Re: From words to dates: Water into wine, mathemagic or phylogeneti

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

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

wrote:

> >
>
> > During prehistoric times, people of Northern India were also
> > cultivating millet. Millet's travel continued throughout the

Middle

> > East and Northern Africa where it became a staple. It further

became

> > typical food of the Sumerian diet about 2500 BCE. "
> >
> > How would this support a rapid expansion of IE languages from the
> > Kurgan area using agriculture this time, not horsemen?
>
> It wouldn't. As far as I am concerned, Indo-European was not the
> language of first farmers, but of conquerors. It might be an

exception

> in this respect among the language families in the world. Try

writing

> 'LBK' and 'Torsten' in the search field to find out what I think of
> one of those cultures. The horsemen in Europe are there in the
> archaeological record, general death and destruction.

Death and destruction? Please do not tell me we are back to the
barberic nomadic Aryan hordes destroying the dark skinned inhabitants
of the "Indus" valley civilzation aka the Aryan Invasion Theory. Your
Sankritist colleagues over on Indo-Eurasian have done every thing
possible to deny that they support such violent conquest. Now they
are talking about Indo-Aryan peaceful migrations or trickle ins.

M. kelkar

>
>
> > > But with the age for the Rgveda you propose and the age for PIE
> > > you propose the Rgveda must have been composed at the PIE
> > > Urheimat, which you claim is Anatolia. Or else the Rgveda was
> > > translated into Sanskrit from some unknown extinct(?) Indian
> > > language.
> >
> > The dates proposed by the Anatolian farming theory are early

enough

> > to accomodate the 4500 BCE date for the Rig Veda. There in lies

my

> > interest in that theory.
>
>
> So, if you claim it was composed in India at that time, it would

have

> been in a language that is the ancestor of Inner-IE, ie the IE
> languages minus Anatolian and Tocharian and had just split off from
> Tocharian, according to the 2005 paper. It would have been very
> different from Sanskrit. It might be possible to argue a case for
> that, no one has ever thought of it. The main linguistic argument
> against India as Urheimat, namely that the Indo-Iranian branch is
> strictly satem, is gone with the Bangani kentum data. Now you'd have
> to find evidence of how the non-Indian members of the family left
> India. BTW, traces of the Indic, not Iranian IE branch have been

found

> in Mitanni sources in the Middle East, and in toponyms northeast of
> the Black Sea.
>
>
> Torsten
>