linguists-from-russia

"“An essential characteristic of the vocabulary of this text is polysemy,” argues Tatyana J. Elizarenkova (1995: 285), who notes that double references create “serious obstacles for our comprehension of the text [...] In a large group of Vedic words this polysemy acquires a symbolic character.”"

"Indeed Ivanov (1999), who has undertaken by far the most comprehensive study of the cognate terms for horse in Indo-European as well as the adjacent languages of Northern Caucasian and Hurrian, points out that "the Indo-European homeland need not be identical to the area of horse domestication, but should be connected to it. The ways in which names and technical knowledge . . . spread should be explored"."

"If horseback riding really did began at the turn of the IV mil. B.C. before the dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, it did not leave traces in the vocabulary of the later dialects. . . . Thus it cannot be proven that this type of ancient . . . horseback riding had originally been connected with Indo-Europeans."

"As Elizarenkova (1992) notes, "either one comes to know things due to archaeological findings and in this case their names and purpose may remain unknown, or only the names of the things are known from the texts, but the things themselves, as well as their purpose, are unknown" (129)."

"In order to account for this fact, we are bound to assume that the language of the original population of the towns of Central Asia, where Indo-Iranians must have arrived in the second millennium BCE, on the one hand, and the language spoken in the Punjab, the homeland of the Indo-Aryans, on the other, were intimately related."

"I use the term substratum to refer to any donor language, without implying sociological differences in its status, so that 'substratum' may refer to an adstratum or even superstratum."

"Another problem is how to account for Indo-Iranian isolates which have been borrowed into Uralic [...which form part of...] the new vocabulary, which most probably was acquired by the Indo-Iranians in Central Asia."

"In the case of Indo-Iranian, there may have been early differentiation between the Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches, especially if we assume that the Iranian loss of aspiration in voiced aspirated stops was a dialectal feature which Iranian shared with Balto-Slavic and Germanic (cf. Kortlandt 1978:115). Nevertheless, Proto-Indo-Iranian for a long time remained a dialectal unity, possibly even up to the moment when the Indo-Aryans crossed the Hindu Kush mountain range and lost contact with the Iranians."

"Starting with the assumption that loanwords reflect change in environment and way of life, we get the following picture of the new country of the Indo-Iranians. The landscape must have been quite similar to that of their original homeland, as there are no new terms for plants or landscape. The new animals like camel, donkey and tortoise show that the new land was situated more to the South […] This picture, which is drawn on exclusively linguistic arguments, is a strong confirmation of the traditional theory that the Indo-Iranians came from the north. […] as we have seen above, there are reasons to believe that the Indo-Aryans formed the vanguard of the Indo-Iranian movement and were the first to come into contact with the original inhabitants of the Central Asian towns. […] the Iranians […] were pushing from behind."

"If a given proto-language was spoken in an area outside that of its daughter languages, specific words designating features of the ancient habitat are not usually preserved in the attested languages. Therefore, if a language ancestral to a group of European languages originated in Africa, we would not be able to find in the extant lexical stock ancient words for "giraffe" and "elephant" which could suggest its African origin. (Dolgopolsky 1987, 8)"

"Mallory's dating, which presupposes that Proto-Anatolian, Proto-Indo-Iranian, Greek and other descendant languages could have diverged from each other for a mere 2000 years, is absolutely inconceivable."

"Dolgopolsky, believes the terms for material culture commonly used to date Proto- Indo-European, such as copper, horse, and wheeled vehicles, cannot be reconstructed in the Anatolian languages and therefore belong to a later, post-Hittite Indo-European and not Proto-Indo-European. Proto-Indo-European, accordingly, did not know all these items, since it was much earlier. He reiterates the arguments outlined previously, suggesting that the horse known to the Proto-Indo-European's was not the domesticated but the wild variety, and claims that the word *ayes did not originally refer to copper but to metal in general, and it may then later have been transferred to copper in some countries when this metal entered common usage: "Hence none of these words can serve as evidence for dating Proto-IE"."

"From our point of view there was no migration as such. . . .There was a gradual spread from one center in all directions. In the course of such a spread the groups of dialects and specific isoglosses that had developed were maintained. . . .The biological situation among the speakers of modern Indo-European languages can only be explained through a transfer of languages like a baton, as it were, in a relay race, but not by several thousand miles' migration of the tribes themselves. (152-153)."

"This thesis will receive—and has already received—cheers from dilettantes. Dilettantes desperately need one thing: the proof that the population of the Armenian Plateau spoke Armenian ever since the Palaeolithic period, if possible."

"The Proto-Indo-European term for 'horse' shows only that horses were known (nobody doubts this); it does not mean that horses were already domesticated."

"The Indo-European homeland need not be identical to the area of horse domestication, but should be connected to it. The ways in which names and technical knowledge . . . spread should be explored."

"The lack of a clear Proto-Indo-European word for 'donkey‘, given the presence of domesticated donkeys throughout most of the territory where horses were domesticated and where the Indo-European tribes must have lived, can be explained by assuming that *ekhwos was originally used with the meaning 'donkey‘ as well as 'wild horse; horse‘. ...[the PIE speakers lived in] Central and Eastern Asia, where paleozoological data show that the domesticated donkey is a recent introduction."

"Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey."

"What created by a human mind, can be solved by another human mind. From this point of view, unsolved problems do not exist and can not exist in any area of science."

"There are no indecipherable writings, any writing system produced by man can be read by man."