>> > > > 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?
> > > > >
>
> On the basis of that you claim that there has never
> > been a movement of people into said area from the outside (AIT)
> > nor in the reverse direction (OIT).
>
> The claim of no large population movement is based on genetic
> evidence not linguistic.
>
Any genetic findings that claim an absence of migration between India
and Central Asia, are very obviously wrong. In the past millennium,
millions have migrated between those two areas in both directions:
into India, the Turko-Afghan conquests, the immigratiosn of Iranians
fleeing from Mongol terror and later as simple job-seekers; out of
India, hundreds of thousands of slaves. We know from Persian
testimonies that Indian women were in great demand for the harems, so
they must have left considerable progeny in what is Samarkand,
Bukhara etc. Conversely, as the ruling class, Turko-Afghan Muslims in
India must likewise have left a large (mixed) progeny. Before this,
there were the Shaka and Huna invasions.
With the as yet limited accuracy of "historical and comparative
genetics", clearly a considerable amount of migration can pass under
the reach of the genetic radar. And the numbers needed to effect a
linguistic change, whether among pre-IE Europeans or among pre-IE
Indians, to IE languages, need not be that high in a scenario of
elite dominance. So, any scenario of wholesale language shift
triggered by limited demographic migration remains possible. It is
simply not true that such a scenario is precluded by the genetic
findings so far.
> > > 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.
> > >
I hope it is clear to the uninitiated here that M. Kelkar does not
merely oppose the hypothesis of a non-Indian homeland for the Indo-
Aryan or IE languages (AIT), but the very concept of an IE language
family. To him, it is an:
> untestable and unproven
> assumption made by Indo-Eureopean linguists.<
Well, back to basics! Anyone here in a mood to prove the IE family?
To sum up the tests that it *has* passed, the predictions that it
*has* fulfilled, as a good theory should? On another list, where I
was thrown off for "writing drivel", I once tried to explain to
members Kelkar and Kalyanaraman how the discovery of Hittite realized
some of de Saussure's predictions, how some vulgar slang terms on
lavatory walls in Pompeii filled in the gaps in the predicted
ancestor-tongue of the Romance languages, etc., but to no avail.
Anyone here more persuasive?
> There are many other
> models out there to explain the real or perceived similarities
among
> languages; Dixon's (1997) punctuality equilibrium model for one.
>
Wasn't that Stephen Jay Gould's model of biological evolution?
Anyway, Mr. Kelkar, I'm sure many here would like to be impressed by
some instances of how in that model, say, the numerals come to be so
similar from Ireland to Bengal without having a common origin.
Thanks,
Koenraad Elst