Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4763
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby hanumadu » 13 Jun 2012 19:22

hanumadu wrote:
Lalmohan wrote: for example mithras was the most popular roman god for a long time before xtianity started making inroads into roman power circles. no one really remembers mithras any more. i dont think manish is talking about "forgetting" in a literal sense, but more in an evolutionary sense


Thanks for pointing out about Mithras
I was talking only of pre christian era. Christianity took over Rome with force. Its not a natural religion I guess.


Lalmohan, wikipedia says
Jupiter was the chief deity of Roman state religion throughout the Republican and Imperial eras, until the Empire came under Christian rule.


According to the web Mithras became famous in Rome only after Alexander. He is a vedic god too but the persian version was the one that spread west. This movement of Mithras from east to west is against PIE migration. What I am saying is the Greek god Zeus and Roman god Jupiter held their position remarkably well. So did Indra among Indo Aryans long after they supposedly came to India. So giving migration of Aryans as the reason for change in the status among gods need not be correct.

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 13 Jun 2012 19:37

Rajesh ji, thank you for the Sanskrit post, very nice, my respect for Sanskrit has only increased. Beautiful.

ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ManishH » 13 Jun 2012 19:45

hanumadu wrote:ManishH, I ask you again, how come the Romans and the Greeks did not forget their PIE gods?


I think they did - eg. bhaga (the apportioner) has no cognates in Roman religion. And only used as an epithet for Zeus in Phrygian. Mostly forgotten there, but preserved in Slavic and Indo-Iranian.

Maybe more exist, but I haven't read much of comparative religion.

ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ManishH » 13 Jun 2012 19:49

RajeshA wrote:Usually one speaks of two places where cattle was domesticated - in Levant (bos taurus) and in India (bos indicus). As far as I know, Levant is not really associated with Indo-European Urheimat.
....
So shouldn't we be looking at places where the bull was first domesticated, as a potential Urheimat of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, considering that the primary God in this common theology is associated with a bull.


Sorry, I don't have much knowledge of cattle rearing being responsible for spread of languages. The book on nomadism by Khazanov is a good read for comparing the mobility of horse+cattle rearers v/s only cattle rearers. I posted a para out of it comparing the two sometime back.

Please do share whatever data you can find on this. TIA

ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ManishH » 13 Jun 2012 20:02

shiv wrote:The "-inder" suffix made me think of Greek names like Menander and Aexander and the fact that Greek for "man" is "andros" (as opposed to Gyn...something that the word gynaecology derives from)


Greek 'andros' has nothing to do with indra. In Greek, 'andros' is genitive singular of root 'aner'. In Epic Greek (Homer's), 'aneros' was used, but the Attic (of Athens) dialect used 'andros'. Athens was more influential, so the latter stuck.

This is a good site for Greek morphology ...
http://www.classicsunlocked.net/index.p ... word/anhr/

Basically, a word of caution against using apparent similarities in words anywhere. Otherwise it leads to wrong conclusions.

PS: Greek 'gyn-' prefix is related to sanskrit 'gnā'

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 13 Jun 2012 20:27

Rajesh ji, Shiv ji and others if Sanskrit doesn't have object names, that means there is no Asva in India :), Asva could be anything that could mean speed, strong like a horse etc, so taking Asva to mean horse is a folly ;).
It is no wonder that understanding Rg Veda is difficult and is different from reading Sydney Sheldon. Anything that has properties like a horse can be a Asva!

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Lalmohan » 13 Jun 2012 20:30

hanumadu - i do not dispute your final statement. i am merely pointing out that gods come and go

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 13 Jun 2012 20:41

Sorry, I should have added to my earlier post than post again, just thinking, now Sanskrit is put in Satem Family. Which requires object, subject and verb etc. I think we need to study the design of Sanskrit to understand if indeed Sanskrit doesn't have object names, doesn't it mean it is somewhat different than other cetum and Satem families and is wrong to club Sanskrit with Satem family? May be I don't know much and merely rambling.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 13 Jun 2012 20:45

ManishH wrote:Basically, a word of caution against using apparent similarities in words anywhere. Otherwise it leads to wrong conclusions.

I am sure you must be right but do you see the paradox that you are creating for the uninitiated? All comparative liguistics started off because linguists of the 19th century found apparent similarities between Indian and European languages. The speciality started exactly that way. And if there had been people cautioning against seeing similarities between Indian and European languages they would have been laughed off.

Even today, my unkal Googal tells me that the theory of single root language "Nostratic" has discovered a few proto words that sound very very similar. Similarity has some non-zero value.

If I ignore similar sounding words and I take linguists opinions on non similar words like "Kleos" and "Shravan" we are still left with a third group of words which I do not see as similar and linguists reject as not part of their proto-language pantheon. "Andros/aner" seems to belong in this third group. If, for example, 50% of words in Sanskrit and Greek are not from the same root language, what caused the dissimilarity?

ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ManishH » 13 Jun 2012 20:49

brihaspati wrote:So, your main motivation is to show contradictions in OIT?


When comparing two theories, it is natural to evaluate them against known data. If data shows me contradictions, I write about them. But you disapprove ;-)

Is it because you are committed to AIT?


I'm not committed to anything. Have mentioned earlier - let evidence be the guide.

you are aware that AIT's contradictions are well discussed in several subgroups of linguists.


I'm not privy to those discussions, please share what you know of.

Is that a restriction due to any political or ideological affiliation?


Yes, when facts cannot be refuted, ideological affiliations of the opponent can be ;-) esp. if you can name with a word ending in -ist or -ite, you would have passed the first step of the rite called 'denunciation'.

Well even the Danube/Dnieper does not go back to any "united" IE times.


I think the root does.

Would you like to consult your notes again before you reaffirm your claims about "dayus pitar" and "yu-piter"?


I think they are related.

Something you never really find the chance to mention it seems - is the nature and paucity of inscriptional data


I have many times said - PIE is not a written language. But you haven't read those posts.

You will quote what suits to support your agenda of establishing AIT and PIE-not-in-India claims.


The word 'agenda' is related to Sanskrit verb 'ajati'. Used in the context of driving cattle :-)

By the way, would you be honest enough to mention the earliest epigraphical use of varuna and jupiter please?


So naive. Epigraphy is a poor indicator of the antiquity of a language. Eg. Earliest Sanskrit inscription in India is dated to 150 AD (King Rudradaman); but the language existed 2 millenia before that.

Would you like to commit here that "danu" and danu's apatya are clearly demarcated as enemies all along in RV?


All references I've found are those of enmity between Indra on one hand and Danu and her progeny on the other. If you have any other, do share.

Why would you associate enmity with something as important as "water"?


You are putting words in my mouth. The enmity is against those who call waters by the name 'danu'. The enmity is not against waters.

and which you must be aware of as a linguist, yet - onlee for river, onlee for river - they forget. This is avoiding the main problem posed by the lack of "dnu" root river names outside of Steppes/Balkans.


First, I'm not a linguist. Second, the Iranian branch too has 'dānu' meaning river. Last I checked, Iran is not in Steppes/Balkans.

No use pussyfooting here. The fact is that Indra has not been erased and wiped off the records.


Who said it is wiped.

