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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- mkelkar2003 <smykelkar@...> wrote:
> > GK: Your section 9.3 is insufficient to back
> > > up
> > > > your claim. The Indo-Aryans could well have been
> > true
> > > > nomads, and such populations are exceedingly hard
> > > to
> > > > track down (before and after settlement). The case
> > > of
> > > > the Pechenegs in Ukraine is a perfect example
> > > (though
> > > > the Huns would fit the bill almost as easily). We
> > > > know that the Pecheneg Confederacy was dominant on
> > > the
> > > > steppes of southern Ukraine for a century and a
> > > half
> > > > [ca. 890's- 1030's] (Constantine Porphyrogenitus
> > > has
> > > > much to say about it in his De administrando
> > > imperio).
> > > > But they remain archaeologically elusive. We know
> > > that
> > > > most of those who stayed on the steppes after
> > > their
> > > > big defeat of 1036 were eventually invited by
> > > Prince
> > > > Vasyl'ko Rostyslavych to settle in Galicia. Upon
> > > > settlement, they adopted the local culture so
> > > quickly
> > > > and extensively that one cannot differentiate them
> > > > from the rest of the population in terms of
> > > > archaeological remains. All that we have are some
> > > > place names ("Pechenihy" "Pechenizhyn")and
> > > possibly
> > > > some family names ending in -yuk. And in their
> > > case we
> > > > have to deal with a fairly large population. So
> > > your
> > > > conclusion as to the archaeological argument is
> > > > disputable at best. The Indo-Aryans may well have
> > > been
> > > > integrated on the Pecheneg model, with one
> > > admittedly
> > > > major difference, viz., their language became
> > > dominant
> > > > over that of the locals amongst which they
> > > > settled.
> > >
> > > Irrelvant.
> >
> > GK: Love it (:=)) Ideological thinking.
> > Q.E.D.
>
> I am not the one asking people to believe in the **IDEA** that a
> small coterie of people speaking a language called PIE (or its
> dialects) spread it around from Northern Ireland to Sri Lanka and
> yet erase all identity of themselves. So who is the IDEAlogue

here?

>
> M. Kelkar

*****GK: Let's see. Our ideologue 1- ignores the main point about
the difficulty of tracing archaeological remains of nomadic cultures
as applied to the arrival of Indo-Aryans in India, 2-
turns "ideologue" into "IDEAlogue", presumably thinking it a pun ( a
weak one, but we'll pass on that for the moment) and 3- utters
errant nonsense about the spread of the IE languages in the world,
in the process insulting his linguistic ancestors (not nice M.K. not
nice !)I know of no reputable linguist who has suggested that the
carriers of PIE brought the language to Northern Ireland or to Sri
Lanka... So I suppose M.K. is both an ideologue and an IDEAlogue.
We're still quite a long way from science.****