Mark Defillo:

>In a related matter, I have heard that some scholars in India think that
>the Aryan-Dravidian linguistic divide is over-rated.

Right... Seriously, you can't be suggesting that the Indo-Aryan
languages of Indo-European origin are somehow closely related to
Dravidian or that this is a hotly debated topic by the mainstream.
It is not. I surely must be misunderstanding your statement above.

Although there is certainly much influence and borrowing between
these two groups of languages, it is clear that two main groups
(Indo-European and Dravidian) do indeed exist in India. This is
not bias. This view is based on linguistic, archaeological and
historical facts. Saying that this is overrated is nothing short
of absurd.

>Should we expect people whose first language is European to >understand the
>linguistics in India better than those whose languages are Sanskritic or
>Dravidic? That seems rather arrogant to me...

It seems just as arrogant to presume that some outsiders _can't_
understand linguistics in India equal or better than those whose
languages are Sanskritic or Dravidian. I wouldn't discount those
of a non-IE tongue like a Korean to provide us with new ideas on
IE linguistics either. Would you? One has to understand that a
fresh, external perspective is sometimes needed in order to deal
with the origins of certain languages without political or
cultural bias.

For instance, in India, there are of course some who
understandably will want to see Indo-Aryans with glorious pasts
that just aren't there in reality, such as to make India the true homeland
of the Indo-European language, which is pure junk and
has no basis in reality. The view that IE came from Anatolia is
just as ridiculous but if there is a political motivation to
believe in these pseudo-theories that continue to lack persuasive proof,
then we have ourselves a religious following willing to
pay out big bucks on the next book that entertains their
irrational assumptions.

While I believe Gimbutas' work has many merits, I feel she is
also partly biased, sometimes treading over the line of feminism
into almost androphobic territory, painting IndoEuropeans and
their patriarchism as the seeds of violence and destruction in
Europe.

Every linguist has his or her bias. I have my biases no doubt.
As much as we are human, however, bias is not science. We should
always be perceptive of the potential biases of all linguists,
her/his theories, as well as of ourselves, weighing everything
based on facts and not on impressions, political correctness, or
personal beliefs.

Yet, this is not licence to dismiss mainstream views out of hand, which are
often produced by many decades of trial and error by
specialists. Again, Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages have quite
seperate origins despite mutual exchange.

I guess what I'm proposing here is some moderation and balance
in our thoughts... kinda like Buddha... yeah, Buddha. That's it.
Man, that dude is total cool :P

- gLeN

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com