Recent Focused Series »

Indo-European Origins
Siberia
Northern California
The Caucasus
Imaginary Geography
Home » Europe, Historical Geography, Indo-European Origins, Linguistic Geography, Population Geography, South Asia

When Did Roma Leave India?—New Discovery or Corroboration of Old Theories?

Submitted by on January 14, 2013 – 8:01 pm 16 Comments |  
Distribution of Roma in Europe(Thanks to Yaron Matras for his help with researching this post.)

As was highlighted in a previous GeoCurrents mini-series on the history of English, popular media reports on scientific issues involving human history, migrations, and languages habitually pick studies whose claims contradict the current consensus; such studies are further sensationalized, while other work on the topic is generally ignored. An additional example is the popular media reports on a genetics study on the exodus of the Roma people (Gypsies) from India, recently published in Current Biology (“Reconstructing the Indian Origin and Dispersal of the European Roma: A Maternal Genetic Perspective”, 22(24): 2342-2349). According to a short article by Sindya N. Bhanoo in the New York Times, titled “Genomic Study Traces Roma to Northern India”, this “wide-ranging genomic study appears to confirm that the Roma came from a single group that left northwestern India about 1,500 years ago”. In actuality, the article in Current Biology makes no such claims. Instead, its contribution is much more modest. The main focus of the article is the different groups of Roma in Europe. The researchers examined genetic data from approximately 200 Roma individuals from the Iberian Peninsula, particularly their mtDNA (which traces maternal descent), which showed genetic similarity to the Roma from the Balkans region. Their conclusion is that the Roma of Spain and Portugal migrated via Southeastern Europe, contrary to popular views that some of the Roma came to the Iberian Peninsula via North Africa. A large part of the study concerns the issues of genetic affinities among Roma groups, the degree of admixture with neighboring populations, and migration routes followed since the first arrival in Europe.

When it comes to determining the prehistoric homeland of the Roma people, the New York Times article contradicts itself: the headline claims that the Roma have been traced to Northern India, whereas the third sentence in the main text (cited above) places to putative homeland in Northwestern India. While this geographic discrepancy may seem insignificant at first glance, it is not: the genetic study in question showed that the probability of the Roma homeland being located in Northwestern India (that is Himachal Pradesh, Kashmir, and Punjab) is 72%, whereas the corresponding figure for Northern India (specifically, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh) is only 2%. One may defend the author of the headline by appealing to typographic limitations in the number of characters, but this defense fails: adding four characters by replacing “Northern” with “Northwestern” would make this headline only 47 characters long, whereas the headline of Nicholas Wade’s piece on the Science article on Indo-European origins—“Family Tree of Languages Has Roots in Anatolia, Biologists Say”—is the whopping 62 characters long.

To determine the location of the putative Roma homeland in India, the authors of the Current Biology article compared the DNA samples of European Roma with an extensive existing database of Indian sequences, conducting the analysis on both the regional and the state level. Their results “pointed at Punjab state (in North-Western India) as the most probable candidate to be the ancestral homeland of the Roma mtDNA types”, with a probability of 54%. Contrary to the way that the New York Timesarticle spins this finding, it is not a fresh discovery, but rather is “in agreement with previous linguistic and anthropological studies”, as the authors of the Current Biology paper readily admit in the abstract. Curiously, the second most probable location of the Roma homeland according to this genetic study is in Eastern India, specifically Bihar, Orissa, and West Bengal. While the probability of this region is only 20%, compared to Northwestern India’s 72%, it is significant in light of the fact that the rest of the regions—Northern India, Western India, Southwestern India, Southeastern India, and Northeastern India— together account for only 8% of the probability. So far, there is nothing in the historical, linguistic, or genetic record to indicate a connection of the European Roma to Eastern India, but as we shall see below, a linguistic connection does exist between Romani and Central Indic languages, spoken in what the Current Biology team classifies as Northern India, specifically Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

Indo_Aryan

As for the timing of the Roma exodus from India, the New York Times article claims that this latest genetics study dates it at around 1,500 years ago, that is around 500 CE. Note that this hypothesis contradicts both the accepted consensus in the linguistic community that places the Roma exodus five hundred years later, around 1000 CE, and the much earlier date produced by the Gray/Atkinson model (see Bouckaert et al. 2012)—3,500 years ago (or 1500 BCE). However, the genetic study in Current Biology makes no claims whatsoever as to when the Roma actually left India. All that the geneticists can confirm is that the ancestors of the Roma were based in Northwestern India “2,158±1,178 years” ago (that is between 1324 BCE and 32 CE). This finding is “in agreement with previous historical records that locate the Roma in Europe at least 1,000 years ago”. Note that other genetic studies (e.g. Morar et al. 2004) place the Roma exodus “approximately 32-40 generations ago”, which—assuming 25-30 years per generation—matches the 1000 CE date derived from linguistic studies.

