[tied] Re: New file uploaded to cybalist

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 3:22 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: New file uploaded to cybalist
>
>
> > Hallstatt D archeological complex and the Celtic homeland question.
> >
> > The chaotic situation about the IE homeland search is well known, but
> > even the various sub IE homelands like the Celtic are under scrutiny.
> > Some quotes from "The Celts," John Davies, 2000, Cassell and
> > Company, London, United Kingdom. The jacket says Dr. John Davies is
> > an Honorary Professor at the University of Wales and a specialist in
> > Celtic history.
> <snip>
>
> > "Invasionism lost favor from the 1950's onwards-the era, significantly
> > perhaps of rapid desalinization. Instead, emphasis was placed upon the
> > capacity of indigenous societies to innovate and develop (p. 26, 28).
> >
> > posted by M. Kelkar
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> It is truly sad to be forced to realize how much fashionable political
> doctrines impinge on what purports to be true science.
>
> Out of a legitimate feeling of respect for all peoples, gradually a

doctrine

> of exclusive indigenous development has been promoted to explain the
> emergence of all higher cultures; and this doctrine is fascistically
> enforced in our educational system, regardless of the evidence. All

pretense

> at freedom of speech has been sacrificed on the altar of feel-good
> hypersaccharinity.
>
> I have an open mind when it comes to the Indian situation; but in

the case

> of Egypt, with which I am quite familiar, indigenous development is the
> forced explanation for the bloom of civilization in pre-dynastic

Egypt when

> the evidence is overwhelming that the arrival of an intrusive group

with

> Mesopotamian cultural connections coincided with the great advance.
>
> There are a substantial number of academics who will support the

truth only

> when it does not offend. Unfortunately, some truths do offend -

though, of

> course, it never should.
>
> Indian (or Bharati; I like that terminology) is especially

interesting in

> this regard. On the one hand, we have the Dravidian languages which

preserve

> the qualities of the Nostratic vowels but butcher the consonants; on

the

> other hand, Old Indian, which butchers the Nostratic vowels, but

keeps the

> consonant inventory fairly much intact.
>
> My best guess is that a group of Dravidian-speakers migrated

northward out

> of Bharat, developed their language into Indo-Iranian, or adopted
> Indo-Iranian, and then returned to Bharat. But, I am the first to

admit, it

> is only a guess.
>
> Mr. Kelkar's idea (I think) that Old Indian and Dravidian (among

others)

> developed _concurrently_ in Bharat is linguistically unsupportable -

unless

> one is willing to postulated an intrusive presence among

Dravidian-speakers

> than pauperized the language. I support an ancient connection

between the

> two language families but one located 8-10,000 years ago.
>

That is pefect! We question the rigid tree model used by IEL on
Bharatiya languages. Oppenheimer's black mitochondrial Eve is
ancestral to brown, olive, red, yellow, white and everything in
between, people. As one goes far back into history the linguisic
boundaries become indelineable.

According to Are Akkermans a member of Yahoogroup pieml:

"Recently within the fashionable trend of

> "Tibeto-Himalayan" Linguistics there have been a lot
> of questioning about Nepali and the Easternmost IE
> languages. Phonomorphological and phonotactic
> studies
> have shown these languages to be de facto IE

More such phonomorpholgical and phonotactic studies are needed for
Bharatiya languages.

M. kelkar