From: mkelkar2003
Message: 41819
Date: 2005-11-06
>Yes. Please see pages 2-8 below.
> --- 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.
>