In the following thread I have proposed that exclusive rights to Indo-European trademarks and words in copyrighted works would go to the Irano-Aryan language group because the prima face or primal most attested Indo-European language and words are Irano-Aryan words. An example of an Indo-European word used in copy and as a trademark is the English word "foot." The Irano-Aryan word from Avestan pad therein being its prima face Indo-European equivalent.

Who Owns Language - the "Hip Hop" issue

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

What a strange article. It seems to be claiming that a lot of English words were borrowed from Iranian languages. I don't believe it.

I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to say in your paper, but I do have a few comments. Avestan is usually not thought to be the oldest recorded Indo-European language by most scholars. The dates I've seen are about 3000 BP, which would make it as old as Vedic Sanskrit. Taking it back 6000 BP means having to contend with dates for Proto-Indo-European. Mycenean Greek and Hittite are better candidates in my mind: 3400 BP and 3800 BP.

As for terminology, I wouldn't call foot, your fut, a Persian loanword. English foot, Latin pes, pedis, Greek pous, podos, all go back to PIE *ped- 'foot'. Many of the descendents of PIE have words for foot that are related to this reconstructed root, including Avestan. Even absinthe wasn't borrowed from Persian. It was borrowed from Latin, which borrowed it from Greek. The Greek word may be a loanword from Persian, or there may have been another intermediary.

Also, I've never seen the term Irano-Aryan. I've seen Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian, but they are different things. Also, aryas is a Sanskrit word as far as I known.

quote:

Edit by Wordcrafter: arnie, is this something we should delete as a potentially unsafe link?

No. But it should come with a health warning that you might be brain-damaged by information-overload before you finish reading it;-)

Wordcrafter,

The link looks safe enough, although the contents of the page may overload your brain cells, as Richard suggests.

mojobadshah seems to be semi-spamming us; possibly in an attempt to gain a high Google ranking. I've therefore removed the link itself and substituted a text version; those interested can copy/paste the address into their browser.

I must confess I gave up reading the page after a few paragraphs.

zmj, I am impressed by your excellent analysis. I thought the list of references was awfully slim when one considers his thesis.

arnie, I don't see why the link to my "arguement" would be unsafe, other than its hosted by angelfire....

goofy, I am claiming that there are Iranian loanwords in English. I am also claiming that many English words resemble much older Irano-Aryan words.

zmjezhd, it was my understanding that Indo-Iranian is the oldest member of Indo-European, and that Gathic Avestan is more archaic than Sanskrit in that it preserves the PIE laryngeals. The English word foot, is not a loanword, but a morpheme that resembles the older Gathic Avestan pad. Apparently, absinthe, is an Iranian loan and not a cognate. I prefer the term Irano-Aryan over Iranian because the Iranians are most justly Aryan, and not Indo-Aryans.

arnie, this is not an attempt to spam or gain a high Google ranking. It is a serious indulgence in the idea, that this is not a communist nation. This is not a utopia. This is a capitalist nation. A cutthroat society, where everybody is looking to make a quick buck. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Nothing is free, and intellectual property is the idea that even words in the form of trademarks, and copyrighted ideas, are not free, to an extent. And, people's roots are being exploited by people looking to make a quick buck.

Kalleh, references are slim because I wrote the article from memory. The references that are there are just for the etymology list part of it. I update the material, periodically, and hope to have a cited, and more extensively, referenced version.

To all, thanks alot, for your opinions.

zmjezhd, it was my understanding that Indo-Iranian is the oldest member of Indo-European, and that Gathic Avestan is more archaic than Sanskrit in that it preserves the PIE laryngeals.

Well, that's where our understandings depart. The only IE language that preserves larygneals is Hittite. All IE languages, including Avestan and Sanskrit, have clues about the existing of alryngeals, mainly having to do with the lengthening of vowels. This is what lead Saussure to write his seminal paper in which he posited sounds (laryngeals) that did not exist in any of the IE daughter languages (at the time of the paper). Because Wikipedia is not really a primrary source, you might want to look at some of the following: Werner Winter, ed. 1965. Evidence for Laryngeals; W P Lehmann. 1993. Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics; W P Lehmann. 1952. Proto-Indo-European Phonology.

