In response to Bodhi's post 137:
(1) Usefulness of studying linguistics:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think our only disagreement is that I feel we need not write off philology itself, rather challenge its present foundations. If PIE has 'proved' AIT, the same can support OIT too. But I am in agreement to what you said about the hurdles and practical difficulties, and we can conclude that there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Then I agree - as long as people know what they're getting into, that is, if they know the obstacles they could face. It would certainly be very helpful to derive alternative theories and (if necessary) perhaps even alternative Laws to those currently followed in linguistics.
But it's not something I could ever ask anyone else to study, because I would never take up the study of linguistics myself.
Though I'd say, anyone thinking of taking on the field without the intention of blindly accepting PIE ought to do it as a second major and/or not quit their day-job.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If PIE has 'proved' AIT, the same can support OIT too.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->For any philological pursuit to help in reinstating the field as a true science, best not to start off with an assumption as the IE side has done.
A <i>hypothesis</i> there may be in statistical enquiries. And perhaps there's room for hypotheses in linguistics, if the people doing the research were really unbiased and wanted to test these against hard facts.
But perhaps it would be best not to repeat the mistake of the opposition by working from one perspective. (Though it would not be amiss to be mindful of one, in order to be open to subtle clues that imply OIT for instance; this is certainly an advantage we've never had.) Being free of any preconceived notions and assumptions would allow the data to guide the understanding and any interpretations, instead of us imitating the PIE crowd who arrange/force-fit the data to tell their pre-determined story.
(2) Westward movements in Mahabharata:
I don't know that all the examples provided instantly imply an out-of-Bharat movement. In some cases, this could be due to my being unfamiliar with the placenames (toponomy) of that time.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->O exalted one, the eighteen tribes of the Bhojas, from fear of Jarasandha, have all fled towards the west;<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->West of Bharat (including Afghanistan), or still inside Bharat but west of Indraprastha and Hastinapura or even Punjab, say?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->and the southern Panchalas and the eastern Kosalas have all fled to the country of the Kuntis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->'Country of the Kuntis' appears to be another kingdom that's known but not ruled by the Kauravas or Pandavas. But is this known to have been outside India? There were always many kingdoms in Bharat, and those of them that were not part of a larger kingdom made up their own 'countries' in that looser sense in our literature. (But it follows that kingdoms located in Bharat all consider themselves part of the same country when faced with some culturally-alien human population.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->moving westwards to Mlechchha countries.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is more indicative: culturally dissimilar or dissonant countries in the west.
Rg Vedam has references to people leaving for the distant west too. And in some of its cases, they're never to be heard of again. The Rg Veda's time period for a westward movement may be more appropriate for an OIT proposition.
You've probably read this already, but just in case: see Shrikant Talageri's 'Rig Veda, a Historical analysis':
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch6.htm - Chapter 6
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch7.htm - Chapter 7
(1) Usefulness of studying linguistics:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think our only disagreement is that I feel we need not write off philology itself, rather challenge its present foundations. If PIE has 'proved' AIT, the same can support OIT too. But I am in agreement to what you said about the hurdles and practical difficulties, and we can conclude that there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Then I agree - as long as people know what they're getting into, that is, if they know the obstacles they could face. It would certainly be very helpful to derive alternative theories and (if necessary) perhaps even alternative Laws to those currently followed in linguistics.
But it's not something I could ever ask anyone else to study, because I would never take up the study of linguistics myself.
Though I'd say, anyone thinking of taking on the field without the intention of blindly accepting PIE ought to do it as a second major and/or not quit their day-job.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If PIE has 'proved' AIT, the same can support OIT too.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->For any philological pursuit to help in reinstating the field as a true science, best not to start off with an assumption as the IE side has done.
A <i>hypothesis</i> there may be in statistical enquiries. And perhaps there's room for hypotheses in linguistics, if the people doing the research were really unbiased and wanted to test these against hard facts.
But perhaps it would be best not to repeat the mistake of the opposition by working from one perspective. (Though it would not be amiss to be mindful of one, in order to be open to subtle clues that imply OIT for instance; this is certainly an advantage we've never had.) Being free of any preconceived notions and assumptions would allow the data to guide the understanding and any interpretations, instead of us imitating the PIE crowd who arrange/force-fit the data to tell their pre-determined story.
(2) Westward movements in Mahabharata:
I don't know that all the examples provided instantly imply an out-of-Bharat movement. In some cases, this could be due to my being unfamiliar with the placenames (toponomy) of that time.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->O exalted one, the eighteen tribes of the Bhojas, from fear of Jarasandha, have all fled towards the west;<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->West of Bharat (including Afghanistan), or still inside Bharat but west of Indraprastha and Hastinapura or even Punjab, say?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->and the southern Panchalas and the eastern Kosalas have all fled to the country of the Kuntis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->'Country of the Kuntis' appears to be another kingdom that's known but not ruled by the Kauravas or Pandavas. But is this known to have been outside India? There were always many kingdoms in Bharat, and those of them that were not part of a larger kingdom made up their own 'countries' in that looser sense in our literature. (But it follows that kingdoms located in Bharat all consider themselves part of the same country when faced with some culturally-alien human population.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->moving westwards to Mlechchha countries.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is more indicative: culturally dissimilar or dissonant countries in the west.
Rg Vedam has references to people leaving for the distant west too. And in some of its cases, they're never to be heard of again. The Rg Veda's time period for a westward movement may be more appropriate for an OIT proposition.
You've probably read this already, but just in case: see Shrikant Talageri's 'Rig Veda, a Historical analysis':
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch6.htm - Chapter 6
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch7.htm - Chapter 7