Re: [tied] Re: Genetic Studies and Aryan Migrations

At 3:06:15 AM on Saturday, December 9, 2006, mkelkar2003
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

[...]

>> The Indo-Arian Substratum is not a Indo-European one.

>> Could I imagine "Aryan invaders and Dravidian
>> autochthons" :) based on it?

>> Based on what such a logical model is "crude" "racial"
>> "nineteenth- century" or a "fallacious" one?

>> In place of such words, better to find another
>> explanation for the above FACT (of course in-line with
>> your believes), because otherwise 'my model' consisting
>> of : "Aryan invaders and Dravidian autochthons" is good
>> enough to explain such a FACT.

> "Indo-European," "Indo-Iranian" and so forth are not
> facts.

At a bare minimum the terms refer to patterns that clearly
exist in the linguistic data; in this sense they are
certainly facts. If you mean that specific interpretations
of these patterns are not facts, you're quite correct, but
neither is any other scientific inference from raw data, so
the objection is rather pointless.

Brian