Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[brihaspati]

Why did Latin keep the hypothesized "labiovelar", and Greek lost the "velar" onlee? Why Sanskrit lost the labial?

Different development in different children of a parent language is nothing extra-ordinary. See:
Latin aqua > French eau, but Spanish agua
Latin pluvia > French pluie, but Spanish lluvia
Latin nubes > French nuage, but Spanish nube

Very very unfortunate example. Are you claiming, like early PIE lobbyists of the 19th century, that "Spanish" and "French" have evolved from within "Latin"? There is no single "Spanish" or "French" before the last couple of centuries. Neither was there a single "Latin" from which the so-called Romance languages apparently descended. This parentage concept you are using is not supported by current accumulated evidence.

so unpredictably and wildly differing in their sound changes?

Humans are conditioned by their a) whims and b) environment.

Nope - for the first. Your unfortunate example above would be a prime candidate to deny "whims". Do clarify what you mean by "environment". A lot depends on your definition.

Why would Sanskrit with such strong tradition of strict intergenerational maintenance of oral rendition accuracy of pronunciation suddenly start this practice after coming to India to maintain this strangely altered corruption of its ancestral usage?

The techniques to retain sounds with low corruption were developed only after RgVeda. Actually, even in RgVeda, metrical evidence shows us that there were distortions - it's unequalled, but not a perfect system.

What is your proof that techniques of sound retention were developed onlee after RgVeda? Are you saying that the rates and magnitudes of corruption in the RgVeda is higher than evidenced in Sanskrit and successor languages?

You need three extra rules : it happens in X ways for Greek, Y ways for Latin, and Z ways for Sanskrit.

As long as they have a semblance of regularity, this is nothing extra-ordinary. See development of words that Spanish and French loaned from Latin.

Again, I am not sure you are aware of the trajectories of development of "Spanish" and "French" from "Latin". In fact there are great controversies about origins of the classical form of Latin itself, and in what practical form it was actually used. The so-called semblance of regularity - is a phonetic proximity argument with added claims of proximity of ancient usage. You are in the habit of denying the phonetic proximity argument unless it is supported by linguistically reconstructed or assumed ancient similarity of usage.

To explain the differences you need as many rules as the number of differences.

Nope, only as many rules as branches and known phonetic affect of vowels on adjacent consonants.

Nope. Since you are adding on "known phonetic affect of vowels on adjacent consonants" - it now gets multiplied by the number of branches into branch-specific "known" [ that is in non-PIE lobby-speak, reconstructed/estimated/guessed based on other reconstructions/estimations/guesses based on other reconstructions/estimations/guesses cyclically ad nauseam].

ManishH ji, indulge me - think again. You start with a supposed PIE word. Two branches of this PIE speaking culture moves physically away from each other, carries their PIE word for some generations and then phonetically drift. You claim to "know" how "phonetic affect of vowels on adjacent consonants" proceeds.

If this "phonetic affect" is identical for the same linguistic group - it must have remained the same in both branches for some time, because for a time after separation, they still retain the same rules of "phonetic affect". You also claim that humans do not drastically change their sound positions. Then any initial incremental changes have to be small, and the same "phonetic affect" rule guiding both branches can onlee allow changes in identical directions.

This can be bypassed, under dropping of the slow/reluctant/small incremental phonetic changes assumption, or assuming that within the same society - different "phonetic affect rules" co-exist with equal long term survival chance [pretty strong assumption if the society is supposedly close knit, tightly linked, tribal or pastoral group].

Or you have to assume a rule existing in the proto-language itself that guides how even "phonetic affect rule" will change according to cumulative changes in a dispersed branch. Strangely, PIE lobby doesn't propose or show the existence of such rules for "rules".

But to justify your claim, you need to assume for your given example - three different rules for three different branches which cannot be traced to a common ancestral rule of "phonetic affect". This makes it arbitrary and not parsimonious.

As for inscriptional "proof" of labiovelars - labiovelars are an assumed phonetic category, dependent crucially on how they are supposedly pronounced. Inscriptions on the other hand provide symbols that supposedly represent sounds. It takes some leap of imagination and faith to claim inscriptions as proofs of labiovelars.

There is wide agreement that the Mycenaean Greek symbol in question was a labiovelars. Some arguments for that are ...

- In the Mycenaean inscriptions, the symbol used to transcribe the disyllabic sound 'k-w' is often same as that used to transcribe unisyllabic labiovelar 'kʷ'.
- In Mycenaean inscriptions, the same symbol appears where later epic Greek uses a labial, palatalized dental, or a velar. Just as reconstructed by PIE.

Even if all specialists like Chadwick, Ventris and Sihler who have analyzed Minoan Inscriptions and Linear A, B syllabaries are incorrect, and you are right, they cannot be Sanskrit's palatal 'ć' because:

The cognates where Sanskrit always has 'ć', the Mycenaean inscriptions sometimes have the aforesaid labiovelar symbol (q) and sometimes a pure velar.

Myc. a-pi-qo-lo for Epic Greek amphipolos where as sanskrit has 'abhićara'
Myc. qo-u-ko-lo for Epic greek boukolos whereas sanskrit has 'goćara'

Again correctly predicted by PIE reconstruction laws of dissimilation.

If you check Sanskrit cognates, they are abhićara and goćara respectively. Now Sanskrit 'ć' cannot be represented by Linear-B script's 'q' as well as 'k'.

All that the inscription proves is that Myc Greek was confused about interpreting a certain sound pair it faced in usage. It was aware that this pair was sometimes used in such quick succession, that it seemed a phonetic unit on its own - and gave it a single symbol - but retained use of both the compacted form as well as separates. This inscription does not rule out such a confusion in facing dual interpretation/usage of ć.

[brihaspati]

Maybe it will be good for all of us here, if you state the texts you are using.

Had already given the references ...
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1283311

I found it surprising that you are using the specifically "follow" meaning for sacate, while it is known that sacate is used for many more and different senses - including accompany, "to go to", assist, to be with, etc. Then a little exploration provided the reason - it is the standard selective meaning used in PIE-outside-India lobby texts, while remaining absolutely silent about the other meanings and uses of sacate.

No one denies these usages. And these various meanings also exist in non-Sanskrit branches. eg. Latin has sequor (I follow) secus (after).

And in Lithuanian, 'sekti' (follow) and 'kelti' (transfer somewhere) are just as well related as Sanskrit 'saćati' (follow) and 'ćalati' (move).

Such widespread patterns of roots and their derivative verbs and nouns can only indicate a common origin for these languages. Not an "innate human tendency to come up with similar sounding words" theory that you have expounded earlier in the thread.

Well, sacati is alternately and directly used to mean "to be with", unlike the Latin use or in Lithuanian.

[Vayutuvan]

matrimc garu, thanks, but not many used it these days is it?

Yes, that is correct.

.... that is my point too, lacking records of any kind which exactly replicates the sound said in an alien land in time that is long gone, how exact can this pronunciation be?

While I have not followed the thread closely, and am not convinced one way or the other, one point to remember is that the exact replication of sound is not present even among native speakers who are in geographic proximity. Also, it is not necessary, for statistical analysis purposes, that the exact pronunciation
be known. If the words are within certain ball of radius according to some reasonable measure, then those two words may be considered cognate.

[brihaspati]

Just to remind : there is little or no evidence of classical Latin [golden Latin] before the 1st century BCE. Indirect assumptions and guesswork on the vulgate is still a matter of acrimonious debate. One single "pin" trying to push Latin into 7th century BCE has been challenged as a possible 19th century hoax. etc.

Before quoting papers : some quick quotes from even the most conservative "wikipedia" : on proto-Italin, from which one particular dialect is assumed to have spread in dominance through Roman conquests, [who themselves might not have been the originators of the Latini] and become "Latin":

In the extreme view, Italic did not exist, but the different groups descended directly from Indo-European and converged because of geographic contiguity. This view stems in part from the difficulty in identifying a common Italic homeland in prehistory.[2]

In the intermediate view, the Italic languages are one of the ten or eleven major subgroups of the Indo-European language family and might therefore have had an ancestor, common Italic or proto-Italic, from which its daughter languages descend. Moreover, there are similarities between major groups, although how these similarities are to be interpreted is one of the major debatable issues in the historical linguistics of Indo-European. The linguist Calvert Watkins went so far as to suggest, among ten major groups, a four-way division of East, West, North and South Indo-European. These he considered "dialectical divisions within Proto-Indo-European which go back to a period long before the speakers arrived in their historical areas of attestation."[3] This is not to be considered a nodular grouping; in other words, there was not necessarily any common west Indo-European serving as a node from which the subgroups branched, but rather a hypothesized similarity between the dialects of Proto-Indo-European which developed into the recognized families. The West Indo-European dialects are Celtic, Italic and Tocharian. By the time of any written language, Tocharian was geographically remote from the other two.
[...]
The main debate concerning the origin of the Italic languages is the same as that which preoccupied Greek studies for the last half of the 20th century. The Indo-Europeanists for Greek had hypothesized (see Dorian invasion, Proto-Greek language) that Greek originated outside Greece and was brought in by invaders. Analysis of the lexical items of Mycenaean Greek, an early form of Greek, raised the issue of whether Greek had been formed within Greece from Indo-European elements brought in by migrants or invaders, mixed with elements of indigenous languages. The issue was settled in favour of the origin of Greek being that of a language which had both developed from all of these elements and then also taken its recognisable form all within Greece.

A proto-Italic homeland outside Italy is just as elusive as the home of the hypothetical Greek-speaking invaders. No early form of Italic is available to match Mycenaean Greek. The Italic languages are first attested in writing from Umbrian and Faliscan inscriptions dating to the 7th century BC. The alphabets used are based on the Old Italic alphabet, which is itself based on the Greek alphabet. The Italic languages themselves show minor influence from the Etruscan and somewhat more from the Ancient Greek languages. The intermediate phases between Italic and Indo-European are still in deficit, with no guarantee that they ever will be found. The question of whether Italic originated outside Italy or developed by assimilation of Indo-European and other elements within Italy, approximately on or within its current range there, remains. Silvestri says:[4]

"...Common Italic ... is certainly not to be seen as a prehistoric language that can largely be reconstructed, but rather as a set of prehistoric and proto-historic processes of convergence."

Bakkum defines Proto-Italic as a "chronological stage" without an independent development of its own, but extending over late PIE and the initial stages of Proto-Latin and Proto-Sabellic. Meiser's dates of 4000 BC to 1800 BC (well before Mycenaean Greek) he describes as "as good a guess as anyone's."[5]

Both the "Greek" and the "Latins" are thus not necessarily languages evolving from PIE carriers in a vacuum. Loan words from supposed PIE interactions will be interpreted and transmuted according to pre-existing languages and uses. Whimsicality is a rather lame excuse to avoid the complexity of analyzing a complex multi-lingual process leading to potentially different directions in phonetic changes.

Moreover a pre-existing language framework trying to adapt an unfamiliar word or sound-sequence will show multiple interpretations of what seems to be the same usage.

For the labiovelar example - just try to imagine the following scenario :

An alien comes to earth after an apocalyptic sequence obliterates most of earths ancient archeological or archival records, is overwhelmed by the preponderance of English words in many dialects and languages, hears "question" and "nature", and reconstructs a missing "ch" character based on "t" followed by a "vowel" as seen "in some cases" occurring with uncanny "regularity". When she/he/it explores with advanced exploration techniques and discovers fragments of words like quaesitus, and natura - he is even more convinced that a front vowel brings out the "ch" sound best. So he postulates that there was originally a khichri sound represented by t^[khichri] that was pronounced somewhere close to "ch" as in chant.

[brihaspati]

matrimc garu, thanks, but not many used it these days is it?

Yes, that is correct.

.... that is my point too, lacking records of any kind which exactly replicates the sound said in an alien land in time that is long gone, how exact can this pronunciation be?

While I have not followed the thread closely, and am not convinced one way or the other, one point to remember is that the exact replication of sound is not present even among native speakers who are in geographic proximity. Also, it is not necessary, for statistical analysis purposes, that the exact pronunciation
be known. If the words are within certain ball of radius according to some reasonable measure, then those two words may be considered cognate.

It works both ways. Human brain capacity to recognize even the subtlest changes of differences in pronunciation or intonation is surprisingly high. This lies at the base of how we detect accented versions of languages "we know" - and we model or reconstruct background, culture, origins of the speaker mentally if not openly.

The apparent robustness with which we seem to be able to interpret diverse phonetic renditions of the "same" word is again the brain's capacity to align seemingly close patterns to find a possible close match. This does not mean that we do not detect them.

Social basis of identity uses language rendition as a crucial factor - and hence this identity pressure would be a counterforce against unbridled drift [exlcusion - visible or indirect often happens based on accent]. Drift will be facilitated in a milieu where multiple dialects, languages are equally socially strong.

[Vayutuvan]

Arrow heads at least?

While not taking a position either way, aren't arrow heads made out of iron which would rust away? Probably bronze was not used for arrow heads as it is softer than iron. One needs the arrows to be able to penetrate iron chain mail armor, then one would use the hardest but malleable and easy to work with material. This rules out flint arrow heads.

I stand corrected. During the bronze age (the time period in question belongs to this age), bronze was in fact used to make weapons. Shiv ji's point of not finding any arrow heads is a valid point that needs to be explained by AIT/AMT.

[Vayutuvan]

...

Very interesting and astute insights - thanks. That reminds me of shibboleth.

[hanumadu]

2. Domesticated horses leave dateable traces in the archaeological record.
3. A domesticated horse allows people to move significant distances in one lifetime.
4. The domesticated horse in steppes was a precursor to greater warfare. The mobility brought more people into conflict. This is evidenced by co-incidence of greater weapon production (arrowheads) and standardized weapon production (arrows and shaft of same size - that can be reused; as against custom made arrows)

Without a well dated evidence, there is no use of blindfolded linguistic speculation. And without establishing a linguistic relation, one cannot claim common origins for these branches.

Manishji all these points are 100% true, but there are several questions that stem from this:

1. On the question of dating and how much a man can travel on horseback The problem as I see it is that most of the "dating" that is done is often +/- 500 years. And for much of that "indo-European" history no dates are known at all with an accuracy of less than 500 years

Now when you take such huge upper end inaccuracies and look at the other end and say a horse or man can travel so far in a lifetime one comes across a simple fact.Unless one has a string of horses to change a man may at most travel 50 km a day. Assume he travels 15 days a month for 10 months a year. You find the man can travel 7500 km in a year and 300,000 km in a lifetime of 40 years.

Compare with a man who walks say 100 km per month (3 km a day) for 10 months a year . In a lifetime of 40 years this man will cover, 40,000 km. In other words whether it is a man walking or a horse you can travel around the world in a lifetime. So the point about travel in a lifetime is a meaningless data point when it comes to the spread of language.

Man or horseback a migration of 1000 km in a lifetime is big. And relatively easy. No need for a horse. Migration is not necessarily hastened by a horse. Invasion might be though.

