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.
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 11:05

aygir/beygir (turkic)

Does not look similar to sanskrit Hayagriv ? (horse headed avatar of vishnu)

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 11:16

shiv wrote: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?


No idea; I got it off a CD. If you like it, suggest buying it. Address etc. on http://vedhah.com Some of their CDs have kannada/hindi/english commentary too.

As students, we were made to face the teacher and set the vocal pitch to his hand signals. No looking at face.

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

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

Postby member_20317 » 14 Jun 2012 11:16

Shivji the archeological mistakes will get rectified by archeology itself. The same cannot be said of Linguistics.

Shivji everytime you see people getting angry at each other (without following through on hot words) it is a potential miscarriage for Linguistics. That is why at least one member here wants Linguistics to start concentrating on the real business of serving the discipline of medicine. Until such time they do that, instead of the (tona-totka that they actually do) they are going to get it as good as they give. At times this even deteriorates into campus fights and while such incidents are poor representations of our way of life, there is hardly anything we can do about them. Its just two bunch of morons trying to get above themselves. Best ignored.

But yes I agree with RajeshA ji. This thread is indeed a very fruitful one. Prior to this thread I did not understand Linguistics, now I know I don’t need to. All thanks to ManishH ji. Genetics has already gone against Linguistics, archeology itself has begun going against it. Linguistics today stands in strange matrimony to AIT/AMT. AIT was fun to debunk, AMT promises the same, in time people will look at linguistics like they do at Geocentricism. Prior to this thread it was quite a chore going to several yahu groups trying to figure out the truth. Here everything was served on a platter.

Thanks to every body involved in this thread.

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 11:18

As students, we were made to face the teacher and set the vocal pitch to his hand signals. No looking at face.


We were asked to look at the face also. Studying vedic rituals from RigVedi guru.

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

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

Postby member_20317 » 14 Jun 2012 11:24

^^^ think again Murugan ji, face or hand does it really matter. Both require a subjective understanding of what is expected. Hand being used is just a misdirection.

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 11:30

Got it!

***

The RigVedis have different kind of hand signs compared to yajurvedis. Even some letters are pronounced in very different way by rigvedis and yajurvedis

e.g.,

Swastina Pusha vishwa veda: and swastina pukha vishwa veda:

in many places, the Sha (ष) is pronounced as kha (ख) , and the kha (ख) is written as Sha (ष).

what is spoken is not necessarily written. what is written is spoken differently

Even Shukla Yajurvedi and Krishna Yajurvedi pronounce certain letters in different way.

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

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

Postby tyroneshoes » 14 Jun 2012 11:47

मनीष,

भवान् कुतः आगच्छति? भवान् कुत्र गच्छति ? इन्द्र एव जानाति :mrgreen:
For all I know you are a 'set up bot' to provide intellectual stimulus to the thread ;-)
That is as far as I will go to question your motives or ideological leanings... :P
Your ideas, on the other hand are nice set ups for debate! So thank you.

ManishH wrote:
tyroneshoes wrote:
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.



The question seems fair and scholarly, but for the fact that it does not answer the original question.
Sankara was the product of a sedentary civilization, his taking Sanyasa cannot be called a nomad or nomadic.

Can you educate me on one great philosopher (not Angirasa, Atri, Vashista, etc. if you understand what I mean), but one nomad from anywhere in the world, who came up with the profound speculation of the origins of the Universe? That is he/she were from a nomadic culture.
Hard to pontificate when one is on the move and always busy doing things... don't you think?

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.


What language did the people of SIVC speak?
If Yaksa and Pasupati were there (because you see seals), how did they get these before the PIEspeakers showing up in SIVC?
Huntington's take on Harappa Seals

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


So, it is your contention that the South Indian Language speakers still remained in South India quite unaware of their northern neighbors. So when did the borrowing of loan words from South into Sanskrit occur? Or did it?

And otherwise ? :-)


పిచుక మీద భ్రహ్మస్త్రం
Expect to be appropriately challenged! :mrgreen:

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 14 Jun 2012 13:23

One could say Harappans were aliens. They had set up an intelligence listening post in Harappa and surroundings for a few thousand years, and when they found out that the Central Asian Aryans were coming south, they knew their cover would be blown sooner or later, so they took their old spaceships and left Earth for Centauri Prime.