At times, I've run across different folks (of Lithuanian, Indian, or Iranian nationalities) who argue that language X (which coincidentally is their national language) is more archaic than others in the IE family. This does not make too much sense, and I'm always leary of it, because it usually leads to a question of race which has little to do with language or the study of language. Some IE languages perserve, or better yet, have not changed some grammatical or phonological aspects of the parent language, e.g., Lithuanian and Sanskrit both preserve tone accent rather than stress accent. German, Sanskrit, and Avestan have gone through considerable phonological changes; Latin and Celtic slightly less so. When discussing age, we really must discuss how old are the texts in the language we are studying. Hittite has the oldest texts. Both Sanskrit and Avestan texts were transmitted orally for a long time, at least a 1000 years, before being written down. I have read that there are problems with some of the non-metrical Avestan texts because of corruption in this transmission.

The English word foot, is not a loanword, but a morpheme that resembles the older Gathic Avestan pad.

English foot and Avestan pad are cognates. They both were inherited by their respective languages from earlier languages, and ultimately from Proto-Indo-European.

Apparently, absinthe, is an Iranian loan and not a cognate.

As I said above. English borrowed the word absinthe from Latin. Latin borrowed it from Greek. Greek may have borrowed it from Persian. At any rate some historical linguists and lexicographers think that English/Latin/Greek absinthe may be cognate with Persian absand.

I prefer the term Irano-Aryan over Iranian because the Iranians are most justly Aryan, and not Indo-Aryans.

The terms I used are those used by historical linguists writing in English. Of course, you're free to use whatever terminology you wish to, but you run the risk of being misunderstood. When discussing languages, it's best to leave race out of it. This was a tough lesson learned by European linguists who lived through or were taught by those who lived through many unfortunate circumstances of World War II. Again, you're free to write about whatever you want to, and I am free to disagree with you for the reasons I've given.

zmjezhd, what's a good book on the Hittite language?

As far as the designation Irano-Aryan. I saw it in a book called Irano-Aryan Faith and Doctrines, inwhich, there was an analysis of the Gathic Avestan language.

Indo-Europeanist, J.P. Mallory is the one that said the Iranians are most justly Aryan in The Search for the Indo-Europeans. Irano-Aryans speakers were the first people to record themselves using the designation, Aryan.

Your input is, much, appreciated.

what's a good book on the Hittite language?

The classic grammar is Johannes Friedrich's Hethitisches Elementarbuch; there's also Warren H. Held, William R. Schmalstieg, and Janet E. Gertz. Beginning Hittite that's still in print.

Indo-Europeanist, J.P. Mallory is the one that said the Iranians are most justly Aryan in The Search for the Indo-Europeans. Irano-Aryans speakers were the first people to record themselves using the designation, Aryan.

Mallory's is a good book. I see what you're referring to on pp.125f. "We must also take a brief glance at the most loaded of Indo-European words—Aryan. An an ethnic designation, the word is most properly limited to the Indo-Iranians, and most justly to the latter where it still gives its name to the country Iran (from Avestan genitive plural airyanam through later Iranian eran to iran). The great Persian king Darius described himself as Aryan. The term was also widely used in India where it referred to one who was a member of the community (though details of who was included in the community have been the topic of wide and unsettled debate). Whether the ethnic designation was limited to the Indo-Iranians or not is difficult to say. A possible cognate appears in Hittie, for example, where it indicates 'kinsman, friend', and there also appears here the negative expression natta ara 'not proper to the community', that is, 'not done'. Although some claim that this root can be found in the names of many other Indo-European peoples, for example, Irish Eriu and aire, this would require more argument thanis worth the effort and we are safer to remain with the general consensus that it does not rather than to pursue this matter further." This passage is marked with an interesting footnote: "Szemernyi (1977, 125-149) provides a thorough summary of all the arguments concerning the word arya- and concludes that it is not even Indo-European but a Near Eastern, probably Ugaritic, loan word meaning 'kinsman, companion'."

