Re: [tied] Re: Typical Indo-European characteristics according to W

--- mkelkar2003 <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:

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

> >
> > 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

****GK: Mr. Kelkar remains blissfully unaware of the
fact that the Pontic-Caspian version of IE origins is
one thing, and the "Kurgan horsemen" sub-version quite
another. The former does not fetishize the horse.****

>
>
>
> 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

****GK: And not only that (hard enough). But
archaeological and historical data also. At the moment
the SAHT has none at all AFAIK.****

> >
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097