Re: beyond langauges

  Anything Indo-Aryan is, by definition, also Indo-Iranian.
Indo-Iranian is an overarching category that encompasses
Indo-Aryan and Iranian both.

 

That is your definition.  My arguement is there is no Ilr at all.  Cf my arguements to Rchard above.

 

 

  We don't call the Indo-Iranian language that left traces
in Mitanni 'Indo-Aryan' because we believe it came from
India, but only because it belongs to the same family as
Sanskrit, Vedic, the Prakrits, etc., as is shown by its
actual linguistic features, and that family had already
been given the name 'Indo-Aryan' when Indo-Iranian loans
in Mitanni were first noticed.

 

Indic is not understood geo way. It refers to languages so far our discussions here are concerned.

 

 

 

   If we found evidence for Sanskrit nowhere else besides
the Planet Mars, and evidence for Avestan nowhere besides
Venus, we would still conclude that they'd split from a
common ancestor, we would _have_ to say so, because that
is what the languages themselves tell us. It has nothing
at all to do with geography and it never has.

 

Exactly. The languages could be similar  because of borrowing also, right?(that substratum and superstratum thing) Just because you find 75% of Telugu is sanskritized, you would not say Telugu to be a sister [or daughter, the english one, not duhita  :) ]of skt, would you? 

 > With the above paragraph, even this evidence seems to be
> destroyed and there is no common language called IIr. The
> following solution is nonsense anyway and just trying to
> fit the circumstances, so as to keep the common origin
> theory of all IE' alive. Frankly, i think PIE is finished.

Frankly, such statements show how profoundly uninformed
you are about the whole topic.

 

Let me make a concession- Ilr is finished !

At this point in time the existence of P.I.E. is proven
beyond all doubt, and that would be so even if Sanskrit
and Avestan themselves were unknown, not to mention the
far less important traces left in Mitanni. Indo-European
encompasses more than just Indo-Iranian, and would still
stand as a valid category even if your claims here about
Indo-Iranian were to be accepted, Kishore.

 

 

Please do accept them and see if you can add some scholarly stuff. Seriously, some of you can do much much better than than I. For eg., Fransesco has written a very good post in IER on Mitannis on Varuna getting transformed into Hittites' Aruna.  I did say this earlier, but without much conviction nor with the scholarly reasoning given by Fr. The point I am trying to make here is you all can help me present things more in a scholarly way and acceptable to the mainstream social scientists. 

 

> However, the last point (no 4) is interesting The IA were
> autochthonous to the entire subcontinent including Iran.

The subcontinent doesn't include Iran,

 

 

lolz. That is the reason I have included it specifically!

though the article
doesn't actually say that Aryans were autochthonous there
either. What it says is that the earliest trace of Aryans
is likely the Andronovo archaeological complex, which was
not found in Iran or the subcontinent either one.

 

This is the mainstream thinking.  Lots is to be discussed on this aspect.

What the mainstream theory says is that the Aryans divided,
naturally, into sub-branches, of which the Iranian, Indo-
Aryan, and Kafiri are the only to survive, with members of
the Indo-Aryan branch being the first to expand out of the
homeland in Central Asia onto the Iranian plateau, while
other Indo-Aryans moved in the direction of Afghanistan and
India. Later another wave of Aryans from the homeland in
Central Asia, this time of the Iranian branch, is supposed
to have arrived on the plateau, and eventually completely
absorbed or displaced the Indo-Aryans already there. Some
time after Indo-Aryans reached the Iranian plateau, members
of another branch of Indo-Aryan arrived in the subcontinent.

 

This is interesting. Please give me references for elaborate online artilces. I would like to read on that, because this is what I too seem to be saying.

> Rajesh Kochchar gets confused

You haven't proven that Kochchar was confused, have you?

 

there are elaborate discussions on RK already. cf Elst.

> only because of this and tries to fix the homeland of RV vedics
> at Afghanistan . The persians (Iranian speaking) have come to

> Iran at a later time, super stratifying the ethnic Indo Aryans,

> who are as attested by Mitanis , daiva worshipers.. t This is
> supported by two factors:

It's supported, and I hope widely accepted, that there were
Indo-Aryans on the Iranian plateau before the Iranian Aryans
came, but it's not supported by your two factors, but rather
by sound scholarship of a sort you haven't yet read yourself.

 

This is what You said above too, san the snide remarks about my 'scholar ship'  Why can't you condermn the two factors?

However, again, by 'Indo-Aryan' we don't mean to imply that
the Indo-Aryan traces found on the plateau were brought by
people from India.

> 1. The Iranians talk of an Original Home land. The Indic aryans
> have no such concept . For all practical purposes, they are
> autochthonous to the subcontinent. Hence, the Iranians are
> immigrants whereas the Indo Aryans are not. The similarities are
> mostly borrowings.

You're not qualified to say to what the similarities are
due, Kishore, and they most definitely cannot be due to
borrowing. They go right down, in fact, to the "bones"
of the languages, including their pronouns, inflectional
endings and paradigms, including which roots belong to
which paradigm, phonological systems, etc., which are the
last features to be borrowed by one language from another.
The first features to be borrowed are usually nouns, and
naturally just those names of new items for which the
borrowers don't already have words of their own, and the
number of words that can be shown to have been borrowed
by Indo-Aryan from Iranian, or vice versa, isn't all that
large, so there's just no justification to claim as you do.

I am not qualified to condermn you but Patrick will certainly have something to say. He always holds a contra view to the mainstream and finds the  scholarly proofs required/  ARe you there, Patrick?

   Well you seem not to be aware of the subcategorization of
'Indo-Aryan' under 'Indo-Iranian', but which I hope I've
made clear now, and you also seem to think it necessary
to stress that the Indo-Iranian traces in Mitanni weren't
brought by Iranians, but which nobody on cybalist, to my
knowledge, has ever claimed.

David

 

Again, I am aware of the branching PIE to Ilr to Indo aryan and Ir etc long ago. I guess it is common knowledge.

 

 

Kishore patnaik