Note that he refers to the use of the word Aryan as an ethnic designation, and note my cautions above. Some Germans in the 19th century and later (e.g., the Armanists and the Nazis) came to use the term Aryan to refer to ancient Germans (or Indo-Germans), and Mallory's remarks must be seen in this light. (See Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. 1992. The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology; The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany, 1890-1935.) This having been said, throughout Mallory's book he uses the terms Indo-Iranian to refer to the IE language subfamily which includes languages in present-day Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and India (as well as Roma the language of the Gypsies in Europe and the States).

[Edited to correct typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

zmjezhd, is there any evidence of a group of present day speakers that claim to be linguistic descendents of the Hittites?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

is there any evidence of a group of present day speakers that claim to be linguistic descendents of the Hittites?

"[S]peakers that claim to be linguistic descendents of the Hittites", none that I'm aware of. The Anatolian branch of Indo-European has died out. The last records (of Lycian and Lydian ) are over 2100 years old. Most of the Hittite Empire was in present-day Turkey, with some along the coast in Syria.

quote:

Kalleh, references are slim because I wrote the article from memory. The references that are there are just for the etymology list part of it. I update the material, periodically, and hope to have a cited, and more extensively, referenced version.

Fair enough. However, it is impossible to provide a cogent critical analysis of writing when sources aren't cited.

zmježd, its curious that you have come across Lithuanians, Indians, and Iranians who have argued that their language's are archaic in contrast to other IE languages. How far did they take their arguements?

How far did they take their arguements?

Some farther than others. In this case, the language is Latvian. Mostly, they have just been people who've mentioned in passing that their language was the oldest or the source of all other languages or things like that. I just posted a link in another thread about the Indus Valley Culture aka Harappa. In this case, it's more of a case of which is older the Indo-Aryan languages of South Asia or the Dravidian. Religion (Hindu and Muslim) comes into play, along with nationalism etc. If you browse the web enough, you'll come across all kinds of strange theories about languages. (You might want to read some of the works of Marina Yaguello, especially Language Through the Looking Glass (originally Alice au pays du langage) or Lunatic Lovers of Language (originally Les fous du langage: Des langues imaginaires et de leurs inventeurs), or Jean-Jacques Lecercle The Violence of Language.)

zmježd, is there any archaic textual evidence of PIE in Sumerian, or Finno-Ugric, or any other language? Is the evidence of Indo-Iranian loans to Sumerian and Finno-Ugric based on archaic textual evidence? Is there archaic textual evidence of Indo-Iranian loans in any other languages?

is there any archaic textual evidence of PIE in Sumerian, or Finno-Ugric, or any other language?

No. Sumerian and PIE were probably contemporaries. We have 6000 year old Sumerian texts, but most Finno-Ugric languages are only recorded relatively recently: Hungarian ca.1000 CE, Finnish ca.1550 CE.

Is the evidence of Indo-Iranian loans to Sumerian and Finno-Ugric based on archaic textual evidence?

No. There are Indo-Iranian loans in Finno-Ugric. A while back I heard a Finnish professor give a summary of etymological evidence of Indo-Iranian loans in Finno-Ugric languages, but most of the languages were only recorded in the 19th century to present. So, it's the usual historical-comparative method for reconstructing words and comparing them to known words in Iranian languages. (I'll try to find the paper with his name and institution on it.)

Is there archaic textual evidence of Indo-Iranian loans in any other languages?

The only archaic textual evidence I know of is in a Hittite text on horse training (ca.1400 BCE), by "master horse trainer" Kikkuli of Mitanni, and some treaties with the Mitanni kingdom that have words in them which look to be Indo-Iranian. These are some gods' names and simple words.

zmježd, can you interpert the following link?
Early Traces of the Aryans

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

mojobadshah, I would be careful with such a text. It seems to put Aryans in Iran in 7000 BCE. This would be before the time that most assign to PIE. You might want to read something more mainstream before making up your own mind. The whole Indo-European homeland hypothesis has never much interested me, because it probably can't be determined where the IE came from. 19th century German linguists and anthropologists assumed Northern Germany and Scandinavia, in the middle of the last cetnury Soviet scientists assumed Russia, and now Professor Jahanshah Derakhsnai, present-day Iran. The consensus of IE linguists and archaeologists today seems to be somewhere in Central Asia. The trouble with all this hyposthesizing is that without written records, you cannot tell what language was spoken by skeletons from archaeological excavations. Good luck.

[Corrected typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

zmježd,Professor Derakhsnai, saying that there is evidence of PIE and Indo-Iranian in archaic textual evidence of Sumerian?

Where can I find a chart online (or not) that compares vowel sounds to eachother? Example is "a" closer to "e" than "i"? Is "e" closer to "i" than "o"? etc....

Apparently there are 6000 Gathic words. Where can I find a list of those words and their cognates in other Indo-European languages?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

Professor Derakhsnai, saying that there is evidence of PIE and Indo-Iranian in archaic textual evidence of Sumerian?

Yes, that is what he seems to be saying. I was just saying that he's the only person I know who is saying it. Also, that his dates don't agree with other linguists.

Where can I find a chart online (or not) that compares vowel sounds to eachother? Example is "a" closer to "e" than "i"? Is "e" closer to "i" than "o"? etc....

You might want to look at the IPA website and the Wikipedia article.

Apparently there are 6000 Gathic words. Where can I find a list of those words and their cognates in other Indo-European languages?

You might want to look at: (1) Manfred Mayrhofer Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen; (2) R L Turner A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages (also online; (3) J H Peterson Dictionary of Most Common Avesta Words; (4) Julius Pokorny Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch.

You might also want to read some books on comparative-historical linguistics: (1) W P Lehmann Theoretical bases of Indo-European Languages; (2) T V Gamkrelidze & V V Ivanov The Indo-European Language and the Indo-Europeans; (3) A Meillet The Comparative Method in Historical Linguistics; C Watkins How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics.

zmježd, I'm assuming your analysis of the word foot is the most agreed upon one... Are you using IPA? Because, I've seen foot written in PIE a few different ways. Do you mind providing a more extensive (all PIE and IE forms) etymology of the word foot, beginning with PIE, followed by the oldest textual source to newest?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

I'm assuming your analysis of the word foot is the most agreed upon one... Are you using IPA? Because, I've seen foot written in PIE a few different ways. Do you mind providing a more extensive (all PIE and IE forms) etymology of the word foot, beginning with PIE, followed by the oldest textual source to newest?

PIE is a language which has no textual evidence. It has been reconstructed, using the comparative-historical method. As a result, over the years, the consensus of what the phonemic inventory was and how to represent it has changed. The biggest two changes have been (1) the positing of laryngeals by Saussure and the subsequent discovery of some reflexes of them in Anatolian IE languages (mainly Hittite by Kurylowicz), and (2) the positing of ejectives in PIE by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, based upon evidence from comparative Kartvelian (Georgian and other languages of the Caucasus) linguistics. (The latter theory is still pretty controversial.) No matter how phonemes are posited for PIE, most of the reference books, agree on what words are cognate, and of course, what forms the individual daughter languages have for those words. After phonology, the reconstructed morphology and syntax of PIE is more in a state of flux. Problems currently being argued about and worked upon include (1) how many cases and numbers (as well as other nominal and verbal grammatical categories) did PIE have. A good book to begin with is Lehmann's Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics mentioned above. Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth is a good companion to this (and you have mentioned it before). It's not enough to skim dictionaries, my advice to you is, if you're serious about studying Iranian languages, (such as Old Persian, Avestan, etc.), and/or IE linguistics, you should apply to a good IE linguistics program: UCLA, Harvard, UT Austin, et al. It takes a long time as there are many older languages with which you need to be familiar, and at leat 150 years of serious scholarship on reconstructing the PIE language. Reconstructing roots is not an easy task, sound correspondences between the various IE daughter languages have been being collected since the 19th century. When you wish to depart from common opinion, you need to do your homework and argue from within the framework that historical linguists have created for the purposes of reconstruction and argument. Of course, you can create your own framework, but that will probably limit your audience. Good luck in your studies.

