Mark Defillo:

>I was not suggesting that it is correct, only presenting a viewpoint that
>exists among a sizable part of India's academia. >Actually, I think that
>their viewpoint results from seeing the result considerable cross-borrowing
>between the language groups,
>and the long history as essentially one culture.

Alright, thanks for the clarification. I guess that means you
are my friend then :)

>Yet, India has a millennia-old unbroken tradition of scholarship that we of
>the western part of the IndoEuropean world lack, [...] only recently
>achieved any semblance of freedom of thought, >which is again suppressed
>under "political correctness". In India, on the other hand, there has been
>[...] a plethora of
>philosophies and traditions, or in other words, a society with >freedom of
>thought allowing for extreme differences of opinion.

I can't say anything about Europe since I am not European,
although I am Canadian which makes me one third American and
two-thirds European by default :P Certainly in North America,
there can be found very divergeant views, some of which are not
bound by political correctness because they are flat out
racist. Of course, political correctness can be a form of self-censorship
for ideas that may not be racist but that
contradict new-age romantic notions (in themselves racist).
For instance, the idea that Mayans may not have been
peace-loving, tree-hugging natives as once thought has had great
potential for seething contraversy.

>To me, that history counts for something, and the academia of India
>deserves a better hearing than it gets from "western" academia,

Very true. However, at least in my case, I'm sure that a lot of
the Indian materials are simply not there in libraries in my
(small and contemptable) prairie town and purchasing materials
on the internet is something that I so far am unable to do with
my non-bourgeoisie budget. So, in my personal case, I'm not
ignorant of Indian materials because I think that Indians
somehow have less to offer in terms of ideas and information.
Rather, I just may not have access to them. Perhaps this is also
the case for many others. (Or perhaps that just makes me a
hillbilly :)

>though its freedom means that there may be many more ideas and >theories
>available to be considered and either accepted or rejected, and that there
>is less of a single "mainstream" at all,
>unless you will give that name to the particularly western-influenced
>factions.

Well, perhaps I do use the word "mainstream" a little too often but
for many ideas there is a larger consensus by specialists in a
particular field (excluding the ones that promote irrational,
self-contradicting viewpoints which can number many, that is).
For instance, there is a larger, educated consensus that is certain
that Hungarian is a Uralic language, even though some on the net
will diverge and relate it to everything under the sun using
outright hideous methodology.

I think that consensus views should be the starting point of one's
research before stepping out into uncharted territory and if one
does step out into such territory, one had better have good
evidence to dismiss the more popular view.

I go on a self-important rant:

>>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.

Mark agrees with my silliness:

>The trouble is, this is not done enough.

Yes, that's why I want to get rich and make a billion dollars
so that I can go out into space... and STAY there. Quite frankly,
humans frighten me :)

- gLeN

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