Heroic civilizing wolves.


Heroic and wolves. You sure are inventive. Fact is that wolves are always known as predatory nuisance in IE culture.

Okay, but then this brings us full circle back to an initial exchange we had - if the tendency is to "move forward" - why initially construct or invent a velar in such a position in connection to vowels - that will be moved forward anyway?


It's not the reconstruction that has front vowels, it's the attested languages that have front vowels.

I'll later post an example of a palatalization that happens even in today's vedic recitation - how a य़ sound becomes palatalized to ज with a front vowel.

You know that this equation is disputed even within linguists.


But you painted a picture of linguists doing 'mutual backscratching' :-) now suddenly you seem to see them disputing each other too. Of course when it suits you wonly.

Minoan or Myc? Are you sure you are not mixing up A and B?


There is no mixup. Specialists I have named work on both, since skills/lessons learnt in one can be used in another.

ManishH wrote:Give pointers to population groups and their predelictions.


The whole "Greek" origins is highly problematic.


Yes, and quoting sources for conjecture is equally problematic.

By the way - I waited for a long time to see you quoting something - some wee bit at least - of the alternative and critical voices from among linguists


But how can there be critical voices and alternative views when you earlier claimed that linguists are 'mutual back-scratchers' ?

ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ManishH » 13 Jun 2012 20:58

shiv wrote:I am sure you must be right but do you see the paradox that you are creating for the uninitiated?


I agree - new ways of thinking cannot be dismissed by quoting the older theories. At the same time, proposers of new theories should also read old theories to make sure they indeed have a better explanation. Consider my post as pointing to the existing theory.

50% of words in Sanskrit and Greek are not from the same root language, what caused the dissimilarity?


The timeframes are quite long. And new influences keep coming in after separation. Apart from statistics of 50%, the breadth as well as class (kinship terms, common activities, natural features) of common vocabulary are also noteworthy.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 13 Jun 2012 21:01

venug wrote:Sorry, I should have added to my earlier post than post again, just thinking, now Sanskrit is put in Satem Family. Which requires object, subject and verb etc. I think we need to study the design of Sanskrit to understand if indeed Sanskrit doesn't have object names, doesn't it mean it is somewhat different than other cetum and Satem families and is wrong to club Sanskrit with Satem family? May be I don't know much and merely rambling.


No. You are merely struggling with a controversy that has no firm answer but a whole lot of competing theories.

Let me first point out from Wiki why the study of Indo Euroepan languages started in the first place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo ... n_language
Indo-European studies began with Sir William Jones making and propagating the observation that Sanskrit bore a certain resemblance to classical Greek and Latin. In The Sanscrit Language (1786) he suggested that all three languages had a common root, and that indeed they might further all be related, in turn, to Gothic and the Celtic languages, as well as to Persian.

His third annual discourse before the Asiatic Society on the history and culture of the Hindus (delivered on 2 February 1786 and published in 1788) with the famed "philologer" passage is often cited as the beginning of comparative linguistics and Indo-European studies. This is Jones' most quoted passage, establishing his tremendous find in the history of linguistics:

    The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.

This common source came to be known as Proto-Indo-European.

A man in 1786 proposed something and still everyone is searching so desperately for one common root and in fact have created one out of thin air.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 13 Jun 2012 21:52

ManishH wrote:The timeframes are quite long. And new influences keep coming in after separation. Apart from statistics of 50%, the breadth as well as class (kinship terms, common activities, natural features) of common vocabulary are also noteworthy.

I think one of the most galling things for the Indian is to learn that the language of his forbears is not only the oldest spoken language but also the best preserved. The rules for preservation of that language were established by 1500 BC as per modern dating methods.

It is the "discovery" of this language that alerted the world to the possibility of related languages and a root language. Every other related language has been free to morph itself and change pronunciation over time. They have changed and have kept on changing at rates that are unpredictable and from influences that are random. Sanskrit on the other hand has been like a solid rock with astounding rules for the creation of roots for words and preserving the sound and meaning over time. No other language group has done that. So this, by itself is the work of genius. Comparative linguistics has gained a huge database of knowledge simply because of the existence of Sanskrit that could be used to cross check against anything else.

And yet Sanskrit has been studied by crass people with parochial, even racist interests. Blind, ignorant men who dismiss Sanskrit literature as less than 3rd grade knowledge in Britain (Macaulay 1854 or so) and nitpickers who ask for horse remains to prove that Sanskrit has Indian origins.

My statements above have to be read in conjunction with other data that may be of no interest to you. I am speaking of the "across the board" killing of Indian and Hindu identity and generally dissing and dismissing as useless anything from India and pointedly attributing to Indians all the worst racist practices that other nations share but fail to admit. If the Indian says it it is not believed. That is what happened to the current mess that is called the caste system. Jatis, that we all still live by is turned into an accusation of "caste". The same "jati" system is glossed over as "ethinicity" in Pakistan, although Pakistanis actually link social status and varna with jati even today. Western scholarship and its absurd reductionism (of which PIE is an example) has made a mess of many things that come out of india. There is not enough trust of that western scholarship on the issue of linguistics because of its fundamentally racist, biased and blinkered origins. I believe explanations of jati and varna exist in Sanskrit literature. What did western scholarship do to try and reconcile that with societal practices. Nothing. Understanding India was never a priority, despite the veneer of science. On the other hand they were busy trying to fluff up their own racial prejudices about Aryans and fair skinned people versus the rest. Nothing in the way Sanskrit has been read inspires confidence. It has been used where it is convenient and discarded where it is inconvenient. Of course we cannot demand that non Indians should not do that. After all, why would they care? But Indians do care.

I believe that you are deeply knowledgeable and you talk like a professor, but you show very little insight about why linguistics is untrusted by Indians and when your disagreements are scathing or dismissive, or even triumphalist you are setting up "challenges" for people to oppose. Feebly as it turns out because you are the only expert in your field on here. Your name is Indian but your views are deeply westernized. Nothing wrong with that as such, we have many people such as you. But you show insensitivity to Indian views which are not always based on emotion but differing views in a controversial subject. But there is emotion too because Indians are just waking up to find how much of India and its language, history, culture and identity have been raped and ripped asunder by boorish and often blind western scholarship. There will be some blowback, right or wrong. That is the way the world works.
Last edited by shiv on 13 Jun 2012 21:59, edited 1 time in total.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Lalmohan » 13 Jun 2012 21:54

what is missing in this field is massive amounts of fundamental research by indian historians and allied disciplines

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby brihaspati » 13 Jun 2012 21:56

ManishH wrote:
brihaspati wrote:So, your main motivation is to show contradictions in OIT?


When comparing two theories, it is natural to evaluate them against known data. If data shows me contradictions, I write about them. But you disapprove ;-)

Not at all - I don't disapprove. The passage you wrote originally was about seizing upon Talageri's work to disprove AIT. Hence my question was legitimate - as you do not seem to do this on AIT. You merely react to counterpoints always in the defensive on AIT.

Is it because you are committed to AIT?

I'm not committed to anything. Have mentioned earlier - let evidence be the guide.

Evidence that you will accept onlee if they support AIT. That is a good cover. :D


you are aware that AIT's contradictions are well discussed in several subgroups of linguists.

