Re: More by Bryant

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

>
> You already know what you are ready to believe and to dismiss.
> That's your problem. Indology started in 1583 with Thomas
> Stephen. I believe it's hard to defend the thesis that 425
> years of linguistic work on Sanscrit can be wiped aside.
>
> Any approach that starts with the premiss previous studies
> about Indic have to be thrown away is anti-science.

And yet that is exactly what you are doing yourself when
you scoff at such well established reconstruction as *k^w >
Sk. s^v.

> Even if you do not like previous studies, you will never escape
> the issue of explaining what is not satisfactory and you won't
> escape being compared with the bulk of existing works that are
> considered well-establised references.

I'm amazed to see you writing this. It's true, of course,
but the way you operate here on cybalist certainly betrays
no such understanding on your part.

> I think the current root theory of PIE is inadequate. I'm saying
> a more seriously radical study is necessary.

Well you certainly do need to make a more serious study of
it yourself. It's clear from reading you that you haven't
anything besides the most vague understanding of mainstream
theories.

Actually, you don't even seem to grasp basic logic, to read
some of your suggestions.

> I know where to emend the whole thing and how to use Pokorny or
> LIV.

No, I don't think you do know "where to emend" it. I don't
think you've convinced even a single other person that you
do either. Do you?

What does it take to wake the self deluded?

David