Normally I wouldn't ask such a questions but I have to point out a possible glaring misdirection in the article I posted on the Sumerian language in the earlier post. It was hinted that this language originated in western India and then a branch of this race went off to form a new home in what is called an Austric settlement which, I don't know about you, but I automatically assumed meant Australia.

This just didn't make sense to me as there is no hint that there was an advanced civilization in this region unless you want to accept the ancient Indian texts so I decided to check what Austric meant and was. Before that though I am still not convinced how, even if there was a migration from western India to The Sumerian flood plain, that this would have allowed this solitary race or segment of a race to be the inventors of civilization and all the firsts that was associated with it. It really makes absolutely no sense. In the article it boldly states that this western Indian group emigrated eastward and thus is still around to be tested ... BUT WHAT IF ... THE MIGRATION WENT THE OTHER WAY ? WHAT IF RATHER THAN GOING FROM INDIA TO THE ISLANDS, THE MIGRATION PATH WAS ACTUALLY FROM THE ISLANDS TO INDIA TO SUMERIA ? What if the cradle of our civilization was really in the islands that many have labelled Mu ?

Perhaps this may give us a clue:

Austric adjective (2)
\ " \

Definition of Austric (Entry 2 of 2)

: of, relating to, or belonging to the related Austronesian and Austroasiatic families of languages considered as subfamilies of a vast family of languages extending from northern India across the islands of the Pacific

I am uncertain at the moment how they can determine the path of the language flow when it is all but extinct in India but still alive eastward. It is looking an awful lot like those who professed the continent of Mu as our cradle of civilization may have been barking up the right tree after all.

[en.wikipedia.org])

From the article: "Mu's existence is considered to have no factual basis"

Well if being the birthplace of The Sumerians is not proof and a fact that the language that they spoke is directly related to the language spoken in the ilsands, I am curious to the fact that these things are not considered factual basis.

Looks like I am goign to have to read Churchward. And to think I had dismissed this as a possibility for years.

db

"There is nothing as impenetrable as a closed mind"
and ..." if everything is a coincidence what is the point of studying or measuring or analyzing anything ?" db