Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[vic]

Tamil is a very old language. Don't we have any texts in Tamil which shed light on whole Aryan Vs Dravidian theory?

[ramana]

vic, The problem is the spoken language may be very ancient but the scripts are all from West Asia and modifications there of.

Not many people have read the whole set of Sangam literature. Only snippets are quoted here and there.

[Gus]

there isn't anything on aryan / dravidian in tamil texts, AFAIK. There is no narrative of 'leaving the north lands and water'. If at all, there is some vague references to a land lost to the sea in the south (Kumari Kandam).

wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangam_literature

[RajeshA]

vic, The problem is the spoken language may be very ancient but the scripts are all from West Asia and modifications there of.

Not many people have read the whole set of Sangam literature. Only snippets are quoted here and there.

ramana garu,

as far as I know that is a claim of some. Wim Borsboom is telling that that the Ugarit Abecedary from Syria dated 1400-1200 BCE is based on Indian alphabet, and that ultimately the Latin alphabet is derived from the Indian phonetics-based alphabet.

Secondly the Lalitavistara Sutra which narrates the early life of Gautama Buddha says that one of the skills a young prince, e.g. Siddhartha, needed to learn was writing. Will try to find the necessary reference later.

Thirdly we find out that our whole historical chronology has been screwed up the Europeans, making the contemporary of Seleucus I Nicator, Sandrocottus to be the same as Chandragupta Maurya, and thus munching away 1300 years of our history in one go! Repairing that history, shows us that Gautama Buddha lived between 1887 BCE and 1807 BCE.

So writing must have been available at that time in 1881 BCE (1887 BCE + 6 years of Siddharth's childhood), at least in Kapilavastu. Just before that in the Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization (SSC) area, there already was writing, which is yet to be declared as conclusively deciphered. And SSC's writing system may be going a couple of thousand years back, bringing it to an antiquity comparable with any other region's!

So I would say one need not buy that writing came from outside India. The last word is yet to be spoken!

[RajeshA]

By C. K. Raju
Towards Equity in Mathematics Education: 1. Good-Bye Euclid!

Basically CK Raju has declared Euclid to be a fictional character and Archimedes to be a non-Greek SDRE! Worth reading! The way CK Raju is going, I fear, the Europeans may not be left with any chaddee at all!

[Nilesh Oak]

Secondly the Lalitavistara Sutra which narrates the early life of Gautama Buddha says that one of the skills a young prince, e.g. Siddhartha, needed to learn was writing. Will try to find the necessary reference later.

So writing must have been available at that time in 1881 BCE (1887 BCE + 6 years of Siddharth's childhood), at least in Kapilavastu. Just before that in the Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization (SSC) area, there already was writing, which is yet to be declared as conclusively deciphered. And SSC's writing system may be going a couple of thousand years back, bringing it to an antiquity comparable with any other region's!

And if Laitavistara sutra is acceptable evidence, so should be Mahabharata text. In MBH war, arrows of individual warriors were 'marked/engraved with the name of specific warror'. That would take us to 5561 BC.

[Nilesh Oak]

The way CK Raju is going, I fear, the Europeans may not be left with any chaddee at all!

You mean completing a circle of plane geometry? Sending them back to old ways of their ancestors. Afterall, Chaddi is a recent invention, isn't it? (Ref. Hollywood evidence in flammable and now a days in digital form.. Braveheart!).

To claim first use of 'Langot' by Indians, for Indians, via Indian designers...... let the re-search begin...

[RajeshA]

Secondly the Lalitavistara Sutra which narrates the early life of Gautama Buddha says that one of the skills a young prince, e.g. Siddhartha, needed to learn was writing. Will try to find the necessary reference later.

So writing must have been available at that time in 1881 BCE (1887 BCE + 6 years of Siddharth's childhood), at least in Kapilavastu. Just before that in the Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization (SSC) area, there already was writing, which is yet to be declared as conclusively deciphered. And SSC's writing system may be going a couple of thousand years back, bringing it to an antiquity comparable with any other region's!

And if Laitavistara sutra is acceptable evidence, so should be Mahabharata text. In MBH war, arrows of individual warriors were 'marked/engraved with the name of specific warror'. That would take us to 5561 BC.

Thanks for pointing this out!

The point is that even though tradition was not to put down Śruti to text as its purpose lay in chanting it, one need not presuppose that we had no other writing system. It is just that most of what we wrote was on bark or cotton cloth or whatever and that has a life expectancy and it needs to be rewritten afresh. Thus it is difficult to get writing on a material which could survive that long. Carving in stone may not have been the Indian way, and an industrial society such as ancient India may have recycled much of the metal.

[member_22872]

One of the sources for Tipitaka in Indian languages, even Telugu

[Nilesh Oak]

RajeshA ji,

Your vanished post reminded me of Feynman 'Quantum electrodyanmics' diagrams.

Electron split into positron and some other particle and someting else which in turn merged again to given electron'

while all an oberver saw was 'Electron. Only lucky few noticed intermediate particles

Standard disclosure : I have made such errors while researching and writing, late into the night, and in my delirious state.

[RajeshA]

I had misread the antiquity of the temple! 1500 BCE instead of 1500 YBP! So out it went!

[Nilesh Oak]

I had misread the antiquity of the temple! 1500 BCE instead of 1500 YBP! So out it went!

I know, I know. All I am saying is thank you for making my early afternoon light.

I am still

[RajeshA]

Continuing the post from earlier




Publication Date: 1920
Authors: Gushtaspshah Kaikhushro Nariman
Literary history of Sanskrit Buddhism From Winternitz, Sylvain Levi, Huber

Page 260
In another place we have an exhaustive catalogue of the number of sciences which an accomplished heir to the throne was expected to possess. The list differs from the sixty-four classical arts mentioned in another place. It is of particular interest and may be reproduced in full.

"The Veda, archery, medicine, sacrifices, astronomy, grammar, the origin of writing, the performance of sacrifices, eloquence, rhetoric, the art of love, interest, purity of families, the ten names, computation, chess, dice, the study of origins, music and song, the art of playing on the conch, dancing and laughter, the art of the prestidigitarian, education, the making of garlands of flowers, massage, the science of precious stones and valuable materials for clothing, silk, sealing, weaving, wax work, strategy, sewing, sculpture, painting, literature, arrangement of garlands, interpretation of dreams, interpretation of the flight of birds, horoscopes of boys and girls, the training of elephants, the art of playing on the tambourine, the rules of battle array, the domesticating of horses, the carrying of the lance, jumping, running, and fording a river."

________________

So it seems that Prince Siddhartha got to learn all of this in 1880 BCE! So at least in 1880 BCE horses were around! And so was writing. Isn't this a written record, that they were around?

But wait a second! Weren't all horses in 1880 BCE still in Central Asia and had not yet reached Indian shores! Man, am I confooooosed!

[Agnimitra]

If one fears the consequences of the truth so much, how can one seek truth ?

Seeking truth means giving up the fear of consequences. I'm aware of feared (not actual) social consequences of AIT - like separatism, a false sense of historical injustice, caste divisions and what not. Now AIT has been stated in Indian textbooks for so long - and none of these fears have been realized. That shows that the paranoia of AIT is sans understanding of the Indian social mindset of cultural unity.

The thing with post-enlightenment academics is that it will seek the truth no matter what the consequences. So no matter how shrill the calls for historical revisionism on this matter are, it is the evidence which will shape what is taught in classrooms.

PS: If you actually think I've got agendas to promote such divisions in Indian society, you are wrong. North-South cultural syncretism runs in my family. My immediate family is mostly bilingual and better half's case, quadri-lingual. So please keep this allegations of "bigotry" in the echo-chamber of your paranoid world-view.

ManishH ji, a good post overall. However, I disagree on one point (the bolded part). A lot of damage has been done, and its external consequences may have been delayed, but that is no cause for complacency. Its just that there are many more factors at play. But that doesn't mean that damage has not been done. At the very least, it is an obstacle to India developing a coherent and consolidated identity with a sense of civilizaiational purpose and initiative. Are we supposed to be "proud" of being a passive, purely receptive, crucible of "multiculturalism"? The "mindset of cultural unity" is a pragmatic human tendency to get along and survive. But above and beyond that there ought to be something expansionary. Moreover, even this mentality falls apart from time to time in aggressive rioting or evangelical propaganda. It's cyclical, and with each cycle there's little doubt who is against the ropes. See this GDF post.

So I wouldn't call it paranoia, but a justified fear. Now when the reaction is a counter-dishonesty and Tejoism, then that's sad. So I support your commitment to academic integrity. But it is people like you who need to be a LOT more aggressive in calling out the BS -- whichever side it comes from. Why is it that a 2012 BBC documentary on AIT is allowed to get away with stuff that you said no academic paper in the last 60 years even by AIT-proponents supports? Where is the hue and cry? Why is there no organized movement within academia to come out publicly and thoroughly discredit it? If you don't do that, then what other option is left?

[RajeshA]

Seeking truth means giving up the fear of consequences. I'm aware of feared (not actual) social consequences of AIT - like separatism, a false sense of historical injustice, caste divisions and what not. Now AIT has been stated in Indian textbooks for so long - and none of these fears have been realized. That shows that the paranoia of AIT is sans understanding of the Indian social mindset of cultural unity.

Carl ji has already responded to that very eloquently!

I'll just say, that after reading your wisdom, all those who make a hue and cry about global warming, would realize that the problem is with them only and that they have to work on themselves!

Maldivians and Bangladesh's coastal people would also feel relieved after reading this!

[Nilesh Oak]

The thing with post-enlightenment academics is that it will seek the truth no matter what the consequences.

ManishH ji,
Would you care to quote specific examples of post-enlightenment academics in seeking truth (and it they were done irrespective of consequences.. that would be a bonus, but not a necessary condition). Let me narrow the scope further - Post-enlightenment Indian Academics. And for subject, while I don't want to limit them, by way of suggestion.. how about Linguistics, AIT, OIT, History, Anthropology, Archeology, genetics, Astronomy to name a few.

BTW, I am in agreement with 'your statement' that one should seek truth irrespective of the consequences.

All one need is 'Fearlessness' and 'humbleness'. I am quoting BG 16:1-3 for the benefit of fellow forum members, what Krishna described as 'daivi' qualities.

[RajeshA]

The basis of India's The Great Knowledge Society was ancient India's education system! So a paper on the subject!

Education in Ancient and Medieval India

[member_22872]

Manish ji, Even though country's unity is the fore most important thing and would help if OIT is proven right in the end, it is also about truth that even you root for. I feel you weren't 100% honest in accepting loop holes in linguistic arguments. Either you hid or ignored or remained silent knowing fully well some of the arguments made against linguistics or AIT are true. Many people like me who know nothing about linguistics would have benefited greatly by your knowledge if only you were more open to counter arguments about AIT and linguistics and showed us weaknesses and strengths of our/your arguments. I only see your passion to your interests rather than to the truth. You be your own judge.

[Prem Kumar]

ManishH:

a) In linguistics, when you claim that 2 languages have a common parent, what is it based on? What % of words must they have in common? Example: if Sanskrit had 1000 words and 100 of which have Greek counterparts, that's a 10% match. Is that enough evidence to search for a common parent?

b) What's the reason for a belief in a strict tree-like parent child relationship in languages? Arent there equally valid alternate hypotheses. Example: multiple parentage and a more grid-like connection intermingled with parent-child relationships (like Shiv's illustration). And some languages might just be independant of another - with just some borrowed words that establish a tenous link (suggesting some interaction between the populations - nothing more)

c) When locals borrow a foreign word, they pronounce it based on their native phonetic ability/usage. Example: I find it impossible to pronounce the word Schipol (Amsterdam airport) the way the Dutch do it. So, I just pronounce the "Sch" as "Sh" (as in Sheep). I'm sure they would be equally hard pressed to pronounce Vazhai Pazham (banana in Tamil). They may just pronounce "zh" as "y" or "l". So, if either culture borrows the other word, each will modify it accordingly. This kind of borrowing highlights a couple of things: the question of relationship & the question of parentage/evolution

Question of relationship: as the above example shows, a simple borrowing & local modification doesnt suggest that the languages themselves have a deeper relationship. One can jump to that conclusion only if the similar-sounding words form a significant % of the vocabulary - point (a) above

Question of parentage/evolution: who is to say which sound is more "difficult" or "natural" to pronounce? It depends on what you grew up pronouncing. Your theory of a PIE descending into more easily pronouncable phonetics seems to be borrowed from the "systems move towards the least potential energy state" principle in Physics. If that were to be the case, I would argue that many guttural sounding languages like German, Dutch etc shouldnt have evolved at all. Same with the word Vazhai Pazham, which is a ridiculously complex word for even Tamilians to pronounce (for something as simple & abundant as a banana).

[A_Gupta]

Requests:

1. Can we put as much of the phonetic alphabet (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/ipa-unicode.htm) as possible into Devanagari?

2. Where it is not possible, can we find recordings of what the sounds are supposed to be?
(and then let us come up with a Devanagari shorthand).

In particular what is x with the half moon on top pronounced like?

I think modern phonetics will become much more comprehensible to us desis if it is done in scripts familiar to us.

[shiv]

I think OIT will do great damage. It will give Indians a sense of inflated accomplishment and will create leaders who want to recapture lost glory. OIT is dangerous. But that does not mean we should be afraid of it if that is the truth. The idea of claiming that what is known now is the truth and doubting that and searching for something outside that represents fear of truth is a load of crock posted by ManishH that deserves to be shown up for what it is.

[shiv]

Requests:

1. Can we put as much of the phonetic alphabet (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/ipa-unicode.htm) as possible into Devanagari?

2. Where it is not possible, can we find recordings of what the sounds are supposed to be?
(and then let us come up with a Devanagari shorthand).

In particular what is x with the half moon on top pronounced like?

I think modern phonetics will become much more comprehensible to us desis if it is done in scripts familiar to us.

Arun, I have already complained about the reluctance of linguistics resources to make multimedia files out of words like fricative and velar. I believe that any bullshitting that has gone on in terms of jumping to conclusions will get exposed if that happens (or the theories will be more easily believed) - or else they just lack the skills to create a basic sound recording of sound change with real life examples from living language. Nothing has changed from 19th century modes of communication. The idea of communication of sound and sound change via text is so faulty that it was recognized by the people who kept the vedas alive by oral transmission.

[shiv]

By C. K. Raju
Towards Equity in Mathematics Education: 1. Good-Bye Euclid!

Basically CK Raju has declared Euclid to be a fictional character and Archimedes to be a non-Greek SDRE! Worth reading! The way CK Raju is going, I fear, the Europeans may not be left with any chaddee at all!

The man has an absolutely delightful description of how cognitive dissonance and disbelief is triggered in children by feeding them with fake information in the first place. I have highlighted the relevant bit in bold

So what is the real source of these pictures which
present so concrete and vivid an image of Greek mathematicians
to impressionable young minds? Did the contemporaries
of these worthies make statues of them which were
later photographed? Not at all. No such concrete historical
information is available about Greek mathematicians, and
these pictures are based on what is usually called “the artist’s
imagination”. This understanding of the source makes it possible
to answer my son’s question: the artist’s imagination
was racist, and portrayed some “generic” Caucasian features.
The images look alike because they project a stereotype. So,
without a single word being said, the question about Euclid’s
race has been settled, along with the race of a number of other
Greek names associated with the history of mathematics!
The fact that this starkly racist belief can be distributed as
fact to millions of impressionable young Indian school children,
today, shows the level of confidence with which the
question about Euclid’s genetic history is regarded as settled.
The psychological trick involved here is well known:
children do not question the first story they are told. But if
they are subsequently told that Euclid was Black, they ask for
evidence.

[shiv]

By C. K. Raju
Towards Equity in Mathematics Education: 1. Good-Bye Euclid!

Basically CK Raju has declared Euclid to be a fictional character and Archimedes to be a non-Greek SDRE! Worth reading! The way CK Raju is going, I fear, the Europeans may not be left with any chaddee at all!

I read the following passage with interest.

Though this pathetic story was acceptable to a Europe
which was then largely illiterate (and still remains ignorant of
other cultures), the story is quite contrary to what is known.
The Baghdad House of Wisdom was started by Khalifa al
Mamun to encourage the aql-¯ı-kal¯am, whose adherents believed
that aql (creative intelligence) must be used to interpret
passages in the Koran whose meaning was not evident.
The one thing these philosophers most utterly despised was
the opposite of aql, called naql, meaning mindless copying

I wondered if "aql and "naql" were the source of Urdu "asli" and "nakli". If so it could be a genuine case of palatalization of the Q to S. But no. akal and asal are two separate words in Persian meaning intellect and truth respectively

[member_23700]

I think OIT will do great damage. It will give Indians a sense of inflated accomplishment and will create leaders who want to recapture lost glory. OIT is dangerous. But that does not mean we should be afraid of it if that is the truth. The idea of claiming that what is known now is the truth and doubting that and searching for something outside that represents fear of truth is a load of crock posted by ManishH that deserves to be shown up for what it is.

Open Society by Karl Popper -section on Hegel is good read.

Might shed some light why one may be confused at explanation of the other, while the other thinks s/he explained everything that needs to be explained, and it is still not clear, oh well, the other has done the job. Time to move on to other issues.

"The idea of claiming that what is known now is the truth and doubting that and searching for something outside that represents fear of truth" is not a bad way (although not exact.. since Hegel was much more ambitious in his plan) to explain gist of Hegel's elaborate philosophy.

What is reasonable is real (AIT may have problems but it is reasonable, isn't it? common now!) what is real is true (Thus AIT is truth). All that remains is to justify first 2, by all means. Don't rock the boat.

[Satya_anveshi]

Just like Kashmir is said to be derived from Kashyap-Mira (per Kalhana's Rajatarangini), even Caspian Sea seems like is derived from a very similar name: Kaspisches Meer in german.

Could be even "Kazakhstan" also has kashyapian origin (sh->za and then something->kh)?

We know that Kashyap also had progeny in asuras like HiranyaKashyapu. So, interesting implications of having such a wide area influenced by Rishi Kashyap. Hope this is not something the anti-OIT theory is based/factored on?

[shiv]

Don't rock the boat.

One man's insanity is another man's religion but I digress..

Manishji's contention is that the conversion of equus to ashwa occurred because people tend to pronounce a "Ka' sound and an associated "ee" sound after that as "sh" as in "thankyou". The k and y begin to sound like "sh" This is called palatalization. The other example he used was "kleos" of Greek becoming "sravas" in sanskrit. The latter is even less convincing.

I have quoted some examples of a "sa" or "sh" in Sanskrit that are "ha" Avestan and remain as "ha" in Greek. There are clear cases of "ha" in Sanskrit becoming "ka" or "ga" in Latin/European IE languages. hrudaya/cardia is one. Ji-hua and lin-gua (both mean tongue) are another. I am yet to hear of the linguistic jargon to describe the "posterior palatalization" of the sound "ha" that creates a "ka" or a "ga" which is well known to occur among Tamil speakers. The palatalization that Manishji refers to is more of an "anterior palatalization". "ka" can become "sh" by anterior palatalization. But "ha" becomes "ka" by posterior palatalization.

I think the explanation that the palatalization of equus to ashwa is unsatisfactory and incomplete. Just because palatalization occurs among humans is not proof that it has occurred here. There need to be a slew of Sanskrit words that consistently show palatalization from equivalent European, Greek or Latin words to show a pattern. Where is that lexicon of palatalized cognates? A one off means little. In fact the opposite seems to have more examples.

And on the topic of things having happened in the exact opposite direction, the remote etymogy of words like "equal" and "equity" are unknown. Unless you open your mind and find the cognate "ekadhura" in Sanskrit. the "eq" in equity is probably a derivative of "ek"/"one" to make equal/same ("same" has the cognate "sama" in Sanskrit). The prefix "equ-" of equal should have manifested in Sanskrit as Ashw+something if palatalization had occurred. In fact the etymology of equal is clear from the Sanskrit word.

[Kaushal]

dont understand what is happening to my posts , i have saved 4 posts in draft mode and i cannot find any of them in the usercontrol panel , under manage drafts. they have simply disappeared if you have a way of retrieving thm pl. d o so as i have spent several hours on this endeavor. . also let me know what i am doing wrong

[Prem Kumar]

I read this Wikipedia entry with interest & a bit of caution (as always needed when reading Wiki on such topics):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparativ ... imitations

Its revealing to see why the linguists obsess with the tree model. It was derived from the Judeo-Christian Tower of Babel thinking of "one people, one language, dispersed by God" as described in the Genesis. Most of the groundwork for modern linguistics was laid down in the 19th century mainly by the Germans, when the need of Europeans (& Germans in particular) was to identify their historical roots, grounded in Judeo-Christian principles. That legacy lives up to this day and has gone mostly unchallenged.

Read also some other mechanisms of sound change that violate the so called inviolable maxim of Neogrammarians that "sound laws have no exceptions." Some of what we have described here (like borrowing) are in this list.

This is not to trash the study of linguistics. But good science involves stating assumptions and defining boundaries within which a theory is applicable. The idea of reconstructing history & locations based on a re-constucted proto-language is clearly a case of "theoretical overreach"

One more thing that I noticed: the historical-linguistics need AIT as much as AIT needs the historical-linguists. Because of the amount of intertwining of language and history in their theory, if AIT is falsified, PIE will die - and several careers would come to a naught.

