01-07-2012, 07:21 PM
[quote name='acharya' date='07 January 2012 - 06:00 AM' timestamp='1325895739' post='114152']
The Sanksrit if deeply set in a perticular region will still have influence in that region.
[/quote]
Sanskrit as we know it, was formed on the Indian subcontinent, not on the eurasian steppes. It's not realistic to expect Sanskrit on the eurasian steppes. What existed on the Eurasian steppes were various forms of the Proto Indo European language. To illustrate my point, the homeland of Finno-Ugric languages is the forest region north of the Eurasian steppes, but one does not expect Finnish to be spoken in modern Russia.
It's good to be skeptical of any theory. A theory becomes a science when evidence shows up, eg. the "business of proto-languages" is based on the Comparative Method. This method was what predicted the Laryngeal - decades before epigraphic evidence was found in Hittite texts. It predicted labiovelars - way before they were discovered in tablets of Mycenaean Greek (predecessor of classical Greek).
The "business of proto-languages" also predicts proto forms of Sanskrit declensions, forms which are preserved in Greek; forms which surprise surprise, match Panini's rules for Guna and Vrddhi.
But still, we should not trust the comparative method and the whole discipline of Historical Linguistcs - only in the case of Sanskrit :-)
The Sanksrit if deeply set in a perticular region will still have influence in that region.
[/quote]
Sanskrit as we know it, was formed on the Indian subcontinent, not on the eurasian steppes. It's not realistic to expect Sanskrit on the eurasian steppes. What existed on the Eurasian steppes were various forms of the Proto Indo European language. To illustrate my point, the homeland of Finno-Ugric languages is the forest region north of the Eurasian steppes, but one does not expect Finnish to be spoken in modern Russia.
Quote:Also this business of proto- languages are really manufactured and has no basis on science or archeology
It's good to be skeptical of any theory. A theory becomes a science when evidence shows up, eg. the "business of proto-languages" is based on the Comparative Method. This method was what predicted the Laryngeal - decades before epigraphic evidence was found in Hittite texts. It predicted labiovelars - way before they were discovered in tablets of Mycenaean Greek (predecessor of classical Greek).
The "business of proto-languages" also predicts proto forms of Sanskrit declensions, forms which are preserved in Greek; forms which surprise surprise, match Panini's rules for Guna and Vrddhi.
But still, we should not trust the comparative method and the whole discipline of Historical Linguistcs - only in the case of Sanskrit :-)