Indeed, examining the Romani language and its connections to other languages has been instrumental in demystifying where the Roma originated and when they left India on their way to Europe. The similarities between Romani and other Indic languages were first noticed in the late 1700s. The first published work that postulates an Indian origin of the Romani language is Johann Christian Christoph Rüdiger’s On the Indic Language and Origin of the Gypsies, published in 1782, fourteen years before Sir William Jones’s famous pronouncement about the affinity of Sanskrit with Ancient Greek and Latin (see Matras 1999 for a detailed analysis). Rüdiger used surprisingly modern methodology, collecting his Romani data directly from a native speaker (which he admitted to find “tiresome and boring”) and his Hindi data from a manual written by a missionary. He compared a significant number of corresponding words from the two languages, as well as grammatical structures, noting that

“as regards the grammatical part of the language the correspondence is no less conspicuous, which is an even more important proof of the close relation between the languages.”

Subsequent linguistic studies focused on identifying the more specific location of the Roma homeland, as well as on dating the Roma exodus, by examining in detail phonological and morphological patterns of various Indic languages. For example, the evolution of the grammatical gender system in Indic languages indicates that Romani must have been spoken in India around 1000 CE. Earlier forms of Indic languages, known as Middle Indic, had three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. However, by the turn of the 2nd millennium CE, the neuter gender was lost (in some languages), with most formerly neuter nouns becoming masculine and a few becoming feminine. This change—and several others, to be discussed below—characterize the transition from Middle Indic period to the so-called New Indic phase. The Romani language fits the profile of a New Indic language: it has only two genders, masculine and feminine. More importantly, most of the formerly neuter nouns in Romani were reassigned to the same gender as their cognates in other New Indic languages, such as Hindi. For instance, the neuter agni ‘fire’ in the Prakrit language (a Middle Indic language) became the feminine āga ‘fire’ in Hindi and likewise the feminine jag in Romani. Given that there are several dozen formerly neuter nouns retained in Romani and reassigned to the same gender as in Hindi, the probability of the same change happening independently in the two languages is vanishingly small. The more likely explanation is that Romani was spoken in India at the turn of the 2nd millennium CE, so that the loss of the neuter gender and the reassignment of formerly neuter nouns to masculine or feminine genders occurred before Romani split off the rest of the Indic family. Thus, the Romani exodus must be dated to around 1000 CE.

The only potential problem with using the gender system to date the Roma exodus from India is the fact that not all modern Indic languages have lost the neuter gender. Marathi and Oriya, for example, have retained the three-way gender system. But fortunately, Romani exhibits a number of other phonological and morphological properties that characterize it as a New Indic language. These include such grammatical developments as the loss of the elaborate nominal case endings present in Old and Middle Indic and their reduction to a simple opposition between nominative and oblique. For example, the word ‘boy’ in Romani has only two forms: the nominative raklo and the oblique rakles-, comparable to the Hindi laṛkā and laṛke-, respectively. Other case-like meanings are expressed by former postpositions, repurposed as clitics, and attaching to the oblique form (some of these clitics have been subsequently grammaticalized into suffixes in Romani). Another development shared by Romani with its Indic brethren is the disappearance of the Old and Middle Indic past tense conjugation and the use of the past participle instead, still visible in some dialects of Romani. The past participle shows agreement in gender, as in ov gelo ‘he went’ vs. oj geli ‘she went’. These forms are comparable to the Hindi vo gayā ‘he went’ vs. vo gayī ‘she went’. These and other shared patterns indicate that early Romani was part of the Indic dialect continuum during the transition period to early New Indic, which took place in medieval times, perhaps as early as the 8th or 9th century CE or as late as the 10th century CE.

