Re: [tied] Indian League

Agreed. Finding a suitable term is difficult. 'South Asia' is
sometimes heard, but it's a little vague, between SE Asia and SW Asia,
but seemingly to include Burma and perhaps Tibet -- which would work
for the Sprachbund in question. 'Sub-Himalayan' or even
'Cis-Himalayan' might work, but would seem to exclude areas south of
the Hindu Kush.

In modern terms, India refers to the modern state, vs what the British
Raj defined it as. The term 'Macro-India' might cause some political
problems, but might be best: "the Macro-India Sprachbund" would seem
unambiguous.

We have a lexical gap, which means we have to awkwardly explain what
we mean (a la pre and post Anatolic PIE).

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> The league would have to include the Munda languages spoken in the
subcontinent, Burushaski, and -- in the diachronic perspective -- an
unknown number of hard-to-identify extinct substrata. Besides, "Indo-"
has somehow come to be understood as shorthand for "Indo-European",
whereas the only branch involved in this particular Sprachbund is
Indo-Aryan. I suppose you mean that many people's intuitive guess on
hearing of an "Indian League" would be that it must be an organisation
of native Americans. What can we do? The word "Indian" has been abused
in too many ways through history. Perhaps we should insist on
restoring the historically correct meaning to it, after all.