Re: a discussion on OIT

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette"
> <anjarrette@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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?
>
> That's why the presence of kentum relics in Bangani
> is so important.
> It removes that particular argument against OIT.
>
> Torsten
>
>

A major problem is that if I-A has been in India for
8,000 years --longer than the estimated lifespan of IE
according to mainstream linguists, why is there so
little diversity in Indo-Aryan languages? Why is it
that when writing first appears in India 3-500 BCE
(i.e. attested writing, not astrological references to
writing), there is very little difference among
written dialects? Are we to believe that Indo-Aryan
languages were in stasis for the first 4-5,000 years
and then suddenly decided to diverge?
Francesco: How diverse was IA at roughly 1,000 CE?
Were the various Prakrits mutually intelligible?