From: david_russell_watson
Message: 57478
Date: 2008-04-16
>Of course it is Mayuresh who misunderstands, Jouppe, and
> > --- mkelkar2003 <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
> >
> > "Wilk suggest that one of the Finno-Ugric substratum
> > features in Indo-European is the generalized initial
> > stress in Germanic (as well as in Latvian (see section
> > 2.3) and in the north-western Russian dialects, known
> > for a number of Finnic-substratum phenomena). This
> > `main event in the split of Proto-Indo-European into
> > Prot-Germanic and the other IE languages' had dramatical
> > consequences within Germanic, known as Verner'law, which
> > was later introduced into Finnic in the form of consonant
> > gradation.
>
> The proposed sequence of events makes no sense. Initial
> stress could not have had Verner's law as its "dramatical
> consequence", because Verner's law was effective before
> the stress shifted to the first syllable. Is it me or mr.
> Kelkar who is misunderstanding Wilk here?
>I warned this list about him a few years ago, archived at
> Perfect! Its good to know that the great Pannini and I have
> something in common. We both find philology and comparative
> (historical) lingusistics disgusting. You made my day.
>At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/message/68506
> What must have happened in the past is quite obvious. The
> Brahmin elite of India took their perfect Sanskrit language
> (which they have still preserved painstainkingly over
> thousands of years) to nearby territories. The language was
> eventually taken up by less developed civilizations and
> people with heavier tongues. Thus the original language got
> corrupted. This simple truth is unbearable for the modern
> materialistic, Marxist, pseudo secularist, eagaliterian,
> liberaterian mind to swollow.
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/message/68550
> That could explain why Russians perfected the ending in the
> word snokha but at the same time corrupted the s to a kh.
> The uneducated ustads of Indian classical music pronounce
> Rishab as Rikhab. It seems counter intuitive to assume that
> people who corrupt words in one way would want to perfect
> them in another. It is much more logical to assume that the
> original Sansrkit word snusha has been corrupted in various
> ways.
>and
> Just keep chanting rishab under your breath while you keep
> sipping bourbon. After a while the rishab will be become
> rikhab as your tongue gets heavy. It can be scientically
> demonstrated. The ustads of Indian classical music cannot
> pronounce Rishab as Rikhab because they are mostly uneducated,
> they drink too much and talk with a mouthful of bettle nut
> leaves.
> What you are afraid of is admitting is Sansrkit is the mostAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/message/68620
> perfect of all "IE" languages. The other langauges are just
> not good enough because the people who speak them do not care
> about perfect speech neither do they care about preserving
> their traditions. Iranian Avestha are corrupt less faithfully
> preserved than the Vedas.
>and
> What came along after what? This PIE is a figment of imagination.
> It never came along because there is NO EVIDENCE for it. Refer
> to Edwin Bryant's the Quest for Indo European origins where he
> has criticized the IE linguists for selective amnesia regarding
> the theolgoical underpinning of their discipline.
> > > Iranian Avestha are corrupt less faithfully preserved thanAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/message/68642
> > > the Vedas.
> >
> > Even were that so, we're not discussing textual corruption,
>
> Then may be we *should* discuss textual corruption. That
> would eliminate the need for creating a proto language to
> explain the difference between sarasvati and haraquiti.
>At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/message/68579
> The assumption that humanity once spoke one language is
> implicit in IE linguistics and certainly very EXPLICIT in
> Nostratic approaches which (IE linguits don't like) derives
> from IEL. The book by the famous (presumably) UCLA linguist
> John McWhorter even has the words Power of Babel in it. The
> compartiive method is based on an ASSUMPTION that languages
> evolve over time. This is where it is inextricably tied in
> to Darwin's theory. But if one takes the Michael Cremo type
> of view that humanity has devolved over time then comparitive
> linguists' conclusions will have to be turned over their head.
> In my personal experience I don't see any languages evolving.
> I see them becoming more and more corrupted and mutually
> unintelligible.
>and
> Exactly my point. Sanskrit is the most perfect of all "IE"
> languags which gives the IE linguists the creeps. In the
> case of snusha all the remaining six cognates can be traced
> backed to Sanskrit. Where is the need to construct an *8th*
> word? The job of the scientists is to explain observed
> phenomenon not appeal to new ones. I am impressed by the
> linguistic scientists' ability to explain how snusha could
> have changed to snokha and snoru etc. Reconstructing parent
> words is like creationist science. You are appealing to GOD
> or the PIE to explain the observation.
> This abluat business has been dealt with by Kazanas in hisand
> famous article which I do not completely understand. But what
> i got out of it is as follows. The Sanskrit vowel system is
> much more natural than artificially constructed unobservable
> and untestable PIE one. Again, the IE linguists are adamantly
> and in my opnion unscientically bent on constructing languages.
> My problem with reconstruction is that it penalizes the most- end quotes -
> ancient and the most accurately preserved languages like
> Sanskrit. It artifically puts all langauges irrespective of
> their refinement and antiquity on the same pedestral by
> creating an imperfect corrupt "proto language." This is
> romantic mushy mushy stuff. It is not pc to talk about
> winners and losers and yet they exist everywhere.
>
> All European languages aren't the same either. For example
> English has many funny hyphenated words like break-fast and
> house-wife. It does not have sophisticated words like
> Sansrkit "gruhini" or French"menagere." The IE linguists
> would explain all these words as arising from some proto-
> latin or something. Makes one feel good. Does it not. But
> is it really true?
>
> It is much more realistic to say that the crassness of the
> English language is its own and the refinement comes from the
> later Norman influence instead of saying that a non existant
> proto language was refined by the French but not by the
> English. Or the "Indo-Aryans" pefected *snusos but the rest
> of them just forgot to do it. And what about the English? They
> even forgot the word snoru and came up with a silly hyphenated
> word "daughter-in-law."