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

From: mkelkar2003
Message: 41819
Date: 2005-11-06

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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.

Yes. Please see pages 2-8 below.

<http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/akhena.pdf>

M. kelkar



>