From: Rick McCallister
Message: 58112
Date: 2008-04-27
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallisterWell, I'm seeing some problems in the branching and I
> <gabaroo6958@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > No. We are looking for a term to define non-Dardic
> IA
> > of the Indian subcontinent.
>
> There's no need for such a term, as far as I can
> see.
> 'Dardic' was orginally employed as a cover term for
> a
> group of Indo-Iranian dialects based entirely on
> their
> geographical location, not due to their constituting
>
> a proper genetic sub-group.
>
> Once the Dardic group was examined more carefully,
> it
> was found to include Kafiri, which was recognized as
>
> a separate branch of Indo-Iranian, as well as a
> number
> of Indo-Aryan dialects actually forming a proper
> sub-
> group. The Kafiri dialects were, naturally,
> removed,
> but 'Dardic' was retained for the remaining
> Indo-Aryan
> dialects which formed a sub-group. That group's
> also
> referred to as 'North-West Indo-Aryan', and which is
>
> probably to be preferred to 'Dardic'.
>
> > Max suggested Indic.
> > Brian pointed out that in accordance to academic
> > nomenclature, Indic and Indo-Aryan are the same
> thing.
>
> They're synonymous when the context is understood as
>
> being entirely Indo-European, otherwise confusion
> can
> arise in such cases as when we wish, for example, to
>
> discuss an Indic Tibeto-Burman or Indic
> Austro-Asiatic
> language.
>
> David
>