map05

With respect to locating the Roma homeland, linguistic studies are in agreement with (and often predate) genetic studies. Certain structural features of Romani are shared with the so-called Dardic languages of Northwestern India, such as Kashmiri. Several of these features are retentions from the earlier form of Indic. One is the retention of consonant clusters such as tr and št in words like patrin ‘leaf’ (from Old Indic patra‑) and mišto ‘good’ (from Old Indic mr̥ṣṭa); see the map on the left from the Manchester Romani Project website. Other shared retentions include the retention of consonantal endings such as -s and -n in oblique case endings, and the retention of -n- in words like dand ‘tooth’ (from Old Indic danta, but compare with the Hindi dẫt). But as discussed in an earlier GeoCurrents post, shared innovations are more important than shared retentions in determining the classification of languages. Luckily, Romani also shares an important innovation with the Dardic languages: the emergence of a new past-tense conjugation, based on the attachment of enclitic pronouns to the participle. Consider the Romani past tense forms such as kerdjom ‘I did’, kerdjas ‘he/she did’ and the like. They derive from combinations like *kerdo-jo-me ‘done-by-me’, *kerdo-jo-se ‘done by him/her’, and so on (see Matras 2001). This shared innovation in Romani and Dardic languages lends further support to the view that early Romani was spoken in the extreme northwestern areas of the Indian subcontinent in medieval times.

map04map02 map03

Linguistic analysis also allows us to shed light on an even earlier stage of Romani and to show that the ancestors of the Roma came from Central India before they lived in the Northwestern part of the subcontinent. The connection to languages of Central India was discovered by Turner in 1926. His evidence came from a number of shared early developments that are confined to the forerunners of the Central Indian languages, such as the form šun- ‘to hear’ from Old Indic (Sanskrit) śr̥n- and jakh ‘eye’ (via *akkhi) from Old Indic akṣi- (see the maps from the Manchester Romani Project website). The phonological shape of the nominalizing suffix -ipen (as in sastipen ‘health’), cognate to Central Indic -ippan (from Old Indic -itvana) rather than to Northwestern Indic -ittan is another link between Romani and languages of Central India. These features emerged during the early transition stage from Old to Middle Indic, sometime after 500 BCE. That Romani shares these developments proves that it began its history as a Central Indian language. But Romani does not share all the developments that happened in the Central Indic languages, retaining some Old Indic features instead. As mentioned above, Romani retains the consonant combinations tr and št which were simplified in the Central Indic languages during the transition to the Middle Indic period, producing patta and miṭṭha, respectively. Thus, it appears that speakers of what was to become Romani left the Central Indian region at some point during the first half of the first millennium CE, before the clusters were simplified, and migrated to the northwest, an area that remained unaffected by these changes.

From northwestern India, the Roma migrated to Europe through southwestern Asia, evidently making prolonged stopovers along the way. Evidence for their route comes chiefly in the form of loanwords and grammatical borrowings from a number of languages then spoken in Asia Minor: mostly from Byzantine Greek and to a lesser extent from Armenian and from several Iranian languages. (Some of the borrowings from Iranian might be attributed to any one of several Iranian languages, including both Persian and Kurdish, while others may be localized more precisely.) The immense Greek influence on Romani testifies not only to widespread bilingualism among the Roma and to their minority status, but also to a long period of intense contact with Greek-speaking populations. Crucially, the Greek influence permeated all areas of Romani, including its lexicon, morphology, and syntax. Among Greek loanwords in Romani are nouns like drom ‘road’ from the Greek drómos ‘road’, zumin ‘soup’ from the Greek zumí ‘soup’, xoli ‘anger’ from the Greek xolí ‘anger’, luludi ‘flower’, fóros ‘town’, kókalo ‘bone’, skamín ‘chair’ and many more, as well as grammatical words like pale ‘again’ from the Greek pale ‘again’, komi ‘still’ from the Greek akómi ‘still’, and numerals efta ‘seven’, oxto ‘eight’, and enja ‘nine’. Morphological borrowings from Greek into Romani include the marker of ordinal numbers -to (as in pandžto ‘fifth’), nominal endings as in prezident-os ‘president’, slug-as ‘slave’, čač-imos ‘truth’, and endings that identify loan verbs as in mog-in-ava ‘I can’, intr-iz-ava ‘I enter’. Greek has also had an immense impact on the syntax of Romani. The Greek influence can be seen in the emergence of a definite article placed before the noun (e.g. o čhavo ‘the boy’) and the shift from Object-Verb (as in the rest of Indic languages) to Verb-Object order (e.g. xav manřo ‘I eat bread’, where the verb xav indicates that the subject is ‘I’). Other features that can be attributed to Greek influence are postposed relative clauses introduced by a general relativizer kaj (as in o manuš kaj giljavel ‘the man who sings’) and the contrast between a factual complementizer kaj and a non-factual one te.

