--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:> > I thought the postings indicate a
number of Indo-Aryan lexemes which> > should be of interest to IE
studies. If you think otherwise, please> > feel to moderate as you
deem fit.
>
> Then indicate clearly the Indo-Aryan lexemes you wish to discuss
and omit> the> irrelevant part where you "read" the Indus Valley
script.
This is not fair, Piotr.
I am sorry, I have to unsubscribe from this list to avoid troubling
Piotr with having to restrict my posting privilege. I don't want
also to be seen to be advertising my writings. I don't need any
advertisement. Let the writings find their own value, if at all,
since I have only endeavoured, sincerely I hope, to search for the
truth about the evolution of semantics in the linguistic area of
India about 5000 years ago. If anyone wants to respond to this last
post of mine, I would appreciate an email copy to me at
kalyan97@...
Let me acknowledge how much I have benefited from being a member of
this list for so many years. I should also share with the members my
thoughts about the learned exchanges, limited though they may be, by
my own incompetences.
Linguistics is a science of language. I find that there has been an
excessive preoccupation with phonemic structures with little
emphasis on socio-cultural-linguistics, cognitive sciences, applied
linguisticsj, say, with particular reference to archaeological
findings. Limited also is the attention paid to the substratum
lexemes and semantic evolutions of languagess of the indo- in IE to
isolate and identify the cross-cultural influences of languages such
as Nahali, Burushaski, Gujarati, Sindhi.
Thanks, Piotr and regards.