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

--- mkelkar2003 <smykelkar@...> wrote:
Proto Vedic is

> itself a branch of of Eurasiatic.

****GK: Does this make sense to any member of this
list other than M. Kelkar and his colleague?*****

> The mainstream IE theory explains this very
> > well.
>
> It could. But the scenerio of migrations clearly
> conflicts with all
> the other data; astronomical,

*****GK: I don't think the astronomy of the Vedas (if
that is what you mean?) is accepted by the scientific
community as a contributing datum to this
discussion.***

archaeological,

****GK:The migration scenario does not conflict with
archaeology. There are a few "soft spots", but they
are not in the same class as your odd theory.****

> geological,

****GK: ????*****

> mathematical,

****GK: ?????*****

textual,

*****GK: Such as?****
genetic,

*****GK: Cf. below. I find your position incoherent,
but maybe it's because you don't really mean what you
seem to say in the first or second context.*****

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?

****GK: There is with Slavic (at least as to Iranian).
Perhaps Baltic. The other branches had drifted away
(geographically).*****

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.
>
>
>
> >
> > > > >

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.

*****GK: I didn't say it was. Just that your
understanding of the genetic evidence disqualifies it
from being part of the discussion. If it has nothing
to confirm the attested historical migrations into
India, then the fact that it also has nothing to
confirm an arrival of Indo-Aryans ca. 1500 BC or
thereabouts cannot be an argument to prove that there
was no such arrival.*****

>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com