I'm not privy to those discussions, please share what you know of.


This is really strange. Since you are apparently so well versed in AIT linguistics - you have never come across linguistic criticisms? The numerical majority is of course in favour of AIT - and have more or less agreed to clutch on to archeology to decide in their favour. This is a strange "modern" subject, pretending to be "science" - that seems to decide conclusions based on numerical majority onlee, or effectively voting.

But I was indeed waiting patiently for you to show up some acquaintance with counter motions, even if they are deemed a "minority" by other groups. If I shared earlier you would have said - oh, they exist, but they are a fringe opinion. When you remain silent for such a long time even after subtle nudges - it shows a motivation to be silent.

Is that a restriction due to any political or ideological affiliation?

Yes, when facts cannot be refuted, ideological affiliations of the opponent can be ;-) esp. if you can name with a word ending in -ist or -ite, you would have passed the first step of the rite called 'denunciation'.


Aren't we both adept at this game? why provide the excuse for easy counter denunciation! :P

Well even the Danube/Dnieper does not go back to any "united" IE times.

I think the root does.


Are you equating "united IE" with PIE? If so, it would have survived in derivation and inheritance in all branches - especially with something as important as rivers. Even such "PIE" puritans as Latins and Greeks were enemies of the Balkans and the Avestans? Anatolians too? Tocharians too? Somehow two hotspots of enemies miraculously rose up in the Balkans and Iran with friends surrounding these two hotspots over such wide areal separation?


Would you like to consult your notes again before you reaffirm your claims about "dayus pitar" and "yu-piter"?

I think they are related.


Don't "think", please, do confirm in the manner you are used to - sweeping statements without any chance at falsification.

Something you never really find the chance to mention it seems - is the nature and paucity of inscriptional data

I have many times said - PIE is not a written language. But you haven't read those posts.


And you have restricted my comment to PIE onlee - while both times I wrote it, I mentioned reconstruction of ancient IE dialects too. I specifically mentioned the case of Hittite.

You will quote what suits to support your agenda of establishing AIT and PIE-not-in-India claims.

The word 'agenda' is related to Sanskrit verb 'ajati'. Used in the context of driving cattle :-)


Not cattle in general : but herds of smaller quadrupeds, perhaps specific to goats - though it need not be. Yes I am aware of the suggested connection. If you go further back into rooting - it might not mean even cattle.

By the way, would you be honest enough to mention the earliest epigraphical use of varuna and jupiter please?

So naive. Epigraphy is a poor indicator of the antiquity of a language. Eg. Earliest Sanskrit inscription in India is dated to 150 AD (King Rudradaman); but the language existed 2 millenia before that.


Its not naive, rather finding it naive is naive. I wanted to point out that the "dating" is conjectural, dependent on estimated reconstructions of change periods - which in turn have been now given up by linguists themselves as being possible from within linguistics proper. The first time those two occur in epigraphy in the "west" wards direction is so late in antiquity that we can no longer be sure as to where they were taken from. Especially in the Italic and Aegean context.

Would you like to commit here that "danu" and danu's apatya are clearly demarcated as enemies all along in RV?

All references I've found are those of enmity between Indra on one hand and Danu and her progeny on the other. If you have any other, do share.

Why would you associate enmity with something as important as "water"?

You are putting words in my mouth. The enmity is against those who call waters by the name 'danu'. The enmity is not against waters.


Well, do you see the problem in assuming this ideological bias with a culture supposedly sharing close linguistic roots? Those "enemies" also use other words to denote important entities - and by your logic, Sanskrit/vedic should not have shared lots of other words too with the Avestan or the Balkan! Because enemies use them!

Why onlee the river?

and which you must be aware of as a linguist, yet - onlee for river, onlee for river - they forget. This is avoiding the main problem posed by the lack of "dnu" root river names outside of Steppes/Balkans.

First, I'm not a linguist. Second, the Iranian branch too has 'dānu' meaning river. Last I checked, Iran is not in Steppes/Balkans.


That actually adds to the fun. Two enemy hotspots - with whom RV shares enmity. Shares many many cognates of life and death importance, of great spiritual importance, or geographical and natural world importance - onlee, onlee doesn't use river names because they remind RV wallahs of enemies.

No use pussyfooting here. The fact is that Indra has not been erased and wiped off the records.


Who said it is wiped.


Okay so in your lexicon, "forgotten" is not erased. You will claim you can "forget" while not "erasing" if written records of earlier usage survives. But then once after being written down, people reading them were closing their eyes while passing over those words.

Heroic civilizing wolves.

Heroic and wolves. You sure are inventive. Fact is that wolves are always known as predatory nuisance in IE culture.


Big mistake. I would suggest reading up more on surviving steppe cultures and the Germanics.

Okay, but then this brings us full circle back to an initial exchange we had - if the tendency is to "move forward" - why initially construct or invent a velar in such a position in connection to vowels - that will be moved forward anyway?


It's not the reconstruction that has front vowels, it's the attested languages that have front vowels.

I'll later post an example of a palatalization that happens even in today's vedic recitation - how a य़ sound becomes palatalized to ज with a front vowel.


Sorry. You fail to understand the process argument. If according to your claim such a velar-labial pair occurs to someone not using it before - he/she will tend to palatalize, implies - that as a language process within a community of users, the very birth of such pairs becomes highly unlikely.

You know that this equation is disputed even within linguists.

But you painted a picture of linguists doing 'mutual backscratching' :-) now suddenly you seem to see them disputing each other too. Of course when it suits you wonly.

No - I did it deliberately to see if you would come out with evidence of dissent - from within linguists. Just to probe.

Minoan or Myc? Are you sure you are not mixing up A and B?

There is no mixup. Specialists I have named work on both, since skills/lessons learnt in one can be used in another.


I tried to gently nudge you. Linear A is not deciphered yet - as of late 2011, that I am aware of . Please don't quote linear A and Minoan with B/Myc as being comparable. Specialists - if you know them - will suggest to you not to hope for much in applying skills learned in B/Myc to be of any use in deciphering A.

ManishH wrote:Give pointers to population groups and their predelictions.

[brihaspati]The whole "Greek" origins is highly problematic.[brihaspati]

Yes, and quoting sources for conjecture is equally problematic.

No - no problem. Just was waiting to see whether you come up with some acquaintance with the nature of the difficulty in finding or establishing PIE continuity/derivation in the way you seem to imply.

I was interested in understanding what drives your arguments - by noting what you leave out even when indirectly pressurized to look up.

By the way - I waited for a long time to see you quoting something - some wee bit at least - of the alternative and critical voices from among linguists


But how can there be critical voices and alternative views when you earlier claimed that linguists are 'mutual back-scratchers' ?


