Talk:Graeco-Aryan

message: That the Hellenic and Indo-Iranian branches have a later common ancestor with each other than with other Indo-European branches does not fit well with the Kurgan hypothesis; how can the homeland have been smack-dab-in-the-middle of Greece and South Asia in that case? GSMR (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: *Critical evaluation of the Greco-Aryan hypothesis (Old Irish is presented as evidence against):  Kim McCone, The Indo-European origins of the Old Irish nasal presents, subjunctives and futures (1991).
--dab (𒁳) 11:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References?

message: This article has me somewhat confused. Is this about a hypothetical node on the IE tree, or is about what is commonly referred to as the "Graeco-Aryan model" of (P)IE reconstruction? While I'm familiar with the latter, the former has me somewhat mystified. Help? --Aryaman (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Graeco-Aryan model" as a term was coined after it was realized that the reconstructions performed up to the beginning of the 20th century - which had relied heavily upon Greek and Sanskrit (hence: "Graeco-Aryan") and did a good job of explaining Latin, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic and Armenian - did not provide a very good basis for explaining several important aspects of the recently deciphered Hittite. This led to widesweeping criticism of the earlier reconstructions, which was presented as an attack on the newly-designated "Graeco-Aryan model" of IE reconstruction, as opposed to a model which placed more importance on the role of Anatolian. This is an ongoing discussion, and not much substantial progress has been made yet. Brief mentions of the core issues are made in standard works such as Meier-Brügger's Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft (2002:164) and Clackson's Indoeuropean Linguistics (2007:115). Cf. also Tichy's Indogermanisches Grundwissen (2004:11). This is almost certainly what Bammesberger is referring to in the quote attributed to him in the first footnote, i.e. that, despite its shortcomings in regard to the Anatolian information, the Graeco-Aryan model of reconstruction remains at the centre of IE linguistics. I realize I'm probably not saying anything you don't already know, but felt it was worth saying anyway. Cheers --Aryaman (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to point this out: Bammesberger is referring to the Graeco-Aryan model of PIE reconstruction, which is indeed widespread and effectively (for want of a better alternative) largely consensus in IE linguistics (admittedly, objections have been raised to the idea that every verbal category or combination of verbal categories that happens to be attested in Greek and Indo-Iranian, such as the conjunctive or optative of the perfect, must be projected back to PIE, and some post-PIE reorganisation of the verbal system – though not exclusively limited to Graeco-Aryan – is assumed by both the Rix school and Jasanoff, and apparently even Ringe, and similar things are being suspected about the nominal system), but irrelevant to the proposal of an exclusive Graeco-Aryan node (even if it might include Armenian and perhaps Phrygian), as the Graeco-Aryan model does not treat the Graeco-Aryan commonalities as innovations but, quite the opposite, as retentions! Bammesberger cannot be adduced as a witness for this proposal at all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graeco-Aryan or Graeco-Aryan model?