Re: [tied] Latin versus *Proto-Romance

 I wrote:
(One of my favorite positions is Witzel's statement that'Harappan' could not
be 'Vedic' because 'Harappan' did not have the horse -- which seems like
saying that 'cowboys' were not 'American' because 'cowboys' did not use
automobiles.)

Juha Savolainen <juhavs@...> wrote:
<<Your analogy is misleading. An correct analogy would state, say, that the
Pre-Columbian Indians could not have been conquistadors because former did
not know the horse…>>

Juha,
Sorry, but I'd suggest you are illustrating the power of the presumption.
There's no clear evidence that the horse and Vedic showed up at the same
time. There is nothing in the Vedas that says, "hey, we brought the first
horses into town." Unless you can C-14 the sound changes, it's just as easy
to assume that IE was in India long before the horse arrived -- and the
evidence does not entirely exclude the possibility IE arrived long after.

Maybe the better analogy would be like saying that Thomas Jefferson wasn't
American because he didn't have rock 'n roll (with a pace to those who think
rock 'n roll has always been with us.)

Steve Long