> --- In email@example.com, "David Russell Watson"
>Please leave Kak out of this and any future discussion
> I have clearly mentioned what is the dffierence- undeniable
> indic aryan influence , quite strong, is present on mittani.
> However, it is not to be surmised that it points to an Aryan
> Aristocracy ( say, as postulated by subhash kak).
> Whether this is accepted or not by mainstreamers, pleaseWhat standard books would those be?
> refer to any standard books on the issue
> or better still, please refer to the messages by Bjarte KYou're referring to Indo-Eurasian_research/message/9721
> on IER.
> > It's been explained quite correctly: some Indo-AryansHaven't you mentioned yourself before the idea that Indo-
> > 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.
> Agreed , if that is what you think but where is the proof?
> You can not design the itinerary of the indic aryans as youWhy would this itinerary please _me_?
> > > Now, the core issue revolves round two things, former ofBy "that's not the case", I mean that your claim, quoted
> > > them being accepted by main stream westerners: one,. that
> > > the mitannis somehow determine the dating of RV
> > No, that's not the case.
> At least for the purpose of the thread that I have started ,
> that is the case.
> > There clearly were Aryans in Mitanni at some point in time,"universally agreeable guess" is a nonsensical construct.
> > and, as far as I know, nobody on cybalist has ever claimed
> > otherwise, including yourself.
> this is exactly the popint. There must have been Aryans
> in Mitannis "at some point of time" except that nooone
> including the most authority on mitannis is not able to
> hazard a universally agreeable guess
> when this "some point of time" is and more importantly , inThat, again, is not the case. Much can and has been said
> what form or where Aryans were stationed when they came
> into the contact with Mitanni.
> > No, the positing of Proto-Indo-Iranian had nothing to doNo, that is not what I'm saying, and I can't believe that
> > 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.
> David, you are saying what exactly I am saying PIIr will
> stand solidly ONLY if we exclude the mitanni evidence.
> It will crumble once you start considering it ...Not at all. I don't know why you think that is so.
> Ultimately, this is a historian's issueAny historian who wants to try to do history without the
> and linguists are too confused to explain the whole thing.Why do you keep caricaturing linguists as confused? You