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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

> ****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.*****

It does seem that Indic developed outside India (sensu lato), but I
kept the designation general because I'm not sure of the strength of
the evidence. For example, the Indo-Iranian-speaking rulers of
Mitanni appear to have been Indo-Aryan rather than Iranian.

Richard.