--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...>
wrote:
> Hock's (1996) work summarized and quoted by Kazanas (2002)
You always quote from summaries of linguistic works made by your
favourite 2-3 "out-of-India" authors (Elst, Talageri, now Kazanas:
always the same restricted group of authors, which are also
profusely quoted in the numerous Wikipedia articles you -- I am
almost sure of that -- contribute to compile and edit under fake
IDs). Why don't you read the originals?
> http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/IIR.pdf
> "Then Hock, unaware of J. Nichols's evidence which requires a locus
> of dispersal at Bactria Sogdiana (unlike his own vague vast area
> from "East Central Europe to Eastern Russia," p. 17), nonetheless
> indicated that there are no substantial linguistic arguments
> against the proposition that IE branches moved out of India...
> He states also that PIE could be "a priori" have been originally
> spoken in India (p. 11)..."
Since you continue to cite this single passage from H.H. Hock's
article as if that author considered the AMT and the OIT equally
legitimate, I will quote the conclusions of that same article, which
I have here on my desk:
"Neither the 'Sanskrit-origin' variant [S.S. Misra's theory positing
that Vedic Sanskrit represents PIE] nor the 'PIE in India' variant,
thus, turns out to provide credible support for the 'Out-of-India'
hypothesis.Rather, the linguistic evidence still favors the
prevailing Indo-Europeanist perspective that the speakers of Indo-
Aryan migrated into India."
Period. Stop misrepresenting Hock's position, please.
FB