Re: reply to Mr. Watson

DW: 1) The Rig Veda refers in the present tense to a still
flowing Sarasvati river.

2) It's impossible for the Rig Veda to refer in the
present tense to any event that wasn't actually
contemporary.

3) A particular ancient Indian river has been proved to
have dried up long before 1500 B.C.

4) The Sarasvati river referred to in the Rig Veda is
that same river.

5) Comparative linguistics proves that the Rig Veda was
composed around 1500 B.C.

MK: I agree with you that 1 and 3 are beyond doubt. At least for me 4
is beyond doubt. I have read the Rig Veda myself and a river is
described as a mighty one flowing to the ocean, along with a dozen
other rivers which are stil flowing. The Mahabharata refers to a
dimnished Sarasvati. Nearly six hundered settlements have been found
on the banks of this dried up river.

If i am rejecting 5 then, linguists must reject 4 which i find just
unbelievable given the overwhelming physical and textual evidence. Are
the linguists expecting high way signs saying "Watch out. Slippery
Pavement. Marshland ahead"

You are absoultely right in conlcuding that i am not an OIT believer.
I have no reason to believe in OIT for it is based on linguistics too!

Therefore, thank your for understanding where i am coming from.


But lets back up a little. My questions are about number 5.

How do the linguists arrive at this date, 1500 BCE?

What is the starting point for the spread of languages?

How is the starting point decided chronolgically?

I know about the problems with the spatiality issue of the "homeland."
Linguistic experts have claimed nearly every place in Europe and Asia
as a possible homeland. The current consensus is South Russia(?). So
lets talk about the time question only.

M. Kelkar

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "wtsdv" <liberty@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ok. Mr.Watson let us try. How do we explain this anamoly?
>
> It's more important for the argument at hand how _you_
> explain this anomaly, which is by rejecting comparative
> linguistics out right. Let's see if that's justified.
>
> Actually, I might stop and insert here that I don't
> really mind if you believe in O.I.T. or if you argue
> for it here. What I object to is your going about it
> by dismissing comparative linguistics without having
> any understanding of it, and the insinuation that
> linguists must have some kind of mental or moral defect
> for defending it.
>
> > 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.
>
> There clearly is an anomaly, at least as you frame the
> question, which is as so:
>
> 1) The Rig Veda refers in the present tense to a still
> flowing Sarasvati river.
>
> 2) It's impossible for the Rig Veda to refer in the
> present tense to any event that wasn't actually
> contemporary.
>
> 3) A particular ancient Indian river has been proved to
> have dried up long before 1500 B.C.
>
> 4) The Sarasvati river referred to in the Rig Veda is
> that same river.
>
> 5) Comparative linguistics proves that the Rig Veda was
> composed around 1500 B.C.
>
> Obviously these can't all simultaneously be true, and
> you've clearly opted to reject 5, thus your arrival
> on this list to slap the faces of its proponents, or
> at least the only proponents within easy reach, but
> the problem is both with some of these premises, and
> with the limited number of considerations included
> here. The larger question must include consideration
> of the systematic correspondences between several
> languages, archaeological data which although less
> decisive on ethnic movement in the subcontinent itself,
> is not as ambiguous elsewhere, and historical data
> other than the Rig Veda. Within the wider picture,
> and needing to explain a larger set of observations,
> number 5, or actually comparative linguistics, since
> I imagine the exact date is arguable, is much less
> easily dismissed. In fact if you wish to dismiss it
> you have to offer something in lieu of it with equal
> or greater explanatory power. I don't think anybody
> debates 1 or 3, so we're forced to reconsider 2 and 4.
> Can you explain why it's impossible for the Veda to
> have referred in the present tense to stories passed
> on from an earlier time, which is not uncommon in
> literature, or why the long dead river in question must
> necessarily be identified with the Sarasvati in the Veda?
>
> > I promise to be calm and rational till i hear a loser cry baby
> > "argument" as was offered before (nothing personal Mr. Piotr)
>
> No of course not. Why would anyone take offense at
> being called a baby or a loser? I'm afraid you've lost
> one point for calmness and rationality right from the
> start. Actually, there's nothing wrong with Piotr's
> argument, and calling it "a loser cry baby "argument""
> is no sort of refutation. How old are you anyway? Are
> you the Doogie Howser of the chemistry department? (-:
>
> David W.