Re: Typical Indo-European characteristics according to Wikipedia.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@>
> wrote:
>
> > Linking Romani-Dardic-Nuristani and classifying them as a part of the
> > Indo-Ir and not a seprate third branch would support the South Asia
> > homeland theory.
>
> How so?
>
> First, Romani, Dardic and Nuristani, taken together, do not form at
> all a sub-branching of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European
> language family. Nuristani, as I have pointed out in a earlier post,
> is now generally considered a third, separate sub-branch of Indo-
> Iranian after Indo-Aryan and Iranian. Dardic and Romani languages

And as I have pointd out earlier, that is not a valid argument because
the classification is based on a presumptive expansion of kurgan
horsemen (and no women) from Pontic steppes. Its a case of the cart
before the onager.

M. Kelkar



are,

> on the contrary, classified as part of the Indo-Aryan branch (and, for
> what matters, I don't think they share many features in common).
>
> If you want to propose a brand new taxonomy for Indo-Iranian to
> support your "South Asian homeland theory" (for Indo-Iranian at
> least), please come up with some new linguistic data which can
> substantiate your claims.
>
> Regards,
> Francesco
>