Like any intelligence operation, they made sure not to leave too many documents behind so they threw them in the shredder. They did not have any horses because they did not need horses. They had their speeder bikes and various landspeeders. That was the reason they made such planned cities with straight roads - for easy cruising.

There may still be some Harappan E.T. they left behind, whom we could track down, but otherwise there is no chance we will find out more about them.

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 13:35

Harappan seals are Decoys! PIE guys are still trapped ! They are seeing all these things thru' their powerful scopes and laughing loud but with their mouths covered!

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 14:34

ManishH wrote: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.


I accept the shared words and their assumed common origin. I am only disputing conclusions about their origins. Will expand and write my thoughts on this in due course.

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

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

Postby member_20317 » 14 Jun 2012 15:46

Allah
Salaam-wa-e-kum
Bitch
Jaat-Paat
Secularism and all the other 'isms'
Bull
Rich
High
Fidelity
song and dance
Ghodu (a slang on Ghoda/Horse)
Hung
KLP Dubey

My writing in English will in some remote future lead a Linguist to the conclusion that my civilization was influenced by the Anglophone/Brit civilization. But mine was in existence long before the Anglophone world came into being and I do not use my English the way other English speaking people do. I have already twisted their grammer. The words do not necessarily mean the same thing coming from my mouth as theirs. Even the root usage is different. And while I spend say 3 hours using English to understand and be understood by others, there is still the other 21 hours where I do with English what i want to. It is exactly the same thing as saying that 'place value system of numerals' even though started with Indics and later on adopted by the Anglophones, does not bring them any nearer or farther from each other and there is hardly any influence at work.

An influence implies some attraction or some repulsion. As in north pole influences north pole as well as the south pole in different ways. But if for their own reasons both the poles decide not to attract or repulse each other and instead decide to be random in their behaviour then there is hardly any influence. In such a case whatever any of the poles decides to do has to be studied independent of the other. The same off course goes for words too. As they say words are cheap. Cheap as in not important enough to be santified. In such a world where words can mean anything, you need to consider multiple origins (in different minds) of the exact same word in one single language.

One of the biggest problems is the definations of the words being thrown about casually by Linguists and Historians. That could be one of the reason why some of the BRF members of a technical bent, are not even visiting this thread let alone post here.

The words above are a list that I could think of in 10-15 minutes that do not even mean the same thing in all places and at all times. How does one base any comparative judgement on such slippery grounds.

So Shivji while in your case you "accept the shared words and their assumed common origin", MHO is that you are not exactly on level ground here if you actually want to "only disputing conclusions about their origins". Because Aswa can mean different things in different minds and at different times because they have different origins.

Shiv ji, the closing balance of your bank statement may have an error not only because the transactions shown are in error but because the opening balance is in error. The map to the treasure even if followed to the T in good faith may not give you the treasure if your starting point on the map and on the ground do not match.

Dare I say Shiv ji you are conceeding too much.

Also Xhamadaan Shiv ji for challenging you suchway.

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 16:04

ravi_g wrote:Dare I say Shiv ji you are conceeding too much.

No It's OK. The words are similar in many ways, I accept that. I don't have to be right. I might be wrong, but if I am right I have to show why I might be right. It is the hypothesized reason for the similarity that I am disputing. I have a hypothesis that I will post in due course but I am proposing Sanskrit or a language very close to Sanskrit as one proto language - but I need to explain why I am saying that.

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 14 Jun 2012 16:29

One thing we need to study is that Vedic Sanskrit may indeed not be the parent of the Indo-European languages in the Out-of-India Model.

Vedic Sanskrit could itself have been a "high" language, itself created specifically for knowledge preservation and diffusion. So the languages which left India as part of the various migrations were proto-Vedic Sanskrit language(s).

These were the Prakrit languages, languages then spoken by the people at that time.

