[tied] Re: Genetic Studies and Aryan Migrations

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:

> > > > We find inscriptions of Hittite from that time.
> > > > And Sanskrit began to be written down in the early centuries of
> > > > the first millenium. Fact.

> > > The date when a langauge was first written down has nothing do with
> > > how old that langauge is.

> > Obviously. Why should this be relevant here?

> It is relevant because Sanskrit can be and is older than the Hittite
> inscriptions of 1500 BCE.

I think Torsten was simply making the point that the oldest direct
attestations of Sanskrit are useless for dating it.

I thought the codification of Sanskrit (Panini) was considerably later
(4th Century BC?) and the fixing of the Vedic texts may date from
around from the same time. On the other hand, I'm not sure how
relevant earlier variation is to usefully ascribing them a date. It
may depend on the purpose a date is to serve. Are not some phrases
much older than the date of composition of the work in which they are
included?

Richard.