At 3:07:13 PM on Friday, October 19, 2012, shivkhokra wrote:
[...]
> We have no evidence that you understand Sanskrit.
I don't. I have never claimed otherwise. I do, however,
know something about historical linguistics, and in
particular Indo-European historical linguistics, and I'm
more than capable of recognizing that Witzel is a serious
scholar, while you're an ignoramus with an ideological axe
to grind. I don't know how good your Sanskrit is, and I
don't trust you to translate honestly anything that might
undermine your faith.
[...]
>> No, it's simply one more piece of evidence of
>> non-indigenous origin of the Indo-Aryan languages of
>> South Asia.
> And what might be "other" pieces of evidence be since B.
> Sutra 18.44 is not one of them.
I rather think that it is. Others are extremely well known,
and I refuse to play your game: if you actually wanted to
know, you could have discovered some of the answers to your
question years ago. You don't care: you already know THE
TRUTH, and any actual evidence would be inconvenient.
>>> Yet the opposite is true. Sanskrit works have no memory
>>> of an arrival into India.
>> So you say. But we've no reason to believe you.
> Getting a bit boring now.
You've been more than a bit boring for as long as I can
remember.
[...]
> Look we have heard your myriad claims but seen no evidence
> to back them up. Same with Brighenti.
'We'? You have a tapeworm?
Those claims are standard, and the evidence is readily
available. If you want to dispute them, learn enough of the
subject to discuss it intelligently. As it is, you're a bad
joke, complete waste of time and electrons, and everyone
here whose opinion is worth a damn knows it. I just happen
to have the time and (occasionally) the inclination to point
it out.
Brian