From: Rick McCallister
Message: 58089
Date: 2008-04-26
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.htm
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > >>>
>
> >Put down your chillum, throw out your charas and clear
> > >>> "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
>
> That is not comparable. There is also a geography
> factor here.
> Mittani Indo-Aryan and regular IA are found
> thousands of miles apart.
> After spliting from IIr one branch went to the near
> east with their
> aika language and the other went to India with their
> eka language.
> They both cannot be called Indo-Aryan.
>
> M. Kelkar
> >