Re: Mitanni, Hurrians, etc.

>afme@... writes:

>That's a nice way to dispose of the issue, the information is still there

and the world responds to the kinds of question raised.

-- the information isn't there; that's why it's the playground of kooks.

>IFFF by that you mean alphabetic writing, of course that's right. IF

that means any and all kinds, you're totally wrong.

-- got any evidence? No? Didn't think so.

>Dating is a very vexed issue.

-- not any more, it isn't.

>That's OUR dating and specialist confined as well, Indian scholars date

otherwise, now who's right?

-- no, Indian scholars don't date otherwise, apart from a few nationalist
loons.

>And because conceivably mildly misnamed and possibly somewhat mislocated the

whole argument falls flat?

-- yup.

>does not apply to the languages thmselves,

-- the Bronze Age syllabic scripts had a number of technical shortcomings,
due to the fact that the signs had numerous alternative meanings which had to
be derived from context.

That's why learning to use them required so much time and effort.

The languages themselves, however, were not "ambiguous", and could be written
in a straightforward alphabetic script without the elaborate puns and
associational meanings used in the scripts.

That's why alphabetic writing replaced the earlier kinds in most places.
It's superior.