As Vedic Sanskrit is itself a further evolution of these Prakrit languages, Vedic Sanskrit may in fact be the wrong candidate to consider as the Indian interface to the family of Indo-European languages.

So the Proto-Vedic Sanskrit Languages from India may in fact be a PIE, but still not be anything close to what the AIT proponents have conjured 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 » 14 Jun 2012 16:53

RajeshA ji, I also am inclined to the hypothesis you have put forth twice on this tread now. Languages are not a digital phenomena that have a start and end point. Chances are languages do not even require one to be human to use it. And since people have been moving around whether from or into India and whether from or into populated/virgin areas, surely they have taken their languages wherever they went and it is these languages in all likelihood that Shivji keeps mentioning (90% corpus that is not common amongst various IE languages).

Now for purpose of intellectual stimulation of some better trained individuals perhaps some amount of Sanskrit may have flowed outside India alongwith the thoughts first and originally put down in Sanskrit (though even this is speculative). However even in this case Sanskrit is only as much a mother of all languages as it is a mother of the 4 south Indian languages which obviously it is not.

Again Sanskrit not being the mother of all languages does not preclude a cultural movement out of India. Logic may carry any syntax but that does not take away from the logic its essence. It is the logic of Indics which again does not work exactly like the linear logic force fed to us, that is actually the only thing that can perhaps be traced as going out of India. Here again we have to be careful and not simply assume that the people prior to ones who actually took the logic out of India were idiots. Which basically ties up the out of India movement of the Indic logic to the actual movement of people.

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 14 Jun 2012 18:07

ravi_g ji,

as far as I know, Sanskrit in India is not considered as the mother of Indian languages. The Prakrits have had their place in India as the spoken languages with Sanskrit being the language of knowledge and spirituality and as a link language for Bharat and beyond. Sanskrit was a parallel phenomenon to Prakrits both interacting with each other in a variety of ways.

Prakrits borrowed words from Sanskrit as any Prakrit felt the need to expand its own horizons of understanding.

This model however does not fit PIE linguistics. PIE linguistics demand a hierarchical model of relationship between languages, the daughter languages evolving from the mother language, and some allowance given to substratum language.

If Indics migrated abroad, sure there would have been learned people among them too, people who knew Sanskrit and Ayurveda, etc. but there were also just the common people who spoke some dialect of some archaic Prakrit language.

Now as this (proto-Vedic Sanskrit + dialect A of some proto-Prakrit X) speaking combo moved outside of the Subcontinent to the North or to the West, they must have come across other ethnic groups, either those who had similarly moved out of India at an earlier date and would have spoken (some dialect B of some proto-Prakrit Y) along with some previous proto-Vedic Sanskrit, or these people would have met with people who spoke completely different languages, say Language L.

If these two groups were to mix up, the group speaking Language L would adopt many of the words from the migrant people, especially those pertaining to trade and trade-able items. Should the Indian group get to dominate the native group politically and academically, then yes they would be able to impose proto-Vedic Sanskrit and Prakrit X on the others - something similar to how Urdu formed.

Actually Urdu is a very good example of how a language develops when a foreigner migrant group enters a region and dominates the local people. As Indians in various places in India adopted Urdu, be it Delhi, Lucknow, Bhopal or Hyderabad, they started using Arabic and Persian words in their vocabulary. Now what rules are the evolutionary linguists or comparative linguists going to show how the pronunciation of Arabic and Persian words changed when Indians started using them? I've heard Arabs speaking some words we know from Urdu and they sound quite different.

Now the only rule of how some Arabic or Persian word would be pronounced in the various places in India are solely dependent on the articulation style of the locals. If one doesn't know the "articulation style" of the locals, you cannot predict how a word would change its pronunciation when imported into a language.

Also let's say someday Indian Muslims were to conquer Mecca and become the guardians of the two holy mosques and further define the language one spoke in the region, some form of Urdu. Would the linguists of the future be able to say in which direction the common words between Urdu and Arabic really changed? They may think Urdu is the mother language of Arabic!!!!

