http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2014/06/interminable-debate-on-indus-writing.html
--
S. Kalyanaraman
JUN
3
Interminable debate on Indus writing continues with Richard Sproat's refutation of Rajesh Rao et al theses
Congratulations, Richard Sproat that your work of 26 June 2013 gets published at last in a scholarly forum after the irresponsible way Science dealt with your refutation of Rao's theses. I do not agree with all of Rao's theses which assume a syllabic foundation for Indus writing, following the errors of decipherment claims of Parpola, Mahadevan et al.
I think my work on Philosophy of Symbolic Forms in Meluhha cipher and related titles, shows some areas in which I disagree with your dogmatic assertions about Indus writing being non-linguistic. I don't concede that the Indus writing was non-linguistic.
I respect your opinions and may not necessarily agree with all of them. I will fight for your rights to express your views.
I think my work on Philosophy of Symbolic Forms in Meluhha cipher and related titles, shows some areas in which I disagree with your dogmatic assertions about Indus writing being non-linguistic. I don't concede that the Indus writing was non-linguistic.I call it Meluhha hieroglyphic writing. Just as you rightly expect your work to be reviewed seriously, I would also expect my work to be reviewed in any way reviewers choose fit.
Sure, many hurdles have to be crossed, starting with the word and meaning of 'Meluhha' as a linguistic category.
Again, congrats and best wishes, Richard.
Kalyanaraman
New analysis contradicts findings published in Science
The full text of Richard Sproat (Google Inc.) paper is at http://www.linguisticsociety.org/document/language-vol-90-issue-2-june-2014-sproat.
S. Kalyanaraman