You can have factions of mutual backscratchers - majorities and minorities - can't you? :mrgreen:

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Lalmohan » 13 Jun 2012 21:59

guys - time to call time on this part of the adda please

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 13 Jun 2012 22:01

Lalmohan wrote:what is missing in this field is massive amounts of fundamental research by indian historians and allied disciplines


Absolutely. But even before that, more Indians reading what already exists in Indian languages. But all this is OT for the out of India thread.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby brihaspati » 13 Jun 2012 22:03

Mithras and Jupiter - both have problems in the Italic and Grecian context. They turn up in a particular socio-political scenario in the eastern Med, that leaves several different alternate possible routes for them to have been adopted. Given the archeological or other inferences of cultural disruptions and linguistic discontinuities in the region - the current state of understanding is less sure of earlier derivations. But this may go far far out of topic.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RajeshA » 13 Jun 2012 22:04

Here is an article about PIE mythology. There are some special words to cater to the Christian sensibilities.

The Great Transformation
The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions

By Karen Armstrong
Knopf. 469 pp. $30
Friday, May 5, 2006
Chapter One

ASRA
THE AXIAL PEOPLES

(c. 1600 to 900 BCE)

The first people to attempt an Axial Age spirituality were pastoralists living on the steppes of southern Russia, who called themselves the Aryans. The Aryans were not a distinct ethnic group, so this was not a racial term but an assertion of pride and meant something like "noble" or "honorable." The Aryans were a loose-knit network of tribes who shared a common culture. Because they spoke a language that would form the basis of several Asiatic and European tongues, they are also called Indo-Europeans. They had lived on the Caucasian steppes since about 4500, but by the middle of the third millennium some tribes began to roam farther and farther afield, until they reached what is now Greece, Italy, Scandinavia, and Germany. At the same time, those Aryans who had remained behind on the steppes gradually drifted apart and became two separate peoples, speaking different forms of the original Indo-European. One used the Avestan dialect, the other an early form of Sanskrit. They were able to maintain contact, however, because at this stage their languages were still very similar, and until about 1500 they continued to live peacefully together, sharing the same cultural and religious traditions.

It was a quiet, sedentary existence. The Aryans could not travel far, because the horse had not yet been domesticated, so their horizons were bounded by the steppes. They farmed their land, herded their sheep, goats, and pigs, and valued stability and continuity. They were not a warlike people, since, apart from a few skirmishes with one another or with rival groups, they had no enemies and no ambition to conquer new territory. Their religion was simple and peaceful. Like other ancient peoples, the Aryans experienced an invisible force within themselves and in everything that they saw, heard, and touched. Storms, winds, trees, and rivers were not impersonal, mindless phenomena. The Aryans felt an affinity with them, and revered them as divine. Humans, deities, animals, plants, and the forces of nature were all manifestations of the same divine "spirit," which the Avestans called mainyu and the Sanskrit-speakers manya. It animated, sustained, and bound them all together.

Over time the Aryans developed a more formal pantheon. At a very early stage, they had worshiped a Sky God called Dyaus Pitr, creator of the world. But like other High Gods, Dyaus was so remote that he was eventually replaced by more accessible gods, who were wholly identified with natural and cosmic forces. Varuna preserved the order of the universe; Mithra was the god of storm, thunder, and life-giving rain; Mazda, lord of justice and wisdom, was linked with the sun and stars; and Indra, a divine warrior, had fought a three-headed dragon called Vritra and brought order out of chaos. Fire, which was crucial to civilized society, was also a god and the Aryans called him Agni. Agni was not simply the divine patron of fire; he was the fire that burned in every single hearth. Even the hallucinogenic plant that inspired the Aryan poets was a god, called Haoma in Avestan and Soma in Sanskrit: he was a divine priest who protected the people from famine and looked after their cattle.

The Avestan Aryans called their gods daevas ("the shining ones") and amesha ("the immortals"). In Sanskrit these terms became devas and amrita. None of these divine beings, however, were what we usually call "gods" today. They were not omnipotent and had no ultimate control over the cosmos. Like human beings and all the natural forces, they had to submit to the sacred order that held the universe together. Thanks to this order, the seasons succeeded one another in due course, the rain fell at the right times, and the crops grew each year in the appointed month. The Avestan Aryans called this order asha, while the Sanskrit-speakers called it rita. It made life possible, keeping everything in its proper place and defining what was true and correct.

Human society also depended upon this sacred order. People had to make firm, binding agreements about grazing rights, the herding of cattle, marriage, and the exchange of goods. Translated into social terms, asha/rita meant loyalty, truth, and respect, the ideals embodied by Varuna, the guardian of order, and Mithra, his assistant. These gods supervised all covenant agreements that were sealed by a solemn oath. The Aryans took the spoken word very seriously. Like all other phenomena, speech was a god, a deva. Aryan religion was not very visual. As far as we know, the Aryans did not make effigies of their gods. Instead, they found that the act of listening brought them close to the sacred. Quite apart from its meaning, the very sound of a chant was holy; even a single syllable could encapsulate the divine. Similarly, a vow, once uttered, was eternally binding, and a lie was absolutely evil because it perverted the holy power inherent in the spoken word. The Aryans would never lose this passion for absolute truthfulness.

Every day, the Aryans offered sacrifices to their gods to replenish the energies they expended in maintaining world order. Some of these rites were very simple. The sacrificer would throw a handful of grain, curds, or fuel into the fire to nourish Agni, or pound the stalks of soma, offer the pulp to the water goddesses, and make a sacred drink. The Aryans also sacrificed cattle. They did not grow enough crops for their needs, so killing was a tragic necessity, but the Aryans ate only meat that had been ritually and humanely slaughtered. When a beast was ceremonially given to the gods, its spirit was not extinguished but returned to Geush Urvan ("Soul of the Bull"), the archetypical domestic animal. The Aryans felt very close to their cattle. It was sinful to eat the flesh of a beast that had not been consecrated in this way, because profane slaughter destroyed it forever, and thus violated the sacred life that made all creatures kin. Again, the Aryans would never entirely lose this profound respect for the "spirit" that they shared with others, and this would become a crucial principle of their Axial Age.

To take the life of any being was a fearful act, not to be undertaken lightly, and the sacrificial ritual compelled the Aryans to confront this harsh law of existence. The sacrifice became and would remain the organizing symbol of their culture, by which they explained the world and their society. The Aryans believed that the universe itself had originated in a sacrificial offering. In the beginning, it was said, the gods, working in obedience to the divine order, had brought forth the world in seven stages. First they created the Sky, which was made of stone like a huge round shell; then the Earth, which rested like a flat dish upon the Water that had collected in the base of the shell. In the center of the Earth, the gods placed three living creatures: a Plant, a Bull, and a Man. Finally they produced Agni, the Fire. But at first everything was static and lifeless. It was not until the gods performed a triple sacrifice-crushing the Plant, and killing the Bull and the Man-that the world became animated. The sun began to move across the sky, seasonal change was established, and the three sacrificial victims brought forth their own kind. Flowers, crops, and trees sprouted from the pulped Plant; animals sprang from the corpse of the Bull; and the carcass of the first Man gave birth to the human race. The Aryans would always see sacrifice as creative. By reflecting on this ritual, they realized that their lives depended upon the death of other creatures. The three archetypal creatures had laid down their lives so that others might live. There could be no progress, materially or spiritually, without self-sacrifice. This too would become one of the principles of the Axial Age.

