Re: Indo-Aryan Migration in <<Several Waves>>
a.manansala_at_attbi.com
Date: 03/18/05
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA was to Paul Burke Re: Grænlendinga þáttur"
- Previous message: Philip Deitiker: "Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA was to Paul Burke Re: Grænlendinga þáttur"
- In reply to: ranjit_mathews_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Indo-Aryan Migration in <<Several Waves>>"
- Next in thread: ranjit_mathews_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Indo-Aryan Migration in <<Several Waves>>"
- Reply: ranjit_mathews_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Indo-Aryan Migration in <<Several Waves>>"
- Reply: ranjit_mathews_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Indo-Aryan Migration in <<Several Waves>>"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 18 Mar 2005 14:41:01 -0800
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com wrote:
> a.manansala@attbi.com wrote:
> > ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > a.manansala@attbi.com wrote:
> > > > ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > Virendra wrote:
> > > > > > Parayan wrote:
>
> > > If there were "white biases" in past theories, does it follow
that
> > > there are western biases in CURRENT theories that the IE language
> > > family originated outside India?
> >
> > No. But I don't see that anybody is necessarily using that
argument.
> > There is wholly independent evidence of CURRENT bias.
> >
> > > Any number of linguists would drool at the prospect of being able
> to
> > > overturn an established theory; why they don't do so?
> > > Because too much work has established the opposite, that's why.
> >
> > But you're ignoring worldview.
>
> Anyone who can draw up a set of laws showing how Vedic could have
> mutated into Hittite, Romance, Tokharian, etc, which laws explain the
> observed data better than Grimm's laws, Brugmann's law and all other
> such laws, would get to be a hero surpassing Saussure, so he wouldn't
> necessarily balk at worldviews if his laws are so obviously better
than
> the current ones as to obviate them. No one has been able to draw up
> such a set of laws, so other artifices have since been resorted to
such
> as back off from Vedic origin to (what amounts to) PIE origin and
> contriving scenarios to place the PIE origin in India.
>
You're making assumptions that IE evolved from Vedic is the only
possible view.
True there are people who believe that, but this does not seem to the
theory of most of the more vocal and well-known opponents or skeptics
of AIT/AMT. If you believe differently, please cite who is propounding
these views.
> > The establishment, accepting that their is a bias, would not look
> > kindly, to put it mildly, on such challenges. You only have to have
> > some experience with the peer review system to know this is the
case.
> >
> > I'm afraid I can't agree that the only question is where IE came
> from.
>
> It is the only question germane to AIT because even if you eliminate
> all the biases you can find in AITs but don't change your finding
that
> Aryan languages came into India, you'd still end up with an AIT.
But most mainstream Indologists don't seem to be advocating AIT. Do
you mean AMT?
> (If IE languages didn't originate in India, it automatically follows
> that IE speakers came into India; the IE dialect they spoke just
before
> they first entered is arbitarily called Aryan. Therefore, the only
> issue that affects AITs, i.e., Aryan Influx Theories in general, is
> the issue of whether IE languages spread outward from India or spread
> outward from elsewhere into India.)
That's not true. There are other issues that challenge even the
presumptions that get you to this stage, but as I said I won't go there
right now.
>
> The direction of migration of IE words for flora, fauna and artifacts
> has been analyzed in both these:
> http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0703/ejvs0703b.txt
> http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch33.htm
>
Well, even mainstream Indo-Europeanists don't agree on PIE flora,
fauna, etc.
You can see this on the different views regarding the PIE urheimat.
Also, how do you reconcile this with the archaeology or anthropology?
One of the most important genetic markers used to support the AIT/AMT
theory over the last few years, the Y chromosome M17 marker, now
appears to have originated in South Asia. Check out Stephen
Oppenheimer's recent book.
Not only is it most diverse in this region, but this diversity is found
among India's tribals!
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://sambali.blogspot.com/
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA was to Paul Burke Re: Grænlendinga þáttur"
- Previous message: Philip Deitiker: "Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA was to Paul Burke Re: Grænlendinga þáttur"
- In reply to: ranjit_mathews_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Indo-Aryan Migration in <<Several Waves>>"
- Next in thread: ranjit_mathews_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Indo-Aryan Migration in <<Several Waves>>"
- Reply: ranjit_mathews_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Indo-Aryan Migration in <<Several Waves>>"
- Reply: ranjit_mathews_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Indo-Aryan Migration in <<Several Waves>>"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|