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

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

>
>
>
> --- Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...> wrote:
> (in response to Kelkar citing Kalyanamaran)
>
> > The scholars whose Indo-European linguistic theories
> > you so
> > tenaciously combat no longer entertain the old view
> > that an invasion
> > was responsible for the introduction of Indo-Aryan
> > languages in
> > South Asia. The only notable exception is nowadays
> > represented by
> > Asko Parpola, who unconvincingly postulates a series
> > of proto-
> > historic Indo-Aryan invasions of the Indian
> > subcontinent.
>
> ****GK: There's been a lot of back and forth on this
> list about this issue. Is the above comment (about all
> scholars save Parpola) a suggestion that India is now
> accepted by them as the (or part of the) IE homeland?
> Or does it mean something else? And if so, what?****

The Indian subcontinent could be a candidate for the homeland.

"Note, however, that Nichols (e.g. in two articles in the conference
publications *Archaeology and Language* from Routledge) subsequently
claimed that Indo-European originated somewhere in eastern Asia, not
because of any IE evidence, but because Indo-Iranian and later Mongolian
and Turkic followed particular pathways from the east that resulted in
their historical locations.
--
Peter T. Daniels on cybalist/nostratic L(?)" retrieved on 5/11/05 3:57 PM"

Please see p. 9 of the following link:

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

"Hock finds no linguistic difficulties in the proposition that IE
branches moved out of India (Hock 1999, 16 as related by Kazanas 2001)."

M. kelkar

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