Vayutuvan wrote:shiv wrote:We are actually jackasses because no one asks the geneticist which genes code for language. When you ask them they will point to linguists/archaeology papers and say 'Language migration has been demonstrated by linguists who tell us that PIE was in steppe and those people moved to India and Iran, creating Indo-Iranian language first and later Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit"
Don't these geneticists recognize what is called 'a circular argument' when they advance this kind of an answer?
The entirety of the language science is described in, mathematics, is built on foundations and deductions of the kind 'if A then B' & 'A' then deduce B.
If there are three implications as in
1. if A then B
2. if B then C
3. if C then A
just showing those to be true doesn't say anything about the truth value of A, B or C. On the other hand, if one is able to prove one of A, B, or C to be True, then all three predicates A, B, and C are True.
IMO this is a consequence of the pir-review echo-system in weshtern univerjitiej. Nobody questions the linguists because it is already stamped as accepted truth. Even if all genetics is proven to be wrong with regard to migrations the linguistics-sourced language migration theory will survive.
If you start reading the way linguists have worked on their conclusions and extrapolations - the work is full of symbols and jargon that, to the uninitiated looks as arcane as maths. Problem is that maths is based on solid principles that exhibit consistency, repeatability and ultimately proof. If I tell you here that I calculated Pi to 1 million decimal places and the last 3 digits are 786 then his can be confirmed or falsified by you. And even if that is correct a critical review would ask if I happened to get the figure right by random chance - because I have a 1 in 1000 chance of getting it right by guesswork.
That is not how they work in comparative linguistics. They represent sound as symbols and compare cognate word sounds (from different languages) for common elements and eliminate the parts that are not shared and the common elements become part of the "root sound". Then they cook up new hypothetical sounds (never as recordings, always as written symbols) that "must have been there" because that is how it is in xyz language was. This is all very well and appears like some nifty scholarship until you realize that they are cooking up some proto-language like PIE that never really existed - so the question of proof never arises. The incestuous group of linguists simply agree that "This must have been so" and put it in their academ(on)ic papers.
No one gets into this because learning calculus or biochemistry puts you under enough stress that you don't want to stir up the dense, opaque muck that comparative linguistics is.
PS: Panini's grammar apparently has rules that say where certain sounds are dropped or where two sounds can be joined up. Those of you who have studied Sanskrit (or Kannada/other) grammar will know this. But remember this - Panini was writing about known languages. He was not cooking up unknown languages. He showed rules about how certain sounds went in a particular pattern. He was not making up PIE that could not be demonstrated.
In a recent exchange I had with Koenraad Elst - he suddenly accused me of disrespecting Panini - using the classic bait and switch argument that linguistics supporters on this forum have done. Linguists do use Panini's suggestions but they cook up languages and claim that cooked up ones existed without any possibility of proof. no one seems to think that this is odd. We get so used to thinking that al is vel in this day and age that we get hoodwinked by mumbojumbo artistes like comparative linguists. Combine them with creative interpretations of texts - we have an elaborate but fake structure - a real elephant in our room of cosy "modern reality"
Why is all this shit important? Because our history is cooked up for us by these people