Post 255:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->let not be full by the fact that balkanic countries are less develop the West europeans.What is today wasn't alwais.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I am not fooled at all. Eastern Europe is highly skilled in arts and sciences - which has continued even in the economic crises of today. The economic and political difficulties in the east at present is caused by the upheavals of history, and the two WWs. In time you will do well again.
<b>Languages</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->MOstly only 2 language families,IE and tamilian.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You mean IE and Dravidian. Tamil is one of the languages classed as Dravidian. No evidence that the primal Dravidian language was Tamil; just like Hindi, Bengali,... are entirely different languages from Samskritam and even Prakritam. In that way, Tamil must be entirely different from the original southern tongue. Consider even how today's Tamil is different from the beautiful Sentamizh of just a few generations ago (though that also had Samskrit terms, it was also quite different in other respects to the Tamil of today). Today's commonly-spoken Tamil is practically a dialect of Sentamizh - in some respects the gap is even wider: knowing the former can barely help you to understand the latter.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a explination of why is no finno-ugric,basque etc,in India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There are some who say that Japanese and Finno-Ugric are linked with the Dravidian languages. I read it somewhere on this forum. From my personal experience, I'd say that Japanese and Tamil and Samskritam have definite similarities (Japanese shares bits of both, besides its obvious syllabic nature). Don't harbour a clue about about Finno-Ugric, however.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->About mongoloid speakers in india,genetic show that they came in india recently in 4000 bc.THis theory doesnt resolve the linguistic problem but put the same question as in AIT: how a small minority IE can impose his language over a much large non-IE majority?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But the majority speaks "Indo-Aryan" in India, with about 25% speaking South Indian languages and 3% speaking Munda languages. The latter did not impose Munda on the rest of us, nor us impose our languages on them.
Unless you're using Indo-European as an ethnicity in discussing the "small minority IE". I object, but will continue. In that case, speaking of subethnicities, the Munda-speakers have always been small in number. The rest of us Indians have always been large in number.
If you look up India in the ignorant CIA factbook, they treat Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Munda as racial categories (ok, fine - they've labelled them "ethnic" categories, which in American parlance boils down to races anyway). The CIA factbook states that India is 72% Indo-Aryan, 25% Dravidian and 3% Munda. So, as per the racist CIA, India is a country with an Indo-Aryan ethnic majority (not just "linguistic" majority). I can only wonder how they decided who looked Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, etc. I suppose they used their satellites to sift the "Oryans" in India from the rest.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A <i>linguistic principle</i> say that were are gatheret the most families,or the most dialects that is the place of birth of a language or family language.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Acording to <i>paleolitic linguistric theory</i>,the IE languages developed in central-asia(a few say middle east),and spread in Europe in 22000BC(the gravetian culture).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's what I don't get about linguistics: the linguistic principles and theories - are they deterministic or non-deterministic? They seem the latter, which make it a non-precise science. [Quick rundown: deterministic state automata are calculators that give the same unique answer to the same question every time the question is input. Whereas a non-deterministic one can give different answers to the same question and one can 'not determine' which answer it's going to be each time.]
Coming back, do these theories and principles always apply? In all possible cases of language dispersal in the world - both now and in the future (bound by available methods of dispersal of course), is it always true that these principles and theories will hold and apply? Can there be cases, exceptions, where they do not apply? Is there any way to accurately predict when they will or will not apply? I don't think so. In short, linguistics doesn't appear to be an exact science.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->IE languages developed in central-asia(a few say middle east),and spread in Europe in <b>22000BC</b>(the gravetian culture).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->They allow the IE language family more than 24000 years to exist, yet allow Samskritam only 3500 years (and yet most of the PIE constructs tend to be skewed seriously towards Samskrit-sounding more than even Iranian, let alone European)? Gods, that's hypocritical of the Eurocentrist Indologists.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->let not be full by the fact that balkanic countries are less develop the West europeans.What is today wasn't alwais.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I am not fooled at all. Eastern Europe is highly skilled in arts and sciences - which has continued even in the economic crises of today. The economic and political difficulties in the east at present is caused by the upheavals of history, and the two WWs. In time you will do well again.
<b>Languages</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->MOstly only 2 language families,IE and tamilian.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You mean IE and Dravidian. Tamil is one of the languages classed as Dravidian. No evidence that the primal Dravidian language was Tamil; just like Hindi, Bengali,... are entirely different languages from Samskritam and even Prakritam. In that way, Tamil must be entirely different from the original southern tongue. Consider even how today's Tamil is different from the beautiful Sentamizh of just a few generations ago (though that also had Samskrit terms, it was also quite different in other respects to the Tamil of today). Today's commonly-spoken Tamil is practically a dialect of Sentamizh - in some respects the gap is even wider: knowing the former can barely help you to understand the latter.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a explination of why is no finno-ugric,basque etc,in India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There are some who say that Japanese and Finno-Ugric are linked with the Dravidian languages. I read it somewhere on this forum. From my personal experience, I'd say that Japanese and Tamil and Samskritam have definite similarities (Japanese shares bits of both, besides its obvious syllabic nature). Don't harbour a clue about about Finno-Ugric, however.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->About mongoloid speakers in india,genetic show that they came in india recently in 4000 bc.THis theory doesnt resolve the linguistic problem but put the same question as in AIT: how a small minority IE can impose his language over a much large non-IE majority?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But the majority speaks "Indo-Aryan" in India, with about 25% speaking South Indian languages and 3% speaking Munda languages. The latter did not impose Munda on the rest of us, nor us impose our languages on them.
Unless you're using Indo-European as an ethnicity in discussing the "small minority IE". I object, but will continue. In that case, speaking of subethnicities, the Munda-speakers have always been small in number. The rest of us Indians have always been large in number.
If you look up India in the ignorant CIA factbook, they treat Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Munda as racial categories (ok, fine - they've labelled them "ethnic" categories, which in American parlance boils down to races anyway). The CIA factbook states that India is 72% Indo-Aryan, 25% Dravidian and 3% Munda. So, as per the racist CIA, India is a country with an Indo-Aryan ethnic majority (not just "linguistic" majority). I can only wonder how they decided who looked Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, etc. I suppose they used their satellites to sift the "Oryans" in India from the rest.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A <i>linguistic principle</i> say that were are gatheret the most families,or the most dialects that is the place of birth of a language or family language.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Acording to <i>paleolitic linguistric theory</i>,the IE languages developed in central-asia(a few say middle east),and spread in Europe in 22000BC(the gravetian culture).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's what I don't get about linguistics: the linguistic principles and theories - are they deterministic or non-deterministic? They seem the latter, which make it a non-precise science. [Quick rundown: deterministic state automata are calculators that give the same unique answer to the same question every time the question is input. Whereas a non-deterministic one can give different answers to the same question and one can 'not determine' which answer it's going to be each time.]
Coming back, do these theories and principles always apply? In all possible cases of language dispersal in the world - both now and in the future (bound by available methods of dispersal of course), is it always true that these principles and theories will hold and apply? Can there be cases, exceptions, where they do not apply? Is there any way to accurately predict when they will or will not apply? I don't think so. In short, linguistics doesn't appear to be an exact science.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->IE languages developed in central-asia(a few say middle east),and spread in Europe in <b>22000BC</b>(the gravetian culture).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->They allow the IE language family more than 24000 years to exist, yet allow Samskritam only 3500 years (and yet most of the PIE constructs tend to be skewed seriously towards Samskrit-sounding more than even Iranian, let alone European)? Gods, that's hypocritical of the Eurocentrist Indologists.