2. If you are talking about warfare, yes the horse certainly offers great advantages. But when you talk about horses, chariots and bows and arrows and victors in war you are leaving aside the possibility of peaceful spread entirely. It is typical of "Invasion/domination" theories to talk of how war took over some place. But the possibility of spread without war gets no attention here. Since there is no direct proof it gets little attention.

Having said that I suppose a lot of arrow heads must have survived from Vedic times. You have a militant race moving fast on horses and chariots and winning wars and dominating surely there must be some archaeological evidence of those wars in India. Arrow heads at least? They don't rot away like bones and wood. In the absence of such evidence how can anyone say any wars took place in India in Vedic times? No horse. No arrow heads. No chariots. Only the words of poets? But those Rig Vedic poets are supposed to be singing about the steppes they came from with their horses and chariots, not about India.

So what is the connection between the Rig Veda in India and the steppes? Was there no invasion? if they came on horses where is the evidence? If they were singing about the steppes in Sanskrit, why does Sanskrit not occur in the steppes . After all poetry does retain language very well for millennia (according to you) . If the people of the steppes were singing about their lives as they rode on horseback to India why did their language change to Sanskrit in India?

If the Aryans were pastoral people with cattle, it leaves out the need or the capacity to travel quickly. Not only they have to move women and children but also cattle and you can only move so much faster with all those encumbrances. Again ManishH says that the Aryans had to move through the Hindukush mountains. Can somebody herd cattle through the Hindukush mountains? How about chariots? Can somebody move chariots through the mountains? Are there no other less treacherous routes to India other than the Hindukush mountains even if they are circuitous? Whats the hurry? Like Shiv pointed out above they have plently of time. Heck what is the need for the migration to happen in one generation?

ManishH, you are pushing the goal posts. First it was only the existence of horse that was required because it was mentioned in the Rigveda. Now it is the chariots too. And what more, you say horses and chariots are required to conquer people. Didn't you admit that it is migration and all talk of invasion is stupid? Why are you trying to bring in invasion again? Why don't you decide and stick to either migration or invasion?

Now that horse remains are found in India dating back to 3600 BC, how does it fit your model?

[svinayak]

Just to remind : there is little or no evidence of classical Latin [golden Latin] before the 1st century BCE.


The main debate concerning the origin of the Italic languages is the same as that which preoccupied Greek studies for the last half of the 20th century. The Indo-Europeanists for Greek had hypothesized (see Dorian invasion, Proto-Greek language) that Greek originated outside Greece and was brought in by invaders.

Just as noted before there is a quest to create an antiquity and also history of the roots of Italic and other languages. This modernization of the European languages was very important in the 20th century to create the the image of ;western civilization'

They are doing this to even Hebrew which is not even classified as IE language. This may be due to pressure to show that the language is modernized.

[shiv]

As to point 2., please read through
http://www.igloo.lv/horses/horse_behaviour.pdf

From page 7 onwards

Four types of evidence, conventionally accepted as
proof of horse domestication, fall into the category
of false direct evidence:
* Horse-head sceptres.
* Horse burials not associated with tack.
* Cheekpieces.
* Bit wear.

[Agnimitra]

ஆரிய திராவிட புளுகுமூட்டை

Aryan Invasion Theory, Vedas and Dravidians

[shiv]

The "Out of India" versus "Into India" theories, to my mind need resolution in a way that I will try and express using an analogy.

Imagine an underground pipe of unknown length and extent. One opening of that pipe is found in India and another in Europe. Imagine that petrol is found near the pipe opening in India. If you can demonstrate that petrol is entering the pipe in Europe, then you can reasonably guess that the petrol may have entered pipe in Europe and may have emerged in India. If you merely find petrol in Europe and India it is not proof of which direction the petrol has flowed. It may have flowed from India to Europe, or from Europe to India or there may be an unknown source entering the pipe somewhere en route making petrol flow in both directions.

The issue gets complicated more if the liquid found near the mouth of the pipe in Europe and India are a variable mix of liquids like petrol, water, fine glass beads and wooden chips. If you find more wooden chips in India and less petrol, and if you find more petrol in Europe and fewer wooden chips, what conclusions can you reach about origin and destination?

The "Aryan invasion theory" presumed that petrol originated in Europe and arrived in India. Much "evidence" was cited for this and this evidence was referenced from the European experience. The Europeans saw themselves as conquerors, and in European history it was initially that horse and later the gun that made Europe dominate wars and become conquerors. Hence horse remains, victories in war and high culture seemed European in origin. The "pipe" was thought to have carried petrol form Europe to India.

Later (I think post WW 2) after the racist assumptions of "Aryans" had hurt Europe badly, and science became Americanized there was a reappraisal of the "petrol pipe". The petrol, it seems, originated at some point in the pipe between India and Europe and went in both directions.

But clearly what is found in India is not just petrol. it is a variable mix of petrol, water and wood chips. In Europe the mixture is petrol, milk powder and glass beads. In other words the "pipe" is a dirt pipe which has no consistent content and no consistent direction. There are other openings in Iran and other parts of the world. There is even an opening in South India which has a predominance of wooden chips in the mix.

But what is curious is that great scholarly attention is being paid solely to the origin and distribution of petrol in that pipe. Not much is known about the influence, source and origins of wood chips, glass beads and water. Petrol found at various openings of the pipe in the form of "Indo-European" gets the maximum attention.

Why does this petrol get the maximum attention of "scholarship" and other interested parties?

Imagine a world in which there was no Sanskrit. if Sanskrit did not exist or was dead, what would the Indo-European map look like? Would there be any studies about "Indo-European languages at all? The study of "Indo-European" languages evoked interest ONLY because of the discovery of Sanskrit and its high development in great antiquity.

If you exclude sanskrit, what are you left with in terms of "indo-Euroepan"? You have the Centum languages of Europe and Iranian. Tocharian was deciphered only via translation from Sanskrit. Hurrian language from the Mittani kingdoms got a place only because of a Sanskrit connection. So if you remove Sanskrit you would have found that someone made a link between European languages and Iranian. Maybe Avestan (which is very close to Sanskrit I think). How would they relate the links between the two? Either Persian invaded Europe and influenced European languages, or Europeans invaded Persia. Recorded history shows very deep links between Persia and Europe. After all Persia is a hop, skip and jump away from Greece

If Sanskrit was unknown and un-"discovered" the map in the link below, showing Europe on one side and Iran on the other would be surmised as the source of the link language between Europe and Persia
http://bible-truth.org/dividedgreekempire.gig.gif

It would likely have been surmised that the proto language originated somewhere in this area and moved Northwest to Europe as Centum languages and moved South and east to Persia as satem languages.


Phonetic, archaeological, historic and linguistic links would have been sought from this area alone. No complication of India in the picture. But India, and Sanskrit are the big complication. A huge "kabab mein haddi". Not only was Sanskrit found to be far far older than any of the cosy Iran-Europe languages, it was also by far the best developed. And because sanskrit was such a complication that went against all race and origin theories until the time it was discovered, everything was done to try and fit Sanskrit and the Rig Veda into that larger existing picture. Every excuse has to be conjured up to try and show how the Rig Veda did not refer to India but referred to something outside India. "Where are the chariots?" Where are the horses?" "Where are the place names?" The whole damned study of indo-Euroepan revolves around the Rig Veda and things mentioned therein. The word Aryan was coined from there and the word "Indo" too is based on the Sindhu. No Sanskrit. No Rig Veda. No "Indo-European" studies.

