Re: Witzel and Sautsutras (was: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of

Talking to you seems like a discussion with religious people of the "earth is flat" variety.

I doubt you would know much about Historical linguistics either because you are a self admitted Sanskrit luddite.

Neither you nor anyone else (including the "faithful" brighenti) have been able to show that my translation of 18.44 Baudhayana S is faulty.

Direct implication is Witzel is wrong in claiming that Sanskrit texts remember an "invasion" into India. Since Sanskrit texts remember a movemement out of India is'nt it obvious who has a political axe to grind?

Hope this helps,

Regards,
Shivraj

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>
> 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
>