Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 14 Sep 2012 10:22

KLP Dubey wrote:The mentally sane epistemological position - in matters of analyzing past events - must admit testimony as the primary means of knowledge, which can then be evaluated using all the other epistemic categories. This is the required practice in jurisprudence, and indeed in *any investigation of non-reproducible events*.

The relevant testimony is: "The Rgveda pratishakhya, dealing with Sanskrit, is the oldest phonetic record of mankind". All sound changes (whether in India or outside) can be explained consistently as defects/deviations from pratishakhya phonetics. This is the status quoposition. Hence, there is no rational basis for postulation of any "older" language (whether it is Hittite or Greek or PIE) if there is no testimony predating the pratishakhya about how it was spoken.

Dubey ji,

I find this to be a powerful argument. What it does is makes the fact of Sanskrit as oldest phonetic language the status quo position, and any argument such as PIE that challenges it based on inferior epistemic categories an attempt at illegitimate historical revisionism.

The only issue though might be in proving the claim of 'oldest phonetic record of mankind'. Because phonetic speech does not leave behind any datable relics - we run into the same difficulties as that of dating the RV.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 14 Sep 2012 10:32

^ Ok, I think I understand your argument now on Pratishakyas. Even if the Pratishakyas are dated to 1500BC, that would still make them the earliest testimony in the world of how a language is to be spoken. And there is no similar earlier document for Greek, Sumerian, Akkadian & other contendors.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Sep 2012 10:50

Kaushal ji,

I have sent you email.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 14 Sep 2012 11:19

peter wrote:
ManishH wrote: [...] articulation (called palatalization with front vowels)[..]
What about Vedic words like Vac which becomes Vak?

In sanskrit, c>k is standard sandhi rule wherein c>k before a consonant suffix but remains unchanged before a vowel suffix.

eg. vāgbhyām (Inst du) but vācam (Acc sing). The nominative was originally vāk-s which loses the final -s to become vāk

These sandhi rules only affect the 'c' sound when it is word final. Whereas palatalization of PIE velar happens anywhere even inside verb roots when the environment is right eg. 'śravas'.

The two are unrelated phenomenon. The former being morphology; latter being diachronic sound change.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 14 Sep 2012 11:35

ManishH,

ManishH wrote:These sandhi rules only affect the 'c' sound when it is word final. Whereas palatalization of PIE velar happens anywhere even inside verb roots when the environment is right eg. 'śravas'.

You write as though these two are totally equivalent, credible, and correct concepts. However, the former is a well-known principle attested innumerable times in Sanskrit grammar by authors over more than 3 millennia. The latter is just a nonsensical speculation related to a nonexistent language.

This "mention PIE nonsense in the same breath as Sanskrit grammar" trick is very commonly used by PIE quacks to slip in their fantasies and hallucinations and have gullible people think they are "well-known concepts".

The two are unrelated phenomenon. The former being morphology; latter being diachronic sound change.

There is another difference between the two. The former is documented and attested FACT, whereas the latter is FICTION.

KL

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 14 Sep 2012 12:15

ManishH wrote:The two are unrelated phenomenon. The former being morphology; latter being diachronic sound change.

Not true.

It is very clear that Sanskrit was always regarded as a 'refined language'. This is not just true of Classical Sanskrit but also of Vedic Sanskrit. This refined language was given specific rules (sandhi, shiksha, vyakaran) with the sole purpose that the language would not be susceptible to diachronic sound change.

Most likely, other than a select set of brahmanas and others, the rest of the population spoke a dialect of Sanskrit that was indeed subject to diachronic sound change. So, even during Vedic times, it is likely that the majority of the 'Vedic' population was speaking a Prakrit that was not as refined as Sanskrit in following the shiksha rules.

Sandhi rules were based on anticipating diachronic morphophonology and the refined language regularized this phenomenon by formalizing rules pertaining to it. Similarly, Sanskrit phonologists may well have anticipated diachronic sound changes such as palatalization and formalized the palatalization of certain words - when the rest of the population was still using a Prakrit that was non-palatalized. That would of course explain how the Greeks subsequently picked up these Prakrit words.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 14 Sep 2012 14:01

KLP Dubey wrote:You write as though these two are totally equivalent, credible, and correct concepts. However, the former is a well-known principle attested innumerable times in Sanskrit grammar by authors over more than 3 millennia. The latter is just a nonsensical speculation related to a nonexistent language.

Dubey-ji:

It's not as if Vedic language did not exist before RV and it's prātiśākhyā, khilāni, brāhmaṇa etc were composed. If you look at the matter of IE languages purely from a legal framework, there is no hypothesis that can satisfy you; because textual records simply did not exist then.

There has to be some way of explaining the common vocabulary, grammar, poetic metre/devices, morphology between a host of IE languages like Vedic/Hittite/Tocharian/Slavonic/Greek/Latin etc. Now I'm not insisting that you blindly believe the mainstream reconstruction of their ancestor. Only saying, one cannot ignore that these had a common ancestor.

It's one thing to call the existing hypotheses quackery; quite another to come up with a better hypothesis.

PS: From your other post, it sure looks like you are looking at the issue from a legal standpoint. I can't imagine a day when scholars will be dragged to court, instead of being critiqued

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 14 Sep 2012 14:12

ManishH wrote:Now I'm not insisting that you blindly believe the mainstream reconstruction of their ancestor.

That's rich. This homily is from a guy who wants to have school children blindly believe the 'mainstream' Nazi version of pre-history.

