Congratulations, Richard Sproat that your work of 26 June 2013 gets published at last in a scholarly forum after the irresponsible way Science dealt with your refutation of Rao's theses. I do not agree with all of Rao's theses which assume a syllabic foundation for Indus writing, following the errors of decipherment claims of Parpola, Mahadevan et al.
![Product Details]()
I think my work on Philosophy of Symbolic Forms in Meluhha cipher and related titles, shows some areas in which I disagree with your dogmatic assertions about Indus writing being non-linguistic. I don't concede that the Indus writing was non-linguistic.
I respect your opinions and may not necessarily agree with all of them. I will fight for your rights to express your views.
I think my work on Philosophy of Symbolic Forms in Meluhha cipher and related titles, shows some areas in which I disagree with your dogmatic assertions about Indus writing being non-linguistic. I don't concede that the Indus writing was non-linguistic.I call it Meluhha hieroglyphic writing. Just as you rightly expect your work to be reviewed seriously, I would also expect my work to be reviewed in any way reviewers choose fit.
Sure, many hurdles have to be crossed, starting with the word and meaning of 'Meluhha' as a linguistic category.
Again, congrats and best wishes, Richard.
Kalyanaraman
New analysis contradicts findings published in Science
The full text of Richard Sproat (Google Inc.) paper is at http://www.linguisticsociety.org/document/language-vol-90-issue-2-june-2014-sproat.