Influences from other languages once spoken in southwestern Asia include numerous Iranian loanwords in Romani such as diz ‘fortress, town’ from Persian diz, zor ‘strength’ from Persian or Kurdish zor, and baxt ‘luck’ from Persian or Kurdish baxt. Finally, another important contact language was Armenian, which contributed to Romani words like bov ‘oven’, kotor ‘piece’, and grast ‘horse’. Some scholars have argued that contact with Iranian and Armenian occurred before contact with Greek, chiefly due to the geographical locations of the languages in our present era. But since eastern Anatolia, where both Iranian languages and Armenian were spoken, was part of the Byzantine Empire up to the late eleventh century, it is also possible that Greek, Iranian and Armenian influences were all acquired during the same period. (See Yaron Matras’ Romani: A Linguistic Introduction for a more detailed description of the Romani language and history, or check out the Manchester Romani Project online DVD “The Romani language: an interactive journey”, which tells the history of the Romani language and is accompanied by interactive illustrations, games, and sound samples; this program is available in 18 languages.)

Thus, linguistic rather than genetic studies allow us to gain most insight into the past of the Roma people, their migrations, and interactions with other peoples. Still, it is important that recent genetic studies confirm rather than contradict linguistic insights.

 

Additional sources:

Matras, Yaron (1999) Johann Rüdiger and the study of Romani in 18th century Germany. Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, fifth series 9: 89-116.

Matras, Yaron (2001) Tense, aspect, and modality categories in Romani. Language Typology and Universals (STUF) 53(4): 162-180.

Morar, Bharti; David Gresham; Dora Angelicheva; Ivailo Tournev; Rebecca Gooding; Velina Guergueltcheva; Carolin Schmidt; Angela Abicht; Hanns Lochmuller; Attila Tordai; Lajos Kalmar; Melinda Nagy; Veronika Karcagi; Marc Jeanpierre; Agnes Herczegfalvi; David Beeson; Viswanathan Venkataraman; Kim Warwick Carter; Jeff Reeve; Rosario de Pablo; Vaidutis Kucinskas and Luba Kalaydjieva (2004) Mutation history of the roma/gypsies. American Journal of Human Genetics 75(4): 596-609.

Turner, Ralph L. (1926) The position of Romani in Indo-Aryan. Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, third series, 5: 145-189.

 

Previous Post
«
Next Post
»

Subscribe For Updates

It would be a pleasure to have you back on GeoCurrents in the future. You can sign up for email updates or follow our RSS Feed, Facebook, or Twitter for notifications of each new post:
        

Commenting Guidelines: GeoCurrents is a forum for the respectful exchange of ideas, and loaded political commentary can detract from that. We ask that you as a reader keep this in mind when sharing your thoughts in the comments below.

  • Pingback: A medieval desi diaspora deep from the heart of India | Brown Pundits

  • RoyColeman

    “the New York Times article contradicts itself: the headline claims that the Roma have been traced to Northern India, whereas the third sentence in the main text (cited above) places to putative homeland in Northwestern India.
    No Asya, no. The headline would be the pull line, the latter merely a better focus on the event – as with most news. If a major bomb went off in NYC, that would likely be the headline. The article would likely detail the actual location, eg Brooklyn. The Current Biology page easily lends itself to this editorial practice: “The Romani diaspora originated in north/northwest India around 1.5 kya”.
    You claim “popular media reports on scientific issues involving human history, migrations, and languages habitually pick studies whose claims contradict the current consensus..”
    Any References? The print media specifically or not? What more importantly IS the consensus and who decides it? A brief look at the Daily Science website, for example, suggests exactly the opposite of what you maintain, there’s a continuous churn of research upsetting the ‘orthodox assumptions’ in every area of science.

