From: david_russell_watson
Message: 41845
Date: 2005-11-07
>It really amuses me how you constantly cite Elst in support
> As I read it, Prof Hock is theoretically not opposed to the
> Indian Subcontinent, but he does not think its practical.
> Here is summary of Hock's opinion on the astronomical date
> as related by K. Elst.
> When I wrote the above, I was already half asleep. Wide awake- edit -
> now, let me admit that I was mistaken. And that the mistake
> consists in going along with Mr. Kelkar's very basic mistake,
> viz. of confusing Mitannic with Hittite.
> So, I stick to my initial position: "It was never my point, andFrom http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/message/78768 :
> probably not Witzel's either, that the date of Sanskrit can be
> established by dating the laryngeals of Hittite." The rest was a
> digression caused by the unfortunate but persistent fact that Mr.
> Kelkar misunderstands the whole linguistic argument.
>
> Given the emotional and political investment in the OIT, I find
> it sad as well as puzzling that Hindu society seems unable to
> generate a critical mass of intellectuals who are willing and
> able to familiarize themselves with the linguistic argument
> sufficiently to match the AIT party in debate. Instead, all i
> see (with extremely few exceptions) is smugness, laziness, ad
> hominems, swearwords against indivuals as well as against entire
> disciplines, and the bizarre belief that the debate has
> conclusively been won long ago.
> --- In IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"- edit -
> <smykelkar@...> wrote:
> > The above paragraph neatly summaris the totally arbitrary andFrom http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/message/78970 :
> > subjective nature of PIE reconstruction.<
>
> Not at all. "Controversy" is a perfectly respectable and rational
> activity, not at all synonymous with "arbitrary" and "subjective",
> let alone "totally". Most scientific certainties are the end
> result of controversies among legitimate and objective-minded
> researchers.
>
> > The archaism/innovation gimmick is most useful to provide a
> > scholarly cloak to latent racism.
>
> Serious allegation. Hence: provide either proof or retraction
> with apologies.
>
> > Features shared by Greek, Albanian, and IIr are classified as
> > archaisms to keep the languages of Europeans and non-Europeans
> > apart into separate "singleton families."
>
> Archaisms unite all those branches not affected by a given
> innovation. In the example given, they *unite* non-European
> Indo-Iranian with European Greek and Albanian.
>
> > The supposedly older Hittite texts are used to date the RV where
> > there is no objective way to judge the age of a language.
>
> This has nothing to do with the quoted statement.
>
> KE
> --- In IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"- edit -
> <smykelkar@...> wrote:
> >
> > So you would like to have it both ways then. The IA loan words
> > in Mitanni are previous to the merging of a/e/o in Sanskrit;
>
> Again you are showing you don't understand the logic of the
> linguistic argument. In this example I was not discussing the
> specifics of Mitannic. Anyone who knows the Sanskrit loans in
> Mitannic (there are only a handful) knows that the difference
> with Vedic lies not in the condition of the a/e/o vowels, which
> coincide as /a/ just like in Vedic.
> And there you try to restart the a/e/o debate. It's all beenFrom http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/message/78790 :
> said before, and I'm not going to join in for the same old
> sterile treadmill.
>
> KE
> --- In IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/message/56374
> <smykelkar@...> wrote:
> >
> > But they are kept into separate "families" to maintain the
> > European origins of "IE languages."
>
> Firstly, this claim is illogical. Whether they are separate
> families implies nothing at all about the European or Asian
> origin of the IE language family.
>
> Secondly and more importantly, none of the scholars involved
> has ever stated this Eurocentric motive. Even if they were
> Eurocentric, they still based their conclusions on genuinely
> held linguistic convictions (of course! Someone who is convinced
> that Europe is the centre of IE history is ipso facto convinced
> that the facts support this theory and therefore will be
> comfortable with citing facts and keeping the debate at the
> level of the factual data). It is only you who attributes this
> motive to them. As a rule, attributing motives is inversely
> proportional to a grasp of the subject-matter, for a good grasp
> would allow for substantive arguments and make arguments ad
> hominem unnecessary.
