--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
[ACTUALLY, SRINIVAS KALYANARAMAN]wrote:
> What is wrong with Mario Alinei's Paleolithic Continuity Theory?
It is > 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?
The scholars whose Indo-European linguistic theories you so
tenaciously combat no longer entertain the old view that an invasion
was responsible for the introduction of Indo-Aryan languages in
South Asia. The only notable exception is nowadays represented by
Asko Parpola, who unconvincingly postulates a series of proto-
historic Indo-Aryan invasions of the Indian subcontinent.
As to Mario Alinei's "Palaeolithic Continuity Theory", on which your
and Kelkar's new (?) "Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya
(Indian) Languages" rests (but you have "discovered" Alinei on the
Internet only a few months ago! -- I have the proof for this), and
about which, in a private message you circulated to tens of members
of various discussion forums today, you state "Yes, we are
questioning the comparative method of IEL, rejecting the invasionist
models of IEL and following Mario Alineo's Paleolithic Continuity
Theory Model. Any problems with that?": can any member of this List
among those who, unlike myself, Kelkar and Kalyanaraman, are
knowledgeable in the principles underlying historical linguistics,
just say a word about the validity of this theory? Remember that
Alinei was was president of the _Atlas Linguarum Europae_ at UNESCO!
Thanks.
Francesco Brighenti