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

--- mkelkar2003 <smykelkar@...> wrote:

> > > It seems irrational to impose of our theories on
> people who lived
> > > thousands of years ago without regards what
> those people have to say
> > > about themselves.

And Richard Wordingham commented:

> >
> > The problem is that people's beliefs about their
> origins are
> > unreliable, as in the following example:
>
> >
>
> > >(GK) The
> > > > Scythian Foundation Legend in Herodotus
> likewise
> > > > presents the Scythians as autochtons (some 200
> years
> > > > only after their arrival!), but we know this
> is not
> > > > true> >

To which M. Kelkar:

The Rig Veda does not even say that the composers

> are indigenous and
> it does not even say that the composers are foreign

****GK: Which eliminates his prior assertion that
there is solid textual evidence for Indo-Aryan
autochtonism.****



In discussing another issue, Richard W. stated:

> >
> > Someone has to have spread the language around.
> The nearest I can
> > think of to a language spreading but no-one moving
> is the spread of
> > religious languages - but priests (or whatever)
> have usually moved in
> > these cases as well, albeit it in tiny numbers.
> >
> > >To which M. Kelkar:

> Agree. Languages have to be spread by people. Bantu
> and AmeriInd
> langauge families can be clearly idenfied with a
> group of people. And
> that is where the problem is. No such people who
> spread the IE
> languages can be identified.

****GK: I suppose mirth is the only proper response to
this sophomoric (my apologies to all sophomores (:=))
comment... This BTW is a typical example of the "if
necessary I will shut my eyes" approach. I wonder who
brought the English language to India?*****





__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs