Linear B texts

[George Thompson]

S. Farmer wrote:

<<On this very point: I never could figure out (as a comparativist, not  
a S. Asianist: Michael is the S. Asianist component of my brain) why  
anyone would view the Indus regions as being mono-linguistic. I think  
it is only because I *was* an outsider that it seemed so strange to  me. 
Then Michael and I discussed this issue in extenso in 1999, when  he 
published some key papers on the substratum issue. >>

I believe that if one were to check the archives of this list, one would 
find much discussion of the Indus Valley Civilization in which 
scepticism that the IVC signs were a script is often expressed.  One 
would also find in these archives suggestions that IVC was possibly or 
even probably multilingual.   India has been multilingual for as long as 
we have known it.  All of this was known long before S. Farmer appeared 
on the scene "like some refreshing breath of fresh air" [in his own 
mind, that is].

Self-aggrandizement aside, there is little new here. The Farmer Sproat 
Witzel thesis is well-known already, and I am inclined to accept it.  
Parpola has offered only vaguely possible alternatives, hardly 
convincing.  But Farmer has been quoted as stating that there is "zero 
chance" that the IVC signs reflect a true script!   "Zero chance"?   Is 
this an accurate quotation, and do Sproat and Witzel agree with it?  Is 
the phrase "zero chance" truly scientific -- or is it, rather, merely 
more bluster from him?

George Thompson

>