--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "S.Kalyanaraman" <kalyan97@...>
wrote:
>
> I agree, there is no link to IE speakers established as yet with a
> linguistic rigour which the members of this list rightly expect. If
> the Middle IA is explained with Prakrits . . .
See, this is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about.
What in the hell does it mean to say "M.I.A. is explained
with Prakrits"? It shows that you don't have even the most
basic understanding of what you've read. "Middle Indo-Aryan"
is a term covering the period of evolution from Pali to
Prakrit to Apabhramsha. What in your mind is being explained
about Middle Indo-Aryan with Prakrits?
> and the Prakrits, in turn, are explained with reference to
substrates
Again, what's being explained? What needs explaining?
How are they "explained in turn" when a prakrit's relation
to its substrates isn't comparable with the prakrit's place
within Middle Indo-Aryan. Do you understand that? I don't
get the impression that you really understand what a substrate
is.
> (say, Nahali; say, Language X), a possible clue will emerge as to
the reasons for the
> existence of apparently non-IE words in R.gveda.
You once claimed that Vedic could be Masica's language X,
didn't you? Do you yet understand why that's ridiculous?
You also throw the word Nahali around alot. Why is that?
What is it about the mere invoking of the word Nahali that
you think lends any credence to your ideas? You seem to
hope others will believe that any unknown, such as Nahali's
substrate, proves that nothing is known with any certainty.
Although you only invoke that when backed against the wall
with proof that you don't know what you're talking about,
then you claim proof hiding in the yet unexplored cracks,
such as Nahali's substrate, about which you don't know
anymore than anybody else. Any other time you boldly state
as fact whatever you will. How is it that linguists with
specialized training know so little, yet you with none at
all, know so much? That's not really humility as I
understand the word. Also, don't the Prakrits post-date
the I.V.C.? How then could the I.V.C. language(s) have
been Prakrit?
> The great savant, the late FBJ Kuiper is no longer with us to
enlighten us further.
Don't worry, his student Prof. Witzel is, though he's been
trying to enlighten you for years without any success.
> His works are a treasure-house of insights into the presence of
> Austro-asiatic words in R.gveda. The system which can be correlated
> is the writing system (with an underlying speech or parole),
> unfortunately, this list cannot be used to elaborate further on the
> structure, form and function of this system. Hence, Sulekha is my
> present refuge to understand the language of the slightly deceased
> guys who could turn out to be ancestors of IE people.
"Slightly deceased"? Isn't that like being "slightly pregnant"?
In any case, there's no chance that they were the ancestors of
the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and only a very slight chance that the
Proto-Indo-Europeans were theirs. Archaeology won't even support
that.
David