From: tgpedersen
Message: 58831
Date: 2008-05-24
>That's why the presence of kentum relics in Bangani is so important.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > << 6.3. THE NON-INVASIONIST MODEL
> >
> > The emerging alternative to the Aryan Invasion Theory may be
> > summarized as follows. In the 6th millennium BC, the Proto-Indo-
> > Europeans were living in what is now Panjab, Haryana and western
> > Uttar Pradesh, speaking a variety of mutually comprehensible
> > dialects, and tending cattle as well as practising agriculture.
> >
> > The group which separated
> > earliest from the rest was the one which took the oldest form of
> > the IE language along: we encounter them by 2,000 BC in Anatolia.
> >
> > >
> > This model will certainly need amendments and corrections, but it
> > is better able to explain the data than the dominant
> > Kurgan-to-India invasionist model. >>
> >
>
> So in effect you are a supporter of the idea of NW India being the
> urheimat of PIE? What proportion of linguists, archaeologists, and
> geneticists agree with you? Should I now change my belief in the
> central-to-west/central-to-east migration theories which I basically
> took for granted since they have been the only ones that have been
> published, as far as I know? Also, according to this theory, which
> are more original, centum or satem; if the centum velars are the
> more original sounds, why did all languages nearest to the urheimat
> (excluding Tocharian) participate in a shift velar>palatal; if the
> satem palatals are more original, why did all the most western
> languages participate in a shift palatal>velar, which I personally
> find rather implausible? Isn't it easier to suggest that the velars
> are the more original, and in like fashion the original homeland was
> (much) nearer than India to those languages that had the velars
> rather than the palatals?