Re: Meaning of Aryan: now, "white people"?

It's a matter of faith for him, not science. His view
of science is exactly the same as the creationists
--pick and chose pits of info until you hobble
together a house of cards.


--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> On 2008-02-15 20:16, mkelkar2003 wrote:
>
> > That is not my position. Rig Veda is a sacred text
> to me. But it does
> > not support either the OIT or the AIT. I have no
> intention of leaving
> > this list. A trained Indo-European linguist H. H.
> Hock has been quoted
> > as saying that PIE could have been aprori be
> spoken in India.
>
> It could have been spoken anywhere -- in Patagonia,
> Ireland or South
> Africa -- if a sensible scenario of linguistic
> dispersal from such a
> homeland could be proposed. You present the problem
> of IE origins as if
> there were two competing theories: (1) PIE
> originated in India; (2) PIE
> originated somewhere else. Why not the
> Out-of-Ireland Theory vs. the
> Gaelic Invasion Theory (GIT)? In fact, the AIT and
> the OIT are not even
> mutually antithetic. AIT is _not_ about the origin
> of PIE at all, but
> about the origin of the Indo-Aryan languages -- one
> of about a dozen
> branches of the IE family. From a general IE
> perspective it's a
> peripheral problem, not "the heart of the matter".
> It's all been said
> here before, more than once, and I don't think
> whipping this dead horse
> again serves any useful purpose.
>
> Piotr
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs