From: mkelkar2003
Message: 53372
Date: 2008-02-16
>Ok no problem.
> At 9:50:04 PM on Friday, February 15, 2008, mkelkar2003
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti"
> > <frabrig@> wrote:
>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
> >> <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
>
> >>> Hock's (1996) work summarized and quoted by Kazanas
> >>> (2002)
>
> [...]
>
> >> Since you continue to cite this single passage from H.H.
> >> Hock's article as if that author considered the AMT and
> >> the OIT equally legitimate, I will quote the conclusions
> >> of that same article, which I have here on my desk:
>
> >> "Neither the 'Sanskrit-origin' variant [S.S. Misra's
> >> theory positing that Vedic Sanskrit represents PIE] nor
> >> the 'PIE in India' variant, thus, turns out to provide
> >> credible support for the 'Out-of-India'
> >> hypothesis.Rather, the linguistic evidence still favors
> >> the prevailing Indo-Europeanist perspective that the
> >> speakers of Indo- Aryan migrated into India."
>
> > I do not want to know what you have on your desk or under
> > it. [...]
>
> Since it proves that either you or Kazanas (or both) have
> misrepresented Hock, this is not really surprising.
>
> I agree with Piotr: you're beating a dead horse to no useful
> purpose. One substantial post was even mostly copied
> verbatim from a post that you made two years ago. I am
> therefore officially declaring this a dead horse and a
> closed thread. In accordance with the rules, 'any posters
> who want to post their final thoughts on it may do so within
> 24 hours'.
>
> Brian M. Scott
> Moderator
>