P & G:
"The arguments for very early dates for Vedic have been
rehearsed again and again, and rejected again and again. So it is possible
that there is nothing racist in this at all, merely a refusal to publish
(yet again!) unsubstantiated claims."
mkelkar2003: I dont get it. Very early in relation to WHAT? If a Rig
Vedic verse describes an ocean going river in the present tense that
ceased to be that way around 3000 BCE as geologist have conformed,
every single word in that verse must be older than that date.
Anyone can see that Sarasvati and Haraquitti are similar words and it
makes sense to construct a proto language to explain that similarity.
But how can the "evidence" from such a mythical proto language be
used to argue that one river was named after another by
invading/migrating/vacationing people in either direction? For, if the
words were not similar sounding you would not have a proto language to
begin with. This is the scientific equivalent of conveting one's own
feces into food. As a chemist i would love to do that, but
unfortunately it violates the fundametnal laws of chemistry.
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:
> Since the anonymous mkelkar cross-posted his claim, I take the
liberty of
> cross-posting my reply.
>
> I agree that Indian scholars seem under-represented. Perhaps their
> interests are elsewhere? But I cannot agree with this:
> > and given the fact the Vedic tradition is the oldest surviving IE
> > tradition,
>
> The evidence seems to me and many others that Hittite is earlier, and
> Mycenaean Greek is earlier. Even Latin is earlier than the written
texts.
>
> A scholar of any ethnic origin who asserts something different from the
> consensus view, and cannot support it with credible arguments, is
unlikely
> to be published. The arguments for very early dates for Vedic have been
> rehearsed again and again, and rejected again and again. So it is
possible
> that there is nothing racist in this at all, merely a refusal to publish
> (yet again!) unsubstantiated claims.
>
> Peter