Re: [tied] Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian)

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> <gknysh@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Here's an example:
> > >
> > > Languages X and Y are assumed descended from
> > > reconstructed language
> > > Z.
> > >
> > > Language X is spoken in area A.
> > >
> > > Language Y is spoken in area B.
> > >
> > > Therefore language Z was spoken in area B.
> > >
> > > Is this correct logic?
> >
> > GK: Not unless you assume that the descent of
> Y
> > from Z occurred in area B.
> > >
>
> You didn't get it, obviously. It was your own logic
> you commented.

*****GK: My "own logic" tells me that you cannot
deduce area location from a premiss such as the above
unless you assume it implicit in the premiss. I'm
sorry if "my own logic" does not conform to yours
(:=))*****

>
>
> Torsten
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com