This is getting rather silly. Amir might not realize that he is flirting with some political undertones, with his argument, but is also the same stance on the word that I've had against Anirudh'd characterization. I might have had a brief discussion with Anirudh about this a couple of years ago, and my position is the same as Amir's. It's a leap to consider the two the same, and that one is referring to the Indo-Aryan group when they say 'Indic'. Here's the etymology of Indic from Etymonline, which is the one Amir is going by, Merriam-Webster on the other hand, as pointed earlier, accepts both views. Given that the term is listed as an adjective, and has Latin root *Indicus* and Greek root *Indikos*, both of which denote "of India;" might help. This might also relate to how foreigners perceive a word innocuously, vs. how the people being referred to see it. Ethnolinguistics is far more interesting.
I pointed out then, and I'd do so again, that Anirudh's classification might have a shade of influence from the nationalistic stand on the usage of the term. It's hard to debate this issue, when you are arguing over the intention and context of a single word. To everyone unaware, Indic is just some extension of India, denoting 'of India' and nothing more, while some can choose to equate the word to a subset of a linguistic family and bring up divisions thereof. The only thing that separates them is probably context. Regards Theo http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Indic&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indic?show=0&t=1352908404 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan#Usage_of_Aryan
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindiafirstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l