You see, up until the "discovery" of Sanskrit, Europe's history was based by the stories of conquerors who conquered on horseback. You needed horses, chariots and conquest. India was conquered by these people so the Rig Veda had to be proof of an earlier conquest exactly like the conquests of Europe in European history - the Huns, Romans, Arabs, Napoleon - all on steeds or chariots bearing arms. The occurrence of Sanskrit is an inconvenient linguistic and historic conundrum that does not fit easily into earlier theories about the history of the world.

Let me ask some basic questions again
1. Is the Rig Veda really in Sanskrit?
2. How old is the Rig Veda?
3. Does Sanskrit really not occur anywhere else in the world?

[Vayutuvan]

Shiv ji

Bhuvana is one word meaning the earth. It is not bhoo vana.
A Tamil person most prolly would pronounce it as buvanaragsagan.

[ukumar]

A post-dispersal import will show 'odd phonetics'. It won't follow the same phonetic patterns that happen pre-dispersal.

Manishji, I am not going to debate against linguistic difficulty. Problem is it can't be proven right or wrong. I may find it wrong but obviously you believe it is true. But how do we decide who is correct? Your interpretation may have a back up from trained Harvard linguists but it still doesn't mean much. It just takes one kid to say emperor is naked.

Let me give you example of how it could happen. Imagine that ‘aśva’ and 'ekwos' people are neighbor. ‘asva’ people are trained in Harvard and they think that ‘ekwos’ people are illiterate and don’t speak the language correctly. Now ‘ekwos’ people discover horse and decide to call it ekwos. When ‘aśva’ people learn the name of horse from ‘ekwos’ people they change it to what they consider as phonetically correct: asva.

4. PIE is familiar with wild horses. Disperses from India and domesticates horse in Steppe.

Ok. But that would need the horse to be found in India @5000 BC (by conservative estimates). Since OIT says Mahabharata was ~3000 BC and Talageri's book says 2000 BC.

We shouldn't get fixated at the 5000bc date. It is one of many opinions. And they just claim that some of the hyms in RigVeda is from early period not the complete text. Here are some references for presence of wild horses in India. I admit that it is weak evidence but the possibility of neolithic people in India being familiar with Horse like animal is not that asurd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... South_Asia

Remains of the Equus namadicus have been found from Pleistocene levels in India.[4] The Equus namadicus is closely related to the Equus sivalensis.[5] The Equus sivalensis lived in the Himalayan foothills in prehistoric times and it is assumed it was extinct during the last Ice Age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equus_sivalensis

Equus sivalensis is an extinct equid, discovered in the Siwalik hills of Pakistan. Remains date to 2.6 million years ago, and it is assumed that it was extinct during the last Ice Age, between 75,000 and 10,000 years ago, as part of the late Pleistocene megafaunal extinction. Remains have been found in middle to late Pleistocene locations in the Siwaliks and in Tamil Nadu, and recently, as a "Great Indian horse" in Andhra, dated to ca. 75,000 BP.

5. PIE had a concept of speed and power. IE people independently gave name to horse based on common concept related to speed and power.

Interesting. But please demonstrate by break it into sanskrit roots. And see if any sanskrit words for speed and power use these roots. Top of my head, speed = त्व , तुवि power = शक्ति. Not a very unique match I can come with because then even the dog (श्वान्) is power and speed.

Sorry, I was bit lazy in my writing here. What I meant was that word asva could have associated with a concept of speed and power before it was used as name of Horse.
Here is what Sri Aurobindo has to say in secret of the Veda:

“…. the word, a’sva, usually signifying a horse, is used as a figure of
the Prana, the nervous energy, the vital breath, the half-mental,
half-material dynamism which links mind and matter. Its root
is capable, among other senses, of the ideas of impulsion, force,
possession, enjoyment, and we find all these meanings united in
this figure of the Steed of Life to indicate the essential tendencies
of the Pranic energy."

Now how do people give name to animal when they encounter it for first time? They may name it based on something known to them resembling new creature. Or may give it based on what inspires in their mind when looking at the animal.

6. PIE were in central asia and familiar with wild horse. They came to India before domestication in early harappan time and later trade imported domesticatd horses in India.

Very possible. I can't think of anything that would violate this sequence. But then you have left the question open - where does this common language actually originate ?

What I am trying to convey here is that if one can open the mind for other possibility, alternate explanation could be found. Western Indologist has been fixated with idea of bringing IE in India after Harappan time and they are only seeing what they want to see.

[ukumar]

6. PIE were in central asia and familiar with wild horse. They came to India before domestication in early harappan time and later trade imported domesticatd horses in India.


Very possible. I can't think of anything that would violate this sequence. But then you have left the question open - where does this common language actually originate ?

Does this mean that PIE came to India and became Sanskrit and after it became Sanskrit the people composed poems of what life was like in PIE lands? Which steppes full of horses and chariots were the Sanskrit speakers singing about? These people waited till Sanskrit was created to write poems about their ancestors' lands in Central Asia? Or did they migrate several thousand km into India on horses in one lifetime, then converted PIE to Sanskrit in that lifetime and then sang about the steppes? This sounds implausible to me. If it takes a few centuries to change PIE to Sanskrit and then develop robust linguistic rules, why did the Rig Veda poems not refer to local events rather than long forgotten Horse/Chariot events?

This business of "imported horses" must be backed up by archaeological evidence of domesticated horses, imported or not. That does not exist, does it? The horses that Sanskrit poets of the Rig Veda were singing about must have been central Asian. But the language was Sanskrit, not PIE. How does that fit in?

Shivji, Not sure I get what you are saying here. We know that horses were not domesticated in India. They were imported either from Arabia or Central Asia.

In this model, PIE who came to India would only bring the primitive language. Vedic religion and Vedas were composed in India and they were only singing what they experienced in India. Song containing domesticated horse were composed after the domesticated horse were available in India. Vedic Rishi developed the language and made it to Sanskrit. Indian population at 3000BC was approximately 4million (http://worldhistorysite.com/population.html). Modern India is populated by descendant of these early farmers of Indus-Saraswati valley.

Of course this is just one of many possible models.

[shiv]

In this model, PIE who came to India would only bring the primitive language. Vedic religion and Vedas were composed in India and they were only singing what they experienced in India. Song containing domesticated horse were composed after the domesticated horse were available in India. Vedic Rishi developed the language and made it to Sanskrit.

So, as per this theory the horses and chariots that are referred to in the Rig Veda were in India at the time of composition of the Rig Veda.

Unfortunately there is no record of such horses and chariots in India at the time of the Rig Veda. To explain this anomaly it has been stated that the people who composed the Rig Veda were nomads who were migrating from central Asia and composing songs in Sanskrit about all the horses and chariots they came across on the way to India.

This is the traditional model. Do you agree with this?

And can you explain what you mean by PIE? I thought PIE was a hypothetical cooked up language. That is the context in which it has been discussed so far on this thread.

[RajeshA]

Imagine an underground pipe of unknown length and extent. One opening of that pipe is found in India and another in Europe.

shiv saar,

I was going to write something similar today.

I'll offer another analogy.

In the 18th/19th century, guys like William Jones, Thomas Young, Franz Bopp, etc. found the similarities between Sanskrit and European languages and thus established the "Indo-European" school of language and race studies. Many European philosophers spoke highly of Vedas and an interest developed. Earlier many Germans wanted to rid themselves of their Judaic past, so they hopped on to the Sanskrit bandwagon.

Consider a scenario, where a prisoner (Germanic people) is tethered to a donkey, a history dominated by Judaic past and is being dragged away against his wishes. The prisoner just wants to dismount this donkey but can't on his own.

