Re: Origin of Sanskrit (was: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of...

What you say is fair. I think that for scientific purposes, we're pretty much stuck with Common Sense Glottochronology, although glottochronology has its flaws. I do think we can refine the method maybe back to 10-20 KYA. After all, Afro-Asiatic goes back to c. 9-13 KYA and it's recognized as a valid family. I also think that in the case of validly reconstructed ur-languages, that we can take things farther back. But I don't know if the science is there yet and how many families can be said to be validly reconstructed, other than IE. I see Renfrew as a possible precursor to pre-IE but I wouldn't bet any money on it.

In your discussion of India, I think "Dene-Caucasian" works against your argument in that it's just too controversial and its main proponents are don't play by the rules of Lx. In any case, I don't know anyone who lumps Austro-Asiatic in with DC.

Regarding pre-IE, that's speculative at best. I'd say it was more likely to have come either from Anatolia, the Caucasus, S. Central Asia or NW Iran because of the likely shared vocabulary with Semitic --which may be from IE, AA or neither.

If only we could learn more about the BMAC language and culture.

There seem to have been a few non-attested families in India and thereabout: as seen by Burushaski, Kusunda, Nihali, Vedda, Tulu (?) substrate and a couple of languages in the Himalayas that seem to have obscure substrate, as well as Language X of Harappa.

I've read posts about similarity of Iranian substrate and Dravidian --but I haven't seen any evidence. According to Wikipedia, there is strong Dravidian substrate in Sindhi. Mc Alpine's Elamo-Dravidian doesn't seem likely, although there may be a relationship at a higher level.

Then there is Sino-Tibetan, Austro-Asiatic, Andamanese (one or more families), etc.

From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...>
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Origin of Sanskrit (was: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of...)

Now, for India the same scheme has to be implemented with the
Nostratic variant. The result is as follows:
I) only unknown families during Upper Palaeolithic, then
"Dené-Caucasian", then "Nostratic" (to-become Dravidian) (Neolithic),
then Indo-Aryan (Chalcolithic);
II) "Dené-Caucasian" or "East Asian" (to-become Munda-Mon-Khmer
and Sino-Tibeto-Burman) (Upper Palaeolithic), then "Nostratic" >
Dravidian (Neolithic), then Indo-Aryan (Chalcolithic);
III) "East Asian" and "Nostratic" (to-become Dravidian and PIE)
since Upper Palaeolithic; all linguistic boundaries developed in situ
(PIE including hte Eurasian steppes, development to Indo-Iranian and
to Indo-Aryan in both the Steppes and Iran with North-West India).
Within this frame, an Out-of-India Theory can only be a theory by
which PIE Urheimat stretched form the Near East to North-West India
and from there expanded as PIE in Upper Palaeolithic towards Central
Asia and Europe, a very different theory from the Indo-Aryan version
of Out-of-India.

I think I have kept the discussion in a polite way, and I hope
anyone who will point to errors or mistakes will do the same