Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 May 2012 01:53

Sankrit: continuing from Kazanas

7a. A most interesting aspect of Indoeuropean Linguistics is the root and the vowel gradation or ablaut system (or apophonie). Indoeuropeanists adopted an hypothetical five-grade ablaut from Greek. Now, the only language that has roots is Sanskrit. To begin with, the word ‘root’ does not strictly translate the S dh#tu ‘layer, element, constituent, seed-form’; nor can a “root” exist as an independent and generative element of a plant as a seed can. But putting this aside, only Sanskrit has roots and a proper vowel gradation. All other IE branches have stems, not roots as such. Like every other modern IE branch English has no actual working concept of root. (Of course ‘act’ in English can function as a root and generate ‘act-ed, act-ing, act-ion, act-ivate, in- act-ively’ etc, but ‘act’ itself comes ultimately from Latin.) Greek had verbs, and scholars say that nouns derive from the verb-stem: e.g. che-o > che-u-ma ‘a flow/stream’; cho-e ‘pouring, libation’, cho-a-ne ‘melting pot’; chu-ma ‘the fluid’, chu-s-is ‘shedding’, chu-tra ‘earthen pot’; etc. Even if we took che- as the root, it is difficult to see how this develops into cheu-, cho- and then chu-! One realizes how inconsistent Greek is when one considers two similar verbs: deo ‘bind’ > de-ma ‘band, rope’, de-s-is ‘the binding together’, de-s-mos ‘bond’, (dia-)de-ma ‘ribbon round hair’ – but no deu-, do- and du- ; pne-o ‘blow, breathe’ > pne-u-ma ‘blast of air’ (later ‘spirit’), pne-u-s-/pno-e/ pnoi-a ‘blast, breeze, breath’ – showing unexpected pnoi- but not pnu-! If one examined other similar verbs (bdeo, zeo, keo, xeo, neo etc) one would find even more bizarre changes in the stem. There is no regularity; moreover the vowels change from palatal e to labial u/o etc without rhyme or reason.

Sanskrit has three gradations in the development of the root-stem: e.g. cit ‘being conscious of’ >cet-as‘ mind, intelligence ’orcet-a-ti‘ he/she realizes ’,a-cait‘ realized’(aor),caitanya ‘consciousness’ etc. / 0 always changes to e and ai, never to a or u/o. Similarly radical u ->->o ->->au and r->->ar->->aar. Now,& sometimes will give ra/ri/ru but will never become i/eor u/o. Thus there is the basic grade of the simple vowels a, i, u, &, C (though some roots have a ‘developed’ vowel), the strong (gu/a) grade a (same), e, o, ar, al and the fully developed one (vrddhi) aa, ai, au, ar, al. This triple gradation has its equivalent in Vedic cosmology and philosophy where we find three main world-levels – heaven, midair and earth (svar, antarik.a and prthiv!) – and causal or natural, subtle or mental and gross or material. As nouns and verbs are generated from the root , the radical vowel changes according to constant regulations (except, as was said, in the case of & which is somewhat unstable). This process is absent from other IE branches. (And, as we see in Greek, it is utterly confused. Modern studies since, say J. Kurylowicz(1956), O. Szemerényi (1972) et al, rationalize but also tacitly acknowledge this fact.)

After Brugmann had turned against Sanskrit and favoured Greek (1912-16), comparativists adopted a five-grade ablaut from Greek pater ‘father’ and eupator ‘good father’ in incredible disorder (Szemerényi, p84):

i) pa-ter-a (acc sing) where – ter- shows e as the basic grade (to be distinguished from S e which is long and second grade).
ii) eu-pa-tor-a (acc sing) where –tor- shows the o- grade (again to be distinguished from S o which is long). But note that, unlike the Sanskrit series, here we have a different noun declension and sound-family: e is palatal and o labial!
iii) pa-tr-os(gensing)where–tr-shows the zero or nil grade! But here we have in fact syncopation or loss of vowel (lopa in S).
iv) pa-ter (nom sing) where –ter shows the long-vowel grade (e).
v) eu-pa-tor (nom sing)where – tor shows the long - grade (o-mega).
Obviously there is neither rhyme nor reason in all this. More importantly, the ablaut occurs in the affix –t-r- not the root stem. This series, if it can be considered such, might have some validity if it occurred in one noun or one verb and if it followed some principle(s) that governed the same changes in many other nouns or verbs. Szemerényi gives instead the following examples stating that “Very often only full grade [i.e. the vowel e], o-grade and zero grade are attested” (p84):
a) leip-o (pres) le-loip-a (perf), e-lip-on (aor) ‘leave’ b) derk-omai (pres), de-dork-a (perf), e-dr-akon (aor) ‘perceive’. c) penthos (neut nom sing), pe-ponth-a (perf), e-path-on (aor) ‘grieve’.
Here one cannot but wonder at this astonishing presentation, which merely increases the disorder. Here we have more bizarre phenomena. First, the vowel-change occurs in the stem, not in affixes or terminations, as above. Then leip- and derk- are verbs but penthos in (c) is a noun! Then the zero grade is not syncopation or disappearance of the vowel as in (iii) above, but a different vowel –i in (a) and a in (c). Another difficulty is the dipthong ei in (a); for we find also eu-pa-teir-a (nom sing fem ‘she of a noble father’) and we now do not know whether this is full grade as with leip-o, or a sixth grade according to the five-grade presentation above6.

But what principles govern these so-called vowel-grades in Greek? In fact there are no principles such as we have in Sanskrit! Clackson writes at length about the significance of the root but does not give a single example in PIE or any branch of a root generating primary and secondary derivatives as in Sanskrit (2007:65-9, 187-191). This issue and others like the obvious problems of reconstructed sounds, especially consonants, I have discussed at great length elsewhere (Kazanas 2004b) and we need not therefore spend more time with them. A quotation from Burrow should suffice here: “Chiefly owing to its antiquity the Sanskrit language is more readily analysable and its roots more easily separable from other accretionary elements than any other IE language (Burrow 1973: 123, 289, my emphasis).

