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

At 9:38:51 PM on Friday, February 15, 2008, mkelkar2003 wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "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.

> Elst (2000) is talking about zones and not actual splits
> among the languages.

If so, then he doesn't know what he's talking about. But
since you've already proved that you don't know what you're
talking about, and I haven't read him directly, I'll
withhold judgement on him in this matter.

[...]

>> 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 is no need for an Tocharo Italo-Celtic group.

That's entirely beside the point. You claimed that it
showed one. It doesn't. You clearly didn't understand what
you were looking at. I very much doubt that you understand
it even now.

[...]

> All that matters is, is the present distribution of IE
> languages compatible with an Indian Homeland scenerio.

It isn't.

Brian