Now for the PIE and IE forms: Pokorny IEW (1959, the old school interpretation) gives: *pĕd-, *pēd-, *pŏd-, *pōd-, m. 'foot'. Four possible roots. Why? Because e and o vary with one another based on accent placement. Let's look at how Pokorny rebuilds the nominal paradigm. He only comments on three forms: nominative singular *pŏts, *pōts, genitive singular ped-és, ped-ós, and nominative plural péd-es. Next he lists the forms in the daughter languages: Sanskrit pad- 'foot', Avestan pad-; Old Persian pādaibiyā 'with the feet'; Armenian ot-k̔; Greek πως (pōs); Latin pēs, pedis, Umbrian peři, persi 'pede' [Latin for 'by foot'] (dupursus 'bipedibus' [Latin for 'with both feet'], -u- probably from -ō-); Old Irish īs 'below, beneath, under' (from which īse 'base, low') m. dative, from the locative plural pēd-su 'by feet' doubtful. He goes on to mention Gothic fōtus and Hittite pata-. There's a little under two pages of citations and by-forms.

You can get an idea of the earliest records in these various daughter languages: Hittite 1650 BCE, Vedic Sanskrit 1500 - 1200 BCE, Mycenean Greek 16th century BCE, Homeric Greek 8th century BCE , Avestan traditional date of Zarathustra 6th century BCE (but Mallory says "Burrow [an Indo-Iranian linguist] ... propose[s] a much older date, possibly half a millennium or more") Armenian 5th century CE ("but probably more recent"), Latin 5th century BCE, Gothic 6th century CE.

Another good reference book, I neglected to mention above is J P Mallory and D Q Adams. 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture.

And this is why I've decided to study linguistics.

this

Language is an incredibly complex system. This is why short lists of ad hoc rules do not an adequate description make. One of my professors, Yakov Malkiel, was found of quoting Gillieron's maxim "Every word has a history". This was an early 20th century response to the Neo-Grammarian's sound laws that admitted no exceptions. You can read Osthoff and Brugmann's original formulation of the tenet here. What follows is what I cited on another list:

quote:

Iorgu Iordan and John Orr [wrote]: "The realities of language, however, as they are revealed in the studies of Gillieron and his disciples, prove that there can be no talk of applying a phonetic norm to a series of words, because we never find two words identically situated. Words which at first sight seem to share the same conditions show themselves, in fact, to have each a life of its own, different, to a greater or lesser degree, from that of all the rest. This is the inwardness of another fundamental principle of the Gillieronian doctrine, mainly, that every word has its own history -- 'chaque mot a son histoire'." [Iordan-Orr. 1970. An Introduction to Romance Linguistics. p. 170.]

According to Elcock: "The principle that each word has its own individual history, implicit in the teaching of Gillieron and formulated in print by his pupil Karl Jaberg, now commands almost universal acceptance." [W. D. Elcock. 1975. The Romance Languages. p. 164.]

Malkiel writes: "The dictum 'Chaque mot a son historie' has customarily been ascribed, by friend and foe alike, to Jules Gillieron [...] This widespread belief in Gillieron's authorship involves a dual oversimplification. On the one hand, Gillieron, admittedly an indefatigable toiler and a man endowed with an unfailing flair for, shall we say, 'detective' work in linguistic reconstruction but certainly no outstanding theorist, relied heavily on the truly original thinking of Schuchardt, to whom, characteristically, he dedicated -- on the occasion of the revered master's seventieth birthday -- the first collection of his pioneering essays." [Malkiel. 1964. "Each Word Has a History of Its Own." in Glossa: A Journal of Linguistics. I:2, 1967, pp.137-149. (also in Malkiel. 1983. From Particular to General Linguistics : Essays 1965 - 1978.)]

