Re: Witzel and Sautsutras (was: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of

If you just consider the linguistic evidence at even a macro-level, it's obvious

1. That Indian-Aryan is derived from Indo-Iranian, which is derived from Indo-European

2. That Indo-Aryan acquired loanwords and phonological features such as retroflex consonants upon entering the subcontinent, as did languages from other families including Dravidian, Munda, Burushaski, and even some Iranian languages of the subcontinent.

3. None of those loanwords or phonological features show up in the Indo-Iranian ur-language and none show up in Indo-European. It is true that some loanwords left India but this happened in historical times and can be accounted for

4. There is a stock of Witzel's BMAC words that shows up in Central Asian languages of the day as well as Indo-Iranian

This shows to anyone that the direction is from Central Asia into the Indian subscontinent

Therefore, Witzel's BigMAC beats your Whopper!

From: Brian M. Scott <bm.brian@...>
To: shivkhokra <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Witzel and Sautsutras (was: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of...)

At 10:24:43 PM on Tuesday, October 16, 2012, shivkhokra
wrote:

> --- In mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

>> It's easy to find insignificant errors in book sized
>> texts. I've found an error or two in Witzel --e.g. he
>> refers to a reference about a "spotted animal'" that was
>> a major carnivore. He thought it referred to a dog, when
>> it was obvious that it referred to a cheetah, leopard or
>> snow leopard. But Witzel, despite minor errors, has
>> overwhelming evidence on his side

> These are not insignificant errors!

Rick was being generous: we still have no reason to think
that Witzel made an error here. We have no evidence that
you're competent to judge whether he did.

> Dr Witzel's translation made him say that Sanskrit corpus
> of India "remembers" an "arrival" into India from the
> west!

Which it apparently does.

> This in his POV "confirmed" AIT.

No, it's simply one more piece of evidence of non-indigenous
origin of the Indo-Aryan languages of South Asia.

> Yet the opposite is true. Sanskrit works have no memory
> of an arrival into India.

So you say. But we've no reason to believe you.

> Furthermore I do not know what you mean by "overwhelming
> evidence on his side". Could you please elaborate with an
> example?

That you can ask this question after all this time shows
that you don't give a damn about the evidence that you can't
distort to support your ideology. If you did, you'd have
learned enough linguistics to know some of it without having
to ask to be spoon-fed like an infant.

Brian