>
> In particular, I am through with Hindus who try to eternalize
> anachronistic perceptions about "white racism" as the operative
> motive. Sure, there's a history of white racism, and at the
> street/pub level it's not quite dead. But as you all know,
> there's also plenty of Hindu racism, anti-black (as I've noticed
> in both London and The Hague, where incidentally there are
> percentagewise clearly more white-black couples than Indian-black
> couples, and the only Hindu woman I know who lives with a black
> has had to go against fierce opposition from her family) as well
> as anti-white, so I'm not too impressed with holier-than-thou
> anti-racism from that quarter. Within the spectrum of AIT
> critics, those who always bypass the substantive discussion in
> order to rant about colonial racism instead, are typically the
> same ones who foam at the mouth when pronouncing the word "white",
> who denounce Sonia for her skin colour rather than for her
> politics, who consider Gandhi's "dethroning Annie Besant as
> Congress leader" as his greatest achievement (authentic claim
> recently made on another Hindu list), and who denounce even
> proven pro-Hindu Westerners like David Frawley (as was done in
> a Vigil review of my own book BJP vs. Hindu Resurgence) and
> François Gautier. I've never heard or read such anti-white
> tirades from Shrikant Talageri, but then he has filled numerous
> pages with a serious and increasingly competent analysis of the
> linguistic arguments.
> The word "accusations" implies at least a certain focus.- edit -
> Kelkar's discourse, by contrast, was simply all-round
> stonewalling any substantive debate.
> > Historical Linguistics is NOT a true science. There- end quotes -
> > are no imperical data prior to written records and the
> > claims are not falsifiable. It is patently absurd to
> > defer to its conclusions.<
>
> As I remarked during the debate between Kelkar (seconded by
> others) and the "gora sahibs", not just Kelkar but very many
> OIT supporters contribute only sweeping apodictic statements
> without any argumentative value, thereby incidentally hurting
> their own cause. So here is one more of them, proving that
> this aggressive dogmatism is not an exclusively Indian trait.
>
> There are empirical data from the time of writing onwards,
> which is already quite a corpus of hard data. Many of its
> hypothetical claims *have* been verified/falsified. And you
> really go off on an unscholarly tangent where you call it
> "patently absurd" to defer to its conclusions. A scholar
> disagreeing on grounds of serious data interpretation might
> have called it "premature", or "as yet unjustified" or so;
> but "patently absurd" belongs in the realm of the emotionalist-
> patriotic tirades which, I regret to say, still make up the
> majority of anti-AIT utterances.
>
> > For the purposes of making
> > conclusions about ethnic identities, migrations, etc.
> > historical linguistics is only useful in conjunction
> > with other areas of research like archaeology,
> > anthropology, astronomy, geology/climatology, etc.<
>
> No quarrel with that; the reverse is also true. In puzzling
> together ancient history, archaeology etc. is insufficient by
> itself.
>
> > No wonder Kelkar was mad at the two gora sahibs who
> > arrogantly and flippantly put forth their conclusions
> > without showing their work or adequately addressing
> > criticisms.
>
> Go through the record and see for yourself how the gora sahibs
> have done far more to lay their scholarly cards on the table
> even when it became clear that their opponents weren't properly
> reading or understanding them. In any case I don't thing that
> being "mad" is proper behaviour in a debate.
>
> KE
> Mr. Kelkar's very basic mistake, viz. OF CONFUSINGAnd nothing has changed, Koenraad, nothing has changed, and
> MITANNIC WITH HITTITE.
> the unfortunate but persistent fact that MR. KELKAR
> MISUNDERSTANDS THE WHOLE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT.
> all i see (with extremely few exceptions) is SMUGNESS,
> LAZINESS, AD HOMINEMS, SWEARWORDS against indivuals as
> well as against entire disciplines
> provide either proof or retraction with apologies.
> Again you are showing YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF
> THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT
> this claim is ILLOGICAL
> so I'm not too impressed with holier-than-thou anti-racism
> from that quarter. Within the spectrum of AIT critics, those
> who ALWAYS BYPASS THE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION in order to rant
> about colonial racism instead
> not just Kelkar but very many OIT supporters contribute only
> sweeping apodictic statements WITHOUT ANY ARGUMENTATIVE VALUE
> the emotionalist-patriotic tirades which, I regret to say,
> still make up the majority of anti-AIT utterances.
> Go through the record and see for yourself how the gora sahibs
> have done far more to lay their scholarly cards on the table
> even when it became clear that their opponents weren't properly
> reading or understanding them
> KELKAR'S DISCOURSE, BY CONTRAST, WAS SIMPLY ALL-ROUND
> STONEWALLING ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE.
> I'm not going to join in for the SAME OLD STERILE TREADMILL.David