--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "S.Kalyanaraman" <kalyan97@...>
wrote:
>
> I will fulfil my promise. I only hope that judgements will be
> suspended, till my 7 books including two on language and epigraphs
> are read.
You've not suspended judgement, why should your critics?
> Surely, linguistics is also a tool used for this multi-
> disciplinary effort.
Surely it is, so why then do you regularly turn your nose
up at any information contrary to your preconceived notions
that you receive from the linguists on this list such as
Piotr, Miguel and a few others, who seem to be the only
linguists with whom you've ever had any interaction. You're
not a linguist yourself, and so you don't really have any
(methodological) right to reject what they tell you. You
seem to think that you've figured out linguistics all on
your own without any formal study. You seem to think, as
so many unfortunately do, that comparative linguistics boils
down to "Piotr thinks that cloud on the right looks like an
elephant, but I think it looks like a rhino", but that's not
how it works. There's a sound scientific method involved,
of which it takes years of study to acquire an understanding,
and you have not even begun. Simply spending years of
entering words from dictionaries is not equivalent.
> If the present state of linguistics alone were adequate, the
> writing system problem would have been resolved long ago.
But you have claimed, and have been claiming for years,
to have done just that. In any case, what do you know
of "the present state of linguistics"? You throw the
terminology around (hapharzadly), but demonstrate no
other understanding of the discipline. Moreover, what
gives you the clairvoyance to know that a future, more
advanced state of linguistics will fall in line with
what you believe today? Shouldn't we wait to see? I
believe that Uranus is full of green leprechauns. If
today's science doesn't confirm my belief, never mind,
in 100 years it will be a proven fact! Your real gripe,
and an illegitimate one, with the present state of
linguistics is that it's completely incompatible with
your idiosyncratic theories about Indian history.
You're trying to do science by working backwards from
your desired result.
David