--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 8:14:40 PM on Thursday, February 14, 2008, mkelkar2003
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti"
> > <frabrig@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> To Kelkar:
>
> >> Please read the document in question (an excerpt from a
> >> paper by Michael Witzel) AS A LINGUIST WOULD DO and then
> >> come back with your counter-arguments (if any).
>
> > It is quite unbelievable! Most if not all words referred
> > to by Witzel are asterkisked forms; they are not acutal
> > words spoken by any one.
>
> [...]
>
> > The most complete analysis of loan words with respect to
> > the IE family has been made by J. Nichols. Talageri (2000)
> > has made what I would call a very in depth of Nichols'
> > work
>
> Why do you waste our time (and yours) with these repeated
> attempts to find *linguistic* support for your ideological
> axioms when you clearly don't believe that linguistic
> evidence is worth a damn? If it's worthless, it's just as
> worthless when (you think that) it says what you want to
> hear as when it doesn't.
>
> Brian
Acutally, I am not saying linguistic evidence is worthless, I am just
saying that it is not incompatible with an Indian Homeland scenerio as
Indo-European linguist Hock (1990's) has said as quoted by Kazanas
(1990's); exact dates can be provided if needed.
Who can best summarize this than Elst
"It is widely assumed that linguis�tics has provided the clinching
evidence for the Aryan invasion theory (AIT) and for a non-Indian
homeland of the Indo-European (IE) language family. Defenders of an
"Out of India" theory (OIT) of IE expansion unwittingly confirm this
impression by rejecting linguistics itself or its basic paradigms,
such as the concept of IE language family. However, old linguistic
props of the AIT, such as linguistic paleontology or
glot�tochronolo�gy, have lost their credibility. On closer inspection,
currently dominant theories turn out to be compatible with an
out-of-India scenario for IE expansion. In particular, substratum data
are not in conflict with an IE homeland in Haryana-Panjab. It would
however be rash to claim positive linguistic proof for the OIT. As a
fairly soft type of evidence, linguistic data are presently compatible
with a variety of scenarios."
Bryant (around 2002) has made similar remarks.
M. Kelkar
M. Kelkar