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

At 9:56:05 AM on Sunday, November 6, 2005, mkelkar2003
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 7:34:52 PM on Saturday, November 5, 2005, mkelkar2003
>> wrote:

>>> As I have noted already IE linguists H. H. Hock and
>>> linguists Johanna Nichols are not in disfavor of a IE
>>> homeland in the Indian subcontinent.

>> That you have made the claim before doesn't make it true.
>> Certainly Hock argued against the out-of-India hypothesis in
>> 1999. And Bactria-Sogdiana isn't India.

> I said Indian Subcontinent not the modern nation state of
> India.

And I'm talking about the subcontinent.

> About Hock, no need to take my word for it. See p.9 bottom
> of the page, and p. 14 second para,

> <http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/ait_and_scholarship.pdf>

> "What is most important here is that according to Hock
> THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIAL LINGUSITIC ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
> PROPSITION THAT IE BRANCHES MOVED OUT OF INDIA (Kazanas
> 2001, emphasis in the original)."

Which is not the same as finding no difficulties with the
proposition.

[...]

> And finally,

> <http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/reviews/hock.html?

> "Indeed, Prof. Hock himself accepts that pinpointing the
> exact location in this vast stretch of land is a question
> which "may, in fact, never be settled". (p.17) But if it
> is too early to exclude any part of this territory from
> possible Homeland status, is it so crazy to suggest that
> the exclusion of India may have been premature as well?"

The second sentence is Elst talking, not Hock, and
implicitly acknowledges that Hock did *not* include India as
a possible IE homeland. Did you even bother to read the
whole thing? A bit further along (§6.3) Elst quotes Hock as
follows:

To be able to account for these dialectological
relationships, the 'Out-of-India' approach would have to
assume, first, that these relationships reflect a stage of
dialectal diversity in a Proto-Indo-European ancestor
language located within India. While this assumption is
not in itself improbable, it has consequences which, to
put it mildly, border on the improbable and certainly
would violate basic principles of simplicity. What would
have to be assumed is that the various Indo-European
languages moved out of India in such a manner that they
maintained their relative position to each other during
and after the migration. However, given the bottle-neck
nature of the route(s) out of India, it would be immensely
difficult to do so.

Once again your reportage is either incompetent or
dishonest.

Brian