One can talk about directionality of change (in pronunciation) of a language, or more specifically of its subset of vocabulary, when comparing two languages, only if one has archaeological knowledge about who had what influence on the other, who became the dominant group, who pushed through the vocabulary making it common.

The AIT linguists are creating hypothetical languages based on their idea of history and then dictating the direction of language change using various phonetic axioms, and then claiming that since this language change is unidirectional one should accept their version of history.

In the whole cauldron of Indo-European language studies, the only two languages which really belong in the family are the Iranian and the Indian branches. Those two are in themselves related closely. That we can deduce simply from literary evidence - Rigvedic and Avestan similarities as well as references to each other.

The rest are a consequence of when Indic migratory waves splashed on the shores of Caucasian people, with the Caucasians taking up some of the Indic or Indo-Iranic vocabulary and in this process changing the pronunciation. And this evolution may have had so many stages with other influences on the resultant languages that even they would have changed.

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 14 Jun 2012 18:08

approximately 25% of spanish words are arabic in origin and are clearly an import from the moorish period of spanish history. however the spanish are not massively genetically of north african descent. the majority of words that stayed are related to knowledge or technology that the spanish did not possess but the arabs did (much of it originating in India!)

i would posit that a superior indic culture exported its words of superior concepts outwards to lesser cultured people via the medium of sanskrit or protosanskrit


(rajesh ji - thanks for the reminder on prakrit)

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

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

Postby member_20317 » 14 Jun 2012 18:21

See RajeshA ji, the example given by Lalmohan ji does not even require any contact between the starting point and end point. Which is how coincidently the 'place value system' also travelled. If so with Maths then why not with Language too.

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 14 Jun 2012 18:32

ravi_g ji,

there is this game called "telephone" or "Chinese whispers".

People sit in a circle or a line. Then you whisper something into the ear of your neighbor, who whispers it further along to his neighbor, and so on, until it comes to the end of the line. Then the original and the terminal are compared, and often they are different.

Of course Vedic Śrauta would still beat the game, but not all Central Asian Aryans were addicted to Śrauta, right?

So yes, I think not every proto-Lithuanian or proto-Celt were taught Sanskrit words personally by Sanskrit masters. It was more of a chain extending over thousands of years.

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 14 Jun 2012 19:06

and those same arabic words of indic origin transported to the new world are now spoken by the descendants of incas and aztecs and mayas...

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

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

Postby RamaY » 14 Jun 2012 19:18

Prakrit = Natural language whereas Samskrit = One that is refined/formalized?

For example even Telugu has its prakriti. Remember we read the Prakriti/Vikriti of each word?

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 19:22

All "normal" languages change over time. They "split" into dialects and some can move off and form entirely new languages. If 25 languages form from one root language, they will all be different from the original language in some way, while they retain similarities with the original and each other. This is the fundamental observation on which people claim a "proto-Indo European language"

But imagine when there is a root language that has just recently split off into two slightly different languages on either side of a river or mountain. Perhaps there has not been much contact between the two groups that may have split off and could not find each other again. (Avalanche blocking off a pass?) How different will these two languages be? The chances are that if the separation has occurred just 200-300 years previously, there will not be major differences (provided there is no admixture from any other language). Speakers of one tongue will likely be able to follow the other language fairly well barring some differences.

Now imagine that one of these two languages gets "frozen" so that it does not change at all for 4000 years. After 4000 years what is the relationship of the preserved language with the "proto language" that split originally and the other sister language that was across the river/blocked mountain pass?

Obviously what we have after 4000 years is one language that is very very similar to some proto language 4300 years ago and a what a sister language may have been 4000 years ago. What has happened to the sister language? The sister language has, in the meantime split up into hundreds of dialects and languages and mixed with other languages and now retains only a vague similarity to the original language of 4000 years ago.

If you now have to discover the root language of these multiple languages you don't have to move back and do phonetic calisthenics/backwards somersaults. You have the original languages almost fully preserved intact in the language that has survived unchanged for 4000 years.

You can bet your left ball (both balls if you like) that the so called "proto Indo-Iranian" language was almost the same as Sanskrit. This is the so called "satem" group. Now for the centum group.

Imagine the original point when satem and centum split off. Once again there must have been a time when the two root languages of satem and centum must have been very similar. That means that there was a "centum" sister language to the "satem" Indo Iranian root. But we already know that the original Indo-Iranian root was almost the same as Sanskrit. You can be sure that the centum root that went to Europe was also pretty similar to Sanskrit at some remote time in the past. So once again, it you want to look for a Proto-Indo Eurpean, Sanskrit itself gives you a very good idea of what it might have been.

There is piskology here folks. I kid you not. And as you know pisko affects leaders, scientists, linguists, archaeologists, phrenologists, philologists, historians, everyone, Even Pakis.

if you already have a mental picture that some language came to India and then became Sanskrit you will be hit by the disbelief of cognitive dissonance when someone suggests the most likely obvious theory and you will go into denial. A language that is preserved perfectly for 4000 years is by definition a language that existed exactly as it was 4000 years ago. And all sister and parent languages must have been similar. Certainly more similar to those old languages than any other existing langauge today.

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 14 Jun 2012 19:26

you can see the above effect clearly in nordic languages. norwegians, danes and swedes understand each other with some effort but their languages have evolved through contact with the mainland of europe - and latinisation. icelandic, which began as old norse has remained far less changed and is closer to the language that the forefathers of norwegians, danes and swedes would have spoken

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 14 Jun 2012 19:28

If somebody can do this, I would like them to do an experiment

People may be aware of the British comedy "Mind your language"! Lots of foreign students learning English. How about a "Mind you Sanskrit!" scenario. If we collect a motley bunch of people Tamil, Punjabi, Japanese, Hutu, Cherokee, aboriginal Australian, Arab, French! Then we play "Chinese Whispers" with them. We whisper some Sanskrit word and then record what comes out at the other end of the chain.

And then we ask our AIT linguists to find the PIE for that "French" word without him knowing the meaning other than sufficing him with the information that it is a Indo-European word! Let's see if he can produce the original Sanskrit word using his various phonetic axioms - PIE > Skt.

For the fun of it, we can do it again with another Sanskrit word, this time requiring that each participant wait 5 min. before telling the word to the neighboring participant.

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 19:46

Lalmohan wrote:you can see the above effect clearly in nordic languages. norwegians, danes and swedes understand each other with some effort but their languages have evolved through contact with the mainland of europe - and latinisation. icelandic, which began as old norse has remained far less changed and is closer to the language that the forefathers of norwegians, danes and swedes would have spoken


There is piskology in this issue. i am dead serious.

Ever since European "scholars" "discovered" sanskrit in India all publications for over 200 years have centered around how a language simlar to Greek and Latin got INTO India rather than how languages may have formed and spread.

99% of all references to "Indo-European" language and Sanskrit to this day assume that the language or a proto language somehow came INTO India form "elsewhere" and every effort has gone into fitting the "into India" square peg into the round hole of the most ancient and most well developed language. Even a stupid half wit scientist, after 200 years should pause and ask, "What if this is not the right story?". Sanskrit really does provide a picture of what ALL Indo European languages were like 4000 or maybe even 5000 years ago (who the fuk dated the Rig Veda? ) Maybe we need to look at origins elsewhere. Instead of that the buggers perform these insufferable lingusitic backward calisthenics with every chance of error at every step.

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 19:49

RajeshA wrote:If somebody can do this, I would like them to do an experiment

If we on BR are willing to cooperate, something like this can be done. Get voice samples of multiple people saying the name "Oswald". Mallus, Punjus, Bongs, Cowbeltwalas, Tamilians and assorted Idlidosawalas, and the odd firangi or the propah angrez fellows.

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 14 Jun 2012 20:07

the piskology issue is clear to me shiv saar, its not going to change until MASSIVE amounts of indian driven historical research takes place

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 14 Jun 2012 20:13

shiv saar,

the idea was a bit different.

Let's say there is a chain of people of different ethnicities (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j). Now let's say we tell "a" a word in Sanskrit, say some arbitrary word कस्तूरिकातिसौरभ. Then the word is transferred orally along the chain. "a" tells the word to "b", "b" tells it to "c", "c" tells it to "d", and so on. The word is never transferred in written form. Nobody knows what its written form looks like. Then we record what "j" says in the end.

Now knowing "j"'s Indo-European ethnicity, the AIT Linguist needs to map the oral word into its PIE equivalent using whatever PIE axioms are used for the PIE-j's language duo. When one has PIE, then one tries to ascertain what its Sanskrit equivalent would be. If the words are the same, then one could suspect that PIE does indeed have some legitimacy. Otherwise the model is broken.

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

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

Postby member_22872 » 14 Jun 2012 20:42

^^^ Rajesh ji,
That was my question too :

venug:But how does one verify that one particular sound we are analyzing was pronounced exactly the way it used to be when the language was born? what if the phonetics changed over time? how does one account for degeneration and/or varying of sounds? how does one know? through records? what if there are no written records? what if like vedic indians, many generations pass before the people of the region depend only on the word of mouth? then how can one pin point the age of a language just based on phonetic changes? how can one even know there were changes?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3019
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 14 Jun 2012 20:56

RajeshA wrote:One thing we need to study is that Vedic Sanskrit may indeed not be the parent of the Indo-European languages in the Out-of-India Model.

Vedic Sanskrit could itself have been a "high" language, itself created specifically for knowledge preservation and diffusion. So the languages which left India as part of the various migrations were proto-Vedic Sanskrit language(s).

These were the Prakrit languages, languages then spoken by the people at that time.

As Vedic Sanskrit is itself a further evolution of these Prakrit languages, Vedic Sanskrit may in fact be the wrong candidate to consider as the Indian interface to the family of Indo-European languages.

So the Proto-Vedic Sanskrit Languages from India may in fact be a PIE, but still not be anything close to what the AIT proponents have conjured as PIE.


Yours...brought me to quote the following about of Veda Vyasa, one who is deemed to be the compiler of Vedas.

The Vishnu Purana (Book 3, Ch 3) says:

In every third world age (Dvapara), Vishnu, in the person of Vyasa, in order to promote the good of mankind, divides the Veda, which is properly but one, into many portions. Observing the limited perseverance, energy, and application of mortals, he makes the Veda fourfold, to adapt it to their capacities; and the bodily form which he assumes, in order to effect that classification, is known by the name of Veda-vyasa. Of the different Vyasas in the present Manvantara and the branches which they have taught, you shall have an account. Twenty-eight times have the Vedas been arranged by the great Rishis in the Vaivasvata Manvantara... and consequently eight and twenty Vyasas have passed away; by whom, in the respective periods, the Veda has been divided into four. The first... distribution was made by Svayambhu (Brahma) himself; in the second, the arranger of the Veda (Vyasa) was Prajapati... (and so on up to twenty-eight).


So establishing time of Veda is a futile exercise. If there are so many Veda Vyasas it doesn't need any more explanation. Since latest Veda Vyasa also wrote Mahabharata epic, it could be that age of Vedas by latest Veda Vyasa could be around the Mahabharata period which could be around 6000 BC-3000 BC(depending on when Mahabharat actually happened) at the minimum, another view.

But, Original Vedas is deemed to be rendered by Brahma himself and each Veda came from four faces handed down in the form of Sruthi from generation to generation much before it was recorded in palm scripts.

Similarly (Saiva)Agamas which is again very old document with no age is deemed to be emerged out of 5 faces of Shiva. Reason I'm talking about Agamas is that these Agamas(original) were learned by Veda Vyasa from a Guru. Interesting?! :wink: :mrgreen:

So what is the age of Indian language whatever name you like to call? And there could be many Proto-Indian languages? :mrgreen:

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

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

Postby member_22872 » 14 Jun 2012 21:10

Kanson ji,
Your story reminds me of another:
Legend has it that Agastya maha muni, wanted to study the Veda (only one at that time), so knowing that it is voluminous, he approaches Brahma and asks him to grant him 1000 years, so he grants. Agastya then proceeds and starts to study Veda, 1000 years pass, Brahma comes to him and asks about his progress, Agastya then says he has barely started and he needs 1000 more years...so this goes one for sometime, then finally Brahma says to Agastya showing distant mountain, if that is Veda, what you studied for so many thousands of years is this and takes a pinch pof sand and shows it. It is then Agastya muni observes "if I with thousands of years of longevity couldn't complete studying the Veda, what is to tell about mere mortals". it is then that 4 abridged versions of vedas in the current form took form.

Yes there is quite amount of hyperbole in the above anecdote, but one can just say or surmise that Vedas are pretty old.

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 14 Jun 2012 21:21

A paper

Published Mar 30, 2006
The origin of European cattle: Evidence from modern and ancient DNA: PNAS
The domestication of cattle (Bos taurus and Bos indicus) from wild aurochsen (Bos primigenius) was an important step in human history, leading to extensive modifications of the diet, the behavior, and the socioeconomic structure of many populations. This process started 11,000 years ago, and the deep genetic divergence between taurine (B. taurus) and zebu (B. indicus) cattle breeds points to at least two independent domestication events from two distinct aurochsen groups. Archaeological data suggest that the zebu domestication occurred probably in the Indus Valley (today’s Pakistan), with a primary diffusion of these breeds in India and only a more recent (3,000 years) secondary male introduction in Africa. Conversely, the most likely domestication site for the taurine breeds is considered a westernmost area in the Near East, the Fertile Crescent (FC), even though an independent domestication event may have occurred in Africa

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 22:07

Folks here is what appears to be some real bullshitting to me. This is the scholarship we inherit.
This is about the Rig veda. t is a "validated" Wiki page from a year 1900 source. The filth that pases for knowledge is un frickin believable
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_History ... /Chapter_6
The evidence of the topography, the climate, and the products of the country thus shows that the people by whose poets the Rigveda was composed were settled in the north-west of India, from the Kabul to the Jumna. But they were still engaged in conflict with the aborigines, for many victories over them are referred to. Thus Indra is said to have bound 1000 or slain 30,000 of them for his allies. That the conquerors were bent on acquiring new territory appears from the rivers being frequently mentioned as obstacles to farther advance. The invaders, though split up into many tribes, were conscious of a unity of race and religion. They styled themselves Āryas or "kinsmen," as opposed to the aborigines, to whom they gave the name of Dasyu or Dāsa, "fiends," in later times also called anārya, or non-Aryans. The characteristic physical difference between the two races was that of colour (varṇa), the aborigines being described as "black" (kṛishṇa) or "black-skins," and as the "Dāsa colour," in contrast with the "Aryan colour" or "our colour." This contrast undoubtedly formed the original basis of caste, the regular name for which in Sanskrit is "colour."

Those of the conquered race who did not escape to the hills and were captured became slaves. Thus one singer receives from his royal patron a hundred asses, a hundred sheep, and a hundred Dāsas. The latter word in later Sanskrit regularly means servant or slave, much in the same way as "captive Slav" to the German came to mean "slave." When thoroughly subjected, the original inhabitants, ceasing to be called Dasyus, became the fourth caste under the later name of Çūdras. The Dasyus are described in the Rigveda as non-sacrificing, unbelieving, and impious. They are also doubtless meant by the phallus-worshippers mentioned in two passages. The Aryans in course of time came to adopt this form of cult. There are several passages in the Mahābhārata showing that Çiva was already venerated under the emblem of the phallus when that epic was composed. Phallus-worship is widely diffused in India at the present day, but is most prevalent in the south. The Dasyus appear to have been a pastoral race, for they possessed large herds, which were captured by the victorious Aryans. They fortified themselves in strongholds (called pur), which must have been numerous, as Indra is sometimes said to have destroyed as many as a hundred of them for his allies.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby svinayak » 14 Jun 2012 22:13

This is a direct assult on Hinduism and is a colonial version of the British missionaries. This needs to be challenged directly and all these kind of filth needs to be removed

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 14 Jun 2012 22:20

^^^ not without a credible alternative narrative

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 14 Jun 2012 22:23

Published on Nov 12, 2007
By Jane R. McIntosh
The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives

Image

From the Book
Elephant:
The fauna of the greater Indus region included the Indian elephant (Elephas maximus). Ivory, which probably came mainly from the elephant, was extensively used by the Harappans: At Mohenjo-daro it was more common than bone as a material for making artifacts. Elephant bones have been recovered from a number of sites throughout the Indus region, from Lothal and Surkotada in Gujarat, to Mohenjo-daro and Chanhu-daro in Sindh, and to Harappa and Kalibangan in the east; although elephants could have been hunted for their meat, these bones may suggest that tame elephants were employed as work animals, to haul logs, for example. Further suggestive evidence of tame elephants comes from representations on seals of elephants apparently wearing a cloth over their back, and a clay model of elephant's head with painted designs on its forehead: Elephants are similarly decorated with paint on festive days in modern South Asia.


From Harappa.com

Image
Elephant figurine head with painted designs from Harappa

It is unknown whether elephants were domesticated in the Indus Civilization. However, one of the few elephant figurines from Harappa is a head with large stylized ears and red and white stripes painted across the face. This may mirror the custom of decorating domesticated elephants (red and white are common colors) for ceremonies or rituals that is still practiced in South Asia. Elephant bones have also been found at Harappa. Approximate dimensions (W x H(L) x D): 5.4 x 4.8 x 4.6 cm. (Photograph by Richard H. Meadow)


From page 114 of "The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate"

By Edwin Bryant, Edwin Francis Bryant
Image

Sanskrit 'elephant' also shares a cognate form with Latin "ivory" (Skt. ibha, Latin ebur < *yebh- or Hebh-). Hittite-Luwian, and Greek, point to another protoform (*lebh-onth or *leHbho-), which suggests to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov that two words are related to a single Proto-Indo-European form for this animal. Likewise, although there are a variety of terms for lion, Dolgopolsky (1987, 10) considers the form *singh as one of the few Proto-Indo-European animal terms that appear to be fairly reliable on the basis of Indic (siṁha) and Armenian (inj, 'panther').


Now how come Hittites and Luwians and Greeks and Romans knew about ivory as it was known in India?

The question is: is it a direct Latinization or Hellenization of the word for a trade commodity from the later times? Or has the word gone through the phonetic changes as it passed through the Eurasian heartland through various ethnic groups on the way?

But the point is that Greeks and Romans would have been getting their ivory from Africa from just across the Mediterranean. After all that is where they also got a substantial number of slaves, etc. through Egypt. Why would they have a name for an African trade commodity from an Indian origin?

.... unless they brought the word along with them from India! :twisted:

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby svinayak » 14 Jun 2012 22:29

Lalmohan wrote:^^^ not without a credible alternative narrative

Does not India own RgV and its interpretations?

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 14 Jun 2012 22:32

Acharya wrote:This is a direct assult on Hinduism and is a colonial version of the British missionaries. This needs to be challenged directly and all these kind of filth needs to be removed

Acharya garu,

The Europeans have tied one end of the rope around their torsos and the other end around ours through the linguistic similarities between European and Indic languages. Moreover both Europeans and Indics stand on small boats, with deep waters portending cultural destruction between us.

Knowing this over 200 years the Europeans having been pulling at the rope, making it tighter around themselves, and so on. With time we Indics have been losing our balance, with the danger of kipping over the edge.

It is time to pull back! The rope cannot be cut anymore. All we can do is pull harder. For that we need a lot of Indian "Out-of-India" scholars. :wink:

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

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

Postby RajeshA » 14 Jun 2012 22:33

Acharya wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:^^^ not without a credible alternative narrative

Does not India own RgV and its interpretations?

We should, .... but try telling that to the thieves!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54685
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 14 Jun 2012 22:39

venug, Similar to the story of mountain vs pinch of sand to compare the knowledge in the Vedas, Heisenberg is said to have said that the entire matter in the universe can be compacted to the size of a cricket ball!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54685
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 14 Jun 2012 22:47

RajeshA Take a look at this book

Life in Ancient Indus River Valley

The narrative on page 4 is what needs to be demolished.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests