Content deleted Content added
HagermanBot (talk | contribs) m 81.157.96.109 didn't sign: "→response: " |
|||
Line 351:
[[User:Thegreyanomaly|Thegreyanomaly]] 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: One linguist's maverick opinion does not count very much in the subject. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/81.157.96.109|81.157.96.109]] ([[User talk:81.157.96.109|talk]]) 20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:Thegreyanomaly, I'm honestly not entirely hostile to your position. I just don't completely understand it. What does "culturally South Asian" mean? I thought "South Asia" was basically a geographical concept. Clearly, Tibetan's closest relatives are language spoken at various points in the Himalayas, and, after that, Burmese and some of its cousins. I tend to think Ladakhi, Sikkimese, and Dzongkha should be discounted, as they result from population movements within the last 1000 years or so. Anyway, some languages related to Tibet are spoken at and around the edges of the Indian subcontinent. What does this tell us?—[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]]<sup>([[User talk:Nat Krause|Talk!]]·[[Special:Contributions/Nat Krause|What have I done?]])</sup> 05:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
| |||