The Aryans had no elaborate shrines and temples. Sacrifice was offered in the open air on a small, level piece of land, marked off from the rest of the settlement by a furrow. The seven original creations were all symbolically represented in this arena: Earth in the soil, Water in the vessels, Fire in the hearth; the stone Sky was present in the flint knife, the Plant in the crushed soma stalks, the Bull in the victim, and the first Man in the priest. And the gods, it was thought, were also present. The hotr priest, expert in the liturgical chant, would sing a hymn to summon devas to the feast. When they had entered the sacred arena, the gods sat down on the freshly mown grass strewn around the altar to listen to these hymns of praise. Since the sound of these inspired syllables was itself a god, as the song filled the air and entered their consciousness, the congregation felt surrounded by and infused with divinity. Finally the primordial sacrifice was repeated. The cattle were slain, the soma pressed, and the priest laid the choicest portions of the victims onto the fire, so that Agni could convey them to the land of the gods. The ceremony ended with a holy communion, as priest and participants shared a festal meal with the deities, eating the consecrated meat and drinking the intoxicating soma, which seemed to lift them to another dimension of being.

The sacrifice brought practical benefits too. It was commissioned by a member of the community, who hoped that those devas who had responded to his invitation and attended the sacrifice would help him in the future. Like any act of hospitality, the ritual placed an obligation on the divinities to respond in kind, and the hotr often reminded them to protect the patron's family, crops, and herd. The sacrifice also enhanced the patron's standing in the community. Like the gods, his human guests were now in his debt, and by providing the cattle for the feast and giving the officiating priests a handsome gift, he had demonstrated that he was a man of substance. The benefits of religion were purely material and this-worldly. People wanted the gods to provide them with cattle, wealth, and security. At first the Aryans had entertained no hope of an afterlife, but by the end of the second millennium, some were beginning to believe that wealthy people who had commissioned a lot of sacrifices would be able to join the gods in paradise after their death.

This slow, uneventful life came to an end when the Aryans discovered modern technology. In about 1500, they had begun to trade with the more advanced societies south of the Caucasus in Mesopotamia and Armenia. They learned about bronze weaponry from the Armenians and also discovered new methods of transport: first they acquired wooden carts pulled by oxen, and then the war chariot. Once they had learned how to tame the wild horses of the steppes and harness them to their chariots, they discovered the joys of mobility. Life would never be the same again. The Aryans had become warriors. They could now travel long distances at high speed. With their superior weapons, they could conduct lightning raids on neighboring settlements and steal cattle and crops. This was far more thrilling and lucrative than stock breeding. Some of the younger men served as mercenaries in the armies of the southern kingdoms, and became expert in chariot warfare. When they returned to the steppes, they put their new skills to use and started to rustle their neighbors' cattle. They killed, plundered, and pillaged, terrorizing the more conservative Aryans, who were bewildered, frightened, and entirely disoriented, feeling that their lives had been turned upside down.

Violence escalated on the steppes as never before. Even the more traditional tribes, who simply wanted to be left alone, had to learn the new military techniques in order to defend themselves. A heroic age had be-gun. Might was right; chieftains sought gain and glory; and bards celebrated aggression, reckless courage, and military prowess. The old Aryan religion had preached reciprocity, self-sacrifice, and kindness to animals. This was no longer appealing to the cattle rustlers, whose hero was the dynamic Indra, the dragon slayer, who rode in a chariot upon the clouds of heaven. Indra was now the divine model to whom the raiders aspired. "Heroes with noble horses, fain for battle, selected warriors call on me in combat," he cried. "I, bountiful Indra, excite the conflict, I stir the dust, Lord of surpassing vigour!" When they fought, killed, and robbed, the Aryan cowboys felt themselves one with Indra and the aggressive devas who had established the world order by force of arms.

But the more traditional, Avestan-speaking Aryans were appalled by Indra's naked aggression, and began to have doubts about the daevas. Were they all violent and immoral? Events on earth always reflected cosmic events in heaven, so, they reasoned, these terrifying raids must have a divine prototype. The cattle rustlers, who fought under the banner of Indra, must be his earthly counterparts. But who were the daevas attacking in heaven? The most important gods-such as Varuna, Mazda, and Mithra, the guardians of orderwere given the honorific title "Lord" (ahura). Perhaps the peaceful ahuras, who stood for justice, truth, and respect for life and property, were themselves under attack by Indra and the more aggressive daevas? This, at any rate, was the view of a visionary priest, who in about 1200 claimed that Ahura Mazda had commissioned him to restore order to the steppes. His name was Zoroaster.

When he received his divine vocation, the new prophet was about thirty years old and strongly rooted in the Aryan faith. He had probably studied for the priesthood since he was seven years old, and was so steeped in tradition that he could improvise sacred chants to the gods during the sacrifice. But Zoroaster was deeply disturbed by the cattle raids, and after completing his education, he had spent some time in consultation with other priests, and had meditated on the rituals to find a solution to the problem. One morning, while he was celebrating the spring festival, Zoroaster had risen at dawn and walked down to the river to collect water for the daily sacrifice. Wading in, he immersed himself in the pure element, and when he emerged, saw a shining being standing on the riverbank, who told Zoroaster that his name was Vohu Manah ("Good Purpose"). Once he had been assured of Zoroaster's own good intentions, he led him into the presence of the greatest of the ahuras: Mazda, lord of wisdom and justice, who was surrounded by his retinue of seven radiant gods. He told Zoroaster to mobilize his people in a holy war against terror and violence. The story is bright with the promise of a new beginning. A fresh era had dawned: everybody had to make a decision, gods and humans alike. Were they on the side of order or evil?


Basically the Europeans took Avesta and Rigveda and used them to create a PIE home for themselves. They created a history which suited their Christian sensibilities.

Please do analyze the text, and please do consider what is going on here!
Last edited by RajeshA on 13 Jun 2012 22:08, edited 1 time in total.

Adrija
BRFite
Posts: 308
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 19:42

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Adrija » 13 Jun 2012 22:08

ManishHji, thanks for replying to my query.

You made this statement:

At the turn of 2nd millenium BC, the first speakers of a language which is a branch of indo-european family entered Indian subcontinent.


How does that reconcile with the multiple studies done by both foreigners (eg Stephan Oppenhiemer) and Indian (CCMB) that ther eis absolutely NO evidence of any change in the genetic makeup of the Indian population over the entire recorded history?

TIA

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 13 Jun 2012 22:16

RajeshA wrote:Here is something on Sanskrit, that I liked to share here. It is from a blog "uttiSTha bhArata"

The first inefficiency that creeps into the modern languages, originates from the very principle these languages (English, Hindi, German, Japanese etc) are based upon.

That principle is Words represent objects/entities.

This seems to be a very innocent and trivial fact and absolutely harmless. But, we will see later that it is this basic principle that is responsible for many inefficiencies in the modern communication protocols (aka languages). Sanskrit, however, is not based upon the above principle. Rather, in Sanskrit, Words represent properties of objects/entities and not objects/entities themselves.

RajeshA ji, thanks for posting this. I had posted the link to this series of articles in the GDF link language thread and the same thing occurred to me about this OIT/AIT interpretations about "horse". ManishH ji, could you explain how linguistics theory addresses this issue?

