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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 9:38:51 PM on Friday, February 15, 2008, mkelkar2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 6:19:47 PM on Friday, February 15, 2008, mkelkar2003
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> >>> <gpiotr@> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 2008-02-15 22:44, mkelkar2003 wrote:
>
> >>>>> The best fit model obtained by Ringe et. al. fits the
> >>>>> above secnerio very well.
>
> >>>> No, it doesn't. In all their trees the first split is
> >>>> between Anatolian and "non-Anatolian IE", and then
> >>>> non-Anatolian IE splits into Tocharian and "the rest" --
> >>>> the crown group of IE. None of the analyses suggests
> >>>> anything corresponding to Elst's "zone A" or to
> >>>> "Tocharo-Italo-Celtic".
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>>>> Elst's (2000) Group A would be far right in Fig 12 and
> >>>>> Group B far left.
>
> >>>> This reading of the tree proves that you don't even
> >>>> understand what a phylogeny means.
>
> >>> I am not talking about splitting Fig 12 in the middle! Follow the
> >>> diagram in Fig 12 from right to left
>
> >>> "Initially, there was a single PIE language.
>
> >>> That is the highest point where the tree begins.
>
> >>> 2) The first division of PIE yielded two dialect groups,
> >>> which will be called A and B. Originally they co-existed
> >>> in the same area, and influenced each other, but
> >>> geographical separation put an end to this interaction.
>
> >>> Group A and B are BEFORE Anatolian splits off.
>
> >> The tree shows no such split. The very first split shown in
> >> this tree is between Anatolian, on the one hand, and
> >> everything else, on the other.
>
> >>> Group A is HI, LU, LY, TB, TA, OI, WE, LA, OS, UM
>
> >>> Group B is the remainder
>
> >> The tree does not show a split between HI, LU, LY, TB, TA,
> >> OI, WE, LA, OS, and UM, on the one hand, and everything
> >> else, on the other.
>
> > Elst (2000) is talking about zones and not actual splits
> > among the languages.
>
> If so, then he doesn't know what he's talking about. But
> since you've already proved that you don't know what you're
> talking about, and I haven't read him directly, I'll
> withhold judgement on him in this matter.
>
> [...]
>
> >> It also does not show a Tocharo-Italo-Celtic group: the
> >> only group that it shows that contains all of OS, UM, LA,
> >> OI, WE, TB, and TA is the group that contains *all* of
> >> the non-Anatolian dialects.
>
> > There is no need for an Tocharo Italo-Celtic group.
>
> That's entirely beside the point. You claimed that it
> showed one. It doesn't. You clearly didn't understand what
> you were looking at. I very much doubt that you understand
> it even now.
>
> [...]
>
> > All that matters is, is the present distribution of IE
> > languages compatible with an Indian Homeland scenerio.
>
> It isn't.
>
> Brian
>

It is. Here, read Elst directly. Skip to section 6

<http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/hock.html>

" Most linguistic arguments given here by Prof. Hock and Prof. Michael
Witzel cause no serious problem to the theory that the IE family
originated in India."

" As far as I can see from Prof. Hock's presentation, the twofold
scenario outlined above is compatible with all the linguistic
developments mentioned by him. The one difficult case is Greek, which
shares a number of innovations with Indo-Iranian, yet has also missed
out on others just like its Western neighbours (non-merged a/e/o
vowels, Kentum). Perhaps Greek was late to leave yet had retained its
Kentum forms even when surrounded by increasingly satemized dialects,
just as the Indian-but-Kentum language proto-Bangani seems to have
managed until some time within living memory. Some dialects just
happen to be more conservative than others, e.g. Greek is usually
reckoned as the most conservative regarding the PIE vowels, more
faithful to the old vowel distinctions than any of its neighbours at
any time."

M. Kelkar