, i.e. the language of the Steppe People (who in the Mallory-Gimbutas theory of the IE homeland are the speakers of PIE), which is mostly eflected in the Indo-Greek group (we shouldn't forget that Neogrammarians' reconstruction was based on Greek and Sanskrit), specially Indo-Iranian itself.
