From: tgpedersen
Message: 46695
Date: 2006-12-16
>As I understand it your premise is that there is no discernible
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't read Danino, so my comments rely exclusively
> > on the quote from his "conclusion" as given below.
> > 1) If there are neither "Caucasoid" nor "Central
> > Asian" genes in the Indian pool studied, and if one
> > concludes thence that there is no
> > "genetic" proof of invasion or infiltration from the
> > north, then one ought also, in the absence of further
> > arguments, hold that there is no "genetic" proof of
> > the reverse movement. Which leaves us with two
> > "unpenetrated" solitudes. And yet the linguistic facts
> > suggest a very close relationship between Indic and
> > Iranic and between Indic and other Indo-European
> > languages.
> > 2) So if the above holds, then we must conclude that
> > genetics is completely irrelevant to the issue of AIT
> > vs. OIT.
> > But is the above (and the quote below) really true?
>
> Genetics is quite releavant to tracing human migrations. See the
> excellent graphic presentation below.
>
> http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/
>
> http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/
>
> Now that the genetic data has failed to support a speculative invasion
> or even a tricke in of "Indo-European" speakers around 1500 BCE there
> is a tendecny to dimsiss this data. One must realize that the
> alternative to the AIT the so called "OIT" is not simply a converse of
> the "AIT;" i.e. we are not looking for a reverse migration around
> 1500 BCE. Doing so would give a totally undeserved credence to the
> AIT itself! The alternative theory may not subscribe to the same
> timeline or even the same standard linguistic family tree worked out
> by the IEL. As I have said repeatedly on this list the methodology
> and the conclusions reached by the IEL as reflected by the
> "conventional wisdom" is open to serious questions.
>
>
> Unproven hypothesis like AIT/AMT should not be taken as a fact, as
> they are meaningless from a historic point of view. And most
> importantly **the reverse of an unproven hypothesis or the so called
> "OIT" is equally meaningless** from a historic point of view.
> Therefore this is not about AIT/OIT.
>
> All the most modern tools of research from many relevant fields must
> be brought to bear on the question of how and when the human
> linguistic capacity arose and why some langauges appear to be similar
> to others. Many linguists have made important contributions to this
> quest. But sadly, a majority of them seem to be working outside the
> accepted norms of Indo-European linguistics.