ManishH, you might want to first consider sparing innocent school kids in India from your bigotry.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 14 Sep 2012 14:20

Prem Kumar wrote:ManishH: more questions as a follow-up to my earlier post. This is regarding the nature of the sound law changes. Questions below refer to only the universal laws

1) Consistency: are the set of universal laws internally consistent? For example: are there laws which could potentially contradict each other - like one law stating that a sound change must proceed in direction A and another law stating that it can proceed in the opposite or a different direction?

I won't call them a lack of consistency but yes there are sound changes that are not unidirectional eg. the liquids L and R are often interchangeable. It is known that L > R as well as R > L happen over different periods.

Sometimes, inconsistencies in laws w.r.t evidence have later been explained either due to
a) Evidence from another branch
b) Better understanding of phonetic conditions

There are still some inconsistencies - eg. the Greek hippo (for horse) differs a bit from the expected outcome 'eppo'. There was a tendency in literature to explain inconsistencies using "analogy". This is slowly going away with greater rigour applied to better understanding of phonetic conditions.

2) Falsifiability: are the universal laws falsifiable? If a certain phenomenon is forbidden but is observed in reality, the law should permit itself to be proven wrong

Yes they are. Eg. Grimm's law was falsified by evidence of Old German texts. It had to be refined to take into account the effect of accent in PIE, the evidence for which came from Greek and Vedic and is lacking in Germanic corpus. The result of the refinement is Verner's law.

3) Universality: are these laws universal? Have they been observed across multiple language pairs & at least one of the pairs must have attestations, so that the direction of sound change can be confirmed via something other than linguistics? Universality would also mean that these laws dont have riders that allow one-off exceptions. Any one-off rider or a one-off law can hardly be called universal. Moreover, one-off riders can be indefinitely added to an existing law to get around the falsifiability criterion

Some of them are universal human tendencies eg. Palatalization (the book by DNS Bhat I mentioned earlier has a survey of wide language families). Some are not so universal - eg. RUKI rule which has affected only east IE languages. But by your definitiion, it is in some sense universal, in that there are no exceptions in languages where it exists.

One lacuna in PIE reconstructions is that the exact phonetic value of some PIE stops cannot always be reconstructed. Eg. if dental 't' is hard or soft. Another lacuna is that more than one hypothesis explains some phenomenon eg. Glottalic theory and Laryngeal theory.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 14 Sep 2012 16:21

Prem Kumar wrote:ManishH: you mentioned universal sound-change laws & non-universal ones. Can you point out some examples of universal ones? I believe "palatization in the presence of front vowels" is one, based on your comment. I see that there are many sound change laws like Metathesis, Dissimilation, Rhotacism, Debuccalization etc.

Is there a summary that states which ones amongst these are universal? By universal, I mean that they have been observed in several language pairs and no violations have been observed (i.e. they are not language-state-dependent)

By above definition, palatalization, metathesis, dissimilation, debuccalization are very universal. Rhotacism is not universal.

2) If they are deemed to be deeply connected, their verb roots are analyzed to see if one could be a parent of another. This is purely based on universal sound laws (not the non-universal ones). Question: what if for some verb root, X can be the parent & for another Y can be the parent?

If the temporal evidence supports it, a non-universal law, like RUKI too is useful in reconstruction. Eg. know that non-RUKI versions are older, because even Sanskrit morphology internally follows RUKI (Loc plu vik-ṣu but apas-su). RUKI is non-universal by above definition because it applies only to satem languages.

3) If neither can be the parent (due to violation of universal sound laws), then a proto-parent verb root is constructed. The verb root of the parent is setup such that its morphing into either X's or Y's verb root doesnt violate the universal laws. Question: what if only some verb roots require a proto-parent & for others, either X or Y could have been the parent?

It can happen. Eg PIE *skabh is preserved exactly in Skt root "skabh".

One more question: say X is deemed to be a parent of Y. But there are verb roots in X and Y that are not related. And say the % of unrelated verb roots is 90% of the total # of verb roots in Y. Is X still considered a parent of Y based on a 10% verb root match? Or could Y not simply have borrowed X's verb roots and some rules (instead of borrowing whole words)

Quite possible that X is still deemed parent of Y; Iff the 10% common verb roots are really used as roots in Y - ie. they actually are used to make related and indirectly related abstract nouns (like the fame example earlier). Whereas if they are used one off - eg. "maine google kiya", it's merely a lexical borrowing.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 14 Sep 2012 16:31

ManishH wrote:It's not as if Vedic language did not exist before RV and it's prātiśākhyā, khilāni, brāhmaṇa etc were composed. If you look at the matter of IE languages purely from a legal framework, there is no hypothesis that can satisfy you; because textual records simply did not exist then.

I have yet to see any coherent reply from you regarding my comments. Your reply starting with "It's not as if...." is merely another PIE quackwalk, i.e, "Don't you know that vedic language existed before RV ?".

As a matter of fact, No I don't know that vedic existed "before" RV. And nobody else does either. There is no documented evidence to that effect. The RV sounds cannot be "dated" with any degree of reliability, and furthermore there is no predating document, and even if somebody shows up with some old document in another language, there is no record of its speech.

The matter is of simple testimony. It is a purely rational basis, which is (naturally) adopted by jurisprudence in the interest of a free and fair legal system.

There has to be some way of explaining the common vocabulary, grammar, poetic metre/devices, morphology between a host of IE languages like Vedic/Hittite/Tocharian/Slavonic/Greek/Latin etc. Now I'm not insisting that you blindly believe the mainstream reconstruction of their ancestor. Only saying, one cannot ignore that these had a common ancestor.

