From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 58075
Date: 2008-04-26
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"I note that you fail to acknowledge the error on your part.
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
>> 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 [your] 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 RigDo you have any idea how ridiculous it is for *you*, of all
>>> 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.
> That is not how the family tree model works. Every stage
> is given a new name. For example, IIr branches into
> Indo-Aryan and Ir. If there was an earlier stage of IA it
> must be given a different name.
> If an argument is advanced that aika>eka then they BOTHUtter rubbish. By this 'reasoning' Old English <hyll> and
> cannot be from the same language or even the same family
> of langauges.