Linguistic Evidences that disproves aitlarp :
Evidence 1:
Assuming that pie speakers (no speakers ever existed lulz) and Saraswati inhabitants spoke different languages, we have: According to Talageri , “””In short, no Indo-eurofags language has a name for an animal or plant found in the steppes of South Russia and not found in BHARAT. “”” Specifically, pie language has cooked up words for the tiger, lion, leopard, ape, and elephant which belong natively to BHARAT. As we have established that Central Asia had trade relations as well as some military relations, it follows that pie could only have taken these words into their language from Harappan Language — they are the only plausible candidate — as these animals don’t exist natively in steppe or Russia. This, however, leads to a contradiction as Dravidian words appear only in later books of Rig Veda.
See -
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-elephant-and-proto-indo-european.html
See -
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2019/10/dravidian-connections-with-harappan.html
Evidence 2:
Talageri has characterized the development of the numeral system into 4 stages .
BHARAT is the only place where the proof of all 4 stages is found. Specifically, classical Sanskrit is at the 2nd stage, while other Indo-eurofags dialects not found in BHARAT are at the 3rd stage. This is not possible according to conventional wisdom as yamnaya left their homeland later than pie.
See -
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2018/08/indias-unique-place-in-world-of-numbers_38.html
Evidence 3:
There is one-way borrowing from SANSKRIT to Uralic languages .
The only logical explanation that exists to account for this fact is: Vedic Sanskrit was transmitted from BHARAT to Eurasia. Otherwise, Sanskrit in BHARAT must contain loan words from Uralic languages which aint the case .
See -
Evidence 4:
Witzel, a Harvard linguist and aitfag , makes the case in the book “The Indo-aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History” [7, p. 370, publication year: 2005] that
“ratha” word in Vedic Sanskrit was imported from steppy and not vice versa. According to him, it provides unmistakable evidence against OIT. He states that:
“””
This is one of the few clear cases where we can align linguistic innovation with innovation in material culture, poetics and myth, and even with archaeological and historical attestation. 161 Therefore, we have to take it very seriously.
“””
But currently, we know that chariots were present in India indigenously around 4000 years bp contradicting his assertion.
Evidence 5:
In eurofags, river names reflect the names given by people belonging to cultures that lived there before the arrival of ie speakers. But in BHARAT , there is no Dravidian name for any place or river in Northern BHARAT.
See -
Why is this important? According to the book “The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture” [10, p. 98]:
“
The non-Indo-eurofags nature of the terms and names noted earlier also has to be juxta-posed with the fact that the place-names and river names in northern BHARAT are almost all Indo aryan. These names are, to my mind, the single most important element in considering the existence of a non-Indo-aryan substratum position. Unlike people, tribes, material items, flora, and fauna, they cannot relocate or be introduced by trade (although their names can be transferred by immigrants). In other words, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the foreign personal and material names in the Rigveda were intru-sive into a preexisting Indo-aryan area as opposed to vice versa. This argument of lexi-cal transiency can much less readily be used in the matter of foreign place-names. Place-names tend to be among the most conservative elements in a language. Moreover, it is a widely attested fact that intruders into a geographic region often adopt the names of rivers and places that are current among the peoples that preceded them. Even if some such names are changed by the immigrants, some of the previous names are invariably retained (e.g., the Mississippi river compared with the Hudson, Missouri state com-pared with New England).
“
Similarly [10, p. 99]
“
The lack of foreign place-names in the oldest Indo-aryan texts, in contrast, is remarkable when compared with the durability of place designations else-where. The same applies to rivers. Witzel again notes that such names tend to be very archaic in many parts of the world and they often reflect the languages spoken before the influx of later populations” (368-369). Yet here again, “by and large, only San-skritic river names seem to survive” in the Northwest (370). In the Kuruksetra area, “all names are unique and new formations, mostly of ie coinage” (377).
“
To be continued....
