Re: reply to Mr. Watson

DW: I don't really know exactly, but then I've never defended

> that date, have I? That date isn't a product of comparative
> linguistics, and thus damning of its practitioners if ever
> proved wrong, but is rather a provisional date arrived at
> after considering the claims of linguists, as _well_ as
> other evidence.

Kelkar: It is good to hear, that the dates currently popular (say 1500
BCE) are only provisional. You have are the first linguists i have
talked to that even went as far as saying that much.

DW:I'm much more

> interested in the explanation of similarities in languages,
> how irregularities in a language can be made sense of by
> understanding its earlier stages, how a comparative study
> can glean that much more information about an ancient culture,
> etc.

Kelkar: I am afraid, that is where our paths diverge. I want to study
the history of my own culture and civilization which i very
subjectively believe is the greatest thing on earth. But as it so
happens,Sansrkit according to some people is an "Indo_European"
lanaguage. So i find myself living in the same apartment buiding with
other IE neighbors who keep banging on my walls.

And hence i am not intersted in the AIT/OIT debate for no matter who
wins, lingustics, and by extension Piotr G. and Max Mullar, win.

Therefore why i am here? Because every time i open any book on the
ancient history of my country, be it by a Westerner or an Easterner,
it always has this Indo-European stuff, and dates of arrival of some
people around 1500 BCE who supposed to have spoken a family of languages.

That is why i have just two questions for the IE lingusits experts:

1. When did this language family start diverging into all these other
languages they call IE languages?

2. How has that point been decided?

If any expert including yourself can explain this to a layperson, i
will be oblidged. if not, its been nice talking to you.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "wtsdv" <liberty@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "wtsdv" <wtsdv@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
>
> I accept 1, I reject 2 completely, I reject 3 and 4, at least
> as being _necessarily_ true, and I don't personally vouch for
> the date in 5 either, but I think it's inaccurate in any case
> to say that the date 1500 B.C.E. is a product of comparative
> linguistics alone.
>
> > which i find just unbelievable given the overwhelming physical and
> textual evidence.
>
> I'm aware of some evidence that I find overwhelming too, but
> you refuse to consider it. (-: It's not surprising that you
> find your evidence overwhelming, because by refusing to consider
> a major component of the contradictory evidence, there's very
> little left to overwhelm.
>
> > Are the linguists expecting high way signs saying "Watch out.
> Slippery
> > Pavement. Marshland ahead"
>
> The linguists, as linguists, base their claims on linguistic
> evidence. Those claims then, along with other forms of
> evidence, form the basis for further thinking on questions
> like yours regarding the earliest entry of I.E. language into
> India. It has to happen in that order, but you would have
> things work in reverse. You've arrived at a conclusion based
> on your interpretation of the Rig Veda and geology, and now
> demand that linguists come only to conclusions consistent with
> that. Imagine the opposite situation, one wherein linguists
> disallowed geologists conclusions about the dating of the
> river in question inconsistent with their linguistic theories.
>
> > 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!
>
> I didn't conclude that, but then maybe you're being sarcastic.
> In any case, if you reject linguistics then you're properly
> consistent in rejecting O.I.T. as well as A.M.T. However
> the question remains of whether you should reject linguistics.
>
> > How do the linguists arrive at this date, 1500 BCE?
>
> I don't really know exactly, but then I've never defended
> that date, have I? That date isn't a product of comparative
> linguistics, and thus damning of its practitioners if ever
> proved wrong, but is rather a provisional date arrived at
> after considering the claims of linguists, as _well_ as
> other evidence.
>
> > What is the starting point for the spread of languages?
> > How is the starting point decided chronolgically?
>
> Of all human language? Who knows? It's not relevant to
> our question though since Proto-Indo-European is, from that
> point of view, relatively late in human history.
>
> > 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(?).
>
> Is it? I didn't know that. Possibly other better informed
> list members can tell us more about the current consensus,
> if they would.
>
> Personally I find the homeland question just about the
> least interesting aspect of the whole field. I'm much more
> interested in the explanation of similarities in languages,
> how irregularities in a language can be made sense of by
> understanding its earlier stages, how a comparative study
> can glean that much more information about an ancient culture,
> etc. I'm always surprised that so many people regard the
> homeland question as the sole, or at least most important,
> point of the whole exercise, as the "holy grail" of Indo-
> European linguistics.
>
> > So lets talk about the time question only.
>
> Only if other better informed list members can join in, since
> I personally don't know all that much about the arguments
> behind the various dates.
>
> Look, I feel myself being tugged further and further from
> the aspect of the thread that brought me into it in the first
> place. That is your statement
>
> > 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? 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.
>
> It is these sorts of misrepresentations that I really object
> to. The cognacy of "sarasvati" and "haraxvaiti" alone _doesn't_
> prove the direction of borrowing (actually neither is supposed
> to have been borrowed from the other), but that is not what's
> being claimed. So your accusation of circularity is without
> basis. You need to get an understanding of the _actual_ theories
> and arguments that have been made before you try to draw
> conclusions. I don't know what your source is for these notions
> you come here with, though I suspect it's the grapevine. Is
> it not? If you sincerely want a proper understanding of I.E.
> linguistics, then maybe some list members can recommend some
> primers, after reading which you can come back here and we can
> assist you with any questions you have. It's really a waste of
> everybody's time deconstructing a false notion. I for one am
> only interested in arguing for what I believe in, not for what
> you mistakenly think I believe.
>
> David