Re: For MKelkar, Kishore and all those other anti-linguists

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "kishore patnaik"
<kishorepatnaik09@...> wrote:

>
> Torsten,
>
> The very tone that you are adopting smacks of racial bigotry.

My 'tone'? Could you be more specific? Or is it the fact that I
disagree with you you call racial bigotry?

> Just as we should not mix up Politics and History ie Politics should
> not dictate what should be the ancient past - just as the outcome of
> the world wars has dictated: the realization that racial theory has
> led to ww's resulted in denial of racial theories, not the academic
> discussions-linguistics has got no role in deciding the flow of
> history.

The dawning realization that that the general ban on 'racial theories'
has led to disastrous demographic, economic and political consequences
for the once successful west has led to research into possible
connections between between genes, gene pools and economic performance
becoming slowly academically acceptable, eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
which is in accordance with the tradition that once made the west so
successful: no subject is exempt from scrutiny. And the fact that
Politics is barred from interfering with History you can't use as an
argument that Linguistics should be barred from interfering with
History: Politics is a Profession, Linguistics is a Science, and they
work in a different fashion, Politics by interdicting, Linguistics by
informing. Your analogy doesn't work.

> For eg., I have asked a very simple question earlier to this group:
> with the exsiting linguistic tools, can you conclusively prove that
> Jaggernaut has come from Jagannath? The answer is a sensible 'no'.
> i.e if one does not know the actual borrowing, he can go ahead and
> prove that it is Jagannath which has come from Jaggernaut.

No, he can't 'prove' that. You are misapplying the word 'prove' here.
You should use the word 'claim'. Please do not disrespect the cultural
mores of my culture.

> Same way, what is the guarantee that you have one leg in smack and
> getting all the borrowings TO sanskrit all wrong?? there is no
> guarantee. There is no counter check. There is nothing to tally your
> linguistic conclusions with any other science.

There are plenty of ways. With archaeology. With sociology. With
history. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

> Under the circumstances, it is more sensible to dismiss all your
> conclusions to the waste bin ,

No.

> when most of them are wrought by pre concieved ideas.

If, but most are not.

> I am yet to come across a single Linguistic Idea that has not based
> on subjective thinking and conjectures.

That statement, like most of the rest you have presented here, is
based on subjective thinking and conjectures.

> The historic models based on linguistic dogmas could never explain
> the facts in a satisfactory way.

I'm sorry to hear that you are not satisfied, but I'm afraid that fact
won't impact on the science of linguistics.

> I know you will each and every one of the words contained in this
> post, but do the group a favor , instead of condemning in the self
> righteous tone that you seem to be adopting, please be objective and
> try to convince with facts not with rhetoric.

That's sound advice. Please heed it yourself.

> Remember, I am an anti linguist?

Yes, I do.


Torsten