It's one thing to call the existing hypotheses quackery; quite another to come up with a better hypothesis.

You have not been reading the posts. You missed the status quo position. What part of that is hard to understand ? Here it is again:

1) RV is the "oldest", and remarkably preserved (as good as listening to a tape or CD), sound.

2) The pratishakhya is the corresponding oldest phonetic record connecting RV sounds to the Sanskrit language.

3) Every sound change then must be logically explained as defective variations starting from the pratishakhya. Only AFTER such an exercise is fully debated and concluded, and in the unlikely event that large inconsistencies are still found, should one feel the desperate need for looking at other possibilities such as the fictional reconstructions of PIE languages that do not exist. The same "PIE linguistics" that was made to be so arbitrary that it allowed pretty much any interpretation that rejects a Sanskrit proto-language, can now also be used to prove exactly the opposite. That would hurt, wouldn't it, ManishH ?

If you want to displace a status quo, the burden of testimony is on you, buddy. That can't be substituted by saying "OK, in order to have something to show, I made up an older language...here you go." That isn't testimony, it is just fantasy.

On the other hand, your insistence on a "fantasy/dogmatic" PIE that *must* be postulated before one can dispense historical diktats and correct advice, is closer to the justice system practiced by bearded and/or frocked dudes in medieval times and even now in some countries.

PS: From your other post, it sure looks like you are looking at the issue from a legal standpoint. I can't imagine a day when scholars will be dragged to court, instead of being critiqued

See above. Reason is the basis for the legal system (unless you tend towards beards/frocks), that is why it might appear to you that I am taking a "legal" standpoint.

About "scholars" being dragged to court, it will happen if the only recourse for getting these guys to think straight, stop making up fiction, and stop lying, is to put them in a courtroom.

KL

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 14 Sep 2012 17:04

Still no reply to Thieme. The presence of Varuna, plural Nasatyas, and Indra as treaty-protector make the Mitanni treaty Vedic or post-Vedic, while AIT linguistics insists that the words come from pre-Vedic.
AIT linguists don't even have a counter-argument, all they have is silence.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Sep 2012 17:31

Books for the Library

Publication Date: October 01, 1999
Author: B.G. Sidharth
Director B. M. Birla Science Center, Hyderabad, India
The Celestial Key to the Vedas: Discovering the Origins of the World's Oldest Civilization [Google] [Amazon]

Description
A leading astronomer proves that India had a thriving civilization capable of sophisticated astronomy long before Greece, Egypt, or any other world culture.

Provides conclusive evidence that the Rig Veda is 12,000 years old.
Establishes actual dates and places for many of the events in the Hindu epics.

For more than a century scholars have debated the antiquity of the Vedas and their related literature, the Brahmanas and Puranas. Relying upon a host of assumptions from linguistic theory, anthropology, and archaeology, they have agreed upon 1500 b.c. as the earliest possible date for the Rig Veda, itself the oldest extant example of Indo-European literature. But in this groundbreaking book, astronomer B. G. Sidharth proves conclusively that the earliest portions of the Rig Veda can be dated as far back as 10,000 B.C.

By deciphering the astronomical events and alignments contained in mythical and symbolic form in these ancient texts, Sidharth calls into question many if not all of the assumptions governing Indo-European prehistory. He explores such subjects as the astronomical significance of many Hindu deities and myths, the system of lunar asterisms used to mark time, the identity of the Asvins, and the sophisticated calendar of the ancients that harmonized solar and lunar cycles. Sidharth provides incontrovertible evidence that such "advanced" astronomical concepts as precession, heliocentrism, and the eclipse cycle are encoded in these ancient texts, passages of which make perfect sense only if these astronomical keys are known. Based on internal evidence in the Mahabharata and Ramayana, he also becomes the first to establish likely dates--and even places--for the events described in these famous epics. The Celestial Key to the Vedas is sure to astonish anyone concerned with astronomy, India, or the roots of civilization.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Sep 2012 17:54

One very good blog elaborating the work of Pandit Kota Venkatachalam on real Indian history is

http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.com

It is maintained by Shri G.D. Prasad!

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 14 Sep 2012 17:56

A_Gupta wrote:AIT linguists don't even have a counter-argument, all they have is silence.

The record speaks for itself.

Silence on the post-Vedic status of the Mittanis. On Koenrad Elst's rebuttal of horse/chariot as marker of non-Indian homeland for the IE people. On cavalry without stirrups. Silence on the mysterious dolphins that taught the Sumerians what to call a horse.

And yet, unrestrained excitement at the prospect of forcing AIT dogma down the throats of Indian kids.

This thread sure needs a policy on trolls.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 14 Sep 2012 17:59

KLP Dubey wrote:The same "PIE linguistics" that was made to be so arbitrary that it allowed pretty much any interpretation that rejects a Sanskrit proto-language, can now also be used to prove exactly the opposite. That would hurt, wouldn't it, ManishH ?

Most of your anger is due to assuming that Linguists have something against Sanskrit, which they don't.

In the beginning (early 19th century), PIE linguistics actually came up with a proto-language that was closer to Sanskrit than anything else. Schleicher's tale looked more closer to Sanskrit when Linguists started attempting to reconstruct proto-sounds. It's only when greater understanding of phonetics and newer epigraphic evidence appeared when it was apparent that Sanskrit has innovated quite a bit.