Even as far back as Yaska (6th-7th century B.C.), he says that its difficult to guess the meanings of several Vedic usages of Sanskrit. The same author also noted that the word "ashwa" means "nation" (not "horse") in the context of the word "ashwamedha". So it means a sacrifice for the expansion of the nation.

Similarly, "aja" means "goat" in one context, and it means the "unborn soul" in another context.

Similarly "saindhava" (of the ocean) means salt as well as horse. When a grihastha asks for "saindhava" when he is honoring a meal, then it means salt and when he is preparing for a journey then it refers to a horse.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RajeshA » 13 Jun 2012 22:24

Lest it look that all Europeans wish to persevere with AIT and cannot see India taking the throne as Urheimat, I thought it wise to tell that there are indeed Europeans, who are more than willing to give India the throne as the civilizer of Europe.

Here a site by the Wiccan religion:

Shortly after the completion of Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain, a new concept appeared among the people of the Near East, a concept that was eventually to shake the Pagan world to its foundations and almost destroy it. This was the idea of monotheism. It began innocuously enough in the second millennium BCE with the importation of a Hindu God named Dyaus Pitr or Sky Father into the Near East. Dyaus Pitr's name became slightly altered by the peoples among whom he settled. In Greece he became Zeus, in Italy Jupiter and Jove and in Israel Yahweh. In Greece and Italy his arrival accompanied cultural changes, and his cult displaced and augmented but did not destroy the primeval cult of the Mother Goddess and Horned God. Sky Father became the ruler of the Gods, but the other Gods continued to be worshipped. And time passed.


Some believers in Druidism among the Celts also believe that their faith has India as its origin.

The AIT/AMT however remains in the ring being pushed by mostly Christianists, Marxists and Macaulayists and increasingly by Pakis also.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RajeshA » 13 Jun 2012 22:31

Carl ji,

I also know of the link to Sanskrit article series from your post in GDF onlee.

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 13 Jun 2012 22:56

Shiv ji, I understand, I guess you are right, I trying to understand categorization of IE languages when the creation and linking of IE languages with Sanskrit itself is based on nefarious intentions and foundation is fictitious as PIE.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_20317 » 13 Jun 2012 23:46

Bhai log,

These new age Druids and Wiccans are just as dangerous as the worthies like Jihadists, Evangalists, Marxists and Macaulayists. While being generally supportive of the new agers our aim should be on identifying the differences in basic assumptions. It is these assumptions that reach fruition into Theories, Laws and Consensus views and Expert testimonies. I am afraid most of our people will have a great of difficulty reconciling with the matured forms of these new age people. These are tired people not exactly the same thing as Dharam Karam wale log.

Linguists have been at it for so long and yet all they have to show for it is some strange mumbo-jumbo. This is not going to yield them any results. It is an idea that has seen its time go by. Doesn't take 300 years to figure out something as basic as the truth. PIE has shifted around and so has PIE homeland, so many times that it is almost a joke now. While these usual suspects have been holding this as their own brand of 'Rational History', the world around (comprised of naives like myself) knows that this only shows the incompetence of basic logic.

What is needed by our people is not to understand how these people are wrong. Instead our people should be helped to learn how and what is the nature of truth and how to develop skills that help identify truth. Correlation be damned. We are corelated to Pakis. But we have no causation working between the respective fates of Indians and Pakis. The skilled version of causation is what needs to be propagated. The usual suspects are good for some aside, some hansee-thata, some timepass but not as an education unless off course, one has actually started to enjoy needling this cabal like Brhaspati ji does.

Dan Mazer
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 54
Joined: 03 Sep 2009 02:17

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Dan Mazer » 14 Jun 2012 01:51

ManishH wrote:Parts of AIT I agree with :
At the turn of 2nd millenium BC, the first speakers of a language which is a branch of indo-european family entered Indian subcontinent. The language now called 'Vedic Sanskrit' is developed in India, the first snapshot we see of a their language is the ṛgveda.

Parts of AIT I disagree:
I don't think speakers of IE branch ever displaced speakers of Dravidian family. Nor did speakers of IE branch cause the demise of Harrappan cities. I don't think skin colour was a marker of ethnicity for immigrants - language and theology were the markers.

Rig Veda is written in an Indo-European language. But what necessitates the identification of the Rig Veda with Indo-European culture? The only reason appears to be the unwarranted assumption that the Indo-European speakers remained a separate group with a separate culture within N.W.India and that the Indo-European languages were exclusively spoken by them even centuries after their arrival.

tyroneshoes
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 19 Jul 2011 02:46

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby tyroneshoes » 14 Jun 2012 03:18

मनीष,

कः वृत्तान्तः ? बुद्धिमान् विवेकी सन् अपि भवान् किमर्थम् एतत् अवगन्तुं न शक्तवान्


Parts of AIT I agree with :
At the turn of 2nd millenium BC, the first speakers of a language which is a branch of indo-european family entered Indian subcontinent. The language now called 'Vedic Sanskrit' is developed in India, the first snapshot we see of a their language is the ṛgveda.

SIVC started conservatively around 8000 BP, mature phase 5000 - 4000 BP and by 3700 BP the cities were abandoned.
This means by your agreement, the PIE speakers came into the Sapta-Sindu Valley. Notice what this means, this means they moved in without opposition and occupied the lands and created new Pura (tiny fortifications), never learnt the fortification of citadels, granaries, ports, civilized sewarage systems of the local people, etc., but rather invented the caste system to keep the SDRE locals (who ironically, had a superior sense of hygiene and civilization than the nomads) at bay. This narrative sounds too good to be true.

If SIVC decline in 3700 BP is related to climate change and that theory holds, if anything, it can be shown that dispersal occured to the West, North-West and to the East, South-East of the Sapta-Sindu region. A civilization of nearly, 1,260,000 km² (largest Ancient civilization in the World), spanning more than 5000 years disappears without a trace to be replaced by 'Vedic Sanskrit' brought in by nomads from the Steppe.

How does a Pastoral Nomad spring forth the 'Nasadiya Sukta?' These verses remain unmatched even to present day. By your mis-theory the Nomad did a Kalidasa, when he met the remanants of the SIVC people. One has to be patience to 'suffer fools' to take this bull seriously!

Parts of AIT I disagree:
I don't think speakers of IE branch ever displaced speakers of Dravidian family. Nor did speakers of IE branch cause the demise of Harrappan cities. I don't think skin colour was a marker of ethnicity for immigrants - language and theology were the markers.

So, the language and theology of a civilization like the SIVC was non-existant or disappeared without a trace? Where were these speakers of South Indian languages? If they peacefully dispersed down southwards into India, would they not have any memory of that recorded in later texts? Neither do the incoming Nomads record their migration in the Rig Veda, nor do the South Indian Language speakers record it in their texts? So, on what substrate do you dare make this conjecture?

Problems with current OIT theories:
- Current evidence of horse domestication is not in favour of Indian origin
- An OIT which makes Vedic Sanskrit the origin of all of IE family is phonetically unsound
- An OIT which makes PIE or Proto-Sanskrit originate in India is more viable; but still lacks corroboration from horse domestication evidence.

