Re: beyond langauges

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "kishore patnaik"
<kishorepatnaik09@...> wrote:

>
> I am not denying the Aryan element in Mittanni. Cf my earlier
> posts.

I see now. You merely believe that to be what the main-
stream view claims. It's not, however.

> Also, it is universally agreed that there is no Aryan
> aristocracy in Mitanni.

No, there is no such agreement. The Aryans in Mitanni
likely were, at least at some point in time, in some
sort of superstratal position, to have left traces of
the sort they did.

> It is also agreed that there is no Iranaian influence on
> Mitannis. (cf the recent discussions in IER. I am yet to
> read the discussions in Ind Arch, the thread there also
> was initiated by me) Yet, the Indic Aryan element (which
> was present solely in Royal and warfare issues in 15th c
> itself ) is yet to be explained correctly,

It's been explained quite correctly: some Indo-Aryans
moved a relatively short distance from their homeland
in Central Asia onto the Iranian plateau, for which
presence of theirs there some evidence besides that in
Mitanni has been found as well, and subsequently some
of their descendants moved a little further west into
Mitanni.

There's no big or elaborate mystery, and no need for a
big or elaborate explanation.

- edit -

> Now, the core issue revolves round two things, former of
> them being accepted by main stream westerners: one,. that
> the mitannis somehow determine the dating of RV

No, that's not the case.

> and two, that if the influence of an Indic aryan (not Ilr
> or Iranian) is clearly present on mitannis, without the
> presence of the Aryans themselves, then where were they?

There clearly were Aryans in Mitanni at some point in
time, and, as far as I know, nobody on cybalist has ever
claimed otherwise, including yourself.

> So far I am concerned, it would be too premature to offer an
> explanation for this issue,

Well, as I hope you can see by now, there's no need to
explain such an issue, because none such as you describe
actually exists. It's just a misunderstanding of what
you've read.

> since there are no archaelogical or liturargical data available.

What's the significance of the word 'archaeological' in
'Andronovo archaeological complex' then?

> So far linguistics is concered, cf above, presence of Indic
> Aryans seemed to have thrown them into a confusion. - hitting
> at postulation of a proto Ilr .

No, the positing of Proto-Indo-Iranian had nothing to do
with the discovery of a one-time presence of Indo-Aryans
in Mitanni. The loanwords in question have added little,
if anything at all, to the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-
Iranian, which is based, rather, mostly upon a comparison
of Vedic, Sanskrit, Avestan, and Old Persian. Proto-Indo-
Iranian would stands just as solidly even if we excluded
consideration of Mitanni altogether.

> This postulation was made because of the similarities between
> Iranian and Indic languages

Yes, of course. It's inescapable that the Indo-Aryan and
Iranian language families are related and hence share a
common ancestor. Using standard terminology that common
ancestor is called 'Proto-Indo-Iranian'.

> and hence, suggestions of a homeland, which is theoritically
> is where the branching is not existant.

No, that's not true, nor supposed by anybody. Have you
looked at a map yet and seen how large the area is in
which Andronovo artifacts have been found?

Consider too how the relatively small island nation of
Britain has more dialects of English than anywhere else.

> However, presence of only Indic Aryans (without Ilr or Ir)
> suggests that the branching, if any, must have taken place
> much earlier

Naturally.

> and this led the author to suggest that the branching must have
> been made at homeland itself !!!!

Or else somewhere between the homeland and Mitanni.

> In othere words, the very defintion of homeland is negated

That is not the definition of a homeland, hopefully you
understand by now.

> and it means there is no homeland at all.

No, it means nothing of the sort.

> I am not sure whether I am clear but this is what I am calling as
> ciruclar reference.

Well the argument as you've misunderstood it may well be
circular, I don't know, but the actual argument is not
what you imagine it to be:

Nobody supposes there were never any Aryans in Mitanni.

Nobody supposes that a language can only separate into
dialects after leaving its original territory.

The dating of the Rig Veda is not based upon the traces
of Indo-Aryan found in Mitanni, though found consistent
with the latter's dating it has been.

Proto-Indo-Iranian wasn't posited to explain those same
traces either.

David