    “..such studies are further sensationalized, while other work on the topic is generally ignored.”
    So? Claims made public can be disputed and thus invalidated, just as you do. This bias pales in comparison to the far,far more serious trend to monetize research behind corporate controlled peer-reviewed paywalls, which ultimately starves the public of the balanced perspective it deserves.

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Regarding the issue of Northern vs. Northwestern India: the problem is that the two terms (at least in the scientific context) do not refer to the same place. Northern India refers to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, Northwestern India to Punjab and Rajastan. So to use your analogy, it would be like a headline saying that the event happened in NYC, and the text “specifying” that it happened in Boston.

      Regarding my claim that “popular media reports on scientific issues involving human history,
      migrations, and languages habitually pick studies whose claims
      contradict the current consensus..”, I did an interesting “experiement” on Facebook the other day (no connection to your question!), asking folks to send me links to any popular media reports on linguistics that are not of this sort. Only one, to an article some 13 years ago, was listed. If you have others, I’d like to see them. By “popular media” I do mean newspapers, magazines, TV documentaries, but not blogosphere. What we end up with is exactly the situation where, say, a Martian landing on Earth and looking though archives of the Daily Science website or some such would arrive at exactly the impression you describe, that there’s a “continuous churn of research upsetting the ‘orthodox assumptions’”. While it may be true for other sciences, it is certainly not true for linguistics, where none of the really serious work, real discoveries made in the last…whenever simply do not reach public consciousness at all. I’ll have to cite David Pesetsky here, as he put it so well:

      “First is our total failure to get linguistics taught in the schools.
      Compare what the average educated person knows about biology or the
      physical sciences with what they know about linguistics. If you are a
      biologist, and
      you tell a journalist what you’re working on, you don’t have to start
      with the existence of cells, or the germ theory of disease. If you are
      an astronomer, you don’t have to start with the fact that the earth is
      round, the sun is a star, and everything obeys physical laws. But a
      linguist has no such luck — you can’t get off the ground explaining
      *anything* new without first running through the linguistics counterpart
      of fourth-grade science: spelling is not phonology, words are in the
      heads of speakers not someone’s dictionary, sentences have structure,
      all languages change over time etc. Result: it’s much harder to explain
      what you’re doing to virtually anyone if you’re a linguist than if
      you’re any other kind of scientist, because you’re starting from zero.
      Below zero, in fact, because you have to cut through the linguistic
      counterpart of “the earth is flat” before you can say anything
      interesting.”

      I agree with David that it’s public ignorance of linguistic matters, not paywalls (which are a problem too, but linguists largely circumvented it), that “starves the public”. Unfortunately, much of the “linguistics” research reported in the popular media is based on this very ignorant view of language, and hence of the “Earth is flat” kind… if not “Earth is triangular”!

      • RoyColeman

        “Regarding the issue of Northern vs. Northwestern India: the problem is that the two terms (at least in the scientific context) do not refer to the same place.” Sure, but if Current Biology had not mentioned both we wouldn’t be discussing this. We all want greater precision, but surely even you’d admit the ‘average educated person’ would not be as concerned if Roma mtdna originated in what is now defined as Uttar Pradesh or Rajastan. Chances are they do not know where those states are.
        “It’s much harder to explain what you’re doing to virtually anyone if you’re a linguist than if you’re any other kind of scientist” Well, where I studied linguistics still is not a science as you imply. http://www.uct.ac.za/faculties/list/
        Your ratiocination is laudable, but my issue is that on this blog, your partner appears to abandon essential detail where convenient.
        In “Why the Indo-European Debate Matters—And Matters Deeply” for example, he fails to mention (the very non-German) Alfred Rosenberg’s shaping of Nazi ideology from its inception eg “Der Zukunftsweg einer deutschen Aussenpolitik (1927), drawing on non-German thinkers like Houston Stewart Chamberlain. He was so disliked in Germany that it was said of him that “Hitler was his only friend in Berlin”. Yet Martin expresses surprise at the resurgence of “Aryan” thought in “of all places—Russia” !
        More egregious is his gross distortion of history in ascribing Aryanism to “the most hideous examples of genocide and mass-murder that the world has ever witnessed”, sidestepping for his purposes, the Xiongnu and Mongol hordes, the Iberian Conquistadors, the Trail of Tears, Leopold’s Congo, the Holodomor, the Yezhovshchina and the Hsiao Mich…
        sigh..

