--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:> Vijayaraghavan:> >The correlation between skin colour and
the language family Indo-> >atyan or Munda or Dravidian of a speaker
is too hazy to make a> >generalization like that in India.
> > _I_ know that, _you_ know that. Let's hope _everybody_ knows
that...> Unfortunately, sometimes I question the nature of some
discussions> provoked by Dr K -- That is the real meaning behind my
previous> statements.
>
> Sometimes I question K's obsession with the Out-Of-India hypothesis
> that could be deemed racially motivated, considering the lack of
> evidence and a deep lack of fundamental sense to the hypothesis
itself.> Why hold on to something that is completely unsubstantiated
unless> there were an emotional bias involved. But that's my opinion
anyways.
There ain't no need to get to me using colour paradigms.
Glen, I have no control over on how you got the impression that I am
obsessed with the Out of Bharat theory. If you are prepared to
believe me, I can say that I certainly start with OBT as a working
hypothesis because I do not accept Prof. Hicks' 'simplicity' model
to explain language affinities, say, between Indo-Iranian and Indo-
Aryan. After the glacial age of 11,000 years ago, people surely
moved around. Why should there be a simple, one-off movement to
explain AMT or AIT or whatever Into-Bharat theory to explain Indo-
Aryan? Why can't there be a series of movements out of Bharat to
explain Indo-Iranian and all the post-PIE linguistics?
I also think that PIE specialists have not paid enough attention to
Munda substratum.