--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- mkelkar2003 <smykelkar@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> > <gknysh@...> wrote:
> GK: There are so many well-attested instances
> > of
> > > "invasions" (large, small, middling etc..) in
> > human
> > > history that the national-autochtonist position
> >
> > Calling an authochtonist position nationalistic is
> > stereotyping the
> > opponent to avoid answering them.
>
> ****GK: "national-autochtonism" is not "nationalism".
> It refers to the notion that a particular ethnos or
> nation considers itself "autochtonic". Capis
> differentiam?*****
>
>
> Whether or not
> > his theory is
> > correct Alinei is no Italian nationalist. Indeed
> > autochtonism is the
> > by *default* hypothesis.
>
> ****GK: There are no "default" hypotheses. Everything
> must be proven.*****
Is that really so? Continuity is the best explanation in the absence
of any other. Occam's razor!
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (2002), "Archaeology and Language: The
Indo-Iranians," Current Anthropology, 43 (1, Feb), p. 64-75.
""The Australian linguist R. M. W. Dixon (1997) has given new life to
the importance of linguistic convergence first advocated by Trubetskoy
(1968, 1939). Dixon (1997: 3) convincingly argues that migrations
which trigger linguistic (and cultural) divergence are rare, the more
normal situation being linguistic and I daresay cultural, convergence
(Lamberg-Karlosvky 2002, p. 74)."
Philip Kohl (2002) commenting on the Lamberg-Karlovsky article,
Current Anthropology, 43 (1, Feb), p. 77-78.
"Similarly, I (Kohl) find myself in broad agreement with his
(Lamberg-Karlovsky's) critique of the dominant linguistic-divergence
model (a multibranched tree with its trunk rooted in a mythical
homeland) and his suggestion that we concentrate on fusion of
languages rather than on their division. If cultures are never made
but always in the making, as many contemporary theorist would argue,
then the same is manifestly true for languages, and the search for
ultimate origins-cultural or linguistic-is largely illusory (Kohl
2002, p. 77)."
"As Mario Alinei notes, James Mallory, probably the last archaeologist
who defends the IE invasion theory, has had to concede: "the
archaeologists' easiest pursuit [is] the demonstration of relative
continuity and absence of intrusion" (Mallory 1989, 81)."
M. kelkar
> Invasions and migrations,
> > as the IEL now want
> > to call them must be proven. Occam's razor applies
> > here.
>
> *****GK: How do you prove to me that my native
> language (Ukrainian) ultimately derives from an "out
> of India" migration? Apply Ockham's razor.*****
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>