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

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

>
>
>
> --- 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.***

That perception might need reconsideration. The following 2005 release
contains a paper on Vedic astronomy by Professor Kak.

Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History
(Paperback)
by Edwin F. Bryant (Editor), Laurie L. Patton (Editor)

Some astronoical papers from Prof Kak.

<http://subhashkak.voiceofdharma.com/astronomy.htm>

Here is IE linguists Hock writing on p. 297 of the Bryant/Patton
edited release, as related by Elst on IndianCivilization Oct 19, 2005.

"I (Elst) still feel more comfortable with the cautious modesty of
Hans H. Hock, who writes about the astronomical evidence in the Vedas
that "a few things can be established with certainty, others with a
good degree of likelihood, and yet others remain entirely uncertain".
(p.297) I believe that this still describes the over-all status
quaestionis."

> 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.****
>

The "Indo-Aryan" migration scenerio conflicts completely with the
archaeological data in the Indian subcontinent. Please see section 9.3
p. 49 of proto vedic continuity theory.doc in the files section of
Cybalist. The Bryant/Patton volume contains papers by Lal, Schaffer,
Lichenstein leading experts in South Asian archaeology.

> > geological,
>
> ****GK: ????*****

The evidence of the now dried up river Sarasvati conflict with the IEL
dating of the Rig Veda.

>
> > mathematical,
>
> ****GK: ?????*****

The early dates assigned to Sulbasutra by mathematician Seidenberg
(1962) conflict with the IEL dating.

<http://members.tripod.com/~ramkumaram/article2.html>

"After a careful study of the Sulbasutras and the mathematics of Egypt
(c. 2100 BC) and Old-Babylonia (c. 1900 BC), he( Seidenberg) concluded
that the Egyptians and the Babylonians must have derived their
mathematics from ancient Indian mathematics — or the Sulbasutras. This
means that the Sulbasutras — or Indian mathematical texts from the
late Vedic period — must already have been ancient by 2000 BC."

>
> textual,
>
> *****GK: Such as?****

The internal chronology and geogrpahy of the Rig Veda do not provide
evidence of "Indo-Aryan" migrations. Rig Veda and the Avesta taken
together show know evidence of any contact between these people
outside of the Indian Subcontinent.

<http://www.bharatvani.org/books/rig/>

> 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).*****

Not according to the latest papers of the CPHL workgroup. There are
no contact edges that coonect IIr to any European language.

See Fig 12 (p. 22) and section 6 (p. 22) of the link below

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/Papers/81.2nakhleh.pdf

>
> 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

If indeed such arrival did take place it would show up in the genetic
evidence. It has not.

M. Kelakr

> >
> > > 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
>