From: mkelkar2003
Message: 58080
Date: 2008-04-26
>That is not comparable. There is also a geography factor here.
> At 2:46:29 PM on Saturday, April 26, 2008, mkelkar2003
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <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'.
>
> I note that you fail to acknowledge the error on your part.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is for *you*, of all
> people, to presume to explain how the family tree model
> works?
>
> > If an argument is advanced that aika>eka then they BOTH
> > cannot be from the same language or even the same family
> > of langauges.
>
> Utter rubbish. By this 'reasoning' Old English <hyll> and
> its present-day reflex <hill> cannot be from the same family
> of languages.
>
> Brian
>