Re: [tied] Likely IE home: India

>How can an issue be prejudged just by the name of the author?
> Shouldn't the author be given a hearing first?

When I read his other books I gave him his hearing.

>He has argued his
> views using linguistics which is his profession.

It could be argued whether he "had used linguistics". HIS arguments make
no linguistic sense, and IMHO even if his conclusions were right, they would
still be unproven because the process by which he gets there is so
unscientific, irrational, biased and unbelievable.

> Is the refusal to hear or read because he comes to conclusions which
> run counter to the views expressed by some other linguists?

No. It is because his arguments fail.

> As a non-linguist, but one interested in ancient civilizations, I
> feel puzzled by the absence of an agreed framework among linguists to
> argue on -- or at least discuss -- issues (e.g migrations of words)
> calmly.

Discussion does not mean accepting bad argument.

> One says Sanskrit 'a' is old and another says no.

You have probably read the other postings showing why this is proved beyond
dispute. Those (like Misra) who believe against and despite the evidence
have a very difficult case to argue - and it is simple gibberish to suggest
that their view point is an equally valid alternative. They can only really
argue for it when they show they have understood the arguments against it.

Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "kalyan97" <kalyan97@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Likely IE home: India


> --- In cybalist@..., "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:
> > >Prof. Satya Swarup Misra.> > I have met the work of Prof Misra on
> laryngeals and in some other areas, and> in my humble opinion, he is
> one of those whose utterances remind us that> academic speech is
> indeed free in more than one sense.
>
> Would it be unreasonable to suggest that a recent book (late 1999)
> containing 10 lectures by another professsor also belonging to a
> Dept. of Linguistics (but in an Indian university) should be read
> first to evaluate if he has argued his case well?
>
> How can an issue be prejudged just by the name of the author?
> Shouldn't the author be given a hearing first? He has argued his
> views using linguistics which is his profession.
>
> Is the refusal to hear or read because he comes to conclusions which
> run counter to the views expressed by some other linguists? So what?
>
> As a non-linguist, but one interested in ancient civilizations, I
> feel puzzled by the absence of an agreed framework among linguists to
> argue on -- or at least discuss -- issues (e.g migrations of words)
> calmly.
>
> One says Sanskrit 'a' is old and another says no.
>