Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian) Langauges

What is a substrate and what does Nahali become when it has absorbed
several layers from substrates? Where is this substrate? Can this be
identified and isolated for all bharatiya languages?

Why should Nahali be seen to have absorbed from Marathi? Why not
vice-versa? Is it not possible that the formation of Marathi language
had its roots taken from Nahali substrate (despite Bloch's initial
theses)?

What about Southworth's work on fauna terms in bharatiya languages?
Why should Colin Masica's language x be restricted to only hindi? Why
not look upon this language x as the bharatiya 'substrate', the
proto-vedic? After all, other evidences point to the possibility of a
proto-indic as van Driem surmises.

What is wrong with Mario Alinei's Paleolithic Continuity Theory? It if
after all one linguist's view. Surely, many IEL linguists have many
views. How does IEL decide upon who is on the right and who is on the
wrong track? This is the precise question posed in the monograph; is
IEL an ideology or what, for example, assuming invasions everywhere to
explain language change? Is this the only model to view language
evolution?

S. Kalyanaraman