So instead the prisoner decides to throw a lasso around a much more ancient tree (Vedic tradition) and use that to pull himself away from the this Judaic donkey. The Germans went further along this plan than the good Christian people in Britain and USA, etc. were willing to see. So even though in WW II, the Germans were thoroughly defeated, this rope remained between the Europeans and the Vedics.

Now the Christian West is comfortable mounted on their Judeo-Christian donkey, but this rope tied around their trunks and the Vedic Tree, is something that is tearing them up. As ManishH put it, the linguistic connection between Sanskrit and European languages is strong. The rope is strong. You can't cut it anymore. The easy way out for them is to uproot the Vedic Tree from India and pull it along and let it be dragged by the donkey also.

But along with the Vedic Tree, came another baggage - the Indics. And nobody in Europe wanted the colonized enslaved half naked dark fakirs as their equals and sharing the same heritage. In fact, the white Europeans thought they could take all the rich Vedic heritage, and be able to ignore the dark Indic completely. After all India was a British colony to be controlled and ravaged at the pleasure of the Brit.

But this Vedic Tree belongs to Bharat and the Indic monkey is not going to let the Europeans uproot it or rob it from him. The Vedic Tree is first and foremost the heritage of the Indic Monkey that sits in it.

So instead of having all the ancient Vedic gold at the end of the rope, they have a loud Indic monkey pulling at it as well.

The Europeans are stuck in their "Indo-European" situation and they have only themselves to blame for it.

All these Indology studies, AIT, AMT, palaeolinguistics, etc. are simply the Europeans tugging at that rope. One would also see the Europeans trying to tickle the Indic monkey to let go of the Vedic Tree.

One sees Europeans planting other trees like Islam and Xtianity in India, adorned with fake flowers and artificial scent, so that the Indic monkey can jump from the Vedic Tree on to those other trees. One sees the West luring the Indic with other sweet fruits of Yuppie culture, hoping he forgets the taste of his own culture. One sees English language plants being planted all around the Vedic Tree, so that the Indic Monkey is overwhelmed by them and forgets Sanskrit. Sanskrit is being made into a dead language in India, and in the West they are opening more seats to study Sanskrit and munch on their new PIE.

PIE is an effort by the Europeans to say the grapes are sour. They can't get the Vedic Tree so they are building up another tree of cardboard someplace else, and saying that the Vedic Tree was sown in Bharat using the seeds of that cardboard tree. But the rope would not cut. So PIE is their effort to loosen the rope to the Vedic Tree, something they tied themselves. For the PIE Tree, they need to cut the Vedic Tree's branches generously to use them to adorn their PIE Tree. Without those branches and leaves, the PIE Tree would simply look naked and be seen for what it is - a cardboard tree.

But the Indic Monkey is proud of his Vedic Tree and is not going to accept that it grew from the seed of a cardboard tree called PIE.

The Witzels of the world are frustrated that the monkey would not let go of his Vedic Tree nor would he accept their cardboard tree, or let them rewrite the etymology of Sanskrit.

As archaeological, genetic, geological, astronomical, literary evidence mounts up in favor of the Indic Monkey, the European bulldog does not know what to do. Linguistics and Horse is their last valiant effort to confuse the Indic Monkey into accepting the European confiscation of the Vedic Tree. That is why they use the highly technical jargon. It is going to get even more technical.

It actually reminds me of the Panchatantra tale of "Brahmin and the Three Thugs". The thugs kept on telling the Brahmin that the goat was some other animal - dog, donkey, calf etc. until the Brahmin got scared and let go of the goat for the thugs to feast upon.

If the Europeans lose this tug-of-war against the Indic Monkey, they are $hit-scared that they would have to follow the Indic monkey, where ever he goes, something that seems more and more likely as India recreates its prosperity and military strength.

If the Indic Monkey says sit, they will have to sit, and if the Indic Monkey say roll over, they will have to roll over, and if the Indic Monkey says Dharma, they will have to say Dharma.

OIT means the Indic Monkey owns the European history, and that is a very difficult proposition for a White racist to swallow! But hey! They asked for it. They were the initiators of this tug-of-war!

[member_22872]

Rajesh ji and Shiv ji,
Nice analogies to understand PIE and AIT/AMT theories.

From the paper posted by Gupta ji on horse domestication:

At most sites, however, especially those dating from the period when horses were first domesticated for riding and traction, determining whether an animal was domesticated is much more difficult, sometimes impossible. Organic materials such as leather and wood are only very rarely recoverable from the archaeological record.

From one of the posts earlier from Rig Veda :
The Rigvedic chariots are described as made of Salmali (RV 10.85.20), Khadira and Simsapa (RV 3.53.19).

meaning Rig Vedic chariots are made of wood. Now Manish ji and others are looking for these chariots which might have decomposed and withered away long back.

Hope Manish ji could comment on one of the Bji's post (on page 20, posted @ 07 Jun 2012 17:53) on why PIE has to be based on horse instead of cow, if one has to look for PIE, shouldn't one start at the earliest point when some domestication took place? after all cow is also known among Europeans as well, but zebu was domesticated in India around 7000 BCE and horse was domesticated in 5000 BCE. So cow domestication should have been used if has to study PIE if has to understand linguistic changes post dispersal, why horse?

[RajeshA]

The tug-of-war between AIT/AMT and OIT is immense. It reminds of another prophesy

"The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not ... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives ... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies ..."

—Prophecy made to Albus Dumbledore by Sybill Trelawney

So the Dark Imperialist West has marked Vedic India as its equal, through the "Indo-European" linguistic bonds. We have also defied the West thrice (or would have) - Macaulayism, Xtianism, Yuppiism. That is also the fate of this tug-of-war. AIT and OIT must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives. This is a death-match. Either the Aryans brought in Proto-Vedic Sanskrit to India, or Bharatiyas gave the Indo-Europeans their vac. To make the prophecy complete, let's not forget, the power to vanquish the Dark Imperial West was reborn in August (1947), as the seventh month died!

[RajeshA]

Imagine a proud white man, master of all that he sees, but basically a baastard, not knowing from where he comes, one day goes through the accounts of the sperm donation bank and finds out that his father is a SDRE Indian.

What will he do?

He will try to say that the "genetic overlap" can be explained because the SDRE is actually his brother from his "father's" other woman! But his father himself was also a proud white man, just like him, master of all that he sees, with loads of horses and chariots.

You have Pakis looking for their fathers among the Turks, Arabs and Persians, and you have Euros looking for their fathers among the PIEs in the sky.

Did we ask the proud white man to go and look through those sperm bank records? NOOOoooooow! He wanted a father! And now he is trying to deny his father!

But one day, they will have to accept that it was our kalam that wrote them into reality.

[shiv]

I have been speaking in riddles in some posts - by asking questions, hoping someone will answer them. Let me state my point.

Because there is little evidence of horse and chariot in India, it has been surmised that the composers of Vedic hymns were actually recalling some earlier era when they were in the steppes of central Europe which have some evidence of horse and chariot.

The question that arises from this is, why are the poets singing in Sanskrit? Surely their hymns should be in the language of that central European steppe.

One possibility is that the central European steppes people used to speak Sanskrit and continued to do that as they migrated to India. But then why is there absolutely no evidence of Sanskrit in those steppes? After all you are rejecting an Indian origin for Rig Veda because there is no evidence of horse. But the "foreign origin" place of Rig Veda has no Sanskrit.

