Re: reply to Mr. Watson

DW: 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?

KM: Anything is possible. But that does not mean it actually happened.
Burdon of proof is on IE linguistics to show that these stories have
been passed on from earlier.

I can easily explain why the long dead river must be identified with
Sarasvati. I am looking at the map of the Greater Indus region Fig
3.1 from Possehl's "Indus Age the Beginning," and reading the RV
(10.75.5)

"Favour ye this my laud, O Ganga, Yamuna, O Sutudri, Parusni,
Sarasvati; With Askini, Vitasta, O Marudvrdha, O Arijikya with Susoma
hear my call." Translation by Griffith (1890?)

The dried river system falls right near Ganga, Yamuna, Sutlaj
(Sututri), and Parusni (Ravi). Possehl being a rational man has no
choice but to name them as such including the "mythical" Sarasvati.
He writes, (p. 36) "but the rivers of Punjab were in different places,
and there apparently was a river system of some size that is now dry.
This is called the Ghaggar-Hakra today, but in ancient times it was
the Sarasvati."

If there is any confusion, its only in the minds of the
IE linguists.

Now its your turn to explain how the IE linguists have chosen the
initial date for the propsed IE lanuage expansion?

--- 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.