I studied your link and find (so far) as follows: The more recent hypothesis A) that the Indo-European civilisation began in Kurgistan 7000 years ago instead of in India, irrespecive of whether that civilisation spoke Sanskrit or not at whatever period in history offers neither support nor counter-argument to the hypothesis B) that Sanskrit is the origin of English and so A irrelevant to B.

To put it another way Sanskrit is indeed the classical language of India, the objections you raise (or should I say link to) are only relevant to whether or not it originated in India but are not relevant to whether or not Sanskrit is the origin of English.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how you think that this justifies your original statement 'It all started with as sanskrit'.

As the topic so obviously fascinates you, however, might I suggest some further reading? (You will probably find these books to be rather better researched that Baron Bragg's TV series :)

The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World by J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams ISBN 0199296685

Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction by James Clackson ISBN 0521653673

And sorry too but I still don't understand why you still think the origin of the indo-european civilisation not being India but is geographically or otherwise Kurgish is a reasonable counter argument to the statement that English originated from Sanskrit - or what else is your argument then? That Sanskrit has been spoken in India since before English began is not in dispute by the way? Or is it?

I am not disputing your references, I am disputing what you understand by them.

__________________________________________________________________________________

^M Free your mind!