Another possibility is that the imaginary "PIE" (Proto Indo-European) language speakers came to India bringing their language to India where it was developed into Sanskrit after which the Rig Veda was composed. But the change from "PIE" to Sanskrit is likely to have taken centuries. Since it is claimed that there were no horses or chariots in India when the Rig Veda was composed in has to be claimed that the RiG Veda represents memories of events that took place centuries ago in some steppes? But if the Rig Veda was about ancient memories what about all the parts that refer to current day events? "I, Kaskivan took 100 objects, 100 cows etc from Bhavyavya to sing his praises"

Too much nonsense has been cooked up about the Rig Veda simply because it represented the oldest work of an exceedingly well developed body of knowledge that everyone wanted to claim was his. And even today in the age of Googal, the first and main translation of the RiG Veda that comes up is a ridiculous one by one Griffiths in the 19th century.

[RajeshA]

shiv saar,

First theory: There is no evidence of Sanskrit in the Steppes, because it was only a oral language without any script, and nobody speaks it there anymore because the Turks and the Mongols killed them all or pushed them out!

Second theory: Actually because of the hot weather in India, hekʷos turned to aśva within one year's time!

Sorry!
I'll let the linguist experts better have a go at it.

[disha]

Shivji, Not sure I get what you are saying here. We know that horses were not domesticated in India. They were imported either from Arabia or Central Asia.

How do you know for sure that horses were *not* domesticated in India (include present day Balochistan, Afghanistan in the larger Indic area). Do you know that the only known instance of Elephant domestication is in India? I bring in Elephant domestication at the level of Horse domestication since they were equivalent right upto 200 BC/1 AD. No it is not like cattle domestication.

Horse domestication prior to 200 BC (simplifying it in bullet points):

1. Capture the horse/foals from the wild.
2. Break the horse.
3. Horse follows the man for food and upkeep
4. *Maybe* get additional mares from wild to increase progeny

Elephant domestication is currently at the same level. You should see how Elephants are broken. Horse is a smaller and a dumb animal. While I am at it, the first attempts at re-wilding/relocating tiger happened only in India. It takes a level of understanding of how animals behave.

Coming back, the "domestication of horse" is a canard. Even in Eurasian steppes, not complete horse skeletons have been found all the time. Neither they were awash in 1000s of horse-riders making a mass attack (that is hollywood).

Wanted to bring one more data point on Eurasian Steppes. How many have spent winter in the Eurasian Steppes? In Mongolia? In Tazhikistan? In Moldova? Moldova is the western tip of the Pontic steppe, and in winter the temperatures go as low as -30C. That will kill anything out there. Period. Of course without civilization its hard to set life there and we are to believe that language originated there, horses were then domesticated (like cattle), chariot was invented, several thousands of them mounted an attack (or in later revision migrated) and supplanted a civilization (the last part of supplanting SIVC has been proven wrong archeologically). You and me are carrying the same traits as was visible in SIVC.

Another note: Moldova is an important transit point. A look at the map of satum/centum divide indicates a nice split along major transit points. Some of those points may have exchanged hands over millenia., but that exchange of goods, services and ideas. It could be that the grain, wheels, the axles and the birdles were exported from SIVC for the import of horses, copper ore etc.

[brihaspati]

Before going into the full linguist blast: a few posers :

(1) What is the reconstructed PIE equivalent to RV Saraswati [in the sense that given the unique-to-Vedic-Sanskrit special "rules" of sound change as governed by "known" affect-rules for vowels around consonants that allows us to so infinitely arrogantly be sure of our back-calculations and reconstructions - allows us to reconstruct the PIE equivalent from which the above branch-specific rules leads to V. or S. "Saraswati"] ? This will have some very very interesting consequences.

(2) Please lay out on the table, all the reasons as to why "aswa" must be taken as the "modern horse". [I have doubts even about "go" as being specifically the modern "cow"]. More on this after we get the answers from the pro-PIE side.

[P.S. The Ayiranya homeland - list posted some time ago contains a name that will lead to another potentially fun-laden exploration, which might have missed people's attention. Other thing, ManishH ji, in one of your posts - I read last night, I think you have mentioned the two linear's in one single sense of syllable-analysis. I thought one of them remains unsolved, isnt it?]

[brihaspati]

The river names case is something that is carefully avoided by PIE linguists when it comes to outside of East Europe/Balkans. If one looks at subregional "peripheral" discussions within the PIE camp, they grudgingly allow pre-PIE names to survive the further they go away from their hypothesized centre in steppes. The reason this river name analysis is sort of absent when it comes to Indian river names within the PIE lobby - is obvious from the discussions. I think I had one brief exchange with ManishH ji on this a long time ago. I will revive the topic again, but first I will wait for the PIE mother-version of Saraswati.

[shiv]

The Satem-Centum divide has a name that is particularly ironic. While the decimal system and the use of zero has well known origins in the vedas, the Rig Veda itself apparently has references to the number 6,000 both as 6 thousand and as 60 hundred. This sort of thing is not possible in the absence of the concept of zero. The Romans took their numerals from Egypt and 2000 years ago they had X for ten, C for 100 and M for 1000 when it could really have been X, X0 and X00. Europe got the zero from the Arabs about 1400 years ago, 2000 years after the usual date of the Rig Veda

This is a strong reason to suspect that knowledge in India did not really spread out very far until much later. After the Arabs came to power the 1001 nights were taken from Indian tales and Aesop's Fables fro20m the Panchatantra. Out of India is definitely a recent phenomenon.

But was it all into India before that? Buddhist teachings reached far and wide and became established in many of the "Indo-European" language areas. So one can say that even back at the time of the Buddha - about 500 BC - that is 1000 years after the accepted date of composition of the Rig veda it was definitely "out of India".

Then when was there an "Into india"? Clearly genetic studies reveal "into India" in several movements about 40 to 60,000 years ago. Sanskrit was probably developed at some time between 40,000 years ago and 4,000 years ago. The date is not known. But I am certain that language itself was developed in great antiquity and we may consider the possibility that some sort of language that ended up in India, Iran, Central Asia and Europe developed during the course of migrations to these areas perhaps 10,000 years ago. If you look just at the area of modern India - it is 3 million sq km. The human population in 10,000 BC in India is hardly likely to have exceeded a million. That is one human per 3 square km. If you had a group of 10-12 humans in a place it is likely that another group would not be found within a range of 20 km - a day's walk away.

For Indo European languages to be so similar, it is most likely that it was a very small group of hundreds to thousands who had the entire world to themselves and were able to go to any part of Asia, Europe and India unopposed by anything except the weather and wild animals. But if you ask me to guess, the proto language cannot be anything less than 10,000 years old. Clearly when the speakers of "Indo-European" went to Europe, Iran or India, they likely met earlier speakers of other languages. Perhaps the other languages were less well developed, or populations were more sparse and less connected and this language was adopted easily. When humans were so scarce, resources were more likely to be plentiful so the idea that they were killing and murdering each other is not necessarily correct. They may well have been cooperating against the elements. Humans are primarily social beings. Not only do they live with each other, they live with other social creatures like dogs, horses, pigs, cattle and elephants

Whatever the truth I think it would be ridiculous to imagine that some central Asians invaded India 4000 years ago bringing the language with them. The proto language has to be much, much older to have such a wide footprint.

[ManishH]

Very very unfortunate example. Are you claiming, like early PIE lobbyists of the 19th century, that "Spanish" and "French" have evolved from within "Latin"?

You are refusing something that is not being claimed. I'm illustrating the phonetic changes that happened in two words of these languages that were picked from Latin.

I'm aware that French has significant Celtic influence.

The examples have been quoted to show that words can change one way in one branch and another way in another branch. Analogous to how PIE sounds changed one way in Indian branch and another in Greek and yet another in Latin.

Neither was there a single "Latin" from which the so-called Romance languages apparently descended.

Again, I haven't said any such thing.

