From: mkelkar2003
Message: 53324
Date: 2008-02-15
>Actually he did. See below.
> Punk eek and convergence are too completely different
> topics. Francesco didn't say anything at all regarding
> punk eek. Do you ever think rationally?
> > based on linguisticM. Kelkar
> > > convergence, linguistic areas, and ****equilibrium***
> > versus the "old-
> > > fashioned" comparativist model based on linguistic
> > divergence,
> > > family trees, and migrations: BULLSHIT!"
>____________________________________________________________________________________
> --- mkelkar2003 <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco
> > Brighenti" <frabrig@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
> > <swatimkelkar@>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco
> > Brighenti" <frabrig@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 1. the early habitat of Proto-Indo-Iranians
> > was in an area
> > close
> > > > > to the Central Asian steppe-taiga interface,
> > e.g., near the
> > > > > Urals;
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. these Proto-Indo-Iranians called themselves
> > *arya-.
> > > >
> > > > "Indo-Iranian" is a linguistic idea. It does not
> > refer to any
> > > > actual people who can be traced back into
> > history. See Lamberg-
> > > > Karlovsky 2005.pdf and Proto-Indo-European
> > Reality and
> > > > reconstruction.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > > I've read for the nth timesince 2005 the
> > conclusions of LK's paper
> > > linked to above, and this is, in short, what I
> > think of his
> > > arguments:
> > >
> > > 1) The BMAC and the cultures of the Andronovo
> > archaeol. horizon may
> > > have shared common ancestors: NO.
> > >
> > > 2) The BMAC people(s) may have been Indo-Iranian
> > speakers: NO --
> > the
> > > languages of the BMAC, at least some of them, may
> > have belonged to
> > > the Macro-Caucasian super-phylum as the
> > present-day Burushos of
> > > Northern Pakistan.
> > >
> > > 3) Absence of Andronovo-type artifacts in Iran and
> > NW South Asia
> > > versus presence of BMAC-type artifacts in the same
> > areas (2nd mill.
> > > BCE): this can be explained if one accepts
> > Mallory's Kulturkugel
> > > model.
> > >
> > > 4) The Andronovans and/or the BMAC folks may have
> > spoken Dravidian
> > > and/or Altaic and/or Uralic languages: HARDLY SO!!
> > >
> > > 5) Trubetskoy's and Dixon's "innovative" models
> > based on linguistic
> > > convergence, linguistic areas, and equilibrium
> > versus the "old-
> > > fashioned" comparativist model based on linguistic
> > divergence,
> > > family trees, and migrations: BULLSHIT!
> >
> > Very scientific! Dixon's BULLSHIT! punctuality
> > equilibrium model has
> > been validated in a recent Science magazine article
> > Evolution of language in punctual bursts."
> >
> > Every one who does not agree with you is "aged"
> > (Dhavalikar), "compromised" and colored by
> > "indiginist point of view"
> > Not everyone who supports the OIT model is of South
> > Asian origin.
> >
> > Lets continue this "scientific" dialgoue.
> >
> > M. Kelkar
> > >
> > > 5) "Anti-migrationist" comparison between
> > Henning's attempt to
> > > identify the Guti of ancient Mesopotamia with the
> > Yuezhi of Chinese
> > > chronicles and the ongoing scholarly attempts to
> > identify the
> > > Andronovans with the Indo-Iranians: MORE BULLSHIT!
> > >
> > > The truth is that, in spite of his claims, LK
> > largely neglects
> > > linguistic evidence from 2nd mill. BCE Central
> > Asia and the
> > > steppe/taiga belt of Eurasia. He, for instance,
> > doesn't see the
> > > layering and distribution of the oldest
> > Indo-Iranian languages and
> > > their overlap with Uralic, insisting on the idea
> > that "language and
> > > archaeology do not corrlate" insted.
> > >
> > > Rehards,
> > > Francesco
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>