J. Bisso. 2000. "Chaque mot a son histoire" on The INDO-EUROPEAN Mailing List, #47948.]

[Corrected typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

This is well beyond my poor power to add or detract, but I did notice one point.

quote: Yakov Malkiel, was found of quoting Gillieron's maxim "Every language has a history"
quote: the Gillieronian doctrine, mainly, that every word has its own history

Is it every 'language' or every 'word'?

zmježd, I know that Gathic Avestan is an Old Northeast Iranian language, and Pashto is a Modern Southeast Iranian language, both languages, therein being, East Iranian lanugages, but inAutochthonous Aryans what does the author mean when he says "Avestan which was spoken in East Iran, that means in part on the territory of modern Pashto" ? Is he or is he not saying that Pashto is a direct descendent of Avestan?

Is it every 'language' or every 'word'?

Sorry about that, shu. I misquoted myself. It should've been "word" not "language".

what does the author mean when he says "Avestan which was spoken in East Iran, that means in part on the territory of modern Pashto" ? Is he or is he not saying that Pashto is a direct descendent of Avestan?

He means that Pashto is now spoken in part of the area where Avestan was spoken earlier. While both Pashto and Avestan are Iranian languages, I've never heard of Pashto being described as the descendent of Avestan. (see also, the entry for Iranian languages on the Ethnologue site.) Also, the context in which Witzel is discussing Pashto and Avestan concerns the matter of retroflex consonants, which exist in Indo-Aryan languages and some Iranian languages, like Baluchi, which have come into contact with those Indian languages.

Old Farsi Dari (cuniform at Maikhi in Khorasan)is different than Old Persian (eg. Bisotun)?

In Joseph Shipley's Indo-European Roots it says that the Iranian branch of the Indo-Iranian family of languages is older than the Indo branch. In addition to that Robert S. P. Beekes, A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan says that Gathic Avestan is more archaic than Sanskrit in that it preserves the laryngeals of PIE. Are these sources out-dated?

If Sanskrit is more archaic than Avestan then wouldn't Mallory be inaccurate when he says that Iranians are most justly Aryan having initially used self-designations like the Avestan airyanam? Or did that form appear in Sanskrit after the Gathas were recorded?

Gathic Avestan was written down using a derivative of the Aramaic script, Pahlavi during Sassinian times. When was Sanskrit initially written down?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

Old Farsi Dari (cuniform at Maikhi in Khorasan) is different than Old Persian (eg. Bisotun)?

Dari was another name for Farsi. Confusingly, it is also the current name for Farsi that is spoken in Afghanistan.

In Joseph Shipley's Indo-European Roots it says that the Iranian branch of the Indo-Iranian family of languages is older than the Indo branch. In addition to that Robert S. P. Beekes, A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan says that Gathic Avestan is more archaic than Sanskrit in that it preserves the laryngeals of PIE. Are these sources out-dated?

I'm not familiar with Shiply's Indo-European Roots. Calvert Watkins wrote a short book with that title that was also included as an appendix in the American-Heritage Dictionary. Shipley wrote a book on the origins of English. I haven't read Beeke's book and I don't have a copy of it. (I only have one small Avestan grammar, and I believe the author's name is Jackson.) Could you give me a quotation and page number? As I said before, I am not aware of Avesta preserving any laryngeals. I'd have to read the book to give you my opinion. It is different to say that a language is more archaic than another than to say one language is older than another. I, personally, don't like the terminology and wouldn't use it. Some people say that Lithuanian is the most archaic language amongst IE languages, and it has nothing to do with the fact that it was only written down in the 16th century CE or so. That might be what Beekes is talking about.

If Sanskrit is more archaic than Avestan then wouldn't Mallory be inaccurate when he says that Iranians are most justly Aryan having initially used self-designations like the Avestan airyanam? Or did that form appear in Sanskrit after the Gathas were recorded?

