Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2012 20:13

Nilesh Oak wrote: What I find funny is that when Sue Sullivan contacted Rajesh Rao, latter even did not bother to respond. This surprises me beyond anything. When I tried to publish my book via Indian publishing house, many indologists - pro INdia crowd - used their relationship with this/these publishers to prevent publication of my work! Reason? My work disturbed their established timeline!!!!
<snip>
It appears many so called scholars, professors, experts are in the business of justifying and hanging on to whatever they might have done once. Strange is the human brain and mind....

Cognitive Dissonance is the anger and denial that one feels when one is faced with information that contradicts what one has believed until then. AITN Indologists are increasingly going to get nasty as they sink into cognitive dissonance and denial.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 08 Sep 2012 20:27

A_Gupta wrote:It would be good to get an expert linguist with an open/reopened mind.

Arun Gupta Ji,

Great point.

During my presentations - dating of ancient Indian events - when the audience is all sold on the dates.... invariably I ask them to find faults/limitations of my work. I respond to their criticism. Then in turn, I encourage them to defend my theory as I throw curves at them,
e.g.
(1) But where is the Archeological evidence?
(2) or that archeological excavations were done at Hastinapur, Indraprashtha (Delhi), Ayodhya, Shrigaverpur, etc and that the Archeology team did not find anything that would match with Mahabharata/Ramayana descriptions
(3) What if astronomy observations evaluted/employed by me in dating of these instances, ....what if it was a pure coincidence? What if some snicky writer inserted them later on in these texts?
(4) How do we know that our astronomy models/simulation can be trusted when we go so far back in antiquity?
(5) What if we find evidence tomorrow that Mahabharata/Ramayana were simply written as 'fiction'

Point being, to educate, entertain and enlighten, we don't have to insist on an expert who has agenda opposite of what we are exploring/testing. Having said that if all you are given is a lemon, by all means.. make a lemonade.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Sep 2012 20:47

Sanskit-like languages == Para-Sanskrits

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

I had generated and posted this image on BRF about 3 months ago. Looking at it again.

Please feel free to criticise/or praise

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 08 Sep 2012 21:32

An approach to treating language evolution through the mechanics of Chaos than the very linear dynamics used by modern linguists will result in totally different paradigms. Lalmohan ji espoused that so succintly a few pages back..

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 08 Sep 2012 21:41

It will be interesting to know whether Syria or Assyria, as what it used to called, derives its name from the word "assa." If it does, it would further bolster Rajesh ji trade theory as might have represented home country for horses at least at that time.

Also, Wiki chacha tells that "Assyria" is derived from "Athura." Could the word "assa" and "asura" also be linked?

If we look at the Jehu images on the wiki page for Assyria, we see the Faravahar symbol similarly portrayed in the Behistun Inscription and other Zoroastrianian historic relics.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 08 Sep 2012 21:49

shiv wrote:I had generated and posted this image on BRF about 3 months ago. Looking at it again.

Please feel free to criticise/or praise

For the second and third diagrams, there could be more than one proto-languages.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 08 Sep 2012 22:04

Panini gave the first known synthesis of Grammar ever recorded almost 2 millenia ago for Sanskrit. IIRC he mentioned it is not his synthesis. That he only put forward what has been passed on for scores of generations. In contrast the Europeans of the Rennaisance era learn to formulate their own languages in scientific grammar after discovering Panini's texts of more than 2 millennia previous. If Sanskrit is alien to India, it's synthesized Grammar should never have been born here. Let alone the worlds first grammarian being born here. And why should Panini lie that for scores of generations these rules were passed on to him. Something is definitely seriously wrong with PIE. Amongst 1.2 billion people in an elephant nation, we certain;ly would have remembered and logged our foreign influx phenomena. And i am sure we did. I agree with most scientific theses of late developing around..except this 'Science'. I amy not be talented enough to pin point the exact reasons..but i think the data points and basis are all messed up in this field. The deterministic change for this era is not equivalent to the same deterministic change even a few generations ago. Folks have to redelve into this linguist saga. This is all wrong by a massive margin. Language development and evolution is not all that plain and deterministic as some may make it out to be.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 08 Sep 2012 22:25

The thread moves so fast even on weekends. Nilesh ji, congrats!, hope to read your work with M.S. Sullivan.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 08 Sep 2012 22:29

Re. brihaspati Post subject: Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to TruthPosted: 08 Sep 2012 08:54

if these sound changes were so deterministic because of the physical structure - so deterministic that they inevitably change by these linguist-appropriated-modern-phonetics crutch - why would original sounds originate in a direction that is opposite to the natural tendency of the human tract?

