Re: [tied] Re: Genetic Studies and Aryan Migrations

At 8:39:23 PM on Friday, December 22, 2006, mkelkar2003
wrote:

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

[...]

>>>> This is what is documented:
>>>> At 1500 BC we find several Anatolian languages and an
>>>> early version of Greek. At 1000 BC(?) we might suppose
>>>> the Sanskrit we know was codified. Centuries after that
>>>> we find the other members of the Indo-European language
>>>> family. These are facts.

>>> No they are *NOT* facts. They are hypotheses.

>> We find inscriptions of Hittite from that time.
>> And Sanskrit began to be written down in the early centuries of
>> the first millenium. Fact.

> The date when a langauge was first written down has
> nothing do with how old that langauge is.

On the contrary, it obviously shows that the language is at
least as old as the writing.

>>> The question of whether Hittite is older or Sankrit is
>>> itself a matter of opinion.

>>> "Many points of controversy surround the reconstruction
>>> of PIE, and indeed surround any reconstruction effort.
>>> Some are methodological questions (for example, how do
>>> we distinguish archaisms from innovations?); some are
>>> philosophical (for example, what kinds of evidence are
>>> admissible in reconstruction?); some are simply
>>> differences of opinion based on the preconceptions and
>>> orientation of the investigator (for example, which is
>>> more archaic, Hittite or Sanskrit?)," (Baldi 1983, p.
>>> 14-15, parentheses in the original).

>> You misunderstand Baldi. 'Archaic' doesn't mean 'old'.

> No I do not.

If you did understand what he meant by 'more archaic', then
citing this passage as evidence for the assertion above
('The question ... is a matter of opinion') was simply
dishonest. You'd be better off admitting that you didn't
understand it.

[...]

>> The branch called historical linguistics studies
>> languages, compares them and imagines what they might
>> once been. They also try to find out what the speakers of
>> those imagined languages were like. Then it tries to find
>> arguments to back up what they imagined. What it doesn't
>> do is worry about the political implications of the
>> things it has imagined and argued for.

> Historical linguistics is especially prone to politically
> motived abuse [...]

And your posts would be prime examples, if they actually
contained any historical linguistics.

Brian