Re: Re[2]: [tied] beyond langauges

--- kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@...>
wrote:

> >
> > Obviously irrelevant: the question was whether
> anyone
> > distinguished the terms 'Indo-Aryan' and 'Indic'.
> >
> > Brian
> >
>
>
> I do not know in what context this question is
> asked but Indic is much
> bigger than Indo Aryan, as is the Aryan.
>
> Indic can include Dravidian and Munda cultures, as
> well as scores of other
> cultures which are not listed. In short, the term
> Indic can constitute Aryan
> and Non Aryan cultures.
>
> In particular to Mitanni, the terms and names
> referred are exclusively
> recognized as Indo Aryan- since there are elements
> of Ir or proto IIr in
> them. Of course, it also means that none of the non
> aryan elements have come
> from India , say from IVC.
>
> Is this what you are asking?
>
> Kishore patnaik
>

No. We are looking for a term to define non-Dardic IA
of the Indian subcontinent.
Max suggested Indic.
Brian pointed out that in accordance to academic
nomenclature, Indic and Indo-Aryan are the same thing.

If I understand correctly.
If there is no name for such a beast, what can we call
it?
NDIA is a bit unwieldy.
Sanskritic sounds a bit tacky.
Bharati would probably start a war with Pakistan, if
not the Maldives.




____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