Re: Origin of Sanskrit

Yes, I mean that the Proto-Indo-Aryan dialectal Continuum (in
fact, different dialects of PIE descent and with shared specific
Common Indo-Aryan structural and lexical innovations, spread through
normal wave dynamics) covered a huge area and that secondary
Proto-Languages (= Proto-Languages entailing an area out af a larger
dialectal continuum) are by no means to be thought as small-size. The
highest amount of population of Central and Western Eurasia at the end
of Chalcolithic was equal to no more than a couple of modern European
*districts*.
This hypothesis holds true for every secondary Proto-Language
(Proto-Indo-Aryan is therefore by no means an exception). The real
Proto-Language is PIE, just like Roman Latin for Romance Languages;
PIE could (*could*!) very well start from a strip of lands between the
NEar East and North-West India and from there expand as PIE to the
whole of Centrale and Western Eurasia (just like Roman Latin to the
whole of Southern Europe); secondary Proto-Languages like
Proto-Western Romance never covered a small area and secondary IE
Proto-Languages like Proto-Indo-Iranian or Proto-Celtic represent a
similar phase

2012/10/10, Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...>:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>
>> I notice everyone takes as granted that the Indo-Aryans *expanded*,
>> wherever from; the logical possibility that they co-evolved in situ,
>> starting as PIE dialects (in the whole region between the Steppes
>> and India) is scarcely - and never operatively - taken into account
>> (although this could reconcile any kind of positive evidence)
>
> Do you mean the Proto-Indo-Aryan language was spoken in an area encompassing
> NW South Asia, Afghanistan, and the whole of southern Central Asia? I'm
> asking you this question because this is the logical consequence of a denial
> of any IA expansions. If IA co-evolved in situ in the whole region between
> the Steppes and India, the language from which all of them derived must have
> been covered the same huge region.
>
> Yet, I was taught proto-languages usually cover far smaller geographic areas
> -- let's say, the size of a small European nation. Why should
> Proto-Indo-Aryan be an exception?
>
> Kind regards,
> Francesco
>
>
>