Re: [tied] Latin versus *Proto-Romance

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, x99lynx@... wrote:

>  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

Thomas Jefferson is a dead white man, so he can't have been American.

Torsten