Re: Meaning of Aryan: now, "white people"?

It's more a case of not caring. Anything that doesn't
agree with his message gets twisted or ignored. He's
like the tobacco companies regarding lung cancer, the
oil companies regarding global warming, the
creationist lunatics. He's true believer and I'm sure
he's afraid that he doubted his dogma for one second
that he would be reborn as a cockroach.


--- "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

> At 6:19:47 PM on Friday, February 15, 2008,
> mkelkar2003
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> > <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> >> On 2008-02-15 22:44, mkelkar2003 wrote:
>
> >>> The best fit model obtained by Ringe et. al.
> fits the
> >>> above secnerio very well.
>
> >> No, it doesn't. In all their trees the first
> split is
> >> between Anatolian and "non-Anatolian IE", and
> then
> >> non-Anatolian IE splits into Tocharian and "the
> rest" --
> >> the crown group of IE. None of the analyses
> suggests
> >> anything corresponding to Elst's "zone A" or to
> >> "Tocharo-Italo-Celtic".
>
> [...]
>
> >>> Elst's (2000) Group A would be far right in Fig
> 12 and
> >>> Group B far left.
>
> >> This reading of the tree proves that you don't
> even
> >> understand what a phylogeny means.
>
> > I am not talking about splitting Fig 12 in the
> middle! Follow the
> > diagram in Fig 12 from right to left
>
> > "Initially, there was a single PIE language.
>
> > That is the highest point where the tree begins.
>
> > 2) The first division of PIE yielded two dialect
> groups,
> > which will be called A and B. Originally they
> co-existed
> > in the same area, and influenced each other, but
> > geographical separation put an end to this
> interaction.
>
> > Group A and B are BEFORE Anatolian splits off.
>
> The tree shows no such split. The very first split
> shown in
> this tree is between Anatolian, on the one hand, and
> everything else, on the other.
>
> > Group A is HI, LU, LY, TB, TA, OI, WE, LA, OS, UM
>
> > Group B is the remainder
>
> The tree does not show a split between HI, LU, LY,
> TB, TA,
> OI, WE, LA, OS, and UM, on the one hand, and
> everything
> else, on the other.
>
> > 3) In zone A, one dialect split off, probably by
> > geographical separation (whether it was its own
> speakers
> > or those of the other dialects who emigrated from
> the
> > Urheimat, is not yet at issue), and went on to
> develop
> > separately and become Anatolian.
>
> > That is the first separation corrosponding to the
> first
> > branch HI, LU, LY.
>
> > 4) The remainder of the A group acquired the
> distinctive
> > characteristics of the Tocharo-Italo-Celtic
> subgroup.
>
> What the tree shows is Anatolian splitting from
> everything
> else. It does not show your A and B groups at all.
> It also
> does not show a Tocharo-Italo-Celtic group: the only
> group
> that it shows that contains all of OS, UM, LA, OI,
> WE, TB,
> and TA is the group that contains *all* of the
> non-Anatolian
> dialects.
>
> There's no point bothering with the rest. Piotr's
> right:
> you clearly don't understand what you're looking at
> here.
>
> [...]
>
> Brian
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs