SV: [Y-Indology] AIT in Indian school textbooks

[Guest guest]

bhakti.eohn [sMTP:bhakti.eohn] skrev 11. juni 2001

12:52:

> You have wasted your tirade against 'OIT ignorant ideological

> stalwarts' on a person who is not a proponent of the OIT. I have

> never insulted any person on this site. I have never attacked

> Witzel.

 

If I got you wrong and put you in the wrong category, you have my

apologies. The atmosphere on the list is such that some of us sometimes

shoot first and ask questions later. Sorry for that.

 

>Is it

> because of my Hindu religious name that you assume me to be an OIT

> advocate?

 

No. I know Hindus who have totally different ideas about this. What made me

jump to conclusions was your wording.

 

>I am of German ancestry, American born and educated, and a

> Catholic hermit under private vows. I am also a Vaishnava Sannyasi

> who has devoted their entire adult life to combating racism and

> religious prejudice and fanaticism. I have suffered much from

> fanatical Hindus who have attacked my work because I reject BOTH the

> AIT and the OIT.

 

I am sorry to hear that. You are not the only one to get into trouble with

these people, but that is hardly a consolation.

 

>In my opinion, both theories are fundamentally

> flawed, because they both ignore African and Levantine evidence

> regarding the Aryans. 'Aryans' were also found outside of ancient

> India and Europe as well. Instead of arguing about the homeland of

> the Aryans, the European and Indian Indologists should be looking at

> Nostratic Linguistic Macro-family evidence for a better understanding

> of what the term actually meant. The term has not been understood in

> the larger context of evidence linking the African, Semitic and Indo-

> European Languages. Both the Native and European Indologists have

> blinders on , narrowing their field of vision. This either-or

> argument will dissapear if the broader evidence is ever allowed to

> speak for itself. In my opinion, they are both asking the wrong

> questions.

 

I am afraid you will have serious problems with professional scholars if

you work on the basis of the Nostratic theory. It has very little support

in Academia, and will probably not "make it" into the realm of standard

academic linguistic opinions. This is precisely due to the nature of the

evidence. You should at least be familiar with Dixon's critique of

Nostraticism. If you haven't read him, here is the reference:

 

Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

 

Best regards, and, once again, sorry for the bombastics,

 

Lars Martin Fosse

 

Dr. art. Lars Martin Fosse

Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,

0674 Oslo

Norway

Phone: +47 22 32 12 19

Mobile phone: +47 90 91 91 45

Fax 1: +47 22 32 12 19

Fax 2: +47 85 02 12 50 (InFax)

Email: lmfosse