--- In cybalist@..., "rajitarajvasishth" <rajita_rajvasishth@...>
wrote:
>
> I am posting for the first time on this list and apologies if
> I am breaking rules. I find these arguments presented by David
> somewhat insufficiently argued.
So show me how to argue sufficiently. Please give your
argument explaining the system of isoglosses and genetic
relationships between the various branches of the Indo-
European language family.
> David just like Michael Witzel argues the potentially archaic
> myths of the Rig veda are reminisences or purposeful archaic
> constructions. But this is not a parsimonious explanation
> because it multiplies the number of entities required to explain
> an observation.
What do you perceive as being the observation requiring
explanation? If you remind yourself of the list topic you
will realize that it is the body of observations made about
the languages of the Indo-European family. If you're trying
to explain anything less than that, then I'm not at all
surprised to read that you can do it more parsimoniously.
By chopping off the larger part of the question and discarding
it, you're left with much less to explain. However if you
really are aware of all that needs explanation, and actually
can give a more parsimonious explanation, keeping in mind that
you will be asked to explain forms and processes occuring not
only in Vedic, but also in Greek, Latin, Celtic, Armenian,
Hittite, Tocharian, etc., then by all means I would be honored
to learn from you. Please begin your argument whenever ready.
> Also it is very odd that the Rig vedic seers had nothing but
> archaic reminiscences and very little to say of the present.
Well I don't believe that there were ever such things as "Rig
vedic seers", only Rig Vedic poets. The poets would have
mixed and matched various threads and story elements from
various sources, including their imaginations, to come up with
something that was acceptable to their sponsors. Contrary to
what you write, that's not very odd at all, but rather the rule
the world over with the composers of stories, epics and myths.
> The mention of the Sarasvati river is not in some legendary context
> as one may narrate the tale of Robinhood to one's kid but in a
> very present context. Gritsamada or Vasishtha talk of living on
> its banks (not their ancestors).
An actual Gritsamada or Vasishtha may well have lived on the
banks of a river and called it the Sarasvati, but where that river
was or when, if ever, it dried up, I don't believe is yet proven.
> The only reason Western Indologists are so keen to contract the
> age of the Vedas is to fit their date for the chariots or the
> Mittanian tablet inscriptions.
When did any Western Indologist ever say that they were keen to
contract the age of the Vedas for this reason? I'm not saying
that they didn't, but this is very surprising. Could you tell
me the names of the Indologists who said this, and your source
for this information? By the way, I'm not an Indologist and
couldn't provide a date for the Mittani inscriptions to save my
life. But then I don't really think pushing the Vedas back one
or two thousand more years is going to fix the problems with the
O.I.T. explanation anyway. So I'm not keen to expand or contract
anything for any other reasons but logical ones.
> The first fossil bird Archaeopteryx is much older
> than those of its is dinosaurian sister groups that are closer
> to the ancestral state. Does this mean they were not there when
> Archaeopteryx was around? No. Similarly Mitanni and chariots are
> merely lower bounds not in any way the root or origin.
I don't understand any of this. What's meant by "lower bounds"?
Who said that Mitanni and chariots are the root or origin, and of
what? What exactly corresponds to the archaeopteryx in your
analogy and what to the dinosaurians? I think you may be confused
about what role Indo-Europeanists assign to the Mitanni in the
Indo-Aryanization of India.
David