<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 4 2008, 03:59 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 4 2008, 03:59 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky, Ishwa has already generated <b>enough</b> discussion (ripples?) among scholars with his new findings. He has succesfully challenged one of the founding cornerstones of greece-centric assumptions of Indology, that is "ionian = yavana" which were retro-fitting the dating of many important events to a late date, and one primary source of confusion about history in purANa-s.
[right][snapback]89759[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Mere discussion is not sufficient, Bodhi. All such information by Ishwa and any others like him - after being processed (perfected: double-checked, logically organised, referenced, edited, spell-checked) - should be preserved in referenceable data collections. E.g. officially published books (if no journals will deign to present the findings of sincere and ardent 'Hindoo' researchers).
Letting such things be brought up in discussion fora/lists (however official) <i>alone</i>, doesn't lend it the distinction of being something reliable/official, but more like something that was thought worthy of talking about or - at best - something for temporary consideration. Just bringing it up in lists means that someone else's meagre response may be taken as a final say-so by people in the future and then that will be that: "Oh, you mean the arguments made by that one Indoo Ishwa? Yes, they were interesting while they lasted, but it turned out his ideas didn't matter after all, because the last post #2010 in the SuperIE list was by the all-knowing Wienerschnitzel of SS-fame who said that Ishwa was a Hindoo and didn't even know the proper accent with which PIE was spoken. Can you imagine. Moving on. Numenor being the Original Homeland..."
Worthwhile ideas deserve a proper casement that make them referenceable, that lend them the exterior credibility they already have in their essence. His findings deserve to be not only discussed but expanded upon and incorporated by others who are not biased.
Why should such Hindus' findings be accorded any less distinction? If Steve "What Does It Really Know About Samskritam" Farmer wrote anything it would be made official, people would be citing him left and right. But Ishwa, who actually worked and mined useful knowledge - being a Hindoo - his ideas will never be allowed to make it past discussion, they will be discarded as soon as certain elements can find some fudge for their inconvenience.
Ishwa, I still think you ought to hunt down Mr Talageri's email and send him all your posts here. If I were him, I'd be pleased to learn all of what you've found and he may even contact you to help him in his future work. (Of course, if I were him, I'd then finally be able to understand all of what you wrote too, but never mind that.) Alternatively, try Dr Kalyanaraman. Or, I don't know - whoever won't shoot you down on account of your dastardly cleverness being a nuisance to their comfortable thinking routines.
[right][snapback]89759[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Mere discussion is not sufficient, Bodhi. All such information by Ishwa and any others like him - after being processed (perfected: double-checked, logically organised, referenced, edited, spell-checked) - should be preserved in referenceable data collections. E.g. officially published books (if no journals will deign to present the findings of sincere and ardent 'Hindoo' researchers).
Letting such things be brought up in discussion fora/lists (however official) <i>alone</i>, doesn't lend it the distinction of being something reliable/official, but more like something that was thought worthy of talking about or - at best - something for temporary consideration. Just bringing it up in lists means that someone else's meagre response may be taken as a final say-so by people in the future and then that will be that: "Oh, you mean the arguments made by that one Indoo Ishwa? Yes, they were interesting while they lasted, but it turned out his ideas didn't matter after all, because the last post #2010 in the SuperIE list was by the all-knowing Wienerschnitzel of SS-fame who said that Ishwa was a Hindoo and didn't even know the proper accent with which PIE was spoken. Can you imagine. Moving on. Numenor being the Original Homeland..."
Worthwhile ideas deserve a proper casement that make them referenceable, that lend them the exterior credibility they already have in their essence. His findings deserve to be not only discussed but expanded upon and incorporated by others who are not biased.
Why should such Hindus' findings be accorded any less distinction? If Steve "What Does It Really Know About Samskritam" Farmer wrote anything it would be made official, people would be citing him left and right. But Ishwa, who actually worked and mined useful knowledge - being a Hindoo - his ideas will never be allowed to make it past discussion, they will be discarded as soon as certain elements can find some fudge for their inconvenience.
Ishwa, I still think you ought to hunt down Mr Talageri's email and send him all your posts here. If I were him, I'd be pleased to learn all of what you've found and he may even contact you to help him in his future work. (Of course, if I were him, I'd then finally be able to understand all of what you wrote too, but never mind that.) Alternatively, try Dr Kalyanaraman. Or, I don't know - whoever won't shoot you down on account of your dastardly cleverness being a nuisance to their comfortable thinking routines.