If you want to displace a status quo, the burden of testimony is on you, buddy. That can't be substituted by saying "OK, in order to have something to show, I made up an older language...here you go." That isn't testimony, it is just fantasy.

No intention to displace status quo at all

I'm not out to convince anyone - just want to make sure that 'a' PoV is represented in debate.

On the other hand, your insistence on a "fantasy/dogmatic" PIE that *must* be postulated before one can dispense historical diktats and correct advice, is closer to the justice system practiced by bearded and/or frocked dudes in medieval times and even now in some countries.

Where is insistence ? I'm putting my PoV. But looks like you are anxious to see that PoV vanish.

About "scholars" being dragged to court, it will happen if the only recourse for getting these guys to think straight, stop making up fiction, and stop lying, is to put them in a courtroom.

KL

Yep, 124A is the way to go

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 14 Sep 2012 18:06

Slightly OT but needed at this point:

People have been suggesting Court route to settle the matter of AIT/OIT. KLP Dubey ji even suggested that the law is based on reason, when he said that "Reason is the basis for the legal system". People need to understand what law can and cannot do.

Sources of law (try to figure out where 'reason/reasonableness' falls through):
1) Legislation - Netagun ki kartuten fall in this category
2) Precedent - Equity, Commentaries fall in this category, Apex court decisions
3) Customary Law - Personal laws of Religious groupings, Comman Parlance definations, Trade usage would fall here.

This is important to understand because 'reason' or 'reasonableness' is not the prime concern of any part of the legal system. The only one peep that 'reason/reasonableness' is allowed is by the Apex Court judges and even here the attitude is anything but reasonable. I was told that the following quote is actually attributed to a Chief Justice of some US court - " We are living under a constitution and the constitution is what the judges say it is". And no different is the case in India. Supreme Court judges are actually the Daddies of the legal system even here.

AIT and its various avtaars are pretty much religion or personal laws now. However one thing that I believe can be attempted even now is to get a 'Statutory warnings' into history books mandated by left/minority inspired institutions. AIT is a political fight. It is either they win or they do not. OIT while being the truth is still going to face the fate of Mata Sita. The basic way forward that I see is that the OIT walas will have to stand up for a political fight. In this fight AIT et al has everything to loose. OIT has to loose its pristine status but at least it can be made a fit and proper option unlike the situation right now. Mere elevation of OIT to a 'valid option' is actually a complete win if you know what an 'valid option' implies. What belongs to the public realm has to be dealt with by the publics. Courts are at best tactical bets and at worst escapist route. The fight has to be turned into a fight for options if you want to fight it out in courts.

RajeshA ji suggested 10 year period when the AIT can be challenged in court. Well RajeshA ji, somebody said in relation to technology but which is actually equally applicable to other facets of life also...... - we tend to overstimate technology 2/5 years in the future, and underestimate technology 10 years in the future

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Sep 2012 18:19

Kaushal ji,
I will respond to your post here little later in the day. I will also contact you via Linkedin and/or email. I think we are connected on Linkedin, may be on FB too.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 14 Sep 2012 18:37

A_Gupta wrote: The key point is that Nasatianna is plural.

I agree.

The next point is that the Avesta only has a singular Nasatya (cognate) while the Rig Veda has both one and two(plural). E.g., Thieme writes "a single Nasatya is known to the RV also (4.3.6 ), and moreover, the RV once forms a dual dvandva Indra-Nasatya (8.26.8 ) which can only mean "Indra and the [one] Nasatya." Konow's statement: 'The existing state of things makes it necessary to infer that the dual designation Nasatyau is of Indian growth' seems to me to stand unimpaired.

For my benefit, I request you to quote Thieme's article verbatim. I have found none of these claims you attribute to him in his article "The Aryan Gods of Mitanni treaties":

1. Avesta has only a singular Nāsatya
2. Avesta's singular Nāsatya is necessarily pre-vedic

I'd like to see verbatim quotes of Thieme. Thanks for patience.

Claim #1 specially runs contrary to what is mentioned in this book "A History of Zoroastrianism: The Early Period" By Mary Boyce

In Vendidād, these two beings are repudiated together as Indrem ... Nanhaitīm

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Sep 2012 18:44

Continuing from here

shiv wrote:In real terms this claim is like my insisting that I am a direct descendant of Emperor Ashoka. It is a claim. You cannot stop me from claiming it. You cannot disprove it and I am not going to prove it.

You may need to be more specific in the new revised history of India. Ashoka can mean

a) Ashoka Maurya (1472-1436 BCE) [Maurya Dynasty of Magadh]....... Known from Buddhist inscriptions
b) Dharma-Asoka (1448-1400 BCE) [Gonanda Dynasty of Kashmir]........Built Srinagar
c) Samudragupta aka Asoka Priyadarshi (320-269 BCE) [Gupta Dynasty of Magadh]......Known from the Edicts on Pillars of Asoka, Made War with Kalinga

All embraced Buddhism!

I mention this because Indian history seems to have been screwed up due to mixing up of Chandraguptas and Ashokas, which ultimately resulted in 13 centuries of our history just wiped off! With those 13 centuries accounted for AIT would simply suffocate for lack of air, time and airtime!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 14 Sep 2012 19:25

This question is directly for ManishH ji :

(1) Are you aware of any "academic" criticism of the "sound change" laws?
(2) Would you quote the "statistical" evidence supporting these sound change laws?
(3) Would you quote the "phonetics" evidence that supports these sound change laws?

