reply to Mr. Watson

Ok. Mr.Watson let us try. How do we explain this anamoly?

Some words are lingustically datable to 1500 BCE and yet they
cleaerly describe a river in PRESENT tense that went dry long ago
before these words were supposed to be spoken based on the scientifc
methods of comparitive linguistics which admittedly i dont
understand. I promise to be calm and rational till i hear a loser
cry baby "argument" as was offered before (nothing personal Mr.
Piotr)

"The unambiguous identification of the
Vedic <sarasvati:> is difficult, but given the evidence I've seen so
far
I wouldn't bet a penny on a river gone dry 3000 BC."

IF i(also) get banend from here we can continue on IC. thanks!

M. Kelkar

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "wtsdv" <liberty@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> You talk as if there were no ambiguity involved at all,
> but there is. You also indugle in gross hyperbole when
> you write "every single word in that verse must be older
> than that date", which is obviously not so. A composition
> made in 100 A.D. can easily include stories composed before
> 500 A.D., for example.
>
> > 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?
>
> First you admit that constructing a proto-language makes
> sense, then you turn around in the next sentence and call
> such proto-languages "mythical". Please make up your mind.
> In any case, the direction of invasion/migration/vacation
> (-: wasn't arrived at in the manner you suggest here. Do
> you really want to calmly and rationally discuss these
> questions, or do you merely want to throw stones at a
> theory you've heard about, but which bears little real
> resemblance to the one subscribed to by most on this list?
>
> > 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.
>
> The problem here is a common one. That is scientists
> working in the so-called "hard sciences", but otherwise
> dilettantes to linguistics, believing themselves thereby
> competent to judge the scientific soundness of linguists'
> claims. However the fact is that despite your scientific
> background, you don't know how to properly apply the
> scientific method to linguistics. If we could ever just
> once get across an understanding of how it's done to one
> from your camp, who has a scientific background, we might
> at last be able to break the impasse. How about it, do
> you want to try?
>
> David W.