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

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

>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@>
> wrote:
>
> > Hock's (1996) work summarized and quoted by Kazanas (2002)
>
> You always quote from summaries of linguistic works made by your
> favourite 2-3 "out-of-India" authors (Elst, Talageri, now Kazanas:
> always the same restricted group of authors,

Yeah! "only 2-3" authors. Just put the "IE homeland question" on the
Texas primary next month and see who gets the most votes.

which are also

> profusely quoted in the numerous Wikipedia articles you -- I am
> almost sure of that -- contribute to compile and edit under fake
> IDs). Why don't you read the originals?
>
> > http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/IIR.pdf
> > "Then Hock, unaware of J. Nichols's evidence which requires a locus
> > of dispersal at Bactria Sogdiana (unlike his own vague vast area
> > from "East Central Europe to Eastern Russia," p. 17), nonetheless
> > indicated that there are no substantial linguistic arguments
> > against the proposition that IE branches moved out of India...
> > He states also that PIE could be "a priori" have been originally
> > spoken in India (p. 11)..."
>
> Since you continue to cite this single passage from H.H. Hock's
> article as if that author considered the AMT and the OIT equally
> legitimate, I will quote the conclusions of that same article, which
> I have here on my desk:
>
> "Neither the 'Sanskrit-origin' variant [S.S. Misra's theory positing
> that Vedic Sanskrit represents PIE] nor the 'PIE in India' variant,
> thus, turns out to provide credible support for the 'Out-of-India'
> hypothesis.Rather, the linguistic evidence still favors the
> prevailing Indo-Europeanist perspective that the speakers of Indo-
> Aryan migrated into India."

I do not want to know what you have on your desk or under it. OIT
does not require equating PIE with Sanskrit. The question is not what
the lingustic evidence favors but the question is what the linguistic
evidence precludes. And it does not preclude an Indian Homeland as
Hock says in the same article. The IEL reconstruction is not good
enough to eliminate that possibility. Hock is simply honest enough to
admit it.

M. Kelkar

>
> Period. Stop misrepresenting Hock's position, please.
>
> FB
>