--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "kishore patnaik"
<kishorepatnaik09@...> wrote:
<Article snipped>
> The circular logic is clear in this article.
No, it isn't. Are you referrng to the term Indo-Aryan or to the dating?
The argument for Indo-Aryan influence in Mitanni seems to proceed as
follows:
1) The Indo-Iranian languages fall into two groups.
2) Speakers of what is now the Western group at one time had a
different set of cults to the speakers of what is now the Eastern group.
3) The Indo-Iranian terms and names do not show the characteristics of
the Western group of languages.
4) The cult-related terms seem appropriate for the cults of the
Eastern group than of the Western group.
While I perceive holes in this argument, I don't see any circularity.
These two groups of languages are conventionally called Iranian and
Indic or Indo-Aryan. (I prefer the term 'Indic', though it clearly
has domain-specific meanings.) The author explicitly made the point
that it is a mistake to think in this context that Iranian means 'from
Iran' or that Indo-Aryan/Indic means 'from India'.
> The key problem is that the Aryan elements found in Mitanni are
purely Indic
> with no traces of Iranian or proto IIr found in them. ie a distinct
Indian
> Aryan language was formed before the historians would agree that Indic
> aryans entered India. This would go against the theory that there is a
> proto IIr branching off to Iranian and Indic paths before the Aryans
entered
> the subcontinent.
IIr = Indo-Iranian. Why do you claim that the Aryan elements in
Mitanni have no trace of 'proto-IIr' in them? As 'Aryan' and
'Indo-Iranian' are synonymous in this context your statement seems
self-contradictory.
If you think of the Iranian as meaning 'Western IIr' and Indo-Aryan as
'Eastern IIr' (though possibly 'South-Eastern IIr' is a better
description), then there is no problem with the notion of 'Indo-Aryan'
existing before its speakers have entered India.
Richard.