I never said that Sanskrit was more archaic than Avestan. From what I've read, they're pretty close to one another. Again, Mallory is talking about Aryan as an ethnic designation, not as a language. Who refered to themselves as Aryans. This is stated in the context of some German racists calling themselves Aryans during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Gathic Avestan was written down using a derivative of the Aramaic script, Pahlavi during Sassinian times. When was Sanskrit initially written down?

Both the Gathas and the Vedas were transmitted orally for a long time after they were composed. The Rigveda, the oldest of the Vedas, is commonly assigned a composition date of 1500 BCE (or thereabouts), the earliest manuscripts date from 1100 CE. I am not familiar with dates when the Rigveda was written down. The Gatha were written down in the Sassanid period (226 - 651 CE). The Rigveda was written down using Devanagari, a variant of the Brahmi script.

A question for you, mojobadshah: why is it so important for you that Avestan be considered older (or perhaps more archaic) than Sanskrit? I can't think of a linguistic reason to rate one language above another in this fashion, but if you want Avestan to be older than Sanskrit then go for it. That's why I try never to engage in language X is better than language Y discussions. These oftentimes have very little to do with linguistics and more to do with nationalism. I think it's cool that texts in Avestan, Sanskrit, and other IE languages were preserved, so that people could read them, scholars could study them, etc.

zmježd, I remember my linguistic professor (introductory course to get my BA in Asian Studies)stressing that one language is not more complicated than another. I'm sure I've read that, too. Though I'm not clear on it, I also remember my professor mentioning something about the study of language dominance. Its not important that Avestan be considered "older" than Sanskrit. I figure, as far as the Indo-Iranian languages, it comes down to the two. When was the Rig Veda written down? I don't recall that, either. Ultimately, accuracy is my concern. Its not my intention to pervert the study of linguistics. But, I am interested in exploring language as an intangible asset. I really appreciate your input. Its harder to get answers out of lawyers.

Apparently, sombody reserved the rights to the phrase "Hip Hop" Who Owns Language - The Hip Hop Issue

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

Ultimately, accuracy is my concern. Its not my intention to pervert the study of linguistics. But, I am interested in exploring language as an intangible asset.

OK. I understand. I tend to cite Sanskrit sources in my postings here, because I studied Sanskrit, but I never got a chance to study Avestan (not yet at least). I think most Indo-Iranian historical-comparative linguists think of Avestan and Sanskrit as being close in relative age and importance. It's like they're twins and arguing which is the earliest doesn't help as much as studying both of them. Another difference between the Rigveda and the Gathas, is that the latter are missing about 75% of their original content. There's just more Vedic Sanskrit material. Also, we have a fairly good description of Sanskrit by an Indian grammarian, Panini, who wrote in the 5th century BCE. But they're both important to the study of Indo-European.

The United States doesn't have an official language by legislature. Could that have anything to do with the fact that English came from England?

Would megalithic Europeans have spoken PIE or an IE language?

According to Prof. Sim's Williams's Indo-Iranian Language and People ca. 1400 B.C. some lexical items and proper names in Rgvedic hymns composed in the northwest suggest the presence of Iranian speakers in the neighborhood at the time of their composition. That means that there are Iranian loans in the Rig Veda, right?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

The United States doesn't have an official language by legislature. Could that have anything to do with the fact that English came from England?

I'm not sure. Perhaps some of the others have an idea.

Would megalithic Europeans have spoken PIE or an IE language?

This is a question related to the IE homeworld one. Possibilities are that the individual branches (Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Greek, et al) arrived separately. Another is that maybe some of those branches hadn't split yet (e.g., Italo0-Celtic, Balto-Slavix, et al). I don't think many assume that PIE was spoken in present-day Europe, but perhaps in the IE homeland in Central Asia.

According to Prof. Sim's Williams's Indo-Iranian Language and People ca. 1400 B.C. some lexical items and proper names in Rgvedic hymns composed in the northwest suggest the presence of Iranian speakers in the neighborhood at the time of their composition. That means that there are Iranian loans in the Rig Veda, right?

Sounds like it. I haven't read the book. Most place the compisition of the first 9 mandalas of the Rigveda in what is today the Panjab. Some place the Iranians in present0day Afghaistan before they moved on to present-day Iran.

I've been reading, but really don't have the knowledge to contribute here. However, your question, mojo, about English not being an official language made me wonder if it is an official language in England. Is it?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by an "official" language.

As with the discussion above, some authority (such as our Congress) would pass that law. Is that the case in England, or is it just understood that English is used?

I am not aware of any law in the UK that states that English must be used for all purposes. Indeed, in Wales most signposts and official documents are written in both Welsh and English.

From what I know England doesn't have an official language. Other languages like Welsh are used. But, when I think about it, why would English not be the official language of England, but the official language of country like Pakistan? Greek, Italian, and German are the official languages of Greece, Italy, and Germany, respectively. How is it, for example, that US businesses can utilize an intangible assest like the English language when the US doesn't have an national language?

Greek, Italian, and German are the official languages of Greece, Italy, and Germany, respectively.

There are linguistic minorities in all three of these countries: Danish and Sorbian (aka Wendish or Lusatian) in Germany, German and Ladin in Italy, and Albanian in Greece. Other countries have more pronounced linguistic diversity: e.g., Estonian in Sweden, Sami (aka Lappish) in Finland, Arabic and Kurdish are spoken in Iraq, Armenian and Kurdish in Turkey, and French, German, Italian, and Ladin in Switzerland. Languages can be a touchy subject. At least in Germany, Sorbian and Danish are both officially recognized and protected minority languages. Ironically, a minority language in Spain, Catalan has as many speakers, if not more, as Danish, an official EU language.

US businesses assume that languages like English are utilizable because the government, and the media use languages like English. It is the de facto official language. Or maybe, the idea is the US Constitution is stipulating by not specifying an official national language that all the languages of the world are the national language. I don't know. Does anybody? But, why then wouldn't the constitution specify that? And, even if it did, would other language coalitions agree with that, considering language as an intangible asset?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

Do most countries have an official language in their constitution, or other governmental document? I don't know, but I'm thinking not. I am glad about that because we are becoming more global, and having an official language tends to make people insular, I think.

Here in England the councils and other official bodies have to spend large sums on the translation of important documents into many languages, so that can be understood by immigrants and others who don't speak English or are not fluent. I suspect that one of the reasons for having an official language is to save on these costs.

However, making a language an official language doesn't magically enable people to use it.

Canada has two official languages: English and French.

In the Canadian territory of Nunavat, the official languages are Inuktitut, Inuinnaqtun, French, and English. Nunavat means 'our land' in Inuktikut. There is also a syllabary for writing the language.

I think the purpose of a national official language should be to, "magically", allow the citizens of a nation to profit off of the official language of the nation, in business. The nation can exploit its own official language(s).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mojobadshah,

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
In the Canadian territory of Nunavat, the official languages are Inuktitut, Inuinnaqtun, French, and English.

I've seen the Inuit syllabary on government documents but I didn't know it was an official language of Nunavut.

Arnie, what is the official language of the European Union, or isn't there one? Shu said they have to translate all documents into all the languages of their members...is that true?

what is the official language of the European Union

The official languages of the EU are: Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Irish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, and Swedish.

quote:

Legislation and documents of major public importance or interest are produced in all 23 official languages, but that accounts for a minority of the institutions' work. Other documents (e.g. communications with the national authorities, decisions addressed to particular individuals or entities and correspondence) are translated only into the languages needed. For internal purposes the EU institutions are allowed by law to choose their own language arrangements. The European Commission, for example, conducts its internal business in three languages, English, French and German, and goes fully multilingual only for public information and communication purposes. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has Members who need working documents in their own languages, so its document flow is fully multilingual from the outset.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
Calvert Watkins wrote a short book with that title that was also included as an appendix in the American-Heritage Dictionary.

Watkins has a good essay on the subject.