>It is forgotten that Comparative linguistics is a modern subject that gained consensus in the second half of the 19th century. S.C.Vidya Bhushan very quickly took up Grimm's law and its corollaries.><

 

Look, I don't want to bore the list with an encyclopedic narrative about everything I know. Since Bhushan's work, BK Ghosh etc. are not relevant to the homeland debate today, I will not discuss them. I had volunteered some suggestions on why Indian linguists are so strangely absent from the homeland debate, but if you have a better explanation, that is fine with me. I note that we are at least in agreement about this absence, for in three replies, you have still not named one recent Indian contribution to the homeland debate, in spite of being challenged to name one. (Then again, I did name rising star GN Jha) Well, it is not that important.

 

 

>>The invasion theory is not highlighted in India but the migration theory is.<<

 

Nor is the distinction between "invasion" and "immigration". I think an "immigration" which leads to a complete language replacement in a far larger and more civilized population can only be explained by a conquest, by the immigrants becoming the ruling class. Of that, you have an archaeologically and genetically very well attested example in the Indo-Europeanization of Europe, with all the evidence that proves so elusive in the case of India. Also, I have found that some who insist on the weasel word "immigration" are nonetheless still really thinking of an "invasion" scenario. But if you know of a peaceful immigration scenario that accounts for the known data, fine. I am not going to nitpick over these words, not even over the intrusion scenarios, as they are not what matters here. Invasion or immigration, both amount to the same basic scenario: Indo-European originated elsewhere and had to come into India by moving in. And that is the important question, that has kept Indo-Europeanist scholars (and non-scholars) busy for already two hundred years. I find the question rather exciting, and very consequential, so I am not going to insist on one scenario as against another in subordinate questions.

 

 

>>I named only a few of the scholars who took to Comparative linguistics - but it has not yet got a place for it in philological research. Professor Koenraad's idea that Indians do not learn French, Russian. Italian and German is, to say the least, wrong. He should personally verify the situation.<.

 

Having acquainted myself with the Indian situation, I know that German is or has been on the curriculum of one important network of schools; but those who study French (as a student in Varanasi, I used to converse in French with the daughter of Hindi writer Kashi Nath Singh), Russian etc. are very few, and those who study Latin and Greek (which played a crucial role in the discovery and systematization of the IE language family), are virtually non-existent. I think this is as it should be, students in France or America are not studying Oriya or Telugu either. But it also happens to imply that people are bound to be less equipped for and less interested in IE linguistics. That too is fine, for the main question in IE linguistics that is relevant to India, viz. the homeland question, will find its definitive solution within a few years. It is just around the corner, so the new generation need not burden its brain with exotic languages just to solve this academic little problem.

 

And by the way, you do me too much honour by calling me Professor. But thanks for the mistake. :-)

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Dr. Koenraad Elst, independent scholar