--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "wtsdv" <wtsdv@...> wrote:
> >
> > 1) The Rig Veda refers in the present tense to a still
> > flowing Sarasvati river.
> >
> > 2) It's impossible for the Rig Veda to refer in the
> > present tense to any event that wasn't actually
> > contemporary.
> >
> > 3) A particular ancient Indian river has been proved to
> > have dried up long before 1500 B.C.
> >
> > 4) The Sarasvati river referred to in the Rig Veda is
> > that same river.
> >
> > 5) Comparative linguistics proves that the Rig Veda was
> > composed around 1500 B.C.
>
> MK: I agree with you that 1 and 3 are beyond doubt. At least for me
4
> is beyond doubt. I have read the Rig Veda myself and a river is
> described as a mighty one flowing to the ocean, along with a dozen
> other rivers which are stil flowing. The Mahabharata refers to a
> dimnished Sarasvati. Nearly six hundered settlements have been found
> on the banks of this dried up river.
>
> If i am rejecting 5 then, linguists must reject 4
I accept 1, I reject 2 completely, I reject 3 and 4, at least
as being _necessarily_ true, and I don't personally vouch for
the date in 5 either, but I think it's inaccurate in any case
to say that the date 1500 B.C.E. is a product of comparative
linguistics alone.
> which i find just unbelievable given the overwhelming physical and
textual evidence.
I'm aware of some evidence that I find overwhelming too, but
you refuse to consider it. (-: It's not surprising that you
find your evidence overwhelming, because by refusing to consider
a major component of the contradictory evidence, there's very
little left to overwhelm.
> Are the linguists expecting high way signs saying "Watch out.
Slippery
> Pavement. Marshland ahead"
The linguists, as linguists, base their claims on linguistic
evidence. Those claims then, along with other forms of
evidence, form the basis for further thinking on questions
like yours regarding the earliest entry of I.E. language into
India. It has to happen in that order, but you would have
things work in reverse. You've arrived at a conclusion based
on your interpretation of the Rig Veda and geology, and now
demand that linguists come only to conclusions consistent with
that. Imagine the opposite situation, one wherein linguists
disallowed geologists conclusions about the dating of the
river in question inconsistent with their linguistic theories.
> You are absoultely right in conlcuding that i am not an OIT
> believer. I have no reason to believe in OIT for it is based
> on linguistics too!
I didn't conclude that, but then maybe you're being sarcastic.
In any case, if you reject linguistics then you're properly
consistent in rejecting O.I.T. as well as A.M.T. However
the question remains of whether you should reject linguistics.
> How do the linguists arrive at this date, 1500 BCE?
I don't really know exactly, but then I've never defended
that date, have I? That date isn't a product of comparative
linguistics, and thus damning of its practitioners if ever
proved wrong, but is rather a provisional date arrived at
after considering the claims of linguists, as _well_ as
other evidence.
> What is the starting point for the spread of languages?
> How is the starting point decided chronolgically?
Of all human language? Who knows? It's not relevant to
our question though since Proto-Indo-European is, from that
point of view, relatively late in human history.
> I know about the problems with the spatiality issue of the
> "homeland." Linguistic experts have claimed nearly every
> place in Europe and Asia as a possible homeland. The
> current consensus is South Russia(?).
Is it? I didn't know that. Possibly other better informed
list members can tell us more about the current consensus,
if they would.
Personally I find the homeland question just about the
least interesting aspect of the whole field. I'm much more
interested in the explanation of similarities in languages,
how irregularities in a language can be made sense of by
understanding its earlier stages, how a comparative study
can glean that much more information about an ancient culture,
etc. I'm always surprised that so many people regard the
homeland question as the sole, or at least most important,
point of the whole exercise, as the "holy grail" of Indo-
European linguistics.
> So lets talk about the time question only.
Only if other better informed list members can join in, since
I personally don't know all that much about the arguments
behind the various dates.
Look, I feel myself being tugged further and further from
the aspect of the thread that brought me into it in the first
place. That is your statement
> 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? 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.
It is these sorts of misrepresentations that I really object
to. The cognacy of "sarasvati" and "haraxvaiti" alone _doesn't_
prove the direction of borrowing (actually neither is supposed
to have been borrowed from the other), but that is not what's
being claimed. So your accusation of circularity is without
basis. You need to get an understanding of the _actual_ theories
and arguments that have been made before you try to draw
conclusions. I don't know what your source is for these notions
you come here with, though I suspect it's the grapevine. Is
it not? If you sincerely want a proper understanding of I.E.
linguistics, then maybe some list members can recommend some
primers, after reading which you can come back here and we can
assist you with any questions you have. It's really a waste of
everybody's time deconstructing a false notion. I for one am
only interested in arguing for what I believe in, not for what
you mistakenly think I believe.
David