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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-02-15 20:16, mkelkar2003 wrote:
>
> > That is not my position. Rig Veda is a sacred text to me. But it does
> > not support either the OIT or the AIT. I have no intention of leaving
> > this list. A trained Indo-European linguist H. H. Hock has been quoted
> > as saying that PIE could have been aprori be spoken in India.
>
> It could have been spoken anywhere -- in Patagonia, Ireland or South
> Africa -- if a sensible scenario of linguistic dispersal from such a
> homeland could be proposed. You present the problem of IE origins as if
> there were two competing theories: (1) PIE originated in India; (2) PIE
> originated somewhere else. Why not the Out-of-Ireland Theory vs. the
> Gaelic Invasion Theory (GIT)? In fact, the AIT and the OIT are not even
> mutually antithetic. AIT is _not_ about the origin of PIE at all, but
> about the origin of the Indo-Aryan languages

Absolutely! I don't think the problem interms of an AIT/OIT duality. I
only have a problem with the current version of AIT postulating an
untraceable invasion of IA speakers at a conveniently chosen date of
1500 BCE to fit the Eureopan homeland scenerio. Renfrew/Bellwood's
Anatolian hypothesis is also an AIT in a sense. But it brings the IA
speakers to where they should much closer to 4500 BCE date for the Rig
Veda. I do not have problem supporting that one.

M. Kelkar

-- one of about a dozen

> branches of the IE family. From a general IE perspective it's a
> peripheral problem, not "the heart of the matter". It's all been said
> here before, more than once, and I don't think whipping this dead horse
> again serves any useful purpose.
>
> Piotr
>