      • RoyColeman

        “Regarding the issue of Northern vs. Northwestern India: the problem is that the two terms (at least in the scientific context) do not refer to the same place.” Sure, but if Current Biology had not mentioned both we wouldn’t be discussing this. We all want greater precision, but surely even you’d admit the ‘average educated person’ would not be as concerned if Roma mtdna originated in what is now defined as Uttar Pradesh or Rajastan. Chances are they do not know where those states are.
        “It’s much harder to explain what you’re doing to virtually anyone if you’re a linguist than if you’re any other kind of scientist” Well, where I studied linguistics still is not a science as you imply. http://www.uct.ac.za/faculties/list/
        Your ratiocination is laudable, but my issue is that on this blog, your partner appears to abandon essential detail where convenient.
        In “Why the Indo-European Debate Matters—And Matters Deeply” for example, he fails to mention (the very non-German) Alfred Rosenberg’s shaping of Nazi ideology from its inception eg “Der Zukunftsweg einer deutschen Aussenpolitik (1927), drawing on non-German thinkers like Houston Stewart Chamberlain. He was so disliked in Germany that it was said of him that “Hitler was his only friend in Berlin”. Yet Martin expresses surprise at the resurgence of “Aryan” thought in “of all places—Russia” !
        More egregious is his gross distortion of history in ascribing Aryanism to “the most hideous examples of genocide and mass-murder that the world has ever witnessed”, sidestepping for his purposes, the Xiongnu and Mongol hordes, the Iberian Conquistadors, the Trail of Tears, Leopold’s Congo, the Holodomor, the Yezhovshchina and the Hsiao Mich…
        sigh..

        • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

          regarding the Northern/Northwestern India issue: I agree with you that an average American reader would have a hazy idea about India’s geography (but see our recent posts on India!). It does not excuse the misleading headline, however. It could have said “India” in general or even “Asia” and be as uninformative. The Current Biology article mentions both exactly because the question of whether it’s one or the other is what’s at stake!

          Regarding the issue of whether linguistics is a science: many universities have linguistics departments within Humanities, but it reflects an old institutional model more than the reality of what linguistics is. But sadly nothing changes if we compare linguistics to other humanities, as history, literature, arts, etc. get much better coverage in school than linguistics.

          Thank you for bringing up the early roots of Nazi ideology—this was omited for reasons of space and presentation only, I’m sure.

          As for Martin’s highlighting of Russia as a rather unlikely place for the resurgence of Nazi/Aryan ideology, I think it has to do with both the Nazi view of Slavs as “under-human” and the strong/persistent anti-Nazi/German sentiment in Russia itself (more on this in an upcoming post on Volga Germans). That is, the point is that Russia has always positioned itself as against Nazi ideology, but the said ideology is rather strong in Russia. But there’s nothing about Russian culture/society/history per se that makes it impervious to Nazi ideology. In fact, the Russian film “Sideburns” shows this beautifully.
          http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099097/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

          As for Aryan ideology as the root of “the most hideous examples of genocide and mass-murder that the world has ever witnessed”, you are right in noting other egregious examples of genocide. I will be discussing them in the upcoming mini-series on ethnic deportations under Stalin—so stay tuned!

          • RoyColeman

            The “ideological” divide is far more widespread and fundamental. The US Right-wing armed with assault weapons and perceiving – correctly – the insidious encroachment of a surveillance state, is essentially “proto-nazi” without an effective populist figurehead. As neuroscience is indicating political preferences are largely innate and related to cognitive function differentials between individuals, hence the problem remains.
            But if the Indo-European debate matters so “deeply”, for its historical impact, then an obvious question arises. The Ukraine suffered the greatest attrition, 1in4, during WW2. Is there any linguistic/population connection to be explored there in terms of its position among the IE language families? It would be fascinating to see one..

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            I don’t like using the label “Nazi” as a swearword. Really, it’s the surveillance state that should be called that, not those who oppose it, if we pay any attention to history. Nor have I heard of any research proving that neurological or some other biological factors are at play when it comes to political views.

