Response to S Bhatta <attahb at REDIFFMAIL.COM>

[rohan.oberoi at CORNELL.EDU]

For what it's worth, I'd like to add that I see no reason whatsoever
why Steve should have to defend the value of his contribution as a
comparativist against the sort of know-nothing criticisms that have
been levelled here.

I too would like these attacks to desist.

-- Rohan.



>The Indology Archives show that since 7 April 2001 four posts
>have been directed against me from the previously unknown name
>and address S Bhatta <attahb at REDIFFMAIL.COM>.
>
>These are the ONLY posts ever sent to the Indology List from this
>name or address. I have no idea who S Bhatta is/are, but it is
>clear that every post made from this address has contained an
>attack on me.
>
>It is time for these attacks to desist.
>
>S. Bhatta's most recent complaint is that I don't have the right,
>again since I'm a comparativist and not Sanskrit specialist, to
>ask Panini experts a question about northwest grammarians in the
>early Achaemenid era. My underlying question was pertinent to
>ongoing studies of canonization processes throughout Eurasia, and
>has nothing really to do with Sanskrit -- although the answer to
>my question may have some implications for Vedicists.
>
>My question received detailed and helpful responses both on and
>off List from prominent Vedic and Panini experts. I have my
>doubts that S Bhatta's email box frequently contains such
>messages.
>
>Like all other sciences, the historical sciences are or should be
>collaborative endeavors. Major advances, especially in premodern
>Eurasian studies, demand the work of linguists, philologists,
>archaeologists, anthropologists, population biologists,
>comparative historians, and regional historians all working
>together.
>
>Collaborative efforts of this nature have a major theoretical as
>well as empirical component; that theoretical component is
>promoted by breadth of knowledge in many areas no less than
>expertise in single fields. Fresh ideas in collaborations
>frequently come from researchers in any field involved in the
>collaboration, but everyone involved knows that before being
>accepted those ideas must be tested *rigorously* by specialists
>in all the involved fields.
>
>So the key term that S Bhatta needs to think here about is
>'collaboration.' I have my own linguistic talents and skills and
>I am in nearly daily contact with ssome of the best Sanskritists
>in the world (also other languages). I seriously doubt that S
>Bhatta can match the research resources of both linguistic and
>historical nature available to me.
>
>In any event, I've had enough of S Bhatta, and I *again*
>challenge him/her/them to discuss some substantial issue with me
>-- or to kindly shut up. My last such challenge was ignored.
>
>Lots of research energy is being wasted. Or is wasting my time,
>making it unpleasant for me to post, as I suspect, *precisely*
>what S Bhatto has/have in mind?
>
>S. Farmer