--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
> [quoting Kelkar:] "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.
>
> [again quoting Kelkar:] "I said Indian Subcontinent not the modern
nation state of > India."
>
> And I'm talking about the subcontinent.
Don't you know that Bactria and Sogdiana, Nichols' putative IE
homeland, were once part (only southern Bactria) of the Mauryan empire -
- dated by Kalyanaraman to c. 1,000 BC! -- or (both Bactria and
Sogdiana) of the later Kushana empire, and can be *consequently* held
to be part of "Bha:rat" (in K. & K.'s idiom, the same as South Asia or
the Indian subcontinent)? :-) :-) :-)
Kalyanaraman even holds that the whole of Southeast Asia is part
of "Bha:rat". He habitually calls the Indian Ocean, "Hindu
Maha:sa:gara" ('the Great Sea of the Hindus'), and delights in talking
about a "Hindu Maha:sa:gara Pariva:r" ('Family of the Great Sea of the
Hindus'), a sort of Indian Ocean Commonwealth that should
be 'naturally' subject to the cultural, political and economic hegemony
of a 'Hindu' (i.e., non-multiconfessional) India.
Regards,
Francesco