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

Macro-Comparison, although still too speculative, is till now the
only linguistic key we have in order to choose a favourite scenario -
but always just a favourite one, not the only one.
I admit that, although I sincerely like Dene-Caucasian
reconstructions, I prefer alternative ones and specifically PIE and
Afrasian ones, so in case of disagreement between hypotheses with
regard to the affiliation of a language X to Dene-Caucasian or
"Nostratic" I prefer the latter on strictly methodic, albeit quite
small-scale, grounds. (Therefore I feel satisfied with Čašule's
treatment of Burushaski; a linguistic isolate doesn't have to keep on
being such forever.) And yes, I grossly conflated both main
macro-comparative affiliations for Sino-Tibeto-Burman - Dene-Caucasian
and (IMHO much more trustworthy) South-East Asian - into one; sorry
for that, I realize to have over-simplified the subject.
Kuzmina's nice book is, for what we can know, a satisfactorily
argument for Indo-Iranianness of BMAC, provided this is still just
inclusive, by no means necessarily exclusive.
The day we'll be able to converge on one affiliation for Harappa's
language the whole landscape will be much clearer, but all the
characters are already there: IE (be it IA or else), Dravidian (with
or without Elamic), AA, maybe ST, less evidently anything unattested.
What we can do in the meanwhile is to agree on a reasonably
restricted inventory of educated alternatives (I've tried to enumerate
them), although we'll of course dislike much of them, and maybe try to
get rid of one or two of them - a very difficult task, but the only
scientific one we are left with. Needless to say, getting rid of a
hypothesis means a real reductio ad absurdum and not simply a personal
declaration of method.
As for me, I don't feel confident and I prefer to keep all
possibilities open. In this sense, I think the Out-of-India Theory is
definitely falsified as Out-of-India IA Theory, but still within the
range of reasonable scenarios as Out-of-India PIE Theory (although I'd
strongly prefer a Near-East-NWIndia Urheimat)

2012/10/10, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...>:

> 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
>
>
>