[Arjun]

Because of the amount of intertwining of language and history in their theory, if AIT is falsified, PIE will die - and several careers would come to a naught.

Not entirely true...depends on the way AIT is falsified. One way to falsify AIT is to prove that PIE homeland was India / IVC region.

[shiv]

Wiki tells me that the word "caballus" used to be used as a reference to an inferior horse or even an ass. Only lately has "caballus with its glorious 36 ribs become the last word in horse terminiloogy. Since asses were used in the role of horses in antiquity in Syria, the word "ass" itself could be a cognate of Syrian "assa" Knwing the deep links the Indus valley had with Mesopotamia, it is likely that aswha and assa are related and could also refer to a hemione or "lesser horse". The 34 ribs count in the Rig Veda - explained away by Witzel is a cop out.

Ask any 8 year old child the following IQ question
The word "assa" sounds like
1. ashwa
2. equus

Why do humans unlearn common sense as they grow older. The verbal and phonetic calisthenics required to link equus with ashwa and the plain lies told about the Rig Veda for the same reason serve as the genesis of all the doubters we have of current day theories. Calling these doubters as those who fear the truth has an exact analogy in the way the Catholic church came down on Galileo, and is also reflected by the Taliban in current day Pakistan.

[shiv]

dont understand what is happening to my posts , i have saved 4 posts in draft mode and i cannot find any of them in the usercontrol panel , under manage drafts. they have simply disappeared if you have a way of retrieving thm pl. d o so as i have spent several hours on this endeavor. . also let me know what i am doing wrong

Kaushal in my experience of this forum software the commonest way to lose your post is to accidentally click "no" rather than "yes" when you see the ambiguously worded question that appears (as quoted below)

Please note that saved drafts only include the subject and the message, any other element will be removed. Do you want to save your draft now? Yes/No

[Prem Kumar]

Because of the amount of intertwining of language and history in their theory, if AIT is falsified, PIE will die - and several careers would come to a naught.

Not entirely true...depends on the way AIT is falsified. One way to falsify AIT is to prove that PIE homeland was India / IVC region.

True. But we cant trash PIE (as a means to debunk AIT) and in the same breath use PIE to promote OIT. As a corollary, no need to go easy on PIE because its potentially useful for OIT.

In my view, linguistics can play a supporting role in a migration theory, but cannot be the main crutch. This is because its a fairly unscientific field. This is one of the main criticisms of AIT, that I gathered from reading this thread. All its other support structures have been stripped away. It needs PIE and some very specific date-ranges to survive.

[shiv]

True. But we cant trash PIE (as a means to debunk AIT) and in the same breath use PIE to promote OIT.

No. Not true. What if Sanskrit or a para-Sanskrit IS the original PIE?

[Prem Kumar]

Ok - in this case you are re-defining PIE whereby Sanskrit is not one of the sisters but the parent itself.

If Sanskrit is indeed established as the parent, the same historical linguists who vouch for the tree will be first ones to poke holes in that model and call for a more egalitarian treatment of languages (where multiple parents & interconnections are suddenly possible)

[shiv]

Ok - in this case you are re-defining PIE whereby Sanskrit is not one of the sisters but the parent itself.

If Sanskrit is indeed established as the parent, the same historical linguists who vouch for the tree will be first ones to poke holes in that model and call for a more egalitarian treatment of languages (where multiple parents & interconnections are suddenly possible)

That "hole poking" has already been done. What we see today is the result of that very poking of "holes in that model and (the) call for a more egalitarian treatment of languages". That is why there are ready-made "put downs" for anyone who has a doubt that does not conform with current theories built up on a history of cultural looting and academic racism

Sanskrit per se is unlikely to be the parent. Classical Sanskrit and even Vedic Sanskrit have surely beeen "meddled with" and refined. But they have been derived from a language that was pretty much like Sanskrit. Because Vedic Sanskrit has passed down to us unchanged for 7000 (or 4000) years depending on whom you want to believe, Vedic Sanskrit is the closest we are going to get to any proto language. The claim that a PIE was very different from Vedic Sanskrit but was present just 1000 years earlier can be questioned on various grounds.

