I've created this thread as a place for discussions on the origin of NI languages. Someone can probably give a better overview, but current thought invented by European scholarship is that Sanskrit and therefore all languages which are derivatives of Sanskrit came from Central Asia and not the Asian Subcontinent. They called the Aryan language group, which was eventually tied to a race called the Aryan race. From what I have seen, a lot of this scholarship rests upon the fact that the Vedas refer to horses which are presumed to not be indeginous to the subcontinent. Other facts would be welcome. We also have strong evidence that the language of the Zorastrian Scriptures is closely related to Sanskrit. On the other side of the argument, there is a group that says Aryan language did not originate outside of India but within India. In a way, this theory is a reaction to the false link which was created between race and language and possibly to national pride as well. My current personal position is that 1) There were no such things as countries with borders at the time this happened. Therefore, thinking of Sanskrit in terms of current political boundaries is anachronistic. 2) Linguistic evidence exists that Sanskrit is related to Avestan which to me is a strong indication that Sanskrit was originally native to the region of what is now Pakistan and Eastern Iran. If there were no borders back then it is natural that the flow of ideas would spread throughout the area because all areas were linked by trade and migration. In effect we can think of Hindustan as nothing but a set of various communities that bordered other communities in pre-Islam Persia. (It is also interesting to note that Panini standardised Sanskrit at a time when the offical language of the Persian Empire became Old Persian, as opposed to Avestan) 3) Further evidence of the link of Sanskrit to communities bordering and spreading into the Indus Valley area is the fact that the "Avesta people used the name Arya" (Aryan), from which we get the name Iran, which means nothing other than Aryan. Based on those facts, it seems to me that thinking that Sankrit originated outside of India is really an anachronism. There was no India and ideas were fluid and moved around quite a bit. Communities were finer-grained and no one saw themselves as part of a larger community called Hindustan or India. The very existence of such terms were created by later conquerors and not the natives of the area. In my opinion, it is quite possible that Sanskrit itself is simply a related language that existed in the Indus Valley area. The NI languages probably originated from Sanskrit in a similar way to the way Spanish, French, and modern Italian was formed from the blending of the mixing of Latin with other local languages.