What is of Indian Origin, the horse, its domestication or the language and theology? Can you prove that horses were not imported from the Steppes? Why are the Gods BULLS and not horses? They remain BULLS even in the West, did Europe domesticate cow before the Indians?

Who gives a flying *&^%@ what Indo-European Linguists think of phonetics. They stand a discredited lot by peddling NON-SCIENCE. Linguists best stick to the business of Linguistics and leave the business of history to those ameanable to scientific methods.

No issues with your last point, everyone agrees with the motherhood argument of more research is needed.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 14 Jun 2012 08:51

Folks I would like to make a few points about phonetics, language and writing. Speech - that is the sounds we make to communicate came first. Writing came later and at least in the "Indo-European" context all alphabet is phonetic. That is to say that individual alphabets represent sounds. You look at the alphabet, mentally translate it into a sound and blurt it out.

But are alphabets absolutely accurate in representing sound? Can you just see the alphabet, learn the sounds it represents and then produce words exactly? No. Sounds are related to context. Vision is also involved in interpreting speech. This basically means that if you have an alphabet, you cannot guarantee that you are pronouncing words right.

I ask you to watch this very interesting video that illustrates the relationship between vision and sound. Just 3 min 30 sec. More on the topic later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ManishH » 14 Jun 2012 09:20

shiv wrote:I am speaking of the "across the board" killing of Indian and Hindu identity and generally dissing and dismissing as useless anything from India


I'm aware of early colonial and racial biases. I've spoken against them on this thread myself - eg. Wheeler's interpretation of 'pur' as cities. Then opposition to Max-Muller's interpretation of certain ṛgvedic passages as referring to conflict between white v/s black skin.

I believe that you are deeply knowledgeable and you talk like a professor,


Neither am I deeply knowledgable, nor a professor.

but you show very little insight about why linguistics is untrusted by Indians and when your disagreements are scathing or dismissive,


I agree - I did not know the depth of distrust when I started in the thread.

or even triumphalist you are setting up "challenges" for people to oppose.


There is no triumphalism - I've always said that X is what I believe based on evidence Y. If you have countering evidence Z, please do share; and even if you don't have Z, you don't have to believe X based on Y.

Nor have I used a word like 'challenge'. Discussions are not duels - but opportunities for sharing knowledge.

Feebly as it turns out because you are the only expert in your field on here.


I'm not even an expert, forget 'only'.

Your name is Indian but your views are deeply westernized.


Compartmentalizing people's views is narrow thinking. I haven't made such classifications on even my most vociferous opponents.

There will be some blowback, right or wrong. That is the way the world works.


Perceptive comment there. I agree.

ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ManishH » 14 Jun 2012 09:30

Carl wrote:RajeshA ji, thanks for posting this. I had posted the link to this series of articles in the GDF link language thread and the same thing occurred to me about this OIT/AIT interpretations about "horse". ManishH ji, could you explain how linguistics theory addresses this issue?


I agree with the difficulty of translating some passages. Your point about 'aja' (goat versus unborn) is right on the spot.

Analysis of ṛgveda needs both knowledge of Indian tradition and comparative linguistics. The branch that deals with analysis of texts is bhāśya or philology.

If you have any specific passages that you think are wilfully distorted in meaning, we can discuss them here or GDF.

Similarly "saindhava" (of the ocean) means salt as well as horse.


Interesting, I didn't know that.

ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ManishH » 14 Jun 2012 09:43

Adrija wrote:How does that reconcile with the multiple studies done by both foreigners (eg Stephan Oppenhiemer) and Indian (CCMB) that ther eis absolutely NO evidence of any change in the genetic makeup of the Indian population over the entire recorded history?


I'm sure many of the human genetic lines originate in India. But for dispersal of IE languages, what is most relevant is the post-bronze age horse and chariot vocabulary that the IE languages share.

The wiki summarizes 12 different reports from geneticists, which place R1a sometimes in India, and sometimes in eurasia. Being a non-specialist, I await better consensus on this matter.

So if you have more conclusive studies, or esp studies on ancient DNA (DNA collected from dated human remains), please do share. TIA

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 14 Jun 2012 09:45

tyroneshoes wrote:मनीष,

कः वृत्तान्तः ? बुद्धिमान् विवेकी सन् अपि भवान् किमर्थम् एतत् अवगन्तुं न शक्तवान्

प्रतिपक्षिताः सन्ति मनीषिणः -

त्याज्यं दोषवद् इत्येके
AIT प्राहुर् मनीषिणः ।
प्रतिभासान् तु भाषासु
न त्याज्यं इति चापरे ॥

अश्वारोहि व्यावल्गति इतस्ततः ।
परित्यजिता गो-खराः । :mrgreen:
Last edited by Agnimitra on 14 Jun 2012 09:48, edited 1 time in total.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Murugan » 14 Jun 2012 09:47

shiv wrote:...
I think one of the most galling things for the Indian is to learn that the language of his forbears is not only the oldest spoken language but also the best preserved. The rules for preservation of that language were established by 1500 BC as per modern dating methods.

It is the "discovery" of this language that alerted the world to the possibility of related languages and a root language. Every other related language has been free to morph itself and change pronunciation over time. They have changed and have kept on changing at rates that are unpredictable and from influences that are random. Sanskrit on the other hand has been like a solid rock with astounding rules for the creation of roots for words and preserving the sound and meaning over time. No other language group has done that. So this, by itself is the work of genius. Comparative linguistics has gained a huge database of knowledge simply because of the existence of Sanskrit that could be used to cross check against anything else.
...
And yet Sanskrit has been studied by crass people with parochial, even racist interests. Blind, ignorant men who dismiss Sanskrit literature as less than 3rd grade knowledge in Britain (Macaulay 1854 or so) and nitpickers who ask for horse remains to prove that Sanskrit has Indian origins.
...

That is what happened to the current mess that is called the caste system. Jatis, that we all still live by is turned into an accusation of "caste". The same "jati" system is glossed over as "ethinicity" in Pakistan, although Pakistanis actually link social status and varna with jati even today. Western scholarship and its absurd reductionism (of which PIE is an example) has made a mess of many things that come out of india. There is not enough trust of that western scholarship on the issue of linguistics because of its fundamentally racist, biased and blinkered origins. I believe explanations of jati and varna exist in Sanskrit literature. What did western scholarship do to try and reconcile that with societal practices. Nothing. Understanding India was never a priority, despite the veneer of science. On the other hand they were busy trying to fluff up their own racial prejudices about Aryans and fair skinned people versus the rest. Nothing in the way Sanskrit has been read inspires confidence. It has been used where it is convenient and discarded where it is inconvenient. Of course we cannot demand that non Indians should not do that. After all, why would they care? But Indians do care.

...


Shiv - ji

This post sums up everything necessary for 'understanding' PIE thingy. Namastubhyam !

While 'jati system' is glossed over as "ethniciy" in Pakistan, 'jati system' is known as nationhood amongst Europeans, being practiced to the extent of untouchability.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 14 Jun 2012 10:01

ManishH wrote:
Your name is Indian but your views are deeply westernized.


Compartmentalizing people's views is narrow thinking. I haven't made such classifications on even my most vociferous opponents.

Apologies if I caused offence. But your views do come across exactly as I have said. My language has erred in saying that "you" are that way. You may not be, but your posts come across that way. In the absence of visual cues that one gets in face to face conversations, "you" become what you say. Hence my error, and one that I am quick to point out if others make it.

It is ironic that such an error must come out in this thread, but it goes to show the vast gulf between the spoken word and the written word. This is precisely why the written words of the rig Veda may never exactly indicate what was meant by the author. We attribute meanins to the written word and look for proof to support that.
Last edited by shiv on 14 Jun 2012 10:02, edited 1 time in total.

ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ManishH » 14 Jun 2012 10:02

tyroneshoes wrote:
How does a Pastoral Nomad spring forth the 'Nasadiya Sukta?' These verses remain unmatched even to present day.


Can people who don't live in the same dwelling all year around not have achievements of intellect ? I think not, this is also a mārga.

Adi Śankara travelled the breadth of India interacting with other intellectuals and founded an entire school of philosophy besides reviving sanātana dharma.

So, the language and theology of a civilization like the SIVC was non-existant or disappeared without a trace?


Who said that ? When their seals are deciphered, I'm sure we will discover many of our beliefs belong to that civilization. Even without decipherment, I think yakṣa, paśupati can be traced to there.

Where were these speakers of South Indian languages? If they peacefully dispersed down southwards into India, would they not have any memory of that recorded in later texts?


You haven't read what I wrote. I do not think Dravidian languages were displaced by arrival of the IE branch.

Linguists best stick to the business of Linguistics and leave the business of history to those ameanable to scientific methods.


And otherwise ? :-)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 14 Jun 2012 10:18

ManishH wrote:I'm sure many of the human genetic lines originate in India. But for dispersal of IE languages, what is most relevant is the post-bronze age horse and chariot vocabulary that the IE languages share.
<snip>

So if you have more conclusive studies, or esp studies on ancient DNA (DNA collected from dated human remains), please do share. TIA


You have access to "conclusive studies" that "post-bronze age horse and chariot vocabulary that the IE languages share" are "the most relevant"? If these "conclusive studies" are based on phonetics and reconstruction of dead languages, I am afraid it is highly suspect and nowhere near conclusive.

As I have pointed out time and again, reconstructed proto languages based on a theory that one such language must have existed earlier is not "conclusive proof". What linguists are doing is working backwards from 400 languages and claiming one one single line. After constructing that single line, that hypothetical construct is then being applied to archaeology and history. I think we have gone through this several times. What you are talking about is a hypothesis. Not "conclusive studies"

I accused you of setting up "challenges". You do not need to use the word challenge to set up a challenge. But that is what you have done in your post above. You have asserted that your view represents the truth in terms of what is "most relevant" (which it is not) and are requesting that the other party supply you with "more conclusive studies" . We all want to discuss and learn. Maybe you do not intend to come across as adamant and combative while you claim to want to share information, but your post above is a good example of how your words come across to me, if not others.

ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ManishH » 14 Jun 2012 10:33

An example of how palatalization happens even now. Phonetic theory says that the bolded syllable in 1st pāda is susceptible to be palatalized, but not the bolded one in 2nd pāda

From agni sūkta ...
RV_01.001.03.1{01} agninā rayimaśnavat poṣameva dive-dive
RV_01.001.03.2{01} yaśasaṃ vīravattamam

This is a recording of the above mantra by a trained vedic paṇḍit which shows a palatalization of rayim -> rajim. But yaśasaṃ is unaffected ...

View My Video
(C) Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture

Phonetic changes like these begin as unconscious changes. Even those who make these mistakes are surprised when pointed to by others.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RajeshA » 14 Jun 2012 10:39

Talking about challenges, I would like to take the opportunity to thank ManishH ji for his contributions on this thread. Through his scholarship he has indeed challenged us intellectually.

I am grateful for all those challenges. I am sure all those who have felt challenged have indeed become better informed about the nature of the AIT challenge. Such challenges help us to come up with better arguments, better referenced arguments. They spurn us to read more on the subject. So ManishH ji has helped us all to become better Rakshaks of the OIT. :wink:

We can all have our suspicions about the ideological and political affiliations of ManishH, but considering both his respectfulness and courtesy to others in this discussion as well as the quality of training he is giving all of us, his political and ideological leanings should be immaterial.

Also OIT is winning anyway .... :)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby shiv » 14 Jun 2012 10:52

ManishH wrote:An example of how palatalization happens even now. Phonetic theory says that the bolded syllable in 1st pāda is susceptible to be palatalized, but not the bolded one in 2nd pāda

From agni sūkta ...
RV_01.001.03.1{01} agninā rayimaśnavat poṣameva dive-dive
RV_01.001.03.2{01} yaśasaṃ vīravattamam

This is a recording of the above mantra by a trained vedic paṇḍit which shows a palatalization of rayim -> rajim. But yaśasaṃ is unaffected ...

View My Video
(C) Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture

Phonetic changes like these begin as unconscious changes. Even those who make these mistakes are surprised when pointed to by others.


Sorry Manish. This is hardly a good example although I admit being enchanted by the mellifluous recitation and could listen for hours. There are at least two voices doing the recitation and that actually confuses the issue. That apart, pronunciation in speech is linked to vision as shown in the video I posted earlier. What did the man LOOK like he was saying when he recited that? Interpretation of sounds is dependent on that and that impacts directly on sound transcription into written language. decoding ancient languages frm written language is hostage to this flaw, apart from phonetic inaccuracies of a given alphabet when seen out of context.

The fact that palatization might occur and might even occur inadvertently and as a rule is not in doubt. Human speech itself requires constant practice and reinforcement if it is not to change an become unintelligible in a generation. Given the drawbacks I have listed above, the rectroactive construct upon construct upon construct using these general rules by which a single language has been made up from 400 grand-daughter languages is what is highly suspect. I don't think any linguist will worry about anyone saying that. But what makes it worse is to take that reconstructed proto language and to apply it prospectively from a date fixed by archaeological or other means. That is a double bluff. It requires the ignoring and glossing over of any errors created by backward reconstruction of 400 languages into one common proto language and compounds those errors by combining them with archaeological fact.

ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ManishH » 14 Jun 2012 10:57

shiv wrote:You have access to "conclusive studies" that "post-bronze age horse and chariot vocabulary that the IE languages share" are "the most relevant"? If these "conclusive studies" are based on phonetics and reconstruction of dead languages, I am afraid it is highly suspect and nowhere near conclusive.


Shiv: even if you believe PIE and all reconstructions are trash. The fact that the word for horse, wagon vocabulary including parts like spokes, axle, shaft pole etc are shared between wide groups of attested (not reconstructed) IE branches is there. Sometime back, I posted a map of wagon vocabulary too.

Reposting IE horse cognates:
aśva (skt), ašvienis (lithuanian) equus (latin), hippos (greek), yakwe (toharian), azuwa (luwian)

Contrast to other language families:
uma (japanese), kudure (kannada), hevonen (finnish), aygir/beygir (turkic)

Combine dated archaeological evidence of early horse domestication, development of chariotry in Eurasia with this data.

I have no issues if you judge this inconclusive. But I won't call you adamant or combative :-)


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests