--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> This is of course nothing new. Misra has been doing his thing for
thirty-odd years. His linguistic colleagues have refuted his views
several times (H.H. Hock did so exhaustively, expertly, and as
tactfully as possible in 1999, that is, after the ten-lecture series
in question). As far as I can see, the criticism has had no effect on
Misra, who keeps on reversing the irreversible in his sound laws (*s'
> *k etc.) and historical chronologies. This is why it's impossible
to take him seriously.
Yes, Misra published his Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit, Greek and
Hittite in 1968. His 10 lectures were published only in late 1999.
There is no indication (and perhaps it is impossible) that HH Hock
took these lectures into account while criticising Misra's views and
evidence. On s' -- k^, Misra seeks explanation for the transformation
of s' into k before s. in Sanskrit. How about his evidence on Gypsy
for the IE 'a'?
In the preface to the lectures, he refers to the request made by
Edwin Bryant to work on this chronology problem vis a vis Anatolian.
Well, he has been professor of linguistics in Banaras Hindu
University and his student Dr. Sushila Devi is now working on the
thesis that Dravidian is not a separate language family. Arguments?
Plenty.
Linguistics after all is a science and subject to changes in
theories. Rather than dismissing differing views out of hand, won't
it be reasonable to study and evaluate what fresh evidence has been
brought out in the recently published 10 lectures which cover a
number of bases?
Glen, so long as linguistics exists, such views won't go away, I
think.