Post 13:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Blast AIT on all disciplines. Don't just target one or few dimensions of it, but all. Including linguistics<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But that's exactly it. No AIT according to the only sciences that can show presence of the Oryans in India: genetics, archaeology and genetic anthropology.
All that's left then is the connection between Samskritam and Avestan and the other IE languages.
(1) Did initial linguists and philologists assume invasion was from NW to SE (from Europe to Indian subcontinent)? Could this have affected the order of application of rules for converting from one language to another?
(2) Do the same linguistic rules always apply to convert one language from any language family into another from the same language family? For example, can I apply the rules used in IE to native American languages (that are known to be related) to prove they are related? Can I prove the order of their evolution from each other by using the rules?
(3) How can one verify the historical picture of language diffusion and dispersal that emerges by applying the linguistic rules (and applying them in the specific order they have been applied, to go from say Samskrit to Greek) Without external validation, we have circular reasoning: "the rules say that for example Samskritam and Greek are related"; and "since Samskrit and Greek are related they prove the rules are true"
(4) If I can apply rules x, y and z to, a selection of, say, Greek words to get to Samskritam words, it does not follow that that's how it happened in history.
(5) PIE is reconstructed - no evidence for PIE. That means, since it is itself unproved, it cannot be <i>used to prove</i> any connection between Samskrit and Greek and Latin and German, etc. Same for unattested parent or intermediate languages (like Indo-Iranian) that are purported to have existed according to IE.
(6) Are the rules consistently applied or is there fudging to make the model fit? How much fudging is allowed? Are there actually any inconsistencies that they are not willing to admit?
(7) Do the same rules always apply in converting various IE languages one into another? If certain rules show how Greek went to Latin and if these changes are attested by the historical record (of literature), do these rules automatically apply in converting say Armenian into Avestan? What if there is no historical record attesting to such changes? Where is the missing link that connects Samskritam or Avestan with say Greek? (The Hittite-Mitanni treaty is Indian, or at the greatest stretch Indian-Iranian, <i>not</i> European and therefore cannot be considered the missing link.) Where are the intermediate literary evidences in the historical record to show PIE's evolution into Samskrit and Greek?
(8) Where is Indo-Iranian? Why are both Samskritam and Avestan literate and why is Indo-Iranian and PIE such an illiterate language? Or how convenient that all these supposed parent languages have left no record if they were literate?
(Note: this is not the same as the Christo fundies of Intelligent Design asking for the intermediate fossils of half-fish half-amphibians. Such intermediate creatures might not have been viable lifeforms at all and therefore might never have existed. Languages can have intermediate forms, so since the linguists talk about Indo-Iranian - where's the proof of its existence outside the 'our linguistic rules say so' argument.)
(9) If there's no evidence for intermediate or ancestor languages, then isn't it an assumption that the rules are correct in showing causality (derivation)?
About number (3): the emerging historical picture of language diffusion according to linguistics is in stark contrast to and belied by the findings in the actual sciences.
I am very confused by linguistics, particularly what's used in IE. It obviously proves itself (like circular reasoning), but there appears to be no external proof of its validity. This might well be an outcome of Max Mueller's intentions ( http://www.sabha.info/research/aif.html ):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Discard all evidence except philological evidence
Philology better than other sciences<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->He appears to have set up and promoted linguistics as being a self-relying 'science'.
Note that many of the foundational rules of linguistics were developed during the establishing of IE as a family (came across one when looking at the Encarta '96 article on IE today). That means that if I study linguistics as it is today, I will be classifying languages according to the same rules, come to the same conclusion as IE and working out PIE according to the same rules.
So if we do study linguistics, we have to drop their assumptions by considering the case of no PIE and no Indo-Iranian parent language. Thus we need to consider how else language diffusion could have occurred.
What assumptions do <i>we</i> have to make? How do we validate these assumptions (yes, there's genetics and archaeology to back up the OIT, but still, it feels rather random to think about assuming something just to prove something we already have in mind - oh wait - that's what the European indologists, linguists and philologists did in the first place!)
I now strongly suspect that they (European linguists) <i>must</i> have assumed the general direction(s) of language diffusion to be able to even come up with their rules.
