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

--- mkelkar2003 <smykelkar@...> wrote:

> These kinds of questions start arising when one
> starts treating PIE as
> a historically attested fact. The "mainstream"
> view is only one of
> the possible options.

****GK: Just as there are many possible options to any
question or issue, usually one that is right and very
many that aren't.(:=))******

>
> You don't need to explain why it is only
> > the IE component of "proto-Vedic" which somehow
> > wandered northward, leaving the others behind.
>
> You probably mean the E component not the IE
> component. To use the
> standard IEL terminiology, in our model, only Vedic
> stays in the
> Indian subcontinent. Anatolian "migrates" to the
> middle east,
> Tocharian migrates to the east, Illryic/Dardic goes
> to north east and
> north. I don't know how they will "migrate." But IE
> linguists don't
> know that either.

*****GK: I wasn't talking about this, but about
another problem altogether, viz., how your hypothesis
explains the fact that ONLY Vedic has components in it
specific to the Indian subcontinent (Munda, Dravidian,
language X) while none of the other IE languages do,
to my knowledge at any rate. If all major families of
IE (except Vedic) migrated out of India, and stayed in
India a while next to each other prior to this
migration, shouldn't Anatolian, Tocharian,
Illyric/Dardic (those you have mentioned) have
retained in their structure some Munda, Dravidian,
etc..? The mainstream IE theory explains this very
well. And that is why it is far closer to the truth
than your view IMHO.*****

> > >
> > > The model we present in Fig 1 p. 63 is as
> > > unfalsiable as the current
> > > consensus tree. As always non-linguistic
> evidence
> > > is the ultimate
> > > adjudicator of the matter. All I can say is that
> > > genetic evidence
> > > points to a flow of humans from the Indian
> > > subcontinent to the north
> > > not the other way round.
> >
> > GK: So "genetic evidence" as you understand
> it
> > contradicts the verifiable "flow of humans" from
> the
> > north into the Indian subcontinent in historical
> > times?...
>
>
> That it DEFINITELY does. One can look at gene
> markers through a
> microscope.

****GK: In that case, if genetics is incapable of
confirming facts we know to have definitely occurred
(the historical in-migrations) it should not be
mentioned at all as a relevant factor in the
discussion of whether pre-historic migration(s)brought
IA into India or not.*****






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