Mea culpa. ‘Acid’ does have some history with a word meaning ‘sour,’ but as noted, not linguistic cognates.
Agreed, and I think there are reasonable arguments for and against the inclusion of cetaceans
Only in the sense that nothing in social science can be 100% “proven” in lab conditions. The evidence for it is overwhelming, and you seem remarkably unconcerned that your “citations” to people claiming the opposite are all far-right Hindutva nationalists with no credentials in linguistics whose agenda is to show that Sanskrit was given directly by the gods and isn’t polluted by evolving from the same sources as other human languages.
Thank you, shoeshine81, and welcome to the Dope. Your first contribution is excellent. I was coming back here to explain the Hindutva connection, but you beat me to it. The only organized opposition to Indo-European linguistics is the Hindutva religiofascists. Their crusade is like creationism vs. evolution, or flat Earth vs. reality.
To be fair, I don’t think I’d notice that all of those cites were from Hindutva nationalists without it being pointed out. I wasn’t aware that religious opposition to Indo-European linguistics was a thing.
In other words, I just learned something new, so thank you, @shoeshine81 and @Johanna .
Speaking of non-European crankery, have you heard of the Bibhorr equation that renders trigonometry unnecessary?
Same here. Which is why it’s a good idea to not post authoritatively on subjects based on a few Google search results without having a good understanding of the topic.
I didn’t know about the Hindutva thing, but I smelled an agenda when I noticed Doc’s cite claimed that the PIE hypothesis has “engendered wars and violence”.
I looked it up. The claims online are nonsense and it doesn’t replace trigonometry.
What it is is a pretty good approximation to the arctan function. You can see the difference here:
It’s sorta clever but there’s zero reason to use it with modern computers.
Amit Schandillia is a language enthusiast and history communicator, with a background in computers and finance. Besides language, Amit has a long relationship with history, and has produced hundreds of popular Twitter threads on the subject, both Indian and otherwise. Of particular interest to him is the making of history accessible to laypersons by breaking down stories into thrilling, enjoyable reads. Amit also authors India Uncharted, an audio series on Indian history, with Storytel.
Subhash Kak is an Indian-American computer scientist and historical revisionist.[1] He is the Regents Professor of Computer Science Department at Oklahoma State University–Stillwater,[2] an honorary visiting professor of engineering at Jawaharlal Nehru University,[3] and a member of the Indian Prime Minister’s Science, Technology and Innovation Advisory Council (PM-STIAC).[4]
Kak has published on the history of science, the philosophy of science, ancient astronomy, and the history of mathematics.[2] Kak has also published on archaeoastronomy, and advocated the idea of Indigenous Aryans.[5] Many scholars have rejected his theories on these topics in entirety, and his writings have been heavily criticized.[5][6]
In 2019, the Government of India awarded him the Padma Shri,[7] the fourth highest civilian award in India,[8] for his contributions on the history of mathematics, science, ancient astronomy and philosophy of science.[9]
Sounds like he certainly has academic credentials.
I dont see anything about far-right Hindutva nationalists for either . Got a cite? Mind you, sure their hypotheses are also unproven. Maybe even biased. What those cites show is not everyone thinks PIE is true. They do not disprove the hypothesis.
Here is wiki also saying PIE is an unproven hypothesis.
Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European language family.[1] No direct record of Proto-Indo-European exists; its proposed features have been derived by linguistic reconstruction from documented Indo-European languages. Far more work has gone into reconstructing PIE than any other proto-language, and it is the best understood of all proto-languages of its age. The majority of linguistic work during the 19th century was devoted to the reconstruction of PIE and its daughter languages, and many of the modern techniques of linguistic reconstruction (such as the comparative method) were developed as a result.[2]
PIE is hypothesized to have been spoken as a single language from approximately 4500 BCE to 2500 BCE[3] during the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age, though estimates vary by more than a thousand years. According to the prevailing Kurgan hypothesis, the original homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans may have been in the Pontic–Caspian steppe of eastern Europe.
Unproven Hypothesis are not necessarily wrong, and in fact PIE has a lot of support.
But let us say we were discussing the possibility of Faster than Light travel. And someone posted the the existence of White Holes proved that FTL was possible. It does nothing of the sort. It does show that the white hole hypothesis does allow for some possibility of FTL travel. But you cant use a hypothesis to prove anything. That is why they are still a hypothesis and not a proven scientific theory. It makes for interesting discussion, sure, but not proof.
Ummm, did you even read what you copy and pasted? It clearly undercuts your arguments, pretty severely in fact.
Tell me you don’t know what Indigenous Aryan Theory is without telling me you don’t know what Indigenous Aryan Theory is…
Or what an academic credential for linguistics might look like, for that matter. Here’s a hint, @DrDeth : there’s a reason Omnidisciplinary Scientist is a TVTrope.
Absolutely- I did mention it as crankery
But is it a bug or a feature?
He has a “relationship with history,” “produced hundreds of popular twitter threads.” And has a background in computers and science. No wiki article and only two hits in Google Scholar, but not as an author, nor mentioned in the abstract.
Yeah, his credentials in linguistics is quickly approaching zero.
Yeah it certainly does sound like that. What’s his degree again? Computer science! I’m sure that gives him a lot of insight into the world of linguistics! /s
Did you notice that he is labeled historical revisionist and advocat of indigenous Aryans. Per the link in the text you quoted:
Indigenous Aryanism, also known as the Indigenous Aryans theory (IAT) and the Out of India theory (OIT), is the conviction that the Aryans are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent,
These are guys you bring up to claim that PIE language is just a hypothesis and there’s scientific dissent. Well I’m sure mainstream linguists are cowering in fear.
Does that prove PIE is a proven Scientific Theory? Tell me you dont know the difference between a Scientific Theory vs a Hypothesis is without telling me you dont know the difference is.
I dont give a rats ass that one of them believes in one unproven hypothesis versus another.
Nor does that show either is a *far-right Hindutva nationalist". It shows only that they dispute PIE instead they like their own hypothesis. So?
My point is- and go ahead and try to dispute this- is that PIE is an unproven hypothesis. Can you show that isnt true?
Also wikipedia. Also the fact that it is a hypothesis. I brought those guys up to show that there are other viewpoints. Can you show PIE is not an unproven Hypothesis? That it is indeed a proven scientific fact?
I will await your proofs.
Did I post it in order to prove it was?
I do know the existence of PIE is a theory, not a hypothesis, at this point.
It’s had over two centuries of consistent, rigorous comparative work across hundreds of languages supported by:
- Regular sound correspondences,
- Reconstructed grammar and vocabulary,
- Systematic patterns of language evolution,
- and, (the clincher for me): Predictive power for undocumented or undiscovered cognates amongst other things predicted.
So the field has amassed enough empirical evidence to elevate itself from hypothesis to theory.
One of them is a crackpot nationalist pseudoscientist. You can try and spin that as an “unproven hypothesis” all you like, but you would be very, very mistaken.
You know, you can just say you didn’t actually read your own cite. You don’t have to repeatedly show us.
[sic]
I did, and I can.
PIE theory is as sound as the Theory of Evolution, and you sound like a Creationist calling that “just a hypothesis”.
Moderating:
Enough about the theory of PIE, which wasn’t even needed to dispute the etymology that led to it being discussed.
Also, @DrDeth , if a lot of people knowledgeable about a topic disagree with you, it’s wise to back off.
As several people are typing furiously, I’m temporarily closing this thread to give them a chance to see the mod note.