On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 10:43 -0700, Thaths wrote: > What is to explain? For populations to exist side by side exchanging > cuisines, culture, genes and words is self explanatory and not > profound. > One sees Tamil and Malayalam blending in Palghat. Telugu and Tamil > blending > in Tirupathi. There are many more such examples. > Tsk tsk Thaths. I believe you are on the right track here. Would you be able to hazard a guess (or state from any extensive reading you may have done) as to how long the populations have existed side by side and influenced each other?
> That said, linguists use tools more powerful than anecdotal books > published > in 1910 to support their case. Indeed they do. But your response is disappointingly par for the course, being high on rhetoric and low on substance. I put it to you that you have actually not done any reading in depth and are simply trying to bluff your way out of this one. Please provide references to which "tools" you believe linguists use that are so powerful. What tools are you speaking of that would specifically demonstrate that the 1910 book reference is a one-off anomaly that can be discarded? I would be happy to see an analysis and critique of these powerful tools from within the community of linguists of which there are many, I can assure you. And do you believe that others must not judge the utility of such tools critically? I think we could have an interesting discussion here. The subject is a minefield and worthy of some debate, if it opens more eyes about what linguists have actually been doing rather than the run of the mill indignant responses that appear with boring regularity. Linguistics is full of angry people ready to fight. I would be happy to tell you what I think about any powerful linguistic tools that you may care to list. If you consult Uncle Google for that, I would be equally happy to see if you can come up with references that I have not looked at yet and judge them for myself. shiv
