(Interlude to inject personal opinion.)
My own views on post 3 above:
I think the fact that there are different views on the matter of IEL is a good thing even within the anti-AIT camp, because:
(1) It breeds good discussion and further interest and investigation to find out the facts. Discussion might even lead to formulating new theories that better explain hard data;
(2) Having only one stance on the anti-AIT issue means that the opposition thinks they just need to thrash that one in order to feel they've scored a permanent victory,
(3) Whereas having many well-supported anti-AIT POVs will show Indians what a diverse set of equally likely alternative possibilities there actually are, which stand against the limited my-way-or-highway thinking of AIT.
So it's no longer reduced to an 'either-OIT-or-AIT' issue like the psecularists like to present it as, but will make people think: 'I didn't know there were so many alternative explanations'
(4) Being closed-minded to equally reasonable options never leads to truth. And we don't want to be like the indologicals of the IE Research group and deny the different viewpoints (expressed in post 3).
Personally, I don't buy the 'But of course, IE languages are a fact!' argument. For me the whole issue of both AIT and IEL is best left as dead - option (c ) of post 3, and I think those who are of a similar opinion need to be vocal about viewing it as dead. This might then perhaps even shock a few other Hindus/others into rethinking the entire matter for themselves.
Short-short summary of my take on IEL: shady characters with shady motives came up with AIT and its subsequent parent IE theory, and seriously shady characters still prop it up. And even without them, there's enough data to question it altogether. Conclusion: it's so dubious, let's leave it as that until and if ever we find out more hard evidence.
But no further clinching data either way is forthcoming or will be. As it is, much data can be <i>construed</i> as supporting IE family tree, but that's the nature of certain kinds of myth. Jeebus myth works in the same way. Hard to disprove the existence of a historically-silent jeebus/oryans. No trace of either. Burden of proof should be on IE/indological side, but clever them, they've made it the other way around.
And only in the linguistic field do they continue to come up with new 'proof' of Ze Oryans and Zeir Languages. But linguistic 'innovations' don't constitute new evidence (or any kind of evidence at all), of course. The kind of progress IE studies makes: linguists having walked face-in into a wall are still doing walking motions.
My own views on post 3 above:
I think the fact that there are different views on the matter of IEL is a good thing even within the anti-AIT camp, because:
(1) It breeds good discussion and further interest and investigation to find out the facts. Discussion might even lead to formulating new theories that better explain hard data;
(2) Having only one stance on the anti-AIT issue means that the opposition thinks they just need to thrash that one in order to feel they've scored a permanent victory,
(3) Whereas having many well-supported anti-AIT POVs will show Indians what a diverse set of equally likely alternative possibilities there actually are, which stand against the limited my-way-or-highway thinking of AIT.
So it's no longer reduced to an 'either-OIT-or-AIT' issue like the psecularists like to present it as, but will make people think: 'I didn't know there were so many alternative explanations'
(4) Being closed-minded to equally reasonable options never leads to truth. And we don't want to be like the indologicals of the IE Research group and deny the different viewpoints (expressed in post 3).
Personally, I don't buy the 'But of course, IE languages are a fact!' argument. For me the whole issue of both AIT and IEL is best left as dead - option (c ) of post 3, and I think those who are of a similar opinion need to be vocal about viewing it as dead. This might then perhaps even shock a few other Hindus/others into rethinking the entire matter for themselves.
Short-short summary of my take on IEL: shady characters with shady motives came up with AIT and its subsequent parent IE theory, and seriously shady characters still prop it up. And even without them, there's enough data to question it altogether. Conclusion: it's so dubious, let's leave it as that until and if ever we find out more hard evidence.
But no further clinching data either way is forthcoming or will be. As it is, much data can be <i>construed</i> as supporting IE family tree, but that's the nature of certain kinds of myth. Jeebus myth works in the same way. Hard to disprove the existence of a historically-silent jeebus/oryans. No trace of either. Burden of proof should be on IE/indological side, but clever them, they've made it the other way around.
And only in the linguistic field do they continue to come up with new 'proof' of Ze Oryans and Zeir Languages. But linguistic 'innovations' don't constitute new evidence (or any kind of evidence at all), of course. The kind of progress IE studies makes: linguists having walked face-in into a wall are still doing walking motions.