The Mighty Sarasvati Mirage (was Re: reply to Mr. Watson)

Mr. M.Kelkar,


As for you, the following claims are beyond doubt:

(i) "A particular ancient Indian river has been proved to
have dried up long before 1500 B.C."
(ii) "The Sarasvati river referred to in the Rig Veda is
that same river."

Indeed, you assure us that "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."

Moreover, you assure us that rejecting the identification of the
rivers mentioned in the above claims (i) and (ii) is "just
unbelievable given the overwhelming physical and textual
evidence".

Well, what you find believable or unbelievable is hardly the last word
on the Sarasvati issue. Indeed, the "Mighty Sarasvati" issue
has been
repeatedly debated here and the claims you find compelling have been
subjected to a detailed critique. As an example of such a critique,
see my modest contribution to the debate:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18475
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18488
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18553
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18886


So, might it not be too much to ask from you: could you please first
use the Search – button, i.e. before trying to teach lessons here
at the Cybalist?


Regards, Juha Savolainen

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>