--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...>
wrote:
..............
> Swept the convergence model away in favor of the tree model meaning
> Koerner (n.d.), "the linguists, argued in favour of strict
separation of
> > > particularities of language and matters external to them.."
>
> This is evident in the reconstructed PIE. This endeavor has no
doubt
> been a great intellectual achaivement but from a practical
standpoint
> it assumes that an airtight compartment called PIE was dropped
> somewhere at A point in time from outer space. The compartment
opened
> and people with some unique physical characteristics that no one
> wants to talk about today, fanned out in a CENTRIFUGAL manner.
Regarding the convergence model of which you spoke earlier, i.e:
"Daniel Garrison Brinton (18371899) rejected the `blond Aryan model',
arguing that "at the earliest period, both in Europe and Asia, the
majority of Aryan-speaking peoples were brunettes" (1890:147), and
that "the original inflected Aryan tongue arose from the coalescing of
the two or more uninflected agglutinative or semi-incorporative
tongues, the mingling of the speeches being accompanied, as always, by
a mingling of blood and physical traits" (p.149).5"
It should be noted that the convergence being described is in the
origin of PIE, a single language- Brinton said "tongue" and
not "tongues"- thus the questions of original location and subsequent
spread once the language arose are no different than in the models
you question. Nothing in the short quote you have selected from
Brinton's hypothesis requires that PIE arose in an extensive zone,
nor in any particular location, and it is irrelevant to the AIT/OIT
debate. A people whose language had mixed origins could "fan out in a
CENTRIFUGAL manner" just as well as a people whose language did not.
The
> presumed centrifugality of expansion puts India at a disadvantage
> because of its geographical location.
How is it any sort of advantage or disadvantage where a language
originated? And even if for the sake of argument one conceded there
was a disadvantage attached, what has that to do with the accuracy or
inaccuracy of a hypothesis?
Best regards,
Ned Smith