From: Rick McCallister
Message: 53325
Date: 2008-02-15
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"____________________________________________________________________________________
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
> >
> > At 12:46:01 AM on Friday, February 15, 2008,
> mkelkar2003
> > wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> Why do you waste our time (and yours) with
> these repeated
> > >> attempts to find *linguistic* support for your
> > >> ideological axioms when you clearly don't
> believe that
> > >> linguistic evidence is worth a damn? If it's
> worthless,
> > >> it's just as worthless when (you think that) it
> says what
> > >> you want to hear as when it doesn't.
> >
> > > Acutally, I am not saying linguistic evidence is
> > > worthless, [...]
> >
> > You don't have to say it in so many words: it's
> quite
> > obvious that this is what you really believe. You
> use your
> > ill-understood snippets only as weapons of debate,
> not out
> > of any interest in linguistics, and you value them
> only
> > insofar as they serve your intellectual cause.
> >
> > Brian
>
> What bothers me is comparative linguists reach above
> and beyond what
> their craft allows them to do. Hypothetical
> reconstructions are
> treated as facts. Linguists especially comarative
> IEL treat
> the "Indo-Aryan" invasion of South Asia as a fact.
> How is it a fact
> if there is no agreement on when and where this
> happened?
>
> M. Kelkar
>
>