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

From: mkelkar2003
Message: 41893
Date: 2005-11-08

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

A classic philologically tautological argument. Because the
"Indo-Aryans" are nomads they are not traceable and why are they
nomads? because they are not traceable. The non-IA substrate in Vedic
proves the immigration of Indo-Aryans; and what proves the non-IA
substrate in Vedic? The immigration of IA speakers of course!

M. kelkar

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.****
>