Re: [tied] Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian)

--- Richard Wordingham
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> <gknysh@...> wrote:
> But to my mind, the
> > bottom line is this quote from Witzel:
> >
> >
> > > However,
> > > linguists and philologists still maintain, and
> for
> > > good reasons,
> > > that some IA speaking groups actually entered
> from
> > > the outside, via
> > > some of the (north)western corridors of the
> > > subcontinent.
> >
> > And that's all that is required. Without such an
> > "invasion", no matter what the subsequent story of
> who
> > or what contributed more or less to linguistic
> change,
> > there would have been no implantation and
> development
> > of Indo-Aryan in India.
>
> Suppose the IIr immigrants

****GK: Has anyone argued that the "outside contact"
(however large or small) was IIr rather than IA? I.e.
that the development of IA was a strictly Indian
affair after entry by IIr? That, it seems to me, would
be difficult to maintain.*****

grew in numbers not by

> natural
> multiplication but by recruiting locals - possibly
> farmers, possibly
> other pastoralists. This would leave little genetic
> signature, and
> their gaining power as the Indus civilisation
> collapsed would then be
> a transfer from one group of locals to another.

*****GK: That is certainly an arguable proposition.
BTW I am amazed at the Indocentrists' assumption that
the arrival of IA speakers into India long ago (which
they reject) has anything to do with "European
imperialism". Whoever they were, these people were
more than likely "Asians", with no memory of or
committment to "European values" of the objectional
kind. Furthermore (correct me if I'm wrong)it is not
my impression that the Anglos of the 19th and 20th c.
considered the Hindus as their long lost brothers and
sisters...****

>
> Richard.
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com