7b. By way of conclusion, let me repeat that PIE cannot be reconstructed at all from the available data in the known IE branches. The comparative efforts fail as a science miserably, because they employ far too many “laws” which at the same time have far too many exceptions and discrepancies. One of the worst aspects is the reconstruction of words that, as we saw, look very nice on paper but cannot be pronounced – like *nekwts ‘night’ or *dhDh-ma ‘on the ground’ etc. The positive sciences have as their final testing ground Maths and the reality of the material world. What corresponds to this in the linguistic/phonetic field is sound, pronounceable sound! If the lexemes we produce are unpronounceable, then our system is wrong.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 May 2012 01:57

So there never was a PIE. Its all changes to original Sanskrit from India due to distance and time. And Sanskrit also evolved after the emigrations out of India.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 24 May 2012 02:02

Thanx Acharya/Sanku,

That says a lot about the linguists right there...

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 May 2012 02:08

What the Euroepan colonialist wanted was to show that during that time the Indo Aryans also entered and compsed the RgV. This is to show that Indians are not the original brains behind RgV and it had to have the Euro component to it.

Linguistics was designed to show this superiority

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 May 2012 02:18

ramana wrote:So there never was a PIE. Its all changes to original Sanskrit from India due to distance and time. And Sanskrit also evolved after the emigrations out of India.

ramana ji,
Kazanas's position can be interpreted as that a PIE existed, but not the current mainstream reconstruction - and it is Sanskrit which represents the extant closest form to that PIE which also evolved in a sedentary culture in the Saptasindhu area.

He also coincides with our speculative model that the language->RV->Sindhu-Saraswati culture in chronology and within the generic Saptasindhu area.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 24 May 2012 09:02

brihaspati wrote:All that they are saying is that the gradient indicates a possible point of origin/appearance in the general vicinity of South Asia
..
But SNP's will not overturn the direction of migration exactly in the opposite - drastically. The clarification will not land up in steppes.

B-ji:

Are we supposed to think there have been no movements since the IE dispersal, and which changed the post IE dispersal gradient. Platt2012 fully ignores the effect of C3 haplogroup which moved from Mongolia to Central Asia in Genghis Khan's times, virtually creating small islands of R1a1 left in modern Tajikistan.

The effect of C3 hg has significant effects on the geographic gradient as seen in modern DNA. All the more reason, a comprehensive study taking ancient DNA into account is needed.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 24 May 2012 10:44

brihaspati wrote:PIE from Kazanas : continued -
as in S !bh* (>bhava-), Gk phuomai, L fui, C buith, Gmc be- etc. Then again, Gk plosive ph became a fricative f as is the Italic f. How or why did the original initial consonant – whatever it was – change into these sounds? Linguists don’t know.

Neither do they claim to know. It's human behaviour. Eg. can anyone tell us why some regions of India have the propensity to grow moustaches and some don't ? It is a matter of fashion and imitating people who have social influence.

Let us each take your own mother tongue - can you explain why some dialects belonging to a certain districts pronounce certain words differently ? Nope, they are probably imitating the accent of someone they respected in the past.

one of which, the labio-velar family, is unpronounceable! How on earth can anyone pronounce as one unitary sound kw or gwh which contain both a guttural/velar and a labial element?

Just because Kazanas finds it unpronouncable doesn't mean it cannot be articulated by human mouth. Majority of people outside India find retroflexes unpronouncable - doesn't mean they don't exist. Every westerner who visits us finds Belur-Haḷebīḍu unpronounceable.

Another interesting thing is that Kazanas neglects to mention actual epigraphic evidence of Mycenaean Greek which has the labiovelar. Since Epic Greek shows same words lost the labial element, it provides epigraphic corroboration of sound change theory.

To state that labio-velars exist in Latin (and other languages) is an assertion of no value.

We'll judge the value later. At least Kazanas accepts that they are pronouncable which just 2 seconds ago he had refused to.

Certainly, we have L qu-a-(lis/ etc) and in English qua-(lity) and Italian quando etc. But in every case we have three separate, successive sounds: velar q (pronounced k), a glide vowel -u- and a vowel; in no case do we have a single, unitary consonant.

He's confused between orthography and articulation. Modern Latin orthography and modern Italian pronunciation is a disyllabic 'qu'; it doesn't mean ancient pronunciation was not unisyllabic.

Sanskrit also has kva, dva, 1va etc: these can be pronounced only as separate successive sounds not as a single one.

Strawman again. No one derives Sanskrit kva clusters from original PIE labiovelar kʷ.

Also to pronounce the monstrosity *dhgwhec ‘to perish’! (For other unpronounceable examples see, for instance, Watkins 2000, 2001; Clackson 2007.)

Cognitive sciences have reams on what factors govern pronouncability of phonetic features. Eg. a lot of native Kannada speakers find Wockhardt unpronounceable - preferring to articulate it as Ockhardt.

Changes in different languages are neither uniform nor parallel, as she herself points out (Marcantonio & Brady 2005), and therefore one can’t rely on such strict correspondences.

No one claims sound changes are uniform. Kazanas ignores the fact that sound changes continued happening post IE dispersal. So PIE sound changes are called correspondences - not laws.

Ultimately one must rely on “naked eye” as she puts it, or “impressionistic” perceptions.

It's not impressionistic - it's called semantics.

Well, as I said, the changes were not uniform and one must rely on one’s discrimination, not “laws” nor statistics, though both are often useful.

They appear indiscriminate if every cognate is sought to be explained only based on sound changes after PIE dispersal. But the fact is that words in modern languages kept undergoing sound changes even after dispersal of IE branches. Case in point :

PIE kʷos > Sanskrit kaḥ , Old English hwā, New English who

A final point about laryngeals, which are wholly unattested except in Hittite (a language whose IE character is much decayed, being smothered by other neighbours rich in laryngeals).

So how come DeSaussure predicted laryngeals in PIE. And 50 years after publication of his paper, these hittite inscriptions show laryngeals at the same syllables as predicted by sound change theory of PIE.

Kazanas neglects to mention this evidence. Thankfully he doesn't call laryngeals 'unpronounceable'.