Nope - for the first. Your unfortunate example above would be a prime candidate to deny "whims". Do clarify what you mean by "environment". A lot depends on your definition.

I meant bilingualism can shape how sound change happens. Eg. Kannada speakers often elide the beginning W sound in english words. There are a host of reasons that can affect sound change - I had posted a summary of reasons from the book called 'Principles of Historical Linguistics' by H H Hock earlier.

What is your proof that techniques of sound retention were developed onlee after RgVeda?

Although PIE > Vedic is a pre-RgVeda sound change. What you ask is not strictly related to this thread; still ...

- My proof is that RgVeda is composed in several meters. Now a 'meter' or chhanda defines how many syllables should appear in every pada. Eg. Gāyatri has 8x3 syllables. So we know that at the time of composition, they carefully counted the syllables. However, quite a few verses show that syllable count are one short of what is required by the meter. This has happened because a disyllabic diphthong has been shortened to unisyllabic one. This is just one example.
- As someone who had the privilege to have been taught one or two of these techniques, I can say that they are based on CRC concept - a distortion mid-pada can escape these techniques. But it will detect distortions at pada begining and end.

Again, I am not sure you are aware of the trajectories of development of "Spanish" and "French" from "Latin". In fact there are great controversies about origins of the classical form of Latin itself,

Oh yes, they have their own substrates - and some of the linguistic directions taken were even influenced by whims of monarchs.

ManishH ji, indulge me - think again. You start with a supposed PIE word. Two branches of this PIE speaking culture moves physically away from each other, carries their PIE word for some generations and then phonetically drift. You claim to "know" how "phonetic affect of vowels on adjacent consonants" proceeds.

I don't claim to know - it is an observed phenomenon that front vowels cause palatalization. And not just for IE group, many other languages. You yourself quoted an example of kaeser > caesar.

You also claim that humans do not drastically change their sound positions. Then any initial incremental changes have to be small, and the same "phonetic affect" rule guiding both branches can onlee allow changes in identical directions.

That is quote true, if a branch X palatalizes, the tendency will be around front vowels. But with a labiovelar sound like PIE kʷ, it gave 3 directions for sound change. Whereas simpler sounds like PIE 'dh' gave just 2 directions.

Even if we see how Sanskrit is articulated in India. Some regions of India articulate the sanskrit ऋ as 'ru'. Whereas some regions articulate 'ri'. But RgVedic prātiśākhya says it is neither. It is a vowel on its own.

Point being: two branches borrowing a word from a parent will undergo different sound changes.

This can be bypassed, under dropping of the slow/reluctant/small incremental phonetic changes assumption, or assuming that within the same society - different "phonetic affect rules" co-exist with equal long term survival chance [pretty strong assumption if the society is supposedly close knit, tightly linked, tribal or pastoral group].

Chalcolithic and Bronze age archaeology of Eurasia shows no example of a tightknit group. There are a plethora of material cultures with N different pottery types and some preferring inhumation, some creation. Unlike civilizations that arose around rivers, the eurasian steppe communities weren't self-sufficient, there were several inter-dependent lifestyles (forager,pastoralists, settled farmers). There is enough opportunity for loosely linked groups to emerge which speak dialects of a common language.

But to justify your claim, you need to assume for your given example - three different rules for three different branches which cannot be traced to a common ancestral rule of "phonetic affect". This makes it arbitrary and not parsimonious.

Not really arbitrary, but yes it is unexplained - as no linguist can recover the exact reason for the sound change. However it has been demonstrated that the reconstruction is parsimonious. One sound like a labiovelar can result in a labial in one group, pure velar in another and palatal in another.

All that the inscription proves is that Myc Greek was confused about interpreting a certain sound pair it faced in usage. It was aware that this pair was sometimes used in such quick succession, that it seemed a phonetic unit on its own - and gave it a single symbol - but retained use of both the compacted form as well as separates.

But why did it confuse this symbol with a disyllabic k-w sound only; because that's what the unisyllabic labiovelar kʷ is closest to.

[ManishH]

An alien comes to earth after an apocalyptic sequence obliterates most of earths ancient archeological or archival records, is overwhelmed by the preponderance of English words in many dialects and languages, hears "question" and "nature", and reconstructs a missing "ch" character based on "t"

Aliens haven't invaded; and linguists know from current usage that Greek word for boukolos has same meaning as Sanskrit goćara and Greek amphipolos same as abhićara. Nowhere are people making connections between words with unrelated semantics.

[brihaspati]

^^^^No no, it was about the ubiquitious Myce. "labiovelar" inscriptional "proof". By the way an lien is one who is unaquainted with the culture he/she/it is interacting with for the first time. Same as the founders of PIE with respect to India.

Anyway, what is the PIE construct from which the Vedic/Sanskrit specific rules together with known affect of vowels around consonants - derives V./S. "Saraswati"?

[ManishH]

(1) What is the reconstructed PIE equivalent to RV Saraswati [in the sense that given the unique-to-Vedic-Sanskrit special "rules" of sound change as

There is no PIE reconstruction for this river or Goddess. I doubt if the -van/-vati suffix even goes outside the Indo-Iranian isogloss.

Every feature found in Indian language is not from the common parent. Nor are deities and Goddesses. It's like asking for the PIE equivalent for Sanskrit 'gada' (mace) - which is an Indo-Iranian feature. There just wasn't any PIE equivalent.

(2) Please lay out on the table, all the reasons as to why "aswa" must be taken as the "modern horse". [I have doubts even about "go" as being specifically the modern "cow"]. More on this after we get the answers from the pro-PIE side.

So what else can it be - chariotry on hermiones or the Equus Sivalensis

Other thing, ManishH ji, in one of your posts - I read last night, I think you have mentioned the two linear's in one single sense of syllable-analysis. I thought one of them remains unsolved, isnt it?]

I think what is unresolved is if 'q' was articulated by Mycenaen Greeks as a k+glide 'u' or a k + o.

[brihaspati]

By the way, for all the uninitiated - there is a public domain online resource for reconstructed PIE, [which does not entirely agree with the latest disputes - one can look at the "glotallic" versus "traditional" debate about reconstruction, but still should serve as a publicly accessible starting point]. Its the Pokorny version.

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ ... ter-X.html

[brihaspati]

(1) What is the reconstructed PIE equivalent to RV Saraswati [in the sense that given the unique-to-Vedic-Sanskrit special "rules" of sound change as

There is no PIE reconstruction for this river or Goddess. I doubt if the -van/-vati suffix even goes outside the Indo-Iranian isogloss.

Every feature found in Indian language is not from the common parent. Nor are deities and Goddesses. It's like asking for the PIE equivalent for Sanskrit 'gada' (mace) - which is an Indo-Iranian feature. There just wasn't any PIE equivalent.

(1) Saraswati is a strong presence in RV.
(2) It appears to describe a "mighty" river.
(3) It also gets associated at various points with a "goddess", speech and cow.
(4) It is supposed to be non-existent in India by a portion of PIEists
(5) It has been proposed that it was not the name of any real river but an imaginary, spiritual construct.
(6) RV was composed by people with strong steppe memory, and a steppe culture where mighty rivers do flow.
(7) RV was developed by an endogamous people carrying their culture from the steppes, across obviously many mighty rivers all the way to India, preserving their PIE language with very little or "incremental" changes.

Do you see the problems in reconciling your conclusion that there was [or could not be?] any PIE equivalent for Saraswati?

(2) Please lay out on the table, all the reasons as to why "aswa" must be taken as the "modern horse". [I have doubts even about "go" as being specifically the modern "cow"]. More on this after we get the answers from the pro-PIE side.

