The connection between Pyu and Nungish

[DC Lammerts]

Dear Uwe,

Arlo Griffiths of the EFEO has carried out Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) documentation of the Pyu epigraphic corpus, including the Myittha inscription in question. 

Best regards,
Christian 

DC Lammerts
Assistant Professor
Department of Religion
Rutgers University



> 
> 
> From: uwe krech <linguk at gmx.de>
> Date: Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:03 PM
> Subject: Aw: The connection between Pyu and Nungish
> To: TIBETO-BURMAN-LINGUISTICS at listserv.linguistlist.org
> 
> 
> Hi, again,
>  
> 1) It seems I made a mistake in my last mail (see below). I have to thank
> Daniel W. Bruhn for the attachment "APPENDIX VI. Pyu". My appology.
>  
> And I would like to make a comment on this paper. I have looked
> it through and came to the conclusion that this paper must have
> been the exclusive work of Shafer. Virtually all examples in this
> paper reappear in Shafer's article on Pyu (1943) and Shafer did
> not mention Benedict in that article. Further, as I have found nowhere
> else a comment of Shafer on a possible connection between "Pyu" and
> Nungish, we should not expect any comment from him in this paper
> either.
>  
> 2) May I ask the subscribers of this mailing list if anybody found on the web
> - oder made him/herself - high resolution photos of the recently discovered
> inscription of Pay-taw monastery, Myittha township, in Burma/Myanmar?
> (This inscription has passages not only in "Pyu" but, reportedly, passages
> in four additional languages as well.)
> I would be very interested in such photos.
>  
> Thank you for your attention,
> Uwe
>  
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Juli 2014 um 19:55 Uhr
> Von: "uwe krech" <linguk at gmx.de>
> An: TIBETO-BURMAN-LINGUISTICS at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Betreff: The connection between Pyu and Nungish
> Hi,
> 
> I am a new subscriber of this mailing list but, regrettably, because of a rather sad circumstance. Last month (on 05 June 2014) Nathan Straub asked on this mailing list “Would anybody know why Paul Benedict said that Pyu was closest to the Nung(ish) subgroup? [...]”, relating to a statement in Benedict's Conspectus (1972); and Nathan Straub mentioned in this context also my article “Reassess-ment of Myazedi Pyu [...]” (Uwe Krech, in MTBL4, 2012), stating – correctly – that I did not say there why Benedict may have suggested that connection.
> On the same day David Bradley posted a comment on Nathan Straub's query: “Krech is completely off the planet about Pyu, he claims it is Shan. Pyu could probably be classified better now that we have much more Luish data – Sak/Thet, Kadu and so on. I think that is the most likely fit.” It is obvious that Bradley had no intended to answer Nathan Straub's question. - Given that that what Bradley claimed about me is not at all true, what was Bradley's intention then?
> On the one hand, to merely “think” that so-called “Pyu” was – “probably” – affiliated with Cakish (Bradley uses the derogatory term “Luish”) is and remains a mere guess, no matter if one repeats this claim again and again, over years, as Bradley; it will not become “truer” by that. In science one has to argue on the basis of evidence. Now that fairly extensive data of three Cakish languages are available, his “educated guesses” cannot be tolerated any longer. Simply demonstrate what you “think” – if you can – and then everybody can judge his/herself! Nobody can figure out what you think was “probable” as long as you have not laid it out in detail!
> On the other hand, a much more serious issue is, however, that, instead of going the common scientific way Bradley seems to have preferred to attempt to undermine the credibility of the researcher (that is, me) who has been doing intensive research on the two so-called “Pyu” faces of the Myazedi inscriptions and their underlying *Myazedi Pyu language (as I call it), for more than 5 years now – and who came to another conclusion regarding the genetic affiliation(s) of this *language. (In the article mentioned above I have given my view that reflected the early stage of my reasearch, at ca. the end of 2010. At ICSTLL45, at Nanyang Uni, Singapore, October 2012, I have given a revised assessment, reflecting my research at that time.)
> In fact I have never made any linguistic statement on so-called “Pyu” in general. “Pyu” is, first of all, a palaeographic term, not a linguistic one. Apart from the so-called “Pyu” inscriptions – i.e. inscriptions in “Pyu script” - that record the Indo-Aryan languages Pali and Sanskrit, the bulk of the remaining “Pyu” inscriptions are yet undeciphered; the 4 short urn inscriptions investigated by C. O. Blagden (1913-14) are deciphered only in part, respectively, and much of those parts only tentatively; because of their limited size these 4 inscriptions may be of value for linguistic research at a later time but not at the present stage. Moreover, given this state, nobody knows whether the non-Indo-Aryan “Pyu” inscriptions record just a single language or more than one. That is why all linguistic claims about an imagined “Pyu” language are without substance at the present stage. Yet, I am in the position to make an informed judgment on the linguistic nature of Myazedi Pyu – and I demonstrate that in my thesis (which is in its final stage).
> Moreover, I have always maintained that *Myazedi Pyu is a (Sino-)Tibeto-Burman language (and have certainly never claimed that *Myazedi Pyu was Shan). To put words like the latter ones in my mouth is nothing else than trying to bring me and my research into discredit (which Bradley underlined by his phrasing that I was “off the planet”). I regard Bradley's posting as a severe breach of basic rules of academic conduct.
> Therefore, if David Bradley is not able to provide serious evidence concerning my alleged claims within a fortnight – which he certainly will not be able to do, neither within a year nor within a still longer time span – I request that the staff of this mailing list attach a well-visible tag to the relevant statement of Bradley's posting mentioned above calling it what it is: a malicious lie.
> 3) Concerning the original question of Nathan Straub I would like to add the following. Because of the circumstances sketched above I am unable to make any statement about a (construed) relationship between an (imagined) “Pyu” language and Nungish, along the lines of Paul King Benedict (Conspectus, 1972: 196). But I may add, more specifically, that a particular relationship between the *Myazedi Pyu language and Nungish my research does not confirm. Hereby I thank Nathan Straub for his hint regarding the hitherto unpublished note on “Pyu” in STL, Vol. 12, which I did not know of before.
> Yours,
> Uwe
>