Re: A New language tree

- that you're pretending to overturn.

>
> You think it's a snake, and you chopped off its block,
> so it must necessarily be dead,
> but you don't really know which beast that you got,
> and neither is that even its head. :^)
>
> > A new model has been proposed. Please click on langauge tree.doc
> > in the files section. I propose a proto Vedic family branching out
> > into Sanskritic, and Illyric/Dardic branches. The Sanskritic branch
> > splits into Prakrit, Tocharian, Hellenic and Avestan brances. The
> > Illyric/Dardic branch splits into Balto-Slavic, Illyrinan and
> > Thraco-Phrygian. At the upper end the proto-Vedic is a branch of
> > a the larger Eurasiatic family with Dravidian, Uralo-Altaic,
> > Sino-Tibetan, European, and Austric branches. The European branch
> > splits into Italic, Celtic and Germanic branches.
> >
> > M. kelkar
>
> Just for openers:
>
> How do you explain the fact that Sanskrit, Prakrit, and
> Avestan are RUKI languages while Tocharian and Hellenic
> are not?
>
> If your "Proto-Vedic" is anything like the Vedic we know,
> then it too is a RUKI language, so again, how do you
> explain that its supposed descendant Anatolian is not?

That is the job for the linguist. They need to reconstruct a language
so that both RUKI and non-RUKI languages will branch out from it.
Just liket that graded ablaut stuff, the actual 5 vowels are not
observed in any langauge.

>
> How do you explain the fact that some of the descendants
> of your Proto-Vedic are Satem languages while others are
> not?

I know enough about linguistics to know that the centum/satum
distiniction is not air tight. Pro Bangani an ancient language of
India is centum inspite of the IEL establishment efforts to shoot it
down. Tocharian is a centum langauge also.

>
> Finally, what was your real motive behind posting such
> a suggestion, Mayuresh? We both know full well that you
> never really intended it to be taken seriously, after
> you've made so many remarks like:
>
> --- In IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
> <smykelkar@...> wrote:
> >
> > We both find philology and comparative (historical)
> > lingusistics disgusting.
>
> ( IndianCivilization/message/53399 )
>
> David

That is correct. I am basing my tree on the comment from the famous
Sanskritist Thomas Burrow (1955)

"Thomas Burrow, The Sanskrit Language, London, Faber & Faber, 1955
(1973 3rd), p.11:

«We have already remarked on the deep divergences between the various
European members of the family, and this can only be accounted for by
pushing back the period of original division to a period much earlier
than is usually assumed»."

I think what Burrow (1955) writing without the help of archaeological
and genetic research meant was the so called "European" langauges
should be split in the middle with Italic/Celtic/Germanic on one side
and the others combined with Asian langauges. That is what
proto-Vedic does.

Thanks for your interest.

M. Kelkar