Just refs for (3) will do.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Sep 2012 19:34

Kaushal ji,

Thank you for all your compliments.

I would LOVE to assist you in any shape and form with your book. No need for compensation.. but when it becomes the 'International bestseller' for multiple years in a row, I would definitely want my pound of flesh.

Of course this is 'figuratively speaking' since I am a vegeterian.

(I am aware of the joys of what I am missing..but that is OT OT).

Nilesh ji, are you by any chance related to the great Purushottam Nagesh Oak.

How can I afford to answer in negative to such a question!!!! Oak is a small clan/community and thus if one traces generations backward, we would be related in less than 4-7 generations. My father met him many years ago. I never had an opportunity.

Many people of Indian origin tell me that they never knew 'Oak' was Indian name (this single piece of evidence clearly proves India to UK migration but I know scholars would criticize this evidence and line of thinking

). I tell them, by way of introduction, that my cast/subcast is same as Madhuri Dixit and Sonali Bendre. At this point the questioner begin to dream of something else.

If I am unsuccessful still in deflecting the question of my surname, I tell them that Madhuri and I went to the same college (which is true) and that her sister was my physics teacher (also true). Usually this does it. If not, I always keep additional arrows

ready such as ... I have acted with her sister in multiple dramas . which is also true in the spirit of 'naro wa kunjarowa'.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Sep 2012 19:44

ravi_g wrote:RajeshA ji suggested 10 year period when the AIT can be challenged in court. Well RajeshA ji, somebody said in relation to technology but which is actually equally applicable to other facets of life also...... - we tend to overstimate technology 2/5 years in the future, and underestimate technology 10 years in the future

ravi_g ji,

I suggested 10 years because I foresee a certain evolution of the Indian mind. I think we have been living through an era where it is/was deemed necessary to simply accept the parameters dictated by the system of national historical narrative and business norms, both based on making a as smooth and frictionless interface and alignment as possible with the Western narrative, because that was 'modern' and we wanted to be 'modern'. Any indulgence in 'Ancient India' and her narratives would have totally messed up this alignment. Of course 'Ancient India' was all sold as superstitious nonsense and hence incompatible with 'modernity' as defined by West, but the reasons are more on the lines that 'Ancient India' would in fact threaten Western dominance of humanities and world view, and thus may cause them to look at India and Indians unfavorably ensuing in competition and conflict, which a dirt-poor country like India could not afford. All this had the effect that West was acknowledged leader by us in all fields humanities, sciences, technology, sports, business, etc. and we willingly became the workers following their lead.

So the evolution in the Indian mind that I suspect is a liberation from these constraints. It is a process of standing up straight, throwing back our shoulders and expanding our chests. It is a process of becoming aware that there is no more need to play second-fiddle and that we can allow our full intellect and will their natural flow, and the Western position of dominance in our minds is gone! There is no more awe anymore!

Once that goes, then it is really a question of time when we demand that our identity, as incorporated by the true, ancient and comprehensive history of our land, be fully restored.

And so I think that with time the demand of our collective hearts for our identity would only grow and grow louder by the numbers until the demand is put forth in unmistakable terms in front of the rulers of our country, and then they would need to relent.

My only regret would be that Indian history is so expansive and our philosophies so numerous and meaningful that it would mean a lot more burden for India's school-going kids!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Sep 2012 20:07

RajeshA wrote:My only regret would be that Indian history is so expansive and our philosophies so numerous and meaningful that it would mean a lot more burden for India's school-going kids!

Against this consider, religiously speaking.. Judaism, Jesusism, Islamism

(1) Son, you are the product of chosen race. All things taken care of. Just don't get into 'calf' worship.
(2) Son, get up. good morning. Time for Sunday school. Pray to only God and son of God. Your future is bright
(3) Son, it is all in the books.. err...in THE BOOK.

So, all Indian philosophies + all other religious learning.. would indeed make Indian school kid go crazy. Fortunately IPAD and access to wikipedia during exams would ease the stress.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 14 Sep 2012 20:16

venug wrote:Manish garu,
I know you talked about how linguistics studies depend on archeology and other studies. But first:
1. Are there any validation studies done to say that phonetic changes and linguistic theories are solid and are based on rigor? No not the voice tracts. Voice tracts sound origination is not validation of phonetic changes. If studies have been done, references and exceptions, could you be kind enough to refer us to them ?

The validation of some "universals" (see definition of the term provided by Prem Kumar in this thread) in sound change theory comes from sound change in languages whose parent as well as child is attested. In phonology textbooks, mostly examples and classroom exercises consist of attested languages.

Epigraphic validation of proposed phonetic relation between PIE and it's daughters is scant; mostly because historical records of writing in the relevant period are scant. I've pointed to Hittite inscriptions and findings of laryngeals and Myc. Greek with findings of labiovelars in them. That's a kind of validation - albeit only of two proposed sound changes.

2. If there are no validation studies done, then why this certainty that one has to base a nation's history on linguistics, when it is no way complete? Don't you think it is irresponsible?

If people actually wish to subscribe to a different idea of their history, I don't think the academia can stand in the way for long.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Sep 2012 20:20

ManishH wrote:The validation of some "universals" (see definition of the term provided by Prem Kumar in this thread) in sound change theory comes from sound change in languages whose parent as well as child is attested. In phonology textbooks, mostly examples and classroom exercises consist of attested languages.

ManishH ji,

could you please give some examples of these attested parents and children relationships!

Thanks

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Sep 2012 20:46

ManishH wrote:
For my benefit, I request you to quote Thieme's article verbatim. I have found none of these claims you attribute to him in his article "The Aryan Gods of Mitanni treaties":

Sir the entire article is available at the following link. Plese quote verbatim the parts that you disagree with.
http://flh.tmu.ac.ir/hoseini/arya/articles-1/27.pdf

Meanwhile I post (verbatim) for your reading pleasure the summary of Theime's arguments that the Mitanni Gods are post Vedic and not proto-Aryan. The implication is blindingly clear to me and I post it only for your information. If you want to comment on it, your opinion willl be yours and yours alone. Anyone who reads it will be able to make up his (or her) own mind about what Thieme says - which is what Arun says too, since he appears to have paid adequate attention to the paper while reading it

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 14 Sep 2012 20:50

ManishH wrote:Most of your anger is due to assuming that Linguists have something against Sanskrit, which they don't.

I am not angry at all. I am occupying the status quo position, which is attested and rationally valid, and I find the PIE attempts to be a buffoonery of the highest order, in fact a circus. Hence I use commensurate adjectives when speaking of these attempts. Please do not mistake that for "anger".

In the beginning (early 19th century), PIE linguistics actually came up with a proto-language that was closer to Sanskrit than anything else. Schleicher's tale looked more closer to Sanskrit when Linguists started attempting to reconstruct proto-sounds.

So I am supposed to be impressed/grateful/happy that Schleicher thought PIE was "closer" to Sanskrit ? Looking at the link, I find essentially a list of buffoons beginning from 1868 to the present day writing nonsense in a language that they made up and NEVER EXISTED. The PIE guys have created their own reality/world and revel in it. But this does not correspond to the real world of documentary evidence and testimony. This situation corresponds to either deliberate buffoonery to entertain/delude/confuse others, or plain-and-simple stupidity. What else can I say ?

It's only when greater understanding of phonetics and newer epigraphic evidence appeared when it was apparent that Sanskrit has innovated quite a bit.

What understanding of phonetics are you referring to ? I am sorry, now I am starting to get irritated a little because it seems you don't read. Other than the pratishakhya and the preserved RV sounds, which language has a phonetic text and a preserved oral record of similar antiquity ? And if there are not any such records, what the devil are you talking about? How do you "understand" phonetics without any oral records that have been passed down with high fidelity?

The Nobel prizes in literature are usually awarded for works of fiction. These works have brilliant plots, great intellectual achievements in them, and everything in these works is internally consistent and believable. But they are still fiction, and we all know that. The PIE reconstruction is also fiction (and perhaps its internal methods are also appealing and clever to some), but PIE linguists adamantly insist it is *real*. Again, what should I do with such claims ? Are they not designed to be annoying, and am I not being charitable by finding them hilarious and the work of buffoons ?

KL

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Sep 2012 21:08

We should always remember that according to the traditional view of Hindus and as attested by our texts, Indics (including those defined as Aryans by the West) lived in the subcontinent for many tens of millennia. That is the status quo position.

The Aryan Invasion Theory has not overturned this position, as it has not gone into the evidence from the traditional sources and falsified those claims with any level of quality and credibility.

As such the Indigenist school remains the status quo school!

Aryan Invasion Theory is the revisionist school, and is as far as evidence and argumentation goes totally unsuccessful school. The Indian Government has adopted the AIT view of history in total disregard for this position, and very prematurely.

Out-of-India Theory is actually simply an argumentation designed to show further weaknesses of the AIT as being not the sole explanation for the spread of Indo-European languages!

Even if AIT/AMT is able to counter OIT, it still is not able to overthrow Indigenist Status Quo, because for that AIT/AMT would have to respond to questions arising from our history itself, which they have completely ignored.

But it is safe to say, that AIT/AMT school cannot discount the various alternatives of spread proposed by OIT either.

AIT is not the status quo theory!

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 14 Sep 2012 22:01

Is this posted before:
Dictionary traces maths concepts to Vedas A ToI article dated Aug 30, 2012

While the world gives credit to India for invention of the concept of 'zero', not much else in modern maths is attributed to this country. "Also, while it is generally believed that it was the fifth century AD mathematician Aryabhatta who invented zero, we have been able to establish in our project that zero or ananta was a concept as old as the Rig Veda. Similarly, eka or number one also has roots in this Veda," explained Majumdar.

All branches of mathematics are well represented in the Vedas, Aranyakas, Brahminical literature, Upanishads, Panini's Ashtadhyayi and Yaska's Nirukto, the dictionary explains. It goes on to prove that most solutions that can be arrived through algebra, geometry and trigonometry have Sanskrit roots. Thus, what the world knows as Pythagoras' theorem existed in the Sulbasutras provided in the manuscripts of Boudhayan, Apostombo, Manaba and Katyayan. A large number of formulae developed thousands of years ago, which lead to the same assumption as modern theorems, have been provided in the dictionary, with their places of occurrence in Indian punthis.

"Take the case of Euclid's concepts, on which modern geometry is based. You will find that all of today's geometric shapes and angles were present in the way the yajnabedis or the holy sacrificial fires were erected. Each design had a typical astronomical or cosmic meaning to it and a specific purpose for which the yajna was to be conducted," explained Banerjee, who is also the former vice-president of Asiatic Society. The dictionary is replete with the designs of these yajnabedis and go on to explain their modern geometrical equivalents. The additional benefit is that the ancient custom and belief system surrounding these bedis have also been explained in the dictionary. It says that the origin of most of these designs can be found in Vedanga Jyotish of 12th century BC.

Similarly, what the world associates with trigonometry today can be found in the ancient Indian texts. Take one of the most common formulae in Trigonometry - sin 2A = 2 sin A cos A. The dictionary explains that you can find such formulae that are used to measure area or height in the manuscripts of not one but several scholars of ancient India. The term jyotpotti (trigonometry) and the integral formulae therein can be traced back to Aryabhatta in his Siddhantasiromani, in the 12th century manuscripts of Bhaskaracharya II, in the 7th century Brahmasputasiddhanta of Brahma Gupta and in the 16th century Siddhantatattobibek of Kamalakar, the dictionary says.

member_23700 · Post by **member_23700** » 14 Sep 2012 23:40

KLP Ji,

I read number of your recent posts and I am writing to express my apologies.. for placing you in one bucket with SN Rajan, ManishH and few others (at one point). I am not intellecutally capable to understand all your arguments (and frankly those of ManishH too)but I am very much enjoying your style, force of argument and clarity. Not unlike Kapil Dev ji coming to the ground at India 28/5 and then doing 175 (not out) and taking India to win.

Kepp hitting. 6 is desires, 4 is great, but 1 and 2 are equally useful.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 15 Sep 2012 03:41

This may go a little overboard for some but hope folks give it a full read. If not anything, I promise a bit of humor given our conditioning due to the two prominent dhagas on this forum.

Numerous credible parallels that almost prove OIT of araps.

Vedic Roots of Arvastan (Arabstan)

On the other hand, I would have loved if there was a sankrit equivalent from which salamwhileIcome

is derived.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 Sep 2012 05:16

ManishH wrote:
A_Gupta wrote: The key point is that Nasatianna is plural.
I agree.

The next point is that the Avesta only has a singular Nasatya (cognate) while the Rig Veda has both one and two(plural). E.g., Thieme writes "a single Nasatya is known to the RV also (4.3.6 ), and moreover, the RV once forms a dual dvandva Indra-Nasatya (8.26.8 ) which can only mean "Indra and the [one] Nasatya." Konow's statement: 'The existing state of things makes it necessary to infer that the dual designation Nasatyau is of Indian growth' seems to me to stand unimpaired.
For my benefit, I request you to quote Thieme's article verbatim. I have found none of these claims you attribute to him in his article "The Aryan Gods of Mitanni treaties":

1. Avesta has only a singular Nāsatya
2. Avesta's singular Nāsatya is necessarily pre-vedic

I cannot transcribe the Greek characters, but here is the simulacrum:

(begins on print page 315, bottom of the left column)

The assumption that this idea -- that the Nasatyas fight enemies in general and preserve peace by keeping treaty partners in agreement (RV 8.35.12 ) -- was the result of a special development within Vedic religion is not contradicted by Avestan evidence. In fact, the Avesta knows of one "Nanhaitīm" only, who is mentioned as a daeva in company with Indra and Saurva (Vd. 10.9; 19.43). Consequently, the reconstruction of a Proto-Aryan dual *Nasatya must remain doubtful.

It must be borne in mind that a single Nasatya is known to the RV also (4.3.6) and, moreover, the RV once forms a dual dvandva Indra-Nasatya (8.26.8 ) which can only mean 'Indra and the [one] Nasatya.' Konow's statement (op. cit. p. 37): 'The existing state of things makes it necessary to infer that the dual designation Nasatyau is of Indian growth' seems to me to stand unimpaired.

I'd like to see verbatim quotes of Thieme. Thanks for patience.

Claim #1 specially runs contrary to what is mentioned in this book "A History of Zoroastrianism: The Early Period" By Mary Boyce
In Vendidād, these two beings are repudiated together as Indrem ... Nanhaitīm

Wow, talk about misinterpretations. The two beings (not three or more) are Indra and the one Nasatya. Thieme mentions it a little further down:

Anyway, even if a dual dvanda *Nasatya did exist in Proto-Aryan times, we have good reason to think that in association with the name Indra, Nasatya was in the singular: Rig Vedic Indra-Nasatya (8.26.8 ) and Vd. 10.9 Indrem...Nanhaitīm correspond in a way that is, to say the least, strongly suggestive.

Further

Is it like or provable that they did so in Proto-Aryan times? {Do Mitra Varuna Indra and the two Nasatyas protect treaties in ProtoAryan times?}.........

It is highly questionable whether a Proto-Aryan god *Varuna is to be postulated; it cannot be proved that a dual *Nasatya 'the two Nasatyas' was formed. The function of the Proto-Aryan *daivas, *Indra- and *Nasatya, can hardly have been to assist asuras in their role as guarantors of a treaty.

In sharp contrast to the uncertainties, the discrepancies and the contradictions that are created by summarily identifying the Mitanni list as a Proto-Aryan series, the actually given -- not reconstructed - - Vedic chain: Mitra-Varuna, Indra,..., Asvina (= Nasatya), fits flawlessly together in form and function with the Mitanni one, .....

The Mitanni list is thus either Vedic or post-Vedic.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 Sep 2012 05:20

I am very sorry to see that historical linguists absorb not only the lore, but also the character of a Witzel. This is a poisonous "science" that corrupts the soul. Shiv, take care as you try to learn it.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 15 Sep 2012 08:05

brihaspati wrote:This question is directly for ManishH ji :

(1) Are you aware of any "academic" criticism of the "sound change" laws?

