--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...>
wrote:
>
> No. We are looking for a term to define non-Dardic IA
> of the Indian subcontinent.
There's no need for such a term, as far as I can see.
'Dardic' was orginally employed as a cover term for a
group of Indo-Iranian dialects based entirely on their
geographical location, not due to their constituting
a proper genetic sub-group.
Once the Dardic group was examined more carefully, it
was found to include Kafiri, which was recognized as
a separate branch of Indo-Iranian, as well as a number
of Indo-Aryan dialects actually forming a proper sub-
group. The Kafiri dialects were, naturally, removed,
but 'Dardic' was retained for the remaining Indo-Aryan
dialects which formed a sub-group. That group's also
referred to as 'North-West Indo-Aryan', and which is
probably to be preferred to 'Dardic'.
> Max suggested Indic.
> Brian pointed out that in accordance to academic
> nomenclature, Indic and Indo-Aryan are the same thing.
They're synonymous when the context is understood as
being entirely Indo-European, otherwise confusion can
arise in such cases as when we wish, for example, to
discuss an Indic Tibeto-Burman or Indic Austro-Asiatic
language.
David