--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...> wrote:
>
> mkelkar2003: I dont get it. Very early in relation to WHAT? If
> a Rig Vedic verse describes an ocean going river in the present
> tense that ceased to be that way around 3000 BCE as geologist have
> conformed, every single word in that verse must be older than that
> date.
You talk as if there were no ambiguity involved at all,
but there is. You also indugle in gross hyperbole when
you write "every single word in that verse must be older
than that date", which is obviously not so. A composition
made in 100 A.D. can easily include stories composed before
500 A.D., for example.
> Anyone can see that Sarasvati and Haraquitti are similar words
> and it makes sense to construct a proto language to explain that
> similarity. But how can the "evidence" from such a mythical
> proto language be used to argue that one river was named after
> another by invading/migrating/vacationing people in either
> direction?
First you admit that constructing a proto-language makes
sense, then you turn around in the next sentence and call
such proto-languages "mythical". Please make up your mind.
In any case, the direction of invasion/migration/vacation
(-: wasn't arrived at in the manner you suggest here. Do
you really want to calmly and rationally discuss these
questions, or do you merely want to throw stones at a
theory you've heard about, but which bears little real
resemblance to the one subscribed to by most on this list?
> For, if the words were not similar sounding you would not have a
> proto language to begin with. This is the scientific equivalent
> of conveting one's own feces into food. As a chemist i would love
> to do that, but unfortunately it violates the fundametnal laws of
> chemistry.
The problem here is a common one. That is scientists
working in the so-called "hard sciences", but otherwise
dilettantes to linguistics, believing themselves thereby
competent to judge the scientific soundness of linguists'
claims. However the fact is that despite your scientific
background, you don't know how to properly apply the
scientific method to linguistics. If we could ever just
once get across an understanding of how it's done to one
from your camp, who has a scientific background, we might
at last be able to break the impasse. How about it, do
you want to try?
David W.