Re: For MKelkar, Kishore and all those other anti-linguists

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "kishore patnaik"
<kishorepatnaik09@...> wrote:

>
> Let us start at the staring: I am not anti linguist.

Of course you are.

> If so, I would not have been on this list. I am against the way the
> Linguists are poking their nose into History, especially the Ancient
> Indian History and the subjective way they decide the direction of
> borrowings in spite of proof and evidence to the contrary
>

The purpose of Historical Linguistics, a subdivision of Linguistics,
is to discover how particular languages evolved, in the process adding
information to history, thus changing it, ie poking their nose into
History. If you are against that, you are against Historical
Linguistics. The fact that you think you can pass yourself off as
against the purpose of linguistics while maintaining you are not
anti-linguist, shows you don't know what you are talking about.

> From the entire story, it looks like US of A is less racial than
> Europe.

How do you feel your perceived idea of the racial attitudes of USA and
Europe compares to your own?

> In any case, it will take a little time for me to read all this and
> digest and react.

There's nothing in it you shouldn't already have known before you even
started corresponding with this list.


Torsten