            Not sure what your point about Ukraine is? :(

          • Rebecca Armstrong

            Regarding the north versus northwest issue, you are just plain wrong.

            You say:

            “While this geographic discrepancy may seem insignificant at first glance, it is not: the genetic study in question showed that the probability of the Roma homeland being located in Northwestern India (that is Himachal Pradesh, Kashmir, and Punjab) is 72%, whereas the corresponding figure for Northern India (specifically, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh) is only 2%.”

            This is not how Indians perceive it. Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab are just “northern India”, not “northwest India”. You could possibly make a case for including Punjab in the northwest, but typically “northwest” is just another word for Rajasthan. You can include Uttar Pradesh (now Uttaranchal too) in north India, since it shares a lot of culture and tradition with the northern states. Madhya Pradesh and Bihar are iffy. Not many Indians would consider them north India, but they may not argue the point. But if you use a definition broad enough to include Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan would also certainly qualify, being included both in the “north” and “northwest” categories. Such is geography.

            The author has used the terms correctly, since he says “north” and “northwest” – north for Kashmiri Pandits and northwest for the Meghawal region in Rajasthan, which is absolutely correct in terms of both geography and regional usage of those terms.

            It kind of seems trivial to even debate this issue. It seems quite reasonable for a news article, and the actual paper, of course, specifies the exact regions. I only mention it because you made such a song and dance about it. I understand you don’t like this particular reporter, but so many paragraphs devoted to such a silly thing makes it seem like you have some kind of blood feud going on.

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            Rebecca, the characterization of the same part of India as “north” and “northwest” is in the same article. It is at least confusing and perhaps even purposefully misleading. Whether one or the other of these two labels accords better with the Indians’ view of their country’s geography doesn’t even matter (or it’s a separate question entirely). When writing about a scientific issue, one has to be precise and accurate.

            Contrary to what you say, I don’t have a problem with the journalist, Sindya N. Bhanoo, whom I don’t know and have never read before. But I do have a problem (though I won’t call it “blood feud”) with inaccurate and sloppy journalism, as well as with sloppy scholarship/research.

        • Zod

          I have a question that maybe you can comment on: Did the “Nazi” realize or understand the term “Aryan” to be associated with Persians/Iranians and their ethnic history? Thanks.

          • RoyColeman

            Probably not. Their belief was in a Nordic ‘origin’ and Persia was too far removed from the bizarre mythology they created.

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            I am afraid the situation is more complicated than a simple yes or no. As far as I know (I am not an expert in Nazi ideology, by any means), they believed the Aryans (themselves) to be the descendants of the mythical human race which once inhabited Atlantida but after the (a?) Great Flood survived in Tibet. They did send several expeditions to Tibet, mostly through Ahnenerbe (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahnenerbe) in search of the mythical Shambala, which supposedly held the keys not only to the super-race, but to various techniques of controlling the masses, hypnotism, and other occult stuff. Tibet being so inaccessible, it wasn’t hard to sell the idea that some secret knowledge is indeed developed/preserved there. How come they thought they were the descendants of those Atlantidans from Tibet—well, I think here the jump is purely nationalistic. It’s not unheard of for any group to want to think of themselves as the best… In post WWI Germany it wasn’t hard to sell the idea either…

  • quidam Blacus

    I’m curios if you checked the listed Greek loanwords on all Romani branches. Because if you only checked Vlax and Balkan Romani, those loans could have been picked up later from Vlach or Romanian (maybe others too?). They’re part of the Balkan Sprachbund and they have most of the listed grammatical and lexical loans.

    Some of the Greek loanwords you listed against Romanian version:

    drom < drum "road"
    skamin < scaun "chair"
    kaj < care/cari "who", "which"
    zumin < zeamă/zamă "liquid", "soup"

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Interesting point, thank you for bringing this up. I don’t have the Romani sources on hand, but it is my understanding that the relevant borrowings from Greek are indeed directly from Greek into Romani, based on sound changes and the like. I’m sure Yaron Matras would have more on this in his work.

      • quidam Blacus

        Balkan Sprachbund is so strong, sometimes it’s hard to tell the source and/or intermediary. That’s all i’m saying. I do agree there’s a lot of Greek loans in Romani.

        Maybe an detailed article on this Sprachbund would be nice?

        • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

          Thank you, that’s a great idea!