Let us consider the example of H2 (or h2 or .2). This appears in PIE *dhugH2ter ‘daughter’ (Fortson 2004: 204): appears as a in Gk thugater, but as i in S duhitar. However, Av duABar (Hale 2004: 748) or duxtar (Fortson, 204) has neither a nor i

PIE laryngeal H2 is often lost word-medially in Avestan. In Sanskrit it comes up as 'i' vowel. So how exactly does that refute the fact that these languages have a common origin ?

. So what was the form in Proto-Indo-Iranian?... Not known. Old Avestan has pta for ‘father’ but later patar and pitar (Mayerhofer KEWA, vol 2, 277); this is S pitr, Gk pater and L pater (Fortson, 23, 276) all allegedly from PIE *pH2ter. But, again, what was the from in Proto-Indo-Iranian?

Partial presentation of data always creates confusion. He neglects to mention that Young Avestan has pitā. Even if we take partial data, does it refute the fact that these geographically diverse languages had a common origin. Compare with words from other language families:

Kannada: magaḷu, Turkic: kiz, Hungarian: lánya

...Unknown. First of all consider that unlike S (which has many cognates from duh), Av duABar and Gk thugater stand isolated without related stems in their languages.

A. If Kazanas thinks that there is consensus on Sanskrit verb root duh (to milk) is related to duhitar, then he's mistaken. The fact that IE languages have wider preservation of the word for daughter, than the word for milk speaks against it. Also, please give us roots for mātar and pitar.

B. For every such 'isolated' from root word found in sister IE languages, Sanskrit too has 'isolated from root'. The example of śraddha and cakra I made earlier.

Such "mine is bigger" churlish behaviour is often displayed by supporters of other sister IE languages too.

Then, as M. Hale observed, the i was not an invariable feature of Proto-Indo- Iranian (2004: 748). The cognates for ‘father’ expose yet another inconsistency. L has also Ju[s]pitar with i as well as pater in the selfsame phonetic environment and B. Fortson offers no explanation at all (2004: 23, 33, 253, 261;

Jupiter is same as Sanskrit dyaus-pitar. The association of sky with father and earth with mother is found in several IE branches. These examples only strengthen common origin hypothesis. Compare with other language families

Kannada: tande, Finnish: isä,

Av has pta, pitar and patar, despite the selfsame phonetic environment. But according to IEnists S should have *phit&! Because according to the IE “reconstruction”-system, the laryngeal H2 becomes i in S but also aspirates the previous consonants.

He neglects to mention that Avestan phonology does have the aspirated labial 'ph' at all! He is unaware that sound changes are not laws to be applied like algebraic substitutions. So while Avestan has a 'kh' sound, it could converge the PIE laryngeal H2 into 'duxtar'.

Kazanas continues to nitpick in his blissful lack of phonetic training.

Thus PIE *stH2to > S sthita ‘one who has stood’ and PIE *pletH2- > S prathiman ‘width’. However, pitr has no aspirate ph! Those disparate phenomena show most flagrantly that these IE “reconstructions” and “phonetic laws” are anything but satisfactory.

[/quote]

Again, Kazanas can seek the explanation can even be found in wiki, no need to even pore over Linguistics textbooks. Avestan phonology has ϑ (dental aspirate) but no labial aspirate ph.

One thing to note is that I'm thankful that Kazanas raises these 'why not' questions. They are important. But all these 'why not' questions are answered in Linguistics textbooks.

Another thing is that in all these nitpicks, what comes out are a wide-wide range of words shared between IE languages - across a massive geographic expanse - personal pronouns, kinship terms, numerals etc. All this speaks for common geographic origin (one can question where).

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 24 May 2012 12:03

I find most of Kazanas' arguments correct in the "Sarasvati" essay. He is very right to call out Witzel's dubious and inconsistent interpretation of Sarasvati passages.

I only have minor points of differences with Kazanas on his lack of basic research in etymology which I'll highlight ...

brihaspati wrote: Please, consider also that the Vedic -s- is inherited from PIE, according to all IEnists,
whereas Avestan –h- is a devolved, not PIE, sound. Vedic sr has many primary and secondary
cognates like sara, sarit etc. Now Avestan has no cognates for sr and its products, ... The stem hara- (cognate with Vedic saras) occurs only in the river name Haraxvaiti.

He takes Avestan as the only representative of Iranian. Forgets to take OldIranian into account - eg. see OldIranian 'sruaim' meaning stream. Moreover Young Avestan has raonam (with initial h elided). Sogdian rwš ‘to flow, stream’ (methesized).

Other than that, very valid points there.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2012 14:16

ManishH wrote: Eg. can anyone tell us why some regions of India have the propensity to grow moustaches and some don't ? It is a matter of fashion and imitating people who have social influence.

Seriously - can you tell me which part of India men do not have a propensity to grow moustaches? I do not know of any such areas and would like to know. And along with that would you mind addressing an earlier question I had?

ManishH wrote: Sedentarism is not the only social condition that creates leisure. Occupational specialization is another factor.

What leisure creating occupational specialization occurs in the absence of sedentarism?

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 24 May 2012 14:33

Shiv: Roving bards and their patronization by kings is a cross-IE phenomenon. The concept of 'śravas akṣiti' (fame immortal) echoes in multiple similar phrases in IE world "kleos apthiton". Basically, kings believed that words of Bards (Oral Tradition) could make them immortal or be damned forever. Just search Rg for 'śravas'. Therefore patronization by kings of sages was quite common. There is no evidence that RgVeda sages were purely sedentary. They have knowledge of considerable breadth of the land.

Added later: Eg. see the similies that RgVeda sages use - nothing to do with agriculture - a lot with equestrian, chariotry and cattle rearing. Compare to similies used by Kabir (weaver).

The comparativist Dumezil's work studying many Epics across IE world concludes very close symbiotic relationship between the priest/bard and Kings in various IE cultures. I'm sure you have heard of Brahma/Kṣatra alliance.

Pardon if my replies are slow to come. Since there are several people posting questions.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2012 17:20

ManishH wrote: There is no evidence that RgVeda sages were purely sedentary. They have knowledge of considerable breadth of the land.

Added later: Eg. see the similies that RgVeda sages use - nothing to do with agriculture - a lot with equestrian, chariotry and cattle rearing. Compare to similies used by Kabir (weaver).

Problem is I am willing to read the proof myself if you can point to sources because one or two things you have quoted from your sources above give rise to suspicions in my otherwise uninformed mind. How about naming a few textbooks that I can look at?

Chariotry is more indicative of a sedentary society than a moving society for the simple reason that it requires carpentry and perhaps metalwork and specialists for manufacture and repair. Hardly something that can be set up at short notice anywhere by a society on the move. Any ironmongery or metalwork like swords or wheel manufacture require a settled infrastructure. These specialists would require further people to feed them and that indicates agriculture. So the connection between chariotry and people continuously on the move is unlikely.

Cattle rearing per se does not indicate a society on the move. They could well be itinerant settlers whose movement is dependent on where fodder is available. If we talk about societies 5000 years ago in a human friendly area such as India has been for several millennia - this could merely translate to shifting between two different locations at different times of year no more upsetting than having a summer capital and a winter capital.

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 24 May 2012 17:23

What of the AMT-AIT school argument that the Sarasvati that RV praises is a mythical river or that it doesn't end in ocean (that samudra didn't specifically mean ocean then):

> I have already mentioned in previous discussions that there is no need
> for Rig vedic poets to glorify a dead river in 1500 B.C . Saraswati
> was a major river only before 2000 B.C. The words used in Rig Veda to
> glorify Saraswati river ( Swift- Vajinivati, roaring - roara etc) are
> not applicable to a died river in 1500 B.C.
******
Maybe they were glorifying it precisely because it was no longer as
swift and roaring as they wished it were.

If they are ruing that Sarasvati is no longer as great as she were, then they definitely witnessed her in that great state that is being (hypothetically) missed so much?
And if they witnessed her so, then they must've been at her banks around 3000 BC, the last years of her great health?

Then they immediately hop to new stand and doubt if she was even real.

Is it glorification or prayer?
Incidentally the mythological theme of a flowing river is attested in a
lot of places around the world, so it certainly does not have the
geohistorical value you push on this theme at all costs.
Personally I'm ok with the RgVeda being a religious document, this is
not Google-earth-upon-Indus-River.

What about the latest sat. imagery that shows her riverbed now? They'd say its not of Sarasvati.
Further if we believe that she did indeed reach mountain to ocean then:
Aryans originally being a land locked people from a far off phoenix land, how plausible is it to believe that they would imagine the myth of a mighty river that is attributed with high qualities such as 'Abmitame Naditame Devitame' and whose flow is described as 'Giribhya a Samudrat'.
Pardon my inaccuracy if any, in quoting the Sanskrit words.

Regards,
Virendra

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 24 May 2012 17:41

Manish ji, and also with respect to chariots, Kazanas says that, these chariots may not be the same as westerners think about chariots, those that are used in warfare, they might as well be used for going places, some radhas(my own word not of Kazanas ) were even driven by 6 horses ( not sure if he mentions horse driven) and to substantiate he gives Vedic description of 6 horse drive cart(this is the word Kazanas uses to describe Vedic chariot). So why do we have to take it that Migrated people into India used chariots in a war? And also he says those carts were driven by ox like in some parts of present day India? so what makes them people who are on the move? Carts of this type are used everywhere in India, doesn't make Indians on the move in a manner to migrate out of India in the present day.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 24 May 2012 17:47

shiv: See "Indo-European Language and Culture", Fortson. Section 2.37 Poets, patrons and fame

Good short summary on cross-IE world trend of kings patronizing poets/bards/priests to devote time to intellectual pursuits (actually praise the king).

Patronship from kings or chiefs frees bards from daily drudgery of hard work.

Iron and Swords are non-existent in Rg. But you are right about support structure from rest of society which would have to be sedentary.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 May 2012 18:10

ManishH ji,
the gradient is still reconstructible as proportionate among R1A1 - subclades, even among areas suppsedly swept by Mongols. [Actually the presence of the Mongol "gene", in quantitative terms itself as overwhelming or not - is itself an interesting issue. Just as little can be genetically identified in Europe as the trace of the so-called Hun sweep that has such big literary presence in Roman kahani]. Its the further "qualification" on the basic R1A1 substrate with respect to subregion that is being referred to - not to absolute numbers of R1A1 with respect to subregion.

For Kazanas's arguments about linguistics - I think people should go through his more detailed papers devoted to the linguistic issues. Here he is very briefly touching on the issues as he takes them - in the context of a brief exposition on AIT and the relation of any supposed PIE to Sanskrit. This is not primarily a linguistic article.

I am personally a bit dicey on some of his linguistic arguments - but he has every right to use the logic he is using even in those cases because this is very similar to the contextual arguments used by his opponents in linguistics. When things can go both ways, no one in particular can be ruled out completely.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 May 2012 19:11

Virendra, They were always SDRE Indians even in the distant past. Being short when thy came acorss a stream they called it a ocean!!!

Just kidding.
A Yiddish saying goes" If you want to beat a dog, you will find a stick!" The Europeans want to establish primacy for world domination and hence they came up with this AIT stick to beat Indians who were not even in the race!

Gutenberg printing the bible made it more available. So they latched on to Noah and his three sons story and never looked back.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 24 May 2012 19:12

B-ji: You are right - he's asking very valid questions. Unfortunately, he's asking them to Witzel - who himself is very unclear about phonetics; as well as lacking a good base in multiple IE languages.

Promise a reply to the ablaut essay during the weekend - I need to properly illustrate my argument with examples. No leisure at the moment

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 24 May 2012 19:23

I've read that RV praises Indus as well and perhaps many others among Sapta Sindhu.
However the other rivers are not mythological and only Sarasvati is. Why?
Because if it is accepted as real, then Sarasvati's drying up that is fixed at 2000 BC will demolish AIT/AMT.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 24 May 2012 19:36

Shiv:

Here's a fine example of śaṃsa poetry from Rg - bard praising a king named Bhavya. The bard praises the king, accepts gifts with hyperbole, promises him fame immortal. Proof of that immortality is the Indian oral tradition that has carried it for 4 millenia right to this forum..

I'll just take two mantras of this sūkta ...

RV_01.126.01.1{11} amandān stomān pra bhare manīṣā sindhāvadhi kṣiyato bhāvyasya<BR>
RV_01.126.01.2{11} yo me sahasramamimīta savānatūrto rājā śravaichamānaḥ<BR>
RV_01.126.02.1{11} śataṃ rājño nādhamānasya niṣkāñchatamaśvān prayatān sadya ādam<BR>
RV_01.126.02.2{11} śataṃ kakṣīvānasurasya gonāṃ divi śravo 'jaramā tatāna<BR>

Translation mine (pardon the errors, but should give you idea)
=================
Undiminished praises I offer to the wise King Bhavya who lives on Sindhu's banks
The undefeated king desirous of fame, arranged a thousand sacrifices for me

A hundred gold pieces, a hundred horses, I the beseecher have accepted now
A hundred of the chief's cattle, I Kakshivan (took). Immortal fame has he spread in the heavens.
=================

I think this kind of patronage can also create conditions of leisure for the bard/priest/poet who has free time to reflect on intellectual pursuits.

From D. Anthony "Horse, Wheel and Language".

Poets occupied another respected social category. Spoken words,
whether poems or oaths, were thought to have tremendous power. The
poet's praise was a mortal's only hope for immortality.

...

The public performance of praise poetry, animal sacrifices, and the
distribution of meat and mead were cen- tral elements of the
show. Calvert Watkins found a special kind of song he called the
"praise of the gift" in Vedic, Greek, Celtic, and Germanic, and
therefore almost certainly in late Proto-Indo-European. Praise poems
proclaimed the generosity of a patron and enumerated his gifts. These
per- formances were both acclamations of identity and recruiting
events.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 May 2012 20:56

ramana wrote:Virendra, They were always SDRE Indians even in the distant past. Being short when thy came acorss a stream they called it a ocean!!!

Just kidding.
A Yiddish saying goes" If you want to beat a dog, you will find a stick!" The Europeans want to establish primacy for world domination and hence they came up with this AIT stick to beat Indians who were not even in the race!

Gutenberg printing the bible made it more available. So they latched on to Noah and his three sons story and never looked back.

It is not about India being in the race but they realised what they are going up against.
There is an existing civilization which is very complex beyond their comprehension

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2012 21:23

ManishH wrote: From D. Anthony "Horse, Wheel and Language".
Poets occupied another respected social category. Spoken words,
whether poems or oaths, were thought to have tremendous power. The
poet's praise was a mortal's only hope for immortality.

You know Manish when I read passages like that I am always reminded of what I used to read in the lay press regarding archaeologists' findings in various places. I would read "Archaeologists believe that this was a fertility ritual". wtf is that?

I think some of this stuff is pure Horse manure. Ashwamedhya, if you pardon my Sanskrit.

In the absence of any evidence whatsoever how do these worthies come up with thoughts and feelings of long dead people like "I will become immortal only if this guy says magic words" or "I need to do this fertility ritual". I worry about such conclusions. How do these guys cook up such stuff and expect everyone to believe it?

But using keywords from your translation I found this from another source.
http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/RigVeda.pdf

HYMN CXXVI. Bhavayavya.
1. WITH wisdom I present these lively praises of Bhavya dweller on the bank
of Sindhu;
For he, unconquered King, desiring glory, hath furnished me a thousand
sacrifices.
2 A hundred necklets from the King, beseeching, a hundred gift-steeds I at
once accepted;
Of the lord's cows a thousand, I Kaksivan. His deathless glory hath he spread
to heaven.
3 Horses of dusky colour stood beside me, ten chariots, Svanaya's gift, with
mares to draw them.
Kine numbering sixty thousand followed after. Kaksivan gained them when
the days were closing.
4 Forty bay horses of the ten cars' master before a thousand lead the long
procession.
Reeling in joy Kaksivan's sons and Pajra's have grounded the coursers decked
with pearly trappings.
5 An earlier gift for you have I accepted eight cows, good milkers, and tree
harnessed horses,
Pajras, who with your wains with your great kinsman, like troops of
subjects, have been fain for glory.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 24 May 2012 22:52

Kaksivan gets a 100 necklets, 100 horses & 60000 cows

and a stick for this dog

.

Is there any song in RV for, "envy of the gifts".

The donor of 60000 cows should have many more in his goshala. I never donated more than 1% of my yearly earnings. Of my family wealth it must be like 0.1%.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 25 May 2012 00:40

ravi_g wrote:Kaksivan gets a 100 necklets, 100 horses & 60000 cows and a stick for this dog .

Kak-Sivan
BTW Kak Pronounced with AA sound is also used in Kurdish language . Its a honoraty word like Jee or Sir.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 May 2012 00:43

Just a bit of caution about numbers. What is often passed off as fantastic and hyperbole, could actually be deliberate encoding of possibly significant astrophysical or geographical data. For example the number 60,000 appears in many places in narratives. Sagar had 60,000 sons.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2012 01:38

And five appears numerous times in Mahabharata.

tyroneshoes · Post by **tyroneshoes** » 25 May 2012 03:11

Again a novice question: How can I use PIE? or have you spoken PIE lately?

Let us say someone has time and money to fund boondoggles

1. They fund the creation of Proto Useless Symbols (PUS) language
2. They then ask us all to speak PUS
(meaning no compiler human or otherwise can emit or interpret it)
3. Yet they insist that such a PUS language exists

One can safely conclude, even if it were not a conspiracy, that the said
language is impractical and vaporware.

Neither can the language be shown to exist nor was it ever spoken.
If Linguists want to sell vaporware, then their entire profession and justification for funding comes into question.

If Sanskrit is a dead language, to me PIE seems like a ghost the never was...

There is no written evidence of Proto-Indo-European, so all knowledge of the language is derived by reconstruction from later languages using linguistic techniques such as the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo ... n_language

Given this, would you speak (or eat) PIE?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 May 2012 03:38

ramana wrote:And five appears numerous times in Mahabharata.

possible, but the small integers can be challenged as in any case likely to be repeated. large numbers become interesting. But these numbers are peculiarly recurrent :

54, 108, 216, 40, 72, 60000. There are others.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 May 2012 04:24

They are fractions or multiples of 72. It takes 72 years for the earth to rotate 1 degree on the pole - EARTH MOTION - PRECESSION OF THE EQUINOXES. It has significance on the human body.
http://www.salagram.net/108meaning.html

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 25 May 2012 06:29

shiv wrote:
ManishH wrote: From D. Anthony "Horse, Wheel and Language".
You know Manish when I read passages like that I am always reminded of what I used to read in the lay press regarding archaeologists' findings in various places. I would read "Archaeologists believe that this was a fertility ritual". wtf is that?

I think some of this stuff is pure Horse manure. Ashwamedhya, if you pardon my Sanskrit.

There is a big problem in interpreting sanskrit compositions that are very ancient, unless there is lot of bhashyas, vakyanas and tatpariyas that go along with them. The fact that many can just translate into Englipish and claim that is what it was meant is subject to lot of pitfalls.

Luckily, for example: we have many bhashyas, interpretations for Bhagavad Gita by Sri. Adi Sankaracharya, Sri.Ramanujacharya, and others such as tatpariya chandrika etc. This makes a lot of difference when one listens to Bhagavad gita renderings from practitioners of the culture who are immersed in sanskrit and sankriti of the land. The English translations of the same text is very poor imitation in conveying its meanings and nuances. Given such a state for a text that has many supporting commentaries, one can only realize how poor mere translations of ancient texts would be, especially by the ~~dry~~ western language practitioners.

But I digress, most of such translations are done with malafide intention to subject the treatises to their own interpretations and challenge others to prove that it is false. The idea is to just subject the traditional narratives to dispute. Mission accomplished. But that fact is helped because many Indians were deliberately separated from accessing their own cultural depth. So the mere ability to have western translation of sanskrit start looking like a work of genius. But that is mostly due to ignorance level because of the deprivation of access to cultural depth.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 May 2012 06:37

ravi_g wrote:Kaksivan gets a 100 necklets, 100 horses & 60000 cows and a stick for this dog .

Is there any song in RV for, "envy of the gifts".

The donor of 60000 cows should have many more in his goshala. I never donated more than 1% of my yearly earnings. Of my family wealth it must be like 0.1%.

I am looking for better translations, but in the meantime I intend to buy a CD if the Rig Veda being chanted because chances are I can pick up phrases that I can myself translate using various methods available in this day and age. I did find an MP3 that I downloaded.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 May 2012 06:46

JwalaMukhi wrote: There is a big problem in interpreting sanskrit compositions that are very ancient, unless there is lot of bhashyas, vakyanas and tatpariyas that go along with them. The fact that many can just translate into Englipish and claim that is what it was meant is subject to lot of pitfalls.

Absolutely. And that is why conclusions about motivations bother me.

You see, on the one hand the bard/composer is said to have exaggerated greatly. On the other hand it is is claimed that these exaggerations somehow translate to a clear indication of motivation/thought process on the part of the person/king who gave the bard all these gifts to make the latter say the things that make him immortal.

Heck but if the bard can exaggerate the gifts he can exaggerate his powers no? And in any case how do you find out the thought process of the king from what the bard says, knowing that bard exaggerates, with no words or evidence from the King himself. Did the king really exist? Or was this some Soma soaked dream inserted in the middle of prayers to Agni, Saraswwati, Indra etc?

Clearly something is missing from these translations. I was amazed to find that the only freely available Englpis translation of Rig Veda is by one Griffith from 1850 or sometime like that. Hmmm......

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 25 May 2012 07:44

Shiv garu, JwalaMukhi garu,
You are right on the money regarding the understanding of the Vedas and their interpretation by the west. But strangely, the western scholars and linguists don't recognize Indian Vedic scholarship. For example Take Talageri's book mentioned on page 1, the reviewer completes dismisses his understanding of Rig Veda, he talks about lack of phonetic analysis in the book. Unless Indian Vedic scholars vehemently criticize and show that western scholars understanding vedic works is shallow and that it is not just verbatim translation, we end up getting preached by people whose understanding and interpretations are shallow. And now it is taking a great deal of effort on our part to reclaim what is rightfully ours. Now the burden is thrust on us to prove that all this is composed by Indians and not my invading 'Aryans'.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 25 May 2012 10:25

shiv wrote: Heck but if the bard can exaggerate the gifts he can exaggerate his powers no? And in any case how do you find out the thought process of the king from what the bard says, knowing that bard exaggerates, with no words or evidence from the King himself. Did the king really exist? Or was this some Soma soaked dream inserted in the middle of prayers to Agni, Saraswwati, Indra etc?

Exaggeration is obvious. What matters more is what is being exaggerated by the bard. The bard exaggerates his promise to the king - fame, by calling it immortal. Why doesn't the bard exaggerate a larger dominion, more crops, treasures etc ? The difference between what is being promised by the bard in pastoral society of Bronze age will be different from what is promised in primarily sedentary, agricultural society in later era.

Again before dismissing conclusions, at least look at some 180 odd references to śravas in Rg. You'll find more emphasis on fame than expanding dominions. When 'fame' is such an important goal, an itinerant sage has obvious advantage than a sedentary one.

You are welcome to differ with interpretations, but please do take time to see multiple references to 'kleos apthiton' in Greek poetry. This phrase is a direct phonetic cognate to vedic 'śravaḥ akṣiti'.

Added later: For a cross-Indo-European (Indian/Greek/Slavic/OldEnglish/German) study of epics on this topic, see chapter 10 'Mortality and Fame' in "Indo-European Poetry and Myth", Martin West. This chapter is freely available on google books right now.

How do these guys cook up such stuff and expect everyone to believe it?

Let me know what specifically is unbelievable in my translation. Who are these "guys" ? Please be specific about what is being "cooked up" in the sukta I quoted ? I'm looking for specific words which I, or even say, Griffith has mis-translated. Feel free to verify it with any non-western source too. And the mis-translation has to be significant enough to become totally unrelated to the central point I'm making - the importance of fame and the reciprocity of gifts (patronage).

