[tied] Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian) Lang

From: mkelkar2003
Message: 41856
Date: 2005-11-07

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 9:56:05 AM on Sunday, November 6, 2005, mkelkar2003
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> >> At 7:34:52 PM on Saturday, November 5, 2005, mkelkar2003
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> As I have noted already IE linguists H. H. Hock and
> >>> linguists Johanna Nichols are not in disfavor of a IE
> >>> homeland in the Indian subcontinent.
>
> >> That you have made the claim before doesn't make it true.
> >> Certainly Hock argued against the out-of-India hypothesis in
> >> 1999. And Bactria-Sogdiana isn't India.
>
> > I said Indian Subcontinent not the modern nation state of
> > India.
>
> And I'm talking about the subcontinent.

Click on the map of the Indian sucontinent below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:South_asia.jpg

"South Asia is often synonymous with the Indian subcontinent, and
includes the following neighboring states:

* India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; constituting the bulk of the
subcontinent proper
* Himalayan States: Nepal and Bhutan
* Indian Ocean Island Nations - Sri Lanka, the Maldives"


Afghanistan is not listed but is shown on the Map.

Also refer to the Nadi Sukta The River Hymn of the Rig Veda:

" Favour ye this my laud, O Ganga, Yamuna, O Sutudri, Parusni and
Sarasvati:
With Asikni, Vitasta, O Marudvrdha, O Arjikiya with Susoma hear my call.
6 First with Trstama thou art eager to flow forth, with Rasa, and
Susartu, and with Svetya here,
With Kubha; and with these, Sindhu and Mehatnu, thou seekest in thy
course Krumu and Gomati."

<http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10075.htm>

Gomati is the modern Gomal.



>
> > About Hock, no need to take my word for it. See p.9 bottom
> > of the page, and p. 14 second para,
>
> > <http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/ait_and_scholarship.pdf>
>
> > "What is most important here is that according to Hock
> > THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIAL LINGUSITIC ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
> > PROPSITION THAT IE BRANCHES MOVED OUT OF INDIA (Kazanas
> > 2001, emphasis in the original)."
>
> Which is not the same as finding no difficulties with the
> proposition.
>
> [...]
>

What?


> > And finally,
>
> > <http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/reviews/hock.html?
>
> > "Indeed, Prof. Hock himself accepts that pinpointing the
> > exact location in this vast stretch of land is a question
> > which "may, in fact, never be settled". (p.17) But if it
> > is too early to exclude any part of this territory from
> > possible Homeland status, is it so crazy to suggest that
> > the exclusion of India may have been premature as well?"
>
> The second sentence is Elst talking, not Hock, and
> implicitly acknowledges that Hock did *not* include India as
> a possible IE homeland. Did you even bother to read the
> whole thing? A bit further along (ยง6.3) Elst quotes Hock as
> follows:
>
> To be able to account for these dialectological
> relationships, the 'Out-of-India' approach would have to
> assume, first, that these relationships reflect a stage of
> dialectal diversity in a Proto-Indo-European ancestor
> language located within India. While this assumption is
> not in itself improbable, it has consequences which, to
> put it mildly, border on the improbable and certainly
> would violate basic principles of simplicity. What would
> have to be assumed is that the various Indo-European
> languages moved out of India in such a manner that they
> maintained their relative position to each other during
> and after the migration. However, given the bottle-neck
> nature of the route(s) out of India, it would be immensely
> difficult to do so.
>
> Once again your reportage is either incompetent or
> dishonest.
>
> Brian
>

I am quite aware of Dr. Elst's position from his voluminous posting
activity on the IndianCivilization Yahoogroup. Perhaps some of these
bottlnecks may be resolved upon rearranging the IE family tree
according to the latest research. Please see the links on section 9.7
p. 61 of proto-vedic continuity.doc

M. Kelkar