Talageri quote

[Michael Witzel]

<I am resending this as this morning's mail was refused by INDOLOGY, due to
the 24 h restriction on sending more than 3 messages; thus, some answers
will come with delay as from now>



At 6:29 +0200 9/8/99, Koenraad Elst wrote:

>I have not misquoted you, nor have I misquoted Prof. Erdosy.

No, you have *paraphrased* what we both said, but in such as way as
factually to misrepresent what we said. Members are advised to re-read the
passages themselves!

I cannot speak for Erdosy, but again, his denunciation of the "lunatic fringe "
(not my words) referred to "long chronology" etc. not (and certainly not
specifically) to Talageri. Do we have to discuss interpretation of
*English* sentences now?
I will keep repeating these points as long as you persist in
misrepresenting me or others.

Again, members beware!

> Also, I don't
>mind if you interpret the middle letter in "AIT" as "immigration" rather
>than "invasion": the distinction is unimportant relative to the basic
>implication of both, viz. a foreign origin.

But in your *email* you always mention "invasion" -- which is precisely why
I criticize you for misquoting.
How to characterize such as procedure which is especially en vogue by
politicians of all stripes ?


"foreign origin" (your words) mean many things. Computers were 'foreign'
to,  say New Zealand, before they were first imported, so what??  Horses &
chariots came to South Asia, Greece, Egypt, etc. from the outside, so what?
Let the zoologists & archaeologists tell us when and how. Then, we may use
their information.
Indo-Aryan language was 'foreign' to the Panjab, on a variety of reasons
which could be discussed to raise the level of this discussion a bit
(innovations as compared to the often more archaic Old Iranian,  innov. in
plant and animal names as is typical of speakers of immigrant languages -
just as in North America -, adaptations of the local substrate etc., etc.).
So what?
Languages & cultures have been imported throughout human history. You
should be aware of the fact that own country shows 2 examples in the
'recent'  past, that is some 2000 years ago. Does that make you less
Belgian (or Flemish)? So why the excitement about importation of such items
into South Asia?

It is, to be mild, silly to deny  'foreign'  origin of certain (or even a
lot of) items of material or spiritual culture since no civilization has
developed in total isolation, not even 'isolated' islands such as Hawaii
(even before capt. Cook) .  To insist on *complete* autochthony is close to
Erdosy's 'lunatic fringe' indeed.

People and their cultures have been on the move ever since the early
descendants of mitochondrial Eve stepped out of Africa, c. 100 ky ago.

So why to exclude S. Asia or  Bharatavarsa? Not even the Himalayas were
impenetrable...

 ==========================================================================
Michael Witzel                          Elect. Journ. of Vedic Studies
Harvard University                  www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
my direct line (also for messages) :  617- 496 2990
home page:     www.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm