Guest guest Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 Kalyanaraman, who has 'deciphered' the 'Indus script' not once but several times, writes: > Two reasons are adequate to demolish the reductio ad absurdum in an > incoherent jumbling up of anecdotes from unconnected places: 1. there > is no reason to assume that heraldic or agricultural symbols were > depicted without understanding why they were so depicted; 2. citing > arbitrary, anecdotal evidences from other far-off places for such > assumed symbolism is reducing scholarship to the level of absurdity. > > For a literate reading of the script, why can't the glyphs be assumed > to be heiroglyphs? The learned trio are breath-takingly silent on > this possibility. Talk of myth-making ! > > Kalyanaraman Hmm, to see our "incoherent jumbling up of anecdotes from unconnected places", why not read the original article? You can download it from: http://www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf (1.1 Meg PDF). And, of course, we are not silent on hieroglyphs, but include careful statistical analyses. (One of our collaborators is, of course, Richard Sproat: for his work in corpus linguistics, see: http://compling.ai.uiuc.edu/rws/newindex/publications.html Best, Steve Farmer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.