vidynath at MATH.OHIO-STATE.EDU
Sun May 3 20:26:02 UTC 1998
I don't really want to get involved in this fight, but there are
a couple of things I just have get off my chest.
DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA <narayana at HD1.VSNL.NET.IN> wrote:
> English has become the lingua franca of the modern world not just
> because of a concerted campaign by English people. It has its present
> position because of its adaptability, readiness to borrow words from
> other languages, availability of a large body of modern knowledge
> (especially scientific and technical) and so on.
The present position of English is a reflection of the economic and
political dominance of the USA.
Large body of technical knowledge in topology was in German till
1955, and much in French. None of these had been translated into
English by 1978, and what I know of German and French comes from
trying to read these books. But few new papers in topology were
being published in German by 1980. This had nothing to do with the
choice of technical words.
I disagree with what N. Ganesan said, but the correctness or
acceptability of what he said cannot be determined by his CV,
or by the length of his publication list or some kind of
citation count, but by the particular idea itself.
This particular point has always been what impressed me most about
modern Western shcolarship, and which I always felt to be welcome
contrast to the attitude seen in the legends of Ashtavakra, Anglimala
etc. But what I have seen posted in the last few months makes me wonder
if Indologists still believe that ideas have to be judged by themselves,
with no reference to who put it forth.
Imagine ourselves taken back to 1860's. Would we consider the
knowledge of Roth to be same as that Yask? would that imply that
criticisms of Roth are worthless?
Why then this concern with CVs, than with ideas?
More information about the INDOLOGY