Analogies,valid and invalid (was Re: Scenario of language replacement)

[rohan.oberoi at CORNELL.EDU]

Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

>However, when Indologists vehemently disclaim the term "Aryan
>invasion" and insist that they nowadays talk only of "Aryan
>migration", I would like them to make it clear on what grounds they
>differentiate between the two, and how the latter can account for
>linguistic change in ancient India, without involving the former.

Your dichotomy seems false.  A migration is a movement from one place
to the other, and an invasion means a military subjugation.  The
available evidence allows us to infer that linguistic transfer took
place, and therefore at least some migration.  It does not tell us
whether peaceful movements, military subjugation, or a combination of
several different kinds of events were involved in this migration.
To speak of "migration" rather than "invasion", therefore, is to
refrain from making inferences not supported by the evidence; it does
not mean invasions have been ruled out.

Regards,
Rohan.