--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...> wrote:
>
> KM: Anything is possible. But that does not mean it actually
> happened.
> Burdon of proof is on IE linguistics to show that these stories
> have been passed on from earlier.
No, it's not in this case, because the theories of comparative
linguists have successfully explained a much larger body of
observations than yours does. You actually limit yourself to
a very tiny part of the whole picture, so no wonder you find
your theory the more compact. The burden is yours, and that
burden involves offering something equal or superior to the
theory your challenging.
> I can easily explain why the long dead river must be identified
> with Sarasvati.
Only if you reject the greater part of the observations that
require explanation. Your task is so easy because you make
it so small.
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
>
> We've had this discussion several times in the history of
> Cybalist. Here's a reference to one of its past avatars
> (I'm not going to repeat myself for the nth time):
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/8963
Piotr is correct when he says that this has all been covered
before. I apologize to the list for, in effect, inviting you
to rehash it. Please read the archived discussion cited here,
and then if you still truly have something new to add to the
argument, append it to the relevant post(s) in that thread.
David