From: mkelkar2003
Message: 41777
Date: 2005-11-06
>It does not. We make that clear in our paper.
>
>
> --- mkelkar2003 <smykelkar@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> > <gknysh@...> wrote:
> GK: There are so many well-attested instances
> > of
> > > "invasions" (large, small, middling etc..) in
> > human
> > > history that the national-autochtonist position
> >
> > Calling an authochtonist position nationalistic is
> > stereotyping the
> > opponent to avoid answering them.
>
> ****GK: "national-autochtonism" is not "nationalism".
> It refers to the notion that a particular ethnos or
> nation considers itself "autochtonic". Capis
> differentiam?*****
>
>
> Whether or not
> > his theory is
> > correct Alinei is no Italian nationalist. Indeed
> > autochtonism is the
> > by *default* hypothesis.
>
> ****GK: There are no "default" hypotheses. Everything
> must be proven.*****
>
> Invasions and migrations,
> > as the IEL now want
> > to call them must be proven. Occam's razor applies
> > here.
>
> *****GK: How do you prove to me that my native
> language (Ukrainian) ultimately derives from an "out
> of India" migration? Apply Ockham's razor.*****
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>