So what else can it be - chariotry on hermiones or the Equus Sivalensis

This is not even Neti, neti. Please do lay out the linguistic reasons that conclude why "aswa" in RV means the modern horse.

Other thing, ManishH ji, in one of your posts - I read last night, I think you have mentioned the two linear's in one single sense of syllable-analysis. I thought one of them remains unsolved, isnt it?]

I think what is unresolved is if 'q' was articulated by Mycenaen Greeks as a k+glide 'u' or a k + o.

This is the first source of criticism about the labiovelar hypothesis. But there are others. However, one of the linears remains unsolved - that was what I wanted to clarify. I am a bit more aware of European linguistics, hence I wanted to be up to date from you about this - in case someone has conclusively solved it.

The fact remains that it could simply represent a transliteration dilemma about a paired sound which might have been used by two different groups within the same population in subtly different ways.

[ManishH]

How do you know for sure that horses were *not* domesticated in India (include present day Balochistan, Afghanistan in the larger Indic area).

Because horses were not found in wild in India. The first horse must have been domesticated in it's native eurasian steppe and brought to India. Indians have bred horses since then.

I saw some posts have now furthered the date of last bone findings to 3600 BC. Whereas there is no peer-reviewed paper quoted for that finding. The earliest domesticated horse I'd agree so far is the 2100-1700 BC Surkotada. And even that is a domesticated horse with no evidence of riding, only crib biting - so all that guarantees is it was used as a draught animal - to carry goods.

A ridden horse's remains would show occlusion by the bit (which is used to steer the horse) on the molars as well as findings of cheek-pieces (made of antlers) which are used to hold the bit in place and attach reins to.

Coming back, the "domestication of horse" is a canard. Even in Eurasian steppes, not complete horse skeletons have been found all the time.

But what is more important for proving a domesticated horse is occlusion on molars and cheek-pieces.

Neither they were awash in 1000s of horse-riders making a mass attack (that is hollywood).

You are right here - the armada of horse-riders from steppes is a myth. Most steppe chariot burials also have prestige objects - meaning chariots were always an elite possession.

Wanted to bring one more data point on Eurasian Steppes. How many have spent winter in the Eurasian Steppes? In Mongolia? In Tazhikistan? In Moldova?

And the severity of winter gives another important advantage to a people who have domesticated horse. The horse will remove snow with it's hooves and get at the grass below. But cattle don't do that - an attested behaviour.

Another note: Moldova is an important transit point. A look at the map of satum/centum divide indicates a nice split along major transit points.

I agree here. But even more than than mountain passes, people have moved along rivers. At least that's what the archaeological evidence from pottery styles indicates.

[ManishH]

(1) Saraswati is a strong presence in RV.
(2) It appears to describe a "mighty" river.
(3) It also gets associated at various points with a "goddess", speech and cow.

Yes to all. The fact that this river is so important in RV should make us think esp. about the impossibility of Talageri's OIT hypothesis which makes almost all the rest of IE group leave India during RgVeda, but carries no rememberance of this river; not even as a Goddess.

(4) It is supposed to be non-existent in India by a portion of PIEists

Sarasvati, whether a true river, or a Goddess of inspiration is a feature of Indian culture. There is some sharing with Iranian, but since the Iranian cognate is debuccalized, the Indian Sarasvati is the original.

(5) It has been proposed that it was not the name of any real river but an imaginary, spiritual construct.

As I said earlier, I'm not certain whether Ghaggar-Hakra paleochannel is the correct identification for the river. I'm hoping for clarity from geologists on this.

But purely from a cultural PoV, it's unparalleled for Vedic to have mythical rivers. In fact, it's the reverse - real rivers become Goddesses.

(6) RV was composed by people with strong steppe memory, and a steppe culture where mighty rivers do flow.

I think Sarasvati is not a steppe memory. Other aspects of vedic culture like horse, chariotry and use of grass in ritual to name a few, are.

(7) RV was developed by an endogamous people carrying their culture from the steppes, across obviously many mighty rivers all the way to India, preserving their PIE language with very little or "incremental" changes.

There is no endogamy in RgVeda. And nothing like "incremental" changes; even if we look just at vedic, the regularization and simplification of PIE ablaut, sandhi rules etc. are not "incremental". Nothing to say of Pāṇini's work.

Do you see the problems in reconciling your conclusion that there was [or could not be?] any PIE equivalent for Saraswati?

No problem at all for AIT. Just like no cognate for Viṣṇu is needed in PIE. The main problem is for one flavour of OIT - ie the chronology as proposed in Talageri's book.

This is not even Neti, neti. Please do lay out the linguistic reasons that conclude why "aswa" in RV means the modern horse.

I think burden of proof of "not true horse" is yours. The current usage is for "true horse", not hermiones after all.

The fact remains that it could simply represent a transliteration dilemma about a paired sound which might have been used by two different groups within the same population in subtly different ways.

Yes; it is a dilemma - and the proof is in the dilemma itself. What does a syllabogram get confused with - the sound that is closest to it.

[shyamoo]

How do you know for sure that horses were *not* domesticated in India (include present day Balochistan, Afghanistan in the larger Indic area).

Because horses were not found in wild in India. The first horse must have been domesticated in it's native eurasian steppe and brought to India. Indians have bred horses since then.

Not according to this --> http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifa ... ebate.html

I saw some posts have now furthered the date of last bone findings to 3600 BC. Whereas there is no peer-reviewed paper quoted for that finding.

Pray tell, which "peer" would to agree with? Am I to understand that you would not agree with our peers?

The earliest domesticated horse I'd agree so far is the 2100-1700 BC Surkotada. And even that is a domesticated horse with no evidence of riding, only crib biting - so all that guarantees is it was used as a draught animal - to carry goods.

If the "Aryans" were supposed have invaded/migrated around 1500 BC, aren't you contradicting yourself here about the domestication of the horse?

And what is opinion about the species of horse being depicted in Rig Veda?

[shyamoo]

What is more efficient --> raising cattle or horses?

Horse could take you places much faster than a cow/bull could. But other than that what advantage does the horse have over the cow?

I'm assuming that vedic injuns would have preferred the cow to the horse. Cow's milk has far more nutrition than horse's milk. Cows are easier to manage than horses. I'm sure there are more advantages disadvantages.

BTW, when was the buffalo domesticated in India?


The horse population did not drastically increase after 1500 BC.

[member_22872]

^^^According to Rig Veda, the horse mentioned has 34 ribs, unlike the version from Europe/Steppe. But others think that the mention of 34/33 is a reference to Gods and don't agree that it is a reference to number of ribs. And also some argue that the number of ribs fluctuate in the same species at times give or take one or two rib bones. Manish ji asked about this number (33/34). Now I am guessing his real reason is to question this rib count? not sure, just assuming here.

[member_22872]

BTW, when was the buffalo domesticated in India?

water buffalo was domesticated around 8500 BCE. It appears this is done before the cow (7000) BCE? not sure.

[member_22872]

Horse could take you places much faster than a cow/bull could. But other than that what advantage does the horse have over the cow?

[member_22872]

Horse could take you places much faster than a cow/bull could. But other than that what advantage does the horse have over the cow?

Shyam ji, one thing is that domestication of Cow it appears was not an easy task at the beginning of domestication. For the reason that cattle domestication was done from Aurochs. These it appear to be wild beasts which stood 6 ft tall at shoulder length and had enormous heads with 6.5" inch thick horns. Were very fierce beasts. So it is theorized that only few of these were domesticated because they were comparatively tame as compared to others. So cow domestication had it's own difficulties like breaking a wild horse.