On Jul 17, 2015, at 3:17 PM, George Thompson <gthomgt@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

>With regard to his own lack of quotation marks, Malhotra argues somewhere [on RISA?] that the early Sanskritists also did not have quotation marks either. But in fact they did have quotations marks. They used the quotative particle iti going all the way back to the
Rigveda. Malhotra’s remarks are either profoundly ignorant or profoundly disingenuous.<

Malhotra’s actual words are “Sanskrit does not even have quotation marks in its character set.” (cf. “Rajiv Malhotra says those accusing him of plagiarism are really out to silence his voice,” Newslaundry of 2015-07-15. http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/07/15/rajiv-malhotra-says-those-accusing-him-of-plagiarism-are-really-out-to-silence-his-voice/

The words “in its character set” make it clear that Malhotra had written or printed Sanskrit in mind. Obviously, he should not be quoted by dropping that part of his statement which serves to avoid a possible misunderstanding of his point.

This must be the first time in human history that one or two missed quotation marks led to a petition for not publishing an author’s books. Could there be something offensively exciting in some absences? Could the fact that there were many attributions in the same context to the author whose paragraphs Malhotra is supposed to have plagiarized be an insurmountable obstacle for some readers in noting that credit has been given where it was due? Or, did the readers experience a blinding let-down when the attributions suddenly stopped coming?

a.a.