You nonchalantly lump all scholars into "guys" who are mistranslating in a "motivated" fashion, there's a freely available hindi translation of RgVeda by Pdt. Ramgovind Trivedi, here :

http://archive.org/details/Rigveda.in.H ... nd.Trivedi

... with the same sukta ...

You haven't bothered to check one alternate source of scholarship, neither do you have an alternate translation, interpretation, or a criticism to offer. All you want to do is paint all of modern scholarship in wide brushes, solely based on a pre-independence colonial text that is in your possession.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 25 May 2012 14:38

venug wrote:Manish ji, and also with respect to chariots, Kazanas says that, these chariots may not be the same as westerners think about chariots, those that are used in warfare, they might as well be used for going places, some radhas(my own word not of Kazanas ) were even driven by 6 horses ( not sure if he mentions horse driven) and to substantiate he gives Vedic description of 6 horse drive cart(this is the word Kazanas uses to describe Vedic chariot). So why do we have to take it that Migrated people into India used chariots in a war? And also he says those carts were driven by ox like in some parts of present day India? so what makes them people who are on the move? Carts of this type are used everywhere in India, doesn't make Indians on the move in a manner to migrate out of India in the present day.

venug garu: If you have doubt on chariot's use for warfare, please read the Rgveda sūkta 06.075 which is specifically a war ballad and among other prayers, mentions the warrior standing on the chariot 'rathe tiṣṭhan'. There are numerous other references to warriors on the chariot - but I'm mentioning only this one since others can be dismissed as symbolic utterances ("soma drenched" as one poster put it)

It's definitely not a plain cart, I haven't read about goods being transported on them.

You are right; on it's own, chariotry and cattle rearing is no conclusive evidence of a mobile society. We have to look at the general theme of Rg poetry - the very limited number of prayers for crops versus cattle/horses, mention of a lot of Kings but very few names of cities or states names where they rule. A larger number of river names. I think these people had dwellings, but not large settlements.

Chariot construction is very different from carts driven by draught animals like oxen. The former needs to withstand higher speeds.

Migration is a different matter; I was trying to explore if the society was sedentary or not.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 25 May 2012 15:16

ManishH wrote:venug garu: If you have doubt on chariot's use for warfare, please read the Rgveda sūkta 06.075 which is specifically a war ballad and among other prayers, mentions the warrior standing on the chariot 'rathe tiṣṭhan'. There are numerous other references to warriors on the chariot - but I'm mentioning only this one since others can be dismissed as symbolic utterances ("soma drenched" as one poster put it)

It's definitely not a plain cart, I haven't read about goods being transported on them.

You are right; on it's own, chariotry and cattle rearing is no conclusive evidence of a mobile society. We have to look at the general theme of Rg poetry - the very limited number of prayers for crops versus cattle/horses, mention of a lot of Kings but very few names of cities or states names where they rule. A larger number of river names. I think these people had dwellings, but not large settlements.

Chariot construction is very different from carts driven by draught animals like oxen. The former needs to withstand higher speeds.

Migration is a different matter; I was trying to explore if the society was sedentary or not.

Manish ji, while I also agree with some of your observations regarding settlement sizes. But your way of arriving at a conclusion is different from mine. By your logic limited number of mentions/prayers of something means lesser importance to that particular that thing. Now I am damn sure there are more kings mentioned in RV then there are subjects so I guess subjects didn’t really count in those ancient times. As in some other context somebody else mentioned that there are no cows in Indus Valley seals, only bulls so they probably didn’t attach much importance to cows. What about calfs. In a slightly different context all our movies today start and end with Ladka and ladki love stories so by this logic we attach lesser importance to mother and child relationships, right?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 May 2012 15:24

ManishH wrote:
Exaggeration is obvious. What matters more is what is being exaggerated by the bard. The bard exaggerates his promise to the king - fame, by calling it immortal. Why doesn't the bard exaggerate a larger dominion, more crops, treasures etc ? The difference between what is being promised by the bard in pastoral society of Bronze age will be different from what is promised in primarily sedentary, agricultural society in later era.

"Promising fame by calling it immortal"? Sorry that is difficult to swallow. That is a conclusion that you seem to want to reach.

1000 cattle? 60,000 "kine" - which an online dictionary says is cattle or cattle dung. And this guy is alleged to be "mobile" because he gets mobile gifts. The bard may be exaggerating, but the person who reaches the mobility conclusion is exaggerating too. The absence of something is not proof of anything much. A huge land with extremely sparse population and multiple large fertile areas ready for settlement would not need gifts of land. Anyone could walk anywhere and claim the land as his. How come no scholar thinks of it this way? Where are the property records for gifts of land 3500 years ago? If land is plentiful and anyone can take anything, no one gifts land because it's value is low. What was the population of India in 1500 BC if it was 300 million in 1947? I am guessing it would barely have touched a few million. For all of India.

But that is not my problem. My problem will be explained below in response to the question you have asked.

ManishH wrote:
How do these guys cook up such stuff and expect everyone to believe it?
Let me know what specifically is unbelievable in my translation. Who are these "guys" ? Please be specific about what is being "cooked up" in the sukta I quoted ? I'm looking for specific words which I, or even say, Griffith has mis-translated. Feel free to verify it with any non-western source too. And the mis-translation has to be significant enough to become totally unrelated to the central point I'm making - the importance of fame and the reciprocity of gifts (patronage).

The "guys" I am referring to are represented by this quote made by you

From D. Anthony "Horse, Wheel and Language".
Poets occupied another respected social category. Spoken words,
whether poems or oaths, were thought to have tremendous power. The
poet's praise was a mortal's only hope for immortality.

What is it in the translation that tells anyone what is in the mind of the person whose gifts are being accepted and whose praise is being sung? How does a reader conclude that the ruler mentioned in that passage of the Rig Veda "wanted immortality via praise from a bard just like Greek kings?" I can speculate on many other things that it could have been.

