>
> > This study proves nothing
> > when it comes to Indo-Aryan languages
> > being invaders from outside.
> > This invasion is a fact,
> > not a kind of "working hypothesis".
> >
> > Denying that is absurd.
> >
> > Arnaud
>
> "This invasion is a fact,
> > not a kind of "working hypothesis"."
===================
A Fact must be based on objectively verifiable evidence.
The only "evidence" you have is the hypothetically
reconstructed PIE which is basically Greek phonology
tagged on to Sansrkit vocabulary.
M. Kelkar
====================
I agree that orthodox PIE is a kind of
super-proto-vedic improved by the addition of laryngeals
and the lexical clean-up of the other languages.
The word *hypothetically* is tendentious.
Proto-Central PIE is a great achievement of linguistics.
Even though it's not Proto-PIE.
ARnaud
==============
Such a reconstruction is not sufficient to locate where and when this
language may have been spoken. There are about
seventy working hypotheses about that question (Mallory). The area NW
India-Pakistan
is definitely one of these working hypotheses.
M. Kelkar
====================
No,
NW India-Pakistan
is not a *working* hypothesis.
It's about as idiotic as Egypt or the north pole
which are listed among the 70 hypotheses of Mallory
about all absurd and inadequate in the first place.
If you read Mallory, you should know that the major
argument for a location of PIE in eastern Europe
is the clear possibility to ascribe river names to languages.
In Eastern Europe, it looks like there is no *substrate*
PIE languages were always there.
You will never be able to make such a claim with
Egypt, the north pole or NW India-Pakistan
There are only two contenders standing
- Anatolia (my choice)
- Eastern Europe
Arnaud
=================