Re[2]: [tied] Digest Number 2804

At 3:34:15 AM on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, mkelkar2003
wrote:

> --- 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).

Kazanas grossly misrepresents Hock's position. Hock: 'The
"PIE-in-India" hypothesis thus runs into severe difficulties
as regards plausibility and simplicity', and 'speakers of
Indo-Aryan must have migrated out of an Eurasian homeland
and *into* *India*'.

> http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AAMERCi4syLZ4mfuRZnLcD9dlNVXYDgswWYV2RV-c8PRu4GNnQ1AdBkyy0EwYEoiqiez5jaA9uIPkY6pk7F6bqdGyVufHJOZ4A/aitandscholarship.pdf

'Document Not Found'.

> 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!

It does not affect my statement above.

>> 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.

Who cares? The kindest description of that site is 'fringe
scholarship'.

>>> 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.

> Let me quote Elst's (2005, 2000) conclusions about
> linguistic paleontology and IEL linguistic evidence in
> full:

Why? It does nothing to support your previous claim.

[...]

Brian