Re: Positioning Priyadarsi

> It is linguistic experitise which came into play here.

What does that sentence mean?

 

Samudragupta is a king of gupta dynasty of 4th century (as per main stream thinking- it differs as per Non jonesian thinkers) He is supposed to a great lover of arts, as evidenced by his inscriptions and his coins.

 

In this back ground, a kavyam or a work of verses by name Krishna caritam was floated, claiming that it is the wrok of Samudra gupta. There is no evidence or counterevidence to prove that it is in deed written by SG but the sanskrit experts have finally diagnosed it  and on the basis of the language, grammar and other aspect, came to a conclusion that it is a fake. If not for such expertise in languages, there is no other way of cattching it.

 

Where? In linguistics?
If so, don't you find that a handicap when arguing against what
linguists say?

 

 I am a layman. But instead of it being a handicap, it is a blessing in disguise for me. I think differently than all of you, infusing a fresh bout of thinking. Sometime, no doubt I may be wrong but often, I feel that my argument is not dismissed so easily.

 

In fact, some of our group members get frsutateed that they are totally dismantled based on simple logic and they get frustrated to come back and call me names.

is there  one instance when I was the first one to call the other names? None.

 

My fight with one person can not make an enemy of the group.  while some of the people are inded more personally biased than making things issue based, (who I personally condemn) I I have no hesitation to say that most of the people are not so.

 

Then how come my fight with one person makes me an enemy of the group> please explain.

 

You are mistaken  if you think that Indians are natural enemies of Westerners, please think again. You are grossly wrong.

 

In any case, I have not threatened anyone, much less some memberS(plural)  that I will put fire to anyone. You are mistaken.

 

Please think again.

 

regards,

 

Kishore patnaik

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> In fact, I have not understood much of the logic there,

Where? In linguistics?
If so, don't you find that a handicap when arguing against what
linguists say?

> so when I am free I would post the entire logic here

Which logic are you now talking about?

> not only for discussion but also, for my benefit.

You post things which are not for discussion, but for your own
benefit? What does that mean?

> I am associated with Cybalist for several years now, so usually I
> keep posting if I have something to share with friends

If I remember correctly you threatened to immolate some of the members
of cybalist. Why do you call us your friends now?

> - not necessarily of linguistic nature.

OK, so it has nothing to do with linguistics.

> Sometimes, I mark it off topic too.

Why do you do that if none it has anything to do with linguistics?
That's inconsistent.

> Hope you must have noticed.

You have telescoped the two logically incompatible sentences 'Hope you
have noticed' and 'You must have noticed' into one sentence. Is there
some sort of meaning to it or are you just trying to maintain
deniability if someone should understand the sentence in either of the
two senses?

Torsten