About Hock:
Try the following link : p. 9 onward
<
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/ait_and_scholarship.pdf>
and section 6.3 of the following:
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/reviews/hock.html
"For now, I (Elst) must confess that after reading Prof. Hock's
presentation, the linguistic problem which I have always considered
the most damaging to an Indocentric hypothesis, doesn't look all
that threatening anymore. I do not believe that the isoglosses
discussed by him necessitate the near-identity of the geographical
distribution of the PIE dialects with the geographical distribution
of their present-day daughter languages, which near-identity would
indeed be hard to reconcile with an out-of-India hypothesis"
About tiger:
http://voi.org/books/ait/ch33.htm
"An important point to note is that, contrary to common belief, the
Sanskrit names of purely Indian animals all have IE etymologies:
mayUra, "peacock"; vyAghra, "tiger"; mahiSa, "buffalo";
pRshatI, "spotted deer"; and the terms already mentioned
for "monkey" and "elephant", plus some alternative names for the
latter: hastin, vAraNa, gaja (Elst 2000)."
Elst's conclusion about the failure of linguistic palaeontology is
very important:
"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."
M. Kelkar