>That is the job for the linguist. They need to reconstruct a language
> 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?
>I know enough about linguistics to know that the centum/satum
> How do you explain the fact that some of the descendants
> of your Proto-Vedic are Satem languages while others are
>That is correct. I am basing my tree on the comment from the famous
> 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 )