> =====
>
> >Quebec French is not French, according to you ?
> >Because of the geographical distance.
>
> >It's fascinating to look at the terminological twist-in twist-out that
> >you are trying to achieve, to make the obvious look unclear.
>
>> Arnaud
>
>Since Mittani Indo-Aryan aika is earlier than Indo-Aryan Sanskrit eka
>those Indo-Aryans must have taken a silly detour to India then. I see
>it now.
>
>M. Kelkar
===========
I think your major problem is that you do not understand what the verb
*split* means.
The linguistic ancestor to all Iranian and Indian IE languages split into a
certain number of branches :
Among which we can identify :
- Eastern Europe Iranian
- Eastern Europe Indian (substrate to Mordvin)
- Mittani "Indo-Aryan"
- Persian Iranian
- Indian Indic
Whatever and Whenever Mittani indo-Aryan was,
This has *NO* relevance *WHATSOEVER* with India and Indic.
I don't understand why you are putting to the front what I consider a
(priority zero) detail.
Rg Veda can be dated thru internal examination of what Rg Veda is.
Nobody cares what Mittani indo-aryan was, when it comes to Rg Veda.
Even if Mittani was totally unknown, that would not change a single letter
of what we understand about Rg Veda.
Arnaud
=============