--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 12:07:25 PM on Monday, February 27, 2006, mkelkar2003
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > There is no agreement among IEL scholars themselves about
> > where and when the PIE originated.
>
> This is somewhat disingenuous. There is considerable
> agreement, for example, that it did not originate in
> northern Europe, or for that matter in India,
According to H. H. Hock the distribution of IE dialects is "not
incompatible" with an Indian homeland (Kazanas 2001, p. 9).
http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AAMERCi4syLZ4mfuRZnLcD9dlNVXYDgswWYV2RV-c8PRu4GNnQ1AdBkyy0EwYEoiqiez5jaA9uIPkY6pk7F6bqdGyVufHJOZ4A/aitandscholarship.pdf
South Asia as a homeland for IE languages is being taken seriously
only in the last two or three years. Publication of Bryant's work
(2005, 2001) by Oxford Univ Press and JIES means the so called
"indigenous Aryan school" is offically in the running!
never mind the
> New World, and there is considerable agreement that the PIE
> is younger than, say, 10,000 years.
>
Please see
<www.continuitas.com> which claims a paleolithic oringin for Indo
European languages.
> > IEL are in the habit of accusing their opponents of
> > religious fundamentalism when their theories are
> > challenged.
>
> This is, bluntly, a lie.
>
> [...]
>
> > The words for elephant, tiger, rice do have Indo-European
> > etymologies (Elst 2000).
>
> > http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/aid/urheimat.html
>
> The reference does not support the claim. It notes only a
> couple of possible IE 'elephant' words.
>
> [...]
>
> Brian
>
Let me quote Elst's (2005, 2000) conclusions about linguistic
paleontology and IEL linguistic evidence in full:
"As Stefan Zimmer has written: "The long dispute about the reliability
of this 'linguistic paleontology' is not yet finished, but approaching
its inevitable end -- with a negative result, of course."15 This
cornerstone of the European Urheimat theory is now largely
discredited. At any rate, we believe we have shown that even if valid,
the findings of linguistic paleontology would be neatly compatible
with an Indian Urheimat."
" But we can assert with confidence that the oft-invoked linguistic
evidence for a European Urheimat and for an Aryan invasion of India is
completely wanting. One after another, the classical proofs of the
European Urheimat theory have been discredited, usually by scholars
who had no knowledge of or interest in an alternative Indian Urheimat
theory. In the absence of a final judgment by linguistics, other
approaches deserve to be taken seriously, unhindered and uninhibited
by fear of that large-looming but in fact elusive "linguistic evidence".
Elst (2000) reprinted in Elst (2005) was writing before the word
"invasion" was replaced by the more palatable word "migration." But
his conclusions about the linguistic aspect of IE homeland question
are still valid because they are based on an anlalysis of the entire
IE linguistic evidence which has not changed because of this semantic
adjustment.
M. Kelkar