For example it has been shown that modern Slovenian and Vedic Sanskrit have a 20% commonality out of a list of about 1400 words. This commonality exists between a language that is still spoken and one that exists as it was 7000 (or 4000) years ago. They retain 20% commonality of commonly occuring words after over 4000 years. The retained commonality between Indo European languages is clearly apparent after 4000 (or more) years. Given that similarities are apparent after 4000 years, what are the chances that a Proto language (PIE) which is said to be a mere 1000 years older, would be very very different from Vedic sanskrit? So different that you would never be able to understand PIE if you knew Sanskrit? This is possible but unlikely.

But look at a list of PIE words or listen to that idiotic PIE song? There is nothing familiar there. This suggests that I am an idiot to believe that they are on to something intelligent by cooking up PIE. It is likely that an original PIE was somewhat similar to Vedic Sanskrit. Anyone who doubts this is called a Hindu jingo or a person who "fears the truth" That is so laughable that this thread needs to be archived just to preserve such gems.

[shiv]

There are at least two models of truth

1. Is this the truth? Can everything be explained by this truth?

or

2. God is the truth. If you question the truth, you question God, and God will punish you. Hence you must accept God as the truth out of fear of God.

What is your truth? If you question God, it is not fear of truth, it is lack of fear of God.
Sorry OT.

[shiv]

One last post for now folks..

I have alerady said how Sanskrit "ha" turns up as Greek or Latin "ka" or "ga" in "kardio" and "lingua". Look at the Sanskrit word "Ahvayati", meaning to "call. to summon, or to proclaim, to invoke'. There is a Greek cognate "ekklesia"
http://bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html

In classical Greek the word "ekklesia" meant "an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly.

This is the result of a posterior palatalization of the voiced "ha" to make an easier to pronounce "ka" or "ga"

[A_Gupta]

There are more sophisticated models of language dispersal with more realistic assumptions than the tree model. The problem is that there is insufficient data to be able extract anything useful from these models.

It is a paradox I learned when I took a course on machine learning. Machine learning basically attempts to find a model that best fits the given "training" data and reliably makes good predictions on new data. The mathematics, experiments and practical experience all teach that the class of models you choose will produce unreliable results if it is more complex than the data justifies.

For example, the training data could be the set of movies that you have watched and rated; and the prediction would be how much you will like a new movie. The set of movies you have watched can be classified by actors, directors, type of movie (action, comedy, romance, etc.) and so on; and there is a map from these parameters to the ratings you gave the movies. Machine learning attempts to make a predictive model.

Think about it this way - a model with enough tunable parameters simply memorizes the training data, it does not actually find any patterns in it. Ideally, the model's parameters are tuned so that it matches the (hidden) pattern in the data. The less data that you have, the fewer tunable parameters you can afford in your model.

Unless we are going to find a lot of new written, decipherable artifacts from thousands of years ago, we are stuck with what we have, which is the tree model.

We should understand its limitations then. The tree model shows the relative degrees of relatedness of languages. It does not do much more than that. It does not even set the time scale. All claims to the contrary are bulls*.

Unfortunately neither genetics nor archaeology tells you much about language (archaeology does so only when there are decipherable texts). So all this is unlikely to be untangled any time soon.

Lastly, the state of archaeology in India and the surrounding lands is not in a great state. E.g., the vast majority of IVC settlements have not been excavated.

[member_20317]

If I am not wrong then 'Pra' in Prakrit implies it is the original/primordial sound.

Sams/Sans' in Samskrit/Sanskrit is a bit tricky:

If it implies 'together with' then it could mean that sanskrit got created at around the same time as Prakrit/Prakrits. Alternatively 'Sams/Sans' here could imply a situation of some people getting together with others to create Sanskrit. Right now I believe these are the only two rational possibilities.

If however it implies ‘entirely’ or ‘wholly’ or ‘perfectly’ even then it implies Sanskrit got created 'x' time after Prakrit, and was not to original sound but is a more well rounded experience because it is designed in that manner and for that purpose.

The process of 'Krit' is applicable to both Prakrit and Sanskrit. If it implies 'done' then that pretty much settles it that the process that 'does primordial sounds by the transmitter' is only a little earlier then the process that 'does the later sounds designed for perfect experience by the receiver(s)'. This further also implies that the later process is dependent upon and acting to enhance the effect of the original process. Since both processes are dymamic the question of origin may be invalid.

Hence perhaps the mythology of Tamil (a Prakrit) and Sanskrit getting created when once God Shiv played his drum.

I do not want to turn this into link language thread but the links between Prakrits and Sanskrits as they were first experienced are important to understand what is/is not original sound (in euro speak PIE).