|
Vedic Sanskrit has a number of linguistic features which are alien to most other Indo-European languages. Prominent examples include: phonologically, the introduction of retroflexes, which alternate with dentals; morphologically, the formation of gerunds; and syntactically, the use of a quotative marker ("iti").〔Edwin Bryant, ''The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate'' (Oxford University Press 2001), p. 79.〕 Philologists attribute such features, as well as the presence of non-Indo-European vocabulary, to a local substratum of languages encountered by Indo-Aryan peoples in Central Asia and within the Indian subcontinent - the Dravidian languages.〔http://www.academia.edu/472464/The_influence_of_Dravidian_on_Indo-Aryan_phonetics〕 Scholars have identified a substantial body of loanwords in the earliest Indian texts, including clear evidence of Non-Indo-Aryan elements (such as -s- following -u- in Rigvedic ''busa''). While some loanwords are from Dravidian, and other forms are traceable to Munda〔Edwin Bryant, ''The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate'' (Oxford University Press 2001), p. 78.〕 or Proto-Burushaski, the bulk have no sensible basis in any of these families, suggesting a source in one or more lost languages. The discovery that some loan words from one of these lost sources had also been preserved in the earliest Iranian texts, and also in Tocharian, convinced Michael Witzel and Alexander Lubotsky that the source lay in Central Asia and could be associated with the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC).〔Michael Witzel, Central Asian Roots and Acculturation in South Asia. Linguistic and Archaeological Evidence from Western Central Asia, the Hindukush and Northwestern South Asia for Early Indo-Aryan Language and Religion. In: T. Osada (ed.), Linguistics, Archaeology and the Human Past. Kyoto : Indus Project, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature 2005, 87-211; A. Lubotsky, The Indo-Iranian Substratum, in: ''Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations'', ed. Chr. Carpelan, A. Parpola, P.Koskikallio (Helsinki, Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura 2001), pp. 301-317.〕 Another lost language is that of the Indus Valley Civilization, which Witzel initially labelled Para-Munda, but later the Kubhā-Vipāś substrate.〔Michael Witzel, The linguistic history of some Indian domestic plants, ''Journal of Biosciences'', vol. 34, no. 6 (December 2009), pp. 829-833.〕 ==Phonology== Retroflex phonemes are now found throughout the Burushaski,〔H. Berger, ''Die Burushaski-Sprache von Hunza und Nagar'', Vols. I-III (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1988).〕 Nuristani,〔G. Morgenstierne, ''Irano-Dardica'' (Wiesbaden 1973).〕 Dravidian and Munda families. They are reconstructed for proto-Burushaski, proto-Dravidian and (to a minimal extent) for proto-Munda,〔Gregory D. S. Anderson (ed.), ''The Munda Languages'' (London and New York: Routledge (Routledge Language Family Series), 2008) ISBN 978-0-415-32890-6.〕 and are thus clearly an areal feature of the Indian subcontinent. They are not reconstructible for either Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Indo-Iranian, and they are also not found in Mitanni-Indo-Aryan loan words. The acquisition of the phonological trait by early Indo-Aryan is thus unsurprising, but it does not immediately permit identification of the donor language. Since the adoption of a retroflex series does not affect poetic meter, it is impossible to say if it predates the early portions of the Rigveda or was a part of Indo-Aryan when the Rigvedic verses were being composed; however, it is certain that at the time of the redaction of the Rigveda (ca. 500 BC), the retroflex series had become part of Sanskrit phonology. There is a clear predominance of retroflexion in the Northwest (Nuristani, Dardic, Khotanese Saka, Burushaski), involving affricates, sibilants and even vowels (in Kalasha), compared to other parts of the subcontinent. It has been suggested that this points to the regional, northwestern origin of the phenomenon in Rigvedic Sanskrit.〔Michael Witzel, Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan (Rigvedic, Middle and Late Vedic), ''Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies'' , vol 5, no. 1 (1999).〕 Bertil Tikkanen is open to the idea that various syntactical developments in Indo-Aryan could have been the result of adstratum rather than the result of substrate influences.〔Edwin Bryant, ''The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate'' (Oxford University Press 2001), pp. 80–82.〕 However Tikkanen states that "in view of the strictly areal implications of retroflexion and the occurrence of retroflexes in many early loanwords, it is hardly likely that Indo-Aryan retroflexion arose in a region that did not have a substratum with retroflexes."〔Bertil Tikkanen, Archaeological-linguistic correlations in the formation of retroflex typologies and correlating areal features in South Asia, in Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, ''Archaeology and Language'', volume IV: ''Language Change and Cultural Transformation'', London: Routledge (1999), pp. 138–148.〕 Not only the typological development of Old to Middle Indo-Aryan, but already the phonological development from Pre-Vedic to Vedic (including even the oldest attested form in the Rig-Veda) is suggestive of Dravidian influence. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|