The passage you quoted features one "Kaksivan" whose name also appears as "son of Pajra" in other places, and his job is "Soma presser" and "holy singer" and he has accepted gifts and spread the fame of the king to the heavens. He has performed the pooja in other words and has taken the "daana" (donation) for performing the pooja. This happens millions of times a day across India even today.

The king could have been making a sacrifice for surviving a bout of cholera or other serious disease and then praying for a long life by engaging a priest for that job. How dumb can a king be assumed to be to listen to exaggerated lies about his gifts and then believe that the liar would give him immortality. Instead, it could be like any modern day Vedic pooja where it is all symbolic and not literal. A prayer. A prayer in the Vedic sense in which the priest does the praying and the king/person initiating the ritual satisfies the material needs of the priest. Exactly like any ceremony in India today - a wedding, a funeral or a house warming. And this poem is a record of a prayer made at some time in history. Not a dumbass king swallowing exaggerated praise and believing that it will bring him immortality. Reaching a particular conclusion about the king's specific thought process sounds like reading the mind of a long dead king and ascribing a personality (of naivete) to that king. How on earth do these experts jump to such wild conclusions? "This poem was composed because king XYZ wanted fame and believe that if an exaggerating bard said it it would happen". Where does that conclusion come from? It is more likely to be a simple Vedic ceremony in ancient India like Yediyurappa did last month. Not some Greek fame stuff.

Google tells me that "Shravah Akshiti" means "survive imperishably". That is a blessing made by all mothers to all children in India. All elders bless others this way. Chiranjeevi and shathayus mean similar things. It is very very Indian. But kleos aphthiton means "fame unwilting" as per Googal. One is fame. The other is immortality. How is fame==immortality?

If Greeks kings had some motivation for rewarding bards and it has been recorded in Greek literature, how is that motivation being somehow transferred on to India? In any case what comparable Greek literature survives from the time of the Rig Veda? At best it is speculation. There is a similarity in the existence of praise poetry. That similarity is being used to reach the following conclusions as far as I can tell

1. Greek kings who wanted fame rewarded bards for making poems of that.
2. The existence Praise poetry in the Rig Veda is being connected with the Greeks
3. It is being assumed that the Indian kings had the same motivation as the Greeks in the absence of any other records. It seems that the "coincidence is too much to ignore" (which is very convenient for a man who wants to prove a particular theory)
4. The nature of the gifts is being used to conclude pastoralism. Roving may be true for bards, but why the kings? the kings seem well settled with control over lots of cattle, horses and chariot making machinery.
5.There is no evidence that the Indian and Greek praise poetry moved in any particular direction. But if proof of the Greek praise poetry comes from a later era and the Indian one (Rig Veda) from an earlier era and if you choose to connect them up as the same, then it could have gone from India to Greece. Via mobile bards maybe. With their 60,000 cattle/cattle dung.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 25 May 2012 15:53

Manish ji, elsewhere you have concluded that a itinerant bard is going to be a more cost effective image consultant compared to a sedentary bard. Perhaps you want to say that an itinerant bard implies travel to more places implying meetings with many people.

Both implications I am afraid I find hard to digest. Itinerant bard travelling to many places may imply a moving around from one Aranya/forest to another. Happens to this day. Babas/Sadhus/Munis to this day move around to basically avoid people not to meet new ones. Again a sedentary bard may be sedentary because he has all the audience he can hope for at one place while an itinerant bard may be travelling because he has no real audience. In fact this is much more plausible. Happens to this day.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 May 2012 16:03

shiv saar,

while you are at it, please do consider bringing Witzel and Co. under you pisko-knife! We need to get behind what is driving these guys in their anti-Indic agenda. Their source of cash may also tell us something.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 May 2012 17:23

Manishji, I can find no similarity between the translation I posted and the Hindi translation image you posted.

Boss I cannot believe the Hindi and English bits are the same passage. the English translation is meaningless bullshit by a man who knows nothing of vedic culture. The Hindi one is clear. It is a pooja/ceremony performed by a priest and NOT a Greek style praise poem

The translation I posted was:

HYMN CXXVI. Bhavayavya.
1. WITH wisdom I present these lively praises of Bhavya dweller on the bank
of Sindhu;
For he, unconquered King, desiring glory, hath furnished me a thousand
sacrifices.
2 A hundred necklets from the King, beseeching, a hundred gift-steeds I at
once accepted;
Of the lord's cows a thousand, I Kaksivan. His deathless glory hath he spread
to heaven.
3 Horses of dusky colour stood beside me, ten chariots, Svanaya's gift, with
mares to draw them.
Kine numbering sixty thousand followed after. Kaksivan gained them when
the days were closing.
4 Forty bay horses of the ten cars' master before a thousand lead the long
procession.
Reeling in joy Kaksivan's sons and Pajra's have grounded the coursers decked
with pearly trappings.
5 An earlier gift for you have I accepted eight cows, good milkers, and tree
harnessed horses,
Pajras, who with your wains with your great kinsman, like troops of
subjects, have been fain for glory.

But the image below says the following (Hindi posted in Roman alphabet) (mistakes mine) Question marks are bits i could not figure out. Someone please translate but I can understand the gist of it. It is a record of a pooja/vedic ceremony such as those performed millions of times a day in India

(1 se 5 mantra Raja Bhavyavya ke liye hai aur inke rishi(?)-???-vaan hai.
6th mantra raja ki stree ke liye hai aur iske rishi ukta(?) raja hai.7th mantra Lomsha ke pati ke liye hai, aur iske rishi Lomsha hai. Chhand 1 se 5 tak trishtup(?) aur aur ant ke do anushtup. )

1. Sindhunivasi Bhavyavya-putra swaanay ke liye, apne buddhibal se, bahusankhyak (or vahusankhyak??) stotra sampadan (pranayan) karta hoon. Himsa-virahit raja ne kirti-prapti ki iccha se mere liye hajaar som-yagnon ka anusthan kiya hai.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 May 2012 17:26

I am looking for the slokahs of vedic mathematics. For many formula and theories, we have slokah, eg: 22/7, fibonacci series, pythog etc. Is there one with explanations?