09-01-2006, 06:14 AM
Digvijay
To be honest I dont know enough to distinguish between a fundamental and a non-fundamental question. If I stress myself (at this point atleast) I can think of one. What are the falsification criteria for AIT in particular (and PIE in general) ?
I will give you the reason why I ask this question. From what I have read I have observed that the origin, the urheimat, the language, the lifestyle, the nature, the interaction, the type of the indo-europian etc has almost always followed what is the current rage in the west. There doesnt seem to be any set criteria about who or what this PIE is ?
So taking cue from Muller-uvach -> he-who-knows-one-knows-no-one, i am beginning to think, he who knows not the one who makes one know oneself doesnt know oneself. Basically lets study these fellows who have built our image in our eyes ? And maybe knowing these fellows will tell us about the image they have built for us ?
Not sure if that makes sense or not - but thats my 2np for now.
To be honest I dont know enough to distinguish between a fundamental and a non-fundamental question. If I stress myself (at this point atleast) I can think of one. What are the falsification criteria for AIT in particular (and PIE in general) ?
I will give you the reason why I ask this question. From what I have read I have observed that the origin, the urheimat, the language, the lifestyle, the nature, the interaction, the type of the indo-europian etc has almost always followed what is the current rage in the west. There doesnt seem to be any set criteria about who or what this PIE is ?
So taking cue from Muller-uvach -> he-who-knows-one-knows-no-one, i am beginning to think, he who knows not the one who makes one know oneself doesnt know oneself. Basically lets study these fellows who have built our image in our eyes ? And maybe knowing these fellows will tell us about the image they have built for us ?
Not sure if that makes sense or not - but thats my 2np for now.