Yes. The section 4. chapter on sound change in Hock, "Language History, Language Change and Language Relationship" has detailed points on arguments against universality of sound change. Some of these arguments I have summarized in response to Prem Kumar-ji's posts.

(2) Would you quote the "statistical" evidence supporting these sound change laws?

Linguistics itself has moved away from lexicostatistics and Swadesh lists. So I'm skeptical using statistics. But are you questioning the amount of common vocabulary in IE languages ?

(3) Would you quote the "phonetics" evidence that supports these sound change laws?

Has to be done per sound change. Eg. for palatalization, I've quoted a paper by DNS Bhat "A General Study of Palatalization" that goes into the biomechanics of palatalization. Eg. the effect of stressed front vowel on palatalization of velars, . The paper also has survey of multiple, non-IE language families where evidence for palatalization occurs.

Google has this paper in the book "Universals of Human Language"
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=QC-s ... on&f=false

Since you only asked for references.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 Sep 2012 08:47

Old Persian primer:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Old ... index.html

peter · Post by **peter** » 15 Sep 2012 09:08

peter wrote:
ManishH wrote: [...] articulation (called palatalization with front vowels)[..]
What about Vedic words like Vac which becomes Vak?

ManishH wrote: In sanskrit, c>k is standard sandhi rule wherein c>k before a consonant suffix but remains unchanged before a vowel suffix.

eg. vāgbhyām (Inst du) but vācam (Acc sing). The nominative was originally vāk-s which loses the final -s to become vāk

These sandhi rules only affect the 'c' sound when it is word final. Whereas palatalization of PIE velar happens anywhere even inside verb roots when the environment is right eg. 'śravas'.

The two are unrelated phenomenon. The former being morphology; latter being diachronic sound change.

There has to be a better/different explanation. There are other examples: Rg Vedic (diś-) becomes dik in (Atharv Veda). Here older and younger are established clearly.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 15 Sep 2012 09:10

ManishH wrote: I'd like to see verbatim quotes of Thieme. Thanks for patience.

Claim #1 specially runs contrary to what is mentioned in this book "A History of Zoroastrianism: The Early Period" By Mary Boyce
In Vendidād, these two beings are repudiated together as Indrem ... Nanhaitīm

A_Gupta wrote: Wow, talk about misinterpretations. The two beings (not three or more) are Indra and the one Nasatya. Thieme mentions it a little further down:

Some background on dvandva compounds ... In vedic dvandva compounds are often denoted by dualizing one member. Eg. mitra-varuṇa is denoted as mitrā. This doesn't mean that there were two mitra-s.

Similarity, the occurrence of nasatianna in Mitanni can just as well be a dvandva compound. It needn't mean two-nāsatya-s of vedic (nāsatyā).

Anyway, even if a dual dvanda *Nasatya did exist in Proto-Aryan times, we have good reason to think that in association with the name Indra, Nasatya was in the singular: Rig Vedic Indra-Nasatya (8.26.8 ) and Vd. 10.9 Indrem...Nanhaitīm correspond in a way that is, to say the least, strongly suggestive.

And in that case the dvandva can be written as indrā as well as nāsatyā.

IOW, I disagree with Thieme's conclusion because it is ambiguous if Mitanni plural nasatianna refers to
1. The two nāsatyā-s of Vedic
2. Or a dvandva compound Indra (or any other God) + one nāsatya. Thieme's article doesn't show awareness of 'ekaśeṣa' dvandva, wherein only the 2nd member of the duality remains.

Is it like or provable that they did so in Proto-Aryan times? {Do Mitra Varuna Indra and the two Nasatyas protect treaties in ProtoAryan times?}.........

It is highly questionable whether a Proto-Aryan god *Varuna is to be postulated; it cannot be proved that a dual *Nasatya 'the two Nasatyas' was formed. The function of the Proto-Aryan *daivas, *Indra- and *Nasatya, can hardly have been to assist asuras in their role as guarantors of a treaty.

Thieme says "X cannot be proved". You have taken a leap of faith from there to "NOT(X) has been proved". That is putting words into the mouth of the source you quote.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 15 Sep 2012 09:10

ManishH wrote:
2) Falsifiability: are the universal laws falsifiable? If a certain phenomenon is forbidden but is observed in reality, the law should permit itself to be proven wrong
Yes they are. Eg. Grimm's law was falsified by evidence of Old German texts. It had to be refined to take into account the effect of accent in PIE, the evidence for which came from Greek and Vedic and is lacking in Germanic corpus. The result of the refinement is Verner's law.

Sheesh...Falsifiability means being able to define an experiment after any change of model that can confirm the validity of the refined model ! Can you please define an experiment that would be able to confirm / refute the validity of PIE ?

And no, awaiting the discovery of the next 'dead' language to validate PIE is NOT considered a valid experiment in falsifiability.

For a thread that attempts to base itself on science - shouldn't we have some minimum standards set for participants?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 Sep 2012 09:18

ManishH, please read the Hurrian given by Thieme, the Nasatiianna is preceded by the plural "gods".
(dingir.mesh nasattiianna), and not the singular (dingir).

Secondly, *no* reconstruction can be proved, unless you are so lucky as to find a text. As Thieme wrote Konow's idea that the singular to dual Nasatiya is of Indian origin stands unimpaired. So I'm not putting words in his mouth. Thieme is saying if you want the dual Nasatiya to be proto-Aryan, you cannot prove it.

Anyway, enough of it, I have seen your true colors.