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

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

>
>
>
> --- 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..?

We are not using a tree model but a network or a web model. Those
other features are not genetically imparted through proto-Vedic. The
migrations could be worked out chronologically to aviod this problem.
Besides our model does not *start* with proto-Vedic. Proto Vedic is
itself a branch of of Eurasiatic. Not all features of Eurasiatic are
in all its children even though they must have been neighbors on the
vast Eurasian continent for thousands of years.


The mainstream IE theory explains this very

> well.

It could. But the scenerio of migrations clearly conflicts with all
the other data; astronomical, archaeological, geological,
mathematical, textual, genetic, etc. On second thought, i am not even
sure the current model works that well as is generally assummed. For
example why is there no evoluationary contact between Ind-Ir and the
European branches? See section 9.7 of proto-vedic continuity theory.doc

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

No sir! Now you are putting the cart before the *ekwos. Linguistic
data is not the ultimate arbitrator of this issue.

M. kelkar

> discussion of whether pre-historic migration(s)brought
> IA into India or not.*****
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>