From: mkelkar2003
Message: 41856
Date: 2005-11-07
>Click on the map of the Indian sucontinent below:
> At 9:56:05 AM on Sunday, November 6, 2005, mkelkar2003
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> >> At 7:34:52 PM on Saturday, November 5, 2005, mkelkar2003
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> As I have noted already IE linguists H. H. Hock and
> >>> linguists Johanna Nichols are not in disfavor of a IE
> >>> homeland in the Indian subcontinent.
>
> >> That you have made the claim before doesn't make it true.
> >> Certainly Hock argued against the out-of-India hypothesis in
> >> 1999. And Bactria-Sogdiana isn't India.
>
> > I said Indian Subcontinent not the modern nation state of
> > India.
>
> And I'm talking about the subcontinent.
>What?
> > About Hock, no need to take my word for it. See p.9 bottom
> > of the page, and p. 14 second para,
>
> > <http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/ait_and_scholarship.pdf>
>
> > "What is most important here is that according to Hock
> > THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIAL LINGUSITIC ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
> > PROPSITION THAT IE BRANCHES MOVED OUT OF INDIA (Kazanas
> > 2001, emphasis in the original)."
>
> Which is not the same as finding no difficulties with the
> proposition.
>
> [...]
>
> > And finally,I am quite aware of Dr. Elst's position from his voluminous posting
>
> > <http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/reviews/hock.html?
>
> > "Indeed, Prof. Hock himself accepts that pinpointing the
> > exact location in this vast stretch of land is a question
> > which "may, in fact, never be settled". (p.17) But if it
> > is too early to exclude any part of this territory from
> > possible Homeland status, is it so crazy to suggest that
> > the exclusion of India may have been premature as well?"
>
> The second sentence is Elst talking, not Hock, and
> implicitly acknowledges that Hock did *not* include India as
> a possible IE homeland. Did you even bother to read the
> whole thing? A bit further along (ยง6.3) Elst quotes Hock as
> follows:
>
> To be able to account for these dialectological
> relationships, the 'Out-of-India' approach would have to
> assume, first, that these relationships reflect a stage of
> dialectal diversity in a Proto-Indo-European ancestor
> language located within India. While this assumption is
> not in itself improbable, it has consequences which, to
> put it mildly, border on the improbable and certainly
> would violate basic principles of simplicity. What would
> have to be assumed is that the various Indo-European
> languages moved out of India in such a manner that they
> maintained their relative position to each other during
> and after the migration. However, given the bottle-neck
> nature of the route(s) out of India, it would be immensely
> difficult to do so.
>
> Once again your reportage is either incompetent or
> dishonest.
>
> Brian
>