Sorry if I'm not being very clear or coherent, or if I've been repetitive.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Blast AIT on all disciplines. Don't just target one or few dimensions of it, but all. Including linguistics<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But that's exactly it. No AIT according to the only sciences that can show presence of the Oryans in India: genetics, archaeology and genetic anthropology.
All that's left then is the connection between Samskritam and Avestan and the other IE languages.
(1) Did initial linguists and philologists assume invasion was from NW to SE (from Europe to Indian subcontinent)? Could this have affected the order of application of rules for converting from one language to another?
(2) Do the same linguistic rules always apply to convert one language from any language family into another from the same language family? For example, can I apply the rules used in IE to native American languages (that are known to be related) to prove they are related? Can I prove the order of their evolution from each other by using the rules?
(3) How can one verify the historical picture of language diffusion and dispersal that emerges by applying the linguistic rules (and applying them in the specific order they have been applied, to go from say Samskrit to Greek) Without external validation, we have circular reasoning: "the rules say that for example Samskritam and Greek are related"; and "since Samskrit and Greek are related they prove the rules are true"
(4) If I can apply rules x, y and z to, a selection of, say, Greek words to get to Samskritam words, it does not follow that that's how it happened in history.
(5) PIE is reconstructed - no evidence for PIE. That means, since it is itself unproved, it cannot be <i>used to prove</i> any connection between Samskrit and Greek and Latin and German, etc. Same for unattested parent or intermediate languages (like Indo-Iranian) that are purported to have existed according to IE.
(6) Are the rules consistently applied or is there fudging to make the model fit? How much fudging is allowed? Are there actually any inconsistencies that they are not willing to admit?
(7) Do the same rules always apply in converting various IE languages one into another? If certain rules show how Greek went to Latin and if these changes are attested by the historical record (of literature), do these rules automatically apply in converting say Armenian into Avestan? What if there is no historical record attesting to such changes? Where is the missing link that connects Samskritam or Avestan with say Greek? (The Hittite-Mitanni treaty is Indian, or at the greatest stretch Indian-Iranian, <i>not</i> European and therefore cannot be considered the missing link.) Where are the intermediate literary evidences in the historical record to show PIE's evolution into Samskrit and Greek?
(8) Where is Indo-Iranian? Why are both Samskritam and Avestan literate and why is Indo-Iranian and PIE such an illiterate language? Or how convenient that all these supposed parent languages have left no record if they were literate?
(Note: this is not the same as the Christo fundies of Intelligent Design asking for the intermediate fossils of half-fish half-amphibians. Such intermediate creatures might not have been viable lifeforms at all and therefore might never have existed. Languages can have intermediate forms, so since the linguists talk about Indo-Iranian - where's the proof of its existence outside the 'our linguistic rules say so' argument.)
(9) If there's no evidence for intermediate or ancestor languages, then isn't it an assumption that the rules are correct in showing causality (derivation)?
About number (3): the emerging historical picture of language diffusion according to linguistics is in stark contrast to and belied by the findings in the actual sciences.
I am very confused by linguistics, particularly what's used in IE. It obviously proves itself (like circular reasoning), but there appears to be no external proof of its validity. This might well be an outcome of Max Mueller's intentions ( http://www.sabha.info/research/aif.html ):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Discard all evidence except philological evidence
Philology better than other sciences<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->He appears to have set up and promoted linguistics as being a self-relying 'science'.
Note that many of the foundational rules of linguistics were developed during the establishing of IE as a family (came across one when looking at the Encarta '96 article on IE today). That means that if I study linguistics as it is today, I will be classifying languages according to the same rules, come to the same conclusion as IE and working out PIE according to the same rules.
So if we do study linguistics, we have to drop their assumptions by considering the case of no PIE and no Indo-Iranian parent language. Thus we need to consider how else language diffusion could have occurred.
What assumptions do <i>we</i> have to make? How do we validate these assumptions (yes, there's genetics and archaeology to back up the OIT, but still, it feels rather random to think about assuming something just to prove something we already have in mind - oh wait - that's what the European indologists, linguists and philologists did in the first place!)
I now strongly suspect that they (European linguists) <i>must</i> have assumed the general direction(s) of language diffusion to be able to even come up with their rules.
Sorry if I'm not being very clear or coherent, or if I've been repetitive.