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

Read "The Indo-Iranian Substrate" (2001). It's
on-line. Lubotsky talks about substrate Indo-Iranian
picked up BEFORE it went south.

"Proto-Indo-Iranian for a long time remained a
dialectal unity, possibly even up to the moment when
the Indo-Aryans crossed the Hindukush mountain range
and lost contact with the Iranians." (page 2 of 15)

". . . the Indo-Iranians must still have formed a kind
of unity during their stay in Central Asia . . . ."
(page 5 of 15)

On page 7 of 15, he points out words that Uralic could
only have borrowed from Indo-Aryan, not Iranian
--which had mutated certain sounds. Some of these
words are isolates in Indo-Iranian. Indo-Aryan
speakers, which Lubotsky says, made contact with
Uralic "on their move to the east" before Iranian
did.

Read Lubotsky and tell the truth. Doesn't your faith
oblige you to tell the truth? Stop lying about what
researchers say. It doesn't win you any converts and
makes you look like a fool.

--- mkelkar2003 <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> >
> > He throws around names like confetti. He cited
> > Lubotsky for support. I just read Lubotsky and he
> > plainly speaks of Indo-Iranian and its location
> before
> > Indo-Aryan moved into India.
> >
>
> What?
>
> M. Kelkar
>
>
> > --- "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

> > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>

http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

> >
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping