At 5:14:44 PM on Thursday, October 17, 2013,
shivkhokra@... wrote:
>> If Arnaud has no knowledge of Sanskrit and Vedic Sanskrit
>Your hypothesis is false. Apparently you’ve not bothered to
see what he has actually said about his background.
Well I have interacted with him dozens of time in the last couple of years and I find him to be a very smart linguist. But he does not know Sanskrit or Vedas is also crystal clear.
> how can Dr B's grandstanding statement that it is
> "dishonest to claim here that Arnaud's review does not
> entirely demolish Talageri's main linguistic "result"" be
> correct? Since Talageri wrote about Vedas: a person
> critiquing his work atleast needs to know the language
> Vedas are written in? No?
>Not necessarily, no. It obviously depends on what kinds of
flaws are present in Talageri’s book.
Since you are familiar with Arnaud's critique hence I rieterate my request can you please post something from his critique which you think is kosher?
Regards,
Shivraj