Re: beyond langauges

From: mkelkar2003
Message: 58080
Date: 2008-04-26

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 2:46:29 PM on Saturday, April 26, 2008, mkelkar2003
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 1:53:53 PM on Saturday, April 26, 2008, mkelkar2003
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> >>> <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >>>> At 1:31:59 PM on Saturday, April 26, 2008, mkelkar2003
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Witzel does. Mittani Indo Aryan aika>Sanskrit eka
> >>>>>> hence Vedas are younger than 1500 BCE.
>
> >>>>>> QED
>
> >>>>> Also Indo-Eurasian research msg # 9913
>
> >>>>> "G. Thompson writes:
>
> >>>>>> the numbers are Indo-Aryan, not Iranian. aika > eka
> >>>>>> [contrast Avestan aiwa]; satta > sapta [contrast
> >>>>>> Avestan hapta]. Bjarte is right to leave this
> >>>>>> question to Indologists or Iranists, because we can
> >>>>>> tell the difference between Indo-Aryan and Iranian
> >>>>>> words, as well as their gods.
>
> >>>> Obviously irrelevant: the question was whether anyone
> >>>> distinguished the terms 'Indo-Aryan' and 'Indic'.
>
> >>> aika is Indo-Aryan and eka is Indic.
>
> >> Which has nothing to do with the G. Thompson quotation
> >> above.
>
> >>> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.htm
>
> >>> "Again, if there was an (early) emigration out of India
> >>> by (Vedic) Indo-Aryans it would be surprising that even
> >>> the Mitanni documents do not show typical South Asian
> >>> influence.[N.153] Rather, is obvious that the remnants
> >>> of early IA in Mitanni belong to a pre-Rgvedic stage of
> >>> IA, "
>
> >> And now we see that [your] earlier claim was mistaken: he
> >> does not make a terminological distinction between
> >> 'Indo-Aryan' and 'Indic'.
>
> I note that you fail to acknowledge the error on your part.
>
> >>> So there WAS an EARLY IA before the PROPER IA of the Rig
> >>> Veda.
>
> >> 'Indo-Aryan' refers to a *family* of languages. Of course
> >> this family has representatives from different periods.
> >> Punjabi (for instance), is a modern representative; Vedic
> >> Sanskrit is a much older representative; and the traces
> >> of an IA language in Mitanni appear to represent an older
> >> stage yet. This has nothing to do with the original
> >> question.
>
> > That is not how the family tree model works. Every stage
> > is given a new name. For example, IIr branches into
> > Indo-Aryan and Ir. If there was an earlier stage of IA it
> > must be given a different name.
>
> Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is for *you*, of all
> people, to presume to explain how the family tree model
> works?
>
> > If an argument is advanced that aika>eka then they BOTH
> > cannot be from the same language or even the same family
> > of langauges.
>
> Utter rubbish. By this 'reasoning' Old English <hyll> and
> its present-day reflex <hill> cannot be from the same family
> of languages.
>
> Brian

That is not comparable. There is also a geography factor here.
Mittani Indo-Aryan and regular IA are found thousands of miles apart.
After spliting from IIr one branch went to the near east with their
aika language and the other went to India with their eka language.
They both cannot be called Indo-Aryan.

M. Kelkar
>