>
> "Indo-European," "Indo-Iranian" and so forth are not facts.
>
Here's a fact for you:
The Indo-Aryan languages are more similar to the Iranian languages
than they are to the Dravidian languages. And if you refuse the terms
'Indo-Aryan', 'Iranian' and 'Dravidian' I can replace them with
lists of languages instead.
"
Likewise, N.R. Waradpande questions the very existence of an
Indo*European language family and rejects the genetic kinship model,
arguing very briefly that similarities between Greek and Sanskrit must
be due to very early borrowing. He argues that "the linguists have not
been able to establish that the similarities in the Aryan or
Indo*European languages are genetic, i.e. due to their having a common
ancestry". He alleges that "the view that the South*Indian languages
have an origin different from that of the North*Indian languages is
based on irresponsible, ignorant and motivated utterances of a
missionary". The "missionary" meant is the 19th*century prioneer of
Dravidology, Bishop Robert Caldwell.
"
from:
http://tinyurl.com/szrzt
The operative word here is obviously 'irresponsible'. Now I
understand of course the concern that linguistics might lead
to the breakup of India like it did of the Hapsburg and Ottoman,
later of the Russian empire, and which cost England Ireland,
but the alternative is an atmosphere of having to suppress what
is obvious to the common man, once he gets an education, and
denying the obvious will poison the general intellectual atmosphere.
Torsten