Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 4

message: I have left some  tags in the article.  The first 2 show disagreement with Witzel's statement.  The last one is interesting since you are saying that IA renamed a river Saraswati that had disappeared about 2000 years before entry of IA because of religious feelings.  Think of the logic of this statement.Sbhushan 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how about you read a statement before you think of its "logic". Why should we consider the logic of your strawmen instead of that of the actual arguments? I am afraid that if you do not wisen up and begin editing honestly, you will have no joy here. dab (ᛏ) 11:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place Names and Hydronomy 

message: The article Cotton#History says there are several references to cotton in Rigveda ; where as  details at
Items_not_in_the_Rigveda this article says no mention of cotton in Rigveda.This difference needs to be explained in both the articles.
Mahitgar 10:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no explanation is necessary, the statement on the Cotton article was simply mistaken, and I have removed it as unreferenced. dab (ᛏ) 11:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cotton was or was not mentioned in Rigveda 

message: I would like to add some details regarding Proto-Bangani, that shows presence of Kentum language in India, thus supporting India homeland scenario.  The text (Elst section 2.2 ) I would like to add is:
OIT proponent argue that the discovery of a small and extinct kentum language inside India (Proto‑Bangani, with koto as its word for "hundred"), surviving as a sizable substratum in the Himalayan language Bangani, tends to support the hypothesis that the older kentum form was originally present in India as well. This discovery was made by the German linguist Claus Peter Zoller (1987, 1988, 1989, 1993). The attempt by George van Driem and Suhnu R. Sharma (1996) to discredit Zoller has been overruled by the findings made on the spot by Anvita Abbi (1998). She has almost entirely confirmed Zoller's list of kentum substratum words in Bangani.  This issue is still being debated, please see the details at Bangani
Please let me know if you have any objections or suggestions for improvement.  Does this fit in Linguistics top section or Comparative linguistics? Sbhushan 15:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: another one of your hacks. Sbhushan, you pretended to be interested in evolving this article, but now you have shown that you have no interest but to heap up rhetorics in favour of OIT no matter how far-fetched or shaky. This is not good faith editing. If you were editing in good faith, you would bother to look up argument and counter-argument yourself, not present some broken representation and leave it to us to restore the actual argument. As such, unless you begin editing in good faith, I am not prepared to let you disfigure this article any further. If you can get Maunus to fix your points and introduce them, that's fine, but I am not prepare to clean up after you any more. To anybody prepared to fix this: the Bangani-Centum claim is completely discredited. Those (fringy few) who do claim centum elements wouldn't dream of postulating that it has anything to do with OIT, but rather suggest Indo-Greek remnants. This is a non-issue that isn't even relevant to this topic. dab (ᛏ) 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The Bangani debate has been stale for eight years now. Zoller stuck by his claim, nobody believed him, that's where it's at. I am interested in the case, and I invite you to contribute to Bangani, but this has really zilch to do with "OIT". The notable discovery of Zoller's would be a linguistic remnant of Indo-Greek or Kushan influence, persisting for almost 2,000 years, this has nothing to do with "original presence" at all. For this reason, I would have no motivation to downplay the credibility of Bangani-centum, even if I was out to deconstruct "OIT": I would happily embrace Bangani-centum (if there was any real evidence) without the slightest implication that this has anything to do with even a BCE presence of centum elements, not to mention 3,000 BCE.  dab (𒁳) 11:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistics 

message: Dab, OIT is not same as "Proto Vedic Continuity" theory (PVC) or PCT.  PVC is related to PCT.  OIT is not comparable to PCT.  OIT is not supported by, but being discussed by Hock or Bryant.  Same can not be said for PCT or PVC.  So to compare OIT to marginal PCT is your POV and I strongly disagree with it.  For all controversial additions, please talk first before adding text.  I have been very patient and have tried to discuss things with you before making any changes, but I am finding that you are not reciprocating.  Please, please, please be reasonable.Sbhushan 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If OIT and PVC is not the same thing why does the latter redirect to the former?Maunus 17:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I never even mentioned "PVC". The redirect is here for historical reasons, I don't think I've seen any quotable source even addressing "PVC", and I have no opinion whether it is worth discussing. PCT otoh is simply the Eurocentric version of OIT: assuming a pre-6000 BC Urheimat in Europe, and later expansion to India, just like OIT (Elst's) assumes pre-6000 BC PIE at the Indus and later expansion to Europe. The scenarios are mirror-images of one another, and the arguments of why it is "impossible" that IE should be intrusive to either Europe or India are very similar. dab (𒁳) 11:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Dab, I strongly agree with Sbhushan here. It's enough to say that it is not mainstream...you don't need to brand it Indocentric in comparison with the idea of a Nordic Urheimat, especially since this opinion is your POV and thus does not belong in this article. It is especially bad to mention this in the lead. At best, you could find a source and say that Portions of the linguistic community compare this theory as the Indocentric version of the Eurocentric PCT. I can't help but feel you are POV pushing. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what "Nordic urheimat"? I didn't compare it to Nazi ideas, is that what you understood? I really don't see which part of the statement is problematic. I agree it doesn't need to be in the intro, but you seem to reject it outright. Why? The PCT is at least as "respectable", it was proposed by Italian archaeologist, not by a motley crew of teachers and spiritual leaders. PCT contains the exact same arguments regarding "recent arrival is impossible". What do you dispute about this? Did you even look at the PCT article? Your "Nordic" comment does not seem to indicate that. Do you dispute the PCT is Eurocentric? Or that the OIT is Indocentric? The almost total failure of this article to address any of the "out of" part of "out of India" is symptomatic for the proponent's total lack of interest in anything beyond the Hindukush. I can understand that "OIT" ideas can make sense if you look only at Indian evidence, and ignore the other branches (that's 11 12ths of the available evidence), but that is precisely what I mean by "Indocentric".  dab (𒁳)
Dab, it would make it very easy, if you could supply full citations for the PCT comment.  If you can supply citations, I won't have any problem with the harshest words.Sbhushan 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comparision to PCT