Re[2]: [tied] beyond langauges

At 1:53:53 PM on Saturday, April 26, 2008, mkelkar2003 wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 1:31:59 PM on Saturday, April 26, 2008, mkelkar2003
>> wrote:

>>>> Witzel does. Mittani Indo Aryan aika>Sanskrit eka hence
>>>> Vedas are younger than 1500 BCE.

>>>> QED

>>> Also Indo-Eurasian research msg # 9913

>>> "G. Thompson writes:

>>>> the numbers are Indo-Aryan, not Iranian. aika > eka
>>>> [contrast Avestan aiwa]; satta > sapta [contrast Avestan
>>>> hapta]. Bjarte is right to leave this question to
>>>> Indologists or Iranists, because we can tell the
>>>> difference between Indo-Aryan and Iranian words, as well
>>>> as their gods.

>> Obviously irrelevant: the question was whether anyone
>> distinguished the terms 'Indo-Aryan' and 'Indic'.

> aika is Indo-Aryan and eka is Indic.

Which has nothing to do with the G. Thompson quotation
above.

> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.htm

> "Again, if there was an (early) emigration out of India by
> (Vedic) Indo-Aryans it would be surprising that even the
> Mitanni documents do not show typical South Asian
> influence.[N.153] Rather, is obvious that the remnants of
> early IA in Mitanni belong to a pre-Rgvedic stage of IA, "

And now we see that you're earlier claim was mistaken: he
does not make a terminological distinction between
'Indo-Aryan' and 'Indic'.

> So there WAS an EARLY IA before the PROPER IA of the Rig
> Veda.

'Indo-Aryan' refers to a *family* of languages. Of course
this family has representatives from different periods.
Punjabi (for instance), is a modern representative; Vedic
Sanskrit is a much older representative; and the traces of
an IA language in Mitanni appear to represent an older stage
yet. This has nothing to do with the original question.

Brian