Comparative linguistics

[Sam Garg]

Collating the different strands from your post:

>Indology is largely, but not only philology
>philology is superior to archaeology (leave aside other disciplines) in
>understanding history

Indology = philology and philology superior.  No wonder the fight to get on
the Indology 'shelfspace' gets so fractious!

>But are your questions such that linguistics can legitimately >answer,
>i.e., are they *linguistic* questions? And, however unpleasant it may
>sound, we have to face the possibility that some questions cannot be
>decisively answered. Or, indeed, maybe more time is needed

Linguistics subset Philology cannot answer all questions; or ,it may take a
few centuries; maybe these questions are not even philological questions.
Philologists, however, do not intend relinquishing an inch of said
shelfspace.

>Many lay critics, also on this list, for some reason believe that >the
>human sciences are stagnant and rigid.

Not the human sciences but, certainly, the all too human scientists
certainly can appear that way.

>But much recent dilettantish criticism is rooted in being uninformed >about
>what has already been done and / or is ideologically based

Last, but not least, malign the critics.

Thanks to all who provided links and reference materials offline. It has
made for some interesting reading. Given the vast Indology universe built
upon philology, all I can say is that Vishnu must have incarnated as a
philologist recently and had one of his 'universe out of a navel dreams'!


>From: Robert Zydenbos <zydenbos at GMX.LI>
>Reply-To: Indology <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
>To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
>Subject: Re: Comparative linguistics
>Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:07:39 +0100
>
>Am Tue, 21 Mar 2000 schrieb Sam Garg:
>
> > My objection is based on your insistence, as evidenced from your posts
>of
> > the last few days, that comparative ligusitics is/ must be/ should be
>the
> > final arbiter of things Indological.
>
>If that was your impression from my posts, then it is very unfortunate,
>since I do not believe that myself. (Meanwhile, on Monday, I posted a
>rather
>more lengthy bit of writing addressed primarily to Mr Oka, and I hope this
>has clarified still more.) You must know that Indology is largely, but not
>only philology, and that philology is not only linguistics.
>
>While it is sympathetic, on the one hand, to have this list open for all
>interested persons, it is rather sad, on the other, that the list owner on
>repeated occasions has to write policy statements like in the "Horse &
>BMAC"
>thread (in spite of his having already written something clearly enough on
>the Indology Web Page, where everybody should be able to see it) about
>things
>that everybody should know before they enter here. It should not be
>necessary
>for me to give my recent example of the talking potshard to prove that
>philology is superior to archaeology (leave aside other disciplines) in
>understanding history. Similarly, it should not be necessary for Prof.
>Witzel, in the Jyotisa Vedanga thread, to give such simple examples of the
>use of linguistics in dating. But when the dilettantism becomes very
>irritating or insulting, one feels like talking back, and sometimes one has
>little patience left.
>
> > I brought myself up to date on the histories of Sri
> > Lanka, Iran, Iraq, the Gulf area, Middle East, Turkey and Europe. [...]
> > Unfortunately, most of those questions remain unanswered.  Comparative
> > lingusitics has had over two centuries to prove their Indological models
>but
> > have been unable to do so.  How much more time will be needed?
>
>But are your questions such that linguistics can legitimately answer, i.e.,
>are they *linguistic* questions? And, however unpleasant it may sound, we
>have
>to face the possibility that some questions cannot be decisively answered.
>Or
>indeed, maybe more time is needed. It is hard to draw up time plans for
>when
>which discoveries will be made!
>
> > In the meanwhile, we amateur Indologists (here I speak only for my own
> > group) have become increasingly sceptical of 'classic' interpretations
>of
> > Indian history.
>
>There is of course such a thing as healthy scepticism. The professionals
>repeatedly find good reasons for doubting earlier theories, and so they dig
>deeper, find out more, etc. (this is called 'progress'. Many lay critics,
>also on this list, for some reason believe that the human sciences are
>stagnant and rigid. Cf. all the noise that is regularly made about people
>who
>wrote over a century ago). But much recent dilettantish criticism is rooted
>in being uninformed about what has already been done and / or is
>ideologically based: one already 'knows' what the answers 'should' be, and
>if
>mainstream academics do not lend their support, then those academics 'must
>be
>wrong' and are maligned in any (un)thinkable manner.
>
>RZ

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com