Gurudev ji, the only reason these AIT/AMT/PIE theorists are able to assume away this logical fallacy is because they start with a date, their favourite date. This date can either be the date of God deciding to make man or the date somebody believes his ancestors came in from Central Asia to India.

A corollary to this would also be that if there was only one PIE then why in the world do we have so many languages today. Humanity would speak different languages for the simple reason that they are spread far and wide before the favourite dates of AIT/AMT/PIE theorists the suddenly there is only PIE in the picture. But then this PIE also mutates several times into several languages. What kind of brain would accept such an hour glass shaped chronology for languages. Now the only excuse that can be given for all this is ‘Invasion/Imposition’ but then how many times did this ‘Invasion/Imposition’ happened and to how many tribes. This is just plain crazy.

Re. Nilesh Oak Post subject: Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to TruthPosted: 08 Sep 2012 20:27

During my presentations - dating of ancient Indian events - when the audience is all sold on the dates.... invariably I ask them to find faults/limitations of my work. I respond to their criticism. Then in turn, I encourage them to defend my theory as I throw curves at them,

Nilesh ji, I tried as a layman to challenge just one of your observations. Ended up finding support for it any which where I went. The only doubt that I am able to cast is that you could be looking at an earlier part of MBH/Jaya. However even here the core of the story cannot be challenged. Nobody perpetuates a blank narrative which is what Jaya would have been without the moral story. Ergo the MBH as we know it today may not have been on those dates. But the kernel of the MBH as we know it today must have been there by your proposed dates.

Re. harbans Post subject: Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to TruthPosted: 08 Sep 2012 22:04

Panini gave the first known synthesis of Grammar ever recorded almost 2 millenia ago for Sanskrit. IIRC he mentioned it is not his synthesis.

Harbans ji, this problem is actually there with every single one of the ancient Indic works. We can never be sure if people who are today recognized as ancient Indic mathematicians are actually that. They could just as easily be a regular teacher/principal of some paathshala.

The western tradition of conflating ‘Earliest Relic’ with ‘Earliest Existence’ is what a paki would say the ‘root cause’ of the problem.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 08 Sep 2012 22:38

Continuing on with my previous ~~(brain****)~~ post: Does anyone else see any similarity between Faravahar (and the way it is used) and this much older dated IVC seal (fourth image) posted earlier by Rajesh ji on the work of Wim Borsboom

the IVC seal appears to be that of Peacock, which is the vaahan of Godess Saraswati. Vahar sounds like Vahan to me.

Further, wiki page on Peafowl tells that in Babylonia and Persia the Peacock is seen as a guardian to royalty, and is often seen in engravings upon the thrones of royalty.

wondering if there a connection between these symbols and concept moved out of IVC?

member_23700 · Post by **member_23700** » 08 Sep 2012 22:39

shiv wrote:I had generated and posted this image on BRF about 3 months ago. Looking at it again.

Please feel free to criticise/or praise

Model 3 with reference to Sanskrit......

Makes sense, however no need to put '4000 years' as a number - definite or approximate. What is the basis for 4000 years.

Also, existance of Sanskrit or the fact that Sanskrit seems to have recorded ancient events that take us back 1000s of years (assuming one would be willing to put faith in psudo-sciences of astronomy, genetics and rest)....

This could be due to (1) Winner bias.. i.e. records were made in other languages too but since Sanskrit is what survived through these many years, we have these records in Sanskrit.. That does make Sanskrit as one of the oldest if not the oldest surviving language or (2) There is something intrinsic within Sanskrit - survival of fittest or lucky (Brahmins decided to remember it by rote..whether they understood the meaning or not) coincidence that Sanskrit survived.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 08 Sep 2012 22:44

shiv wrote:[*]2. Next we have a very Sanskrit like language used by the Zoroastrians, called Avestan, which is so like Sanskrit that if you know one you can understand the other. This was widely spoken across Afghanistan, Iran and neighboring central Asian states
[*]3. We have another very Sanskrit like language - again a language that one who knew Sanskrit would easily understand, called Old Persian.

Both Avestan and Old Persian are attested only as far back as 1500 BC or so (assuming one believes Western dating).

If one were to look for correspondence on more ancient periods, then we are looking at Elamite (in current Iran) and Sumerian/Akkadian (in current Iraq). These languages would take us to the 4000-3000BC timeframe.

A lady called Malati Shengde seems to have done a lot of work on linguistic correspondence between Akkadian and Sanskrit. Akkadian is (based on Wiki) highly influenced by Sumerian, & we are already aware of the Assa-Aswa cognates between Sumerian and Sanskrit.

Elamite has never been deciphered yet (like IVC script) - but given that Elam lay in between Sumeria and Harappa - I would bet on Elamite providing a goldmine of interesting stuff. Nilesh ji, maybe Sue Sullivan can also work on Elamite after IVC is done?

Enough angles out here for the next decade of research at least....

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 08 Sep 2012 23:04

ravi_g wrote:Nilesh ji, I tried as a layman to challenge just one of your observations. Ended up finding support for it any which where I went. The only doubt that I am able to cast is that you could be looking at an earlier part of MBH/Jaya. However even here the core of the story cannot be challenged. Nobody perpetuates a blank narrative which is what Jaya would have been without the moral story. Ergo the MBH as we know it today may not have been on those dates. But the kernel of the MBH as we know it today must have been there by your proposed dates.

History of Mahabharata editions (Jaya/Bharata/Mahabharata) is clear. Vyasa wrote it and taught/communicated (editions of it) to 5 of his disciples. 3 of these 5 versions (if they existed at any point) are lost to us. 1 of remaining 2, is found, portions of it in Jaimini's Ashwamedha.

The only version that we are familiar with is that of Vaishampayan, when he recited to Janmejaya, at latter Sarpa-satra. This version was in turn recited by Sauti in Naimisharanya, few years after Sarpa-satra of Janmejaya. Thus based on current version of MBH text avaialable to us we have Vyasa-Vaishampayana-Sauti 3 or 4 layers.

Other than what stated above - discussion of early and later parts is purely speculative. One can always make a case for insertion of material at later date, however, the onus is that person making such claims. I made such claims about portions of MBH -e.g. words such as 'Yavana' and few others however when I tested such claim against internal consistency of MBH, I fell flat on my face.

I have my own doubts/hunch for some portions of 'Shalya parva' as later insertions, but I must wait until I collect/test more of it. Even in this parva, what I thought (and what many researchers of MBH text thought) to be interpolated, in final analysis, when I tested such chronology observations...much that what I thought interpolated came out to be not so.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 08 Sep 2012 23:30

Nilesh ji,

I did not believe in RV as a history for both AIT and OIT. But by what you tell us about your experience with MBH internal consistencies, seems like even MBH cannot be used by Linguists for AIT, while it still remains useful for OIT since linguistics is not the core of the OIT arguements.

Also Nilesh ji, just to clarify, my mention of 'earlier parts of MBH' were based on the reasoning that something so big as we have today would have been damn difficult to be produced in one lifetime by one person. Besides something so central to human existence as the moral code exposed in the MBH is a sure target for interpretations/reinterpretations/translations/translations of translations/arguements/counter arguements/plays/extensions/appendics/explanations/commentaries and what not. My comment had nothing to do with the 'earlier parts' as established in common parlance probably based on 'linguistic evidence'.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Sep 2012 23:40

Satya_anveshi wrote:It will be interesting to know whether Syria or Assyria, as what it used to called, derives its name from the word "assa." If it does, it would further bolster Rajesh ji trade theory as might have represented home country for horses at least at that time.

Also, Wiki chacha tells that "Assyria" is derived from "Athura." Could the word "assa" and "asura" also be linked?

Satya_anveshi ji,

a very good theory, I would say!

We know that around Syria, came up old civilizations as well. Now we have Indian civilization and then we have civilizations in Mesopotamia and Syria and a few other places.

Of course, Indians would be aware of these places! Even in ancient times people used to travel around. So we must have had some way to refer to these people! Asura could have been one way! As per Kota Venkatachelam, Bharatiya Yavanas were spreading out of India as well towards the North and towards the West. Either they set up an outpost there or they would have known of Assyria and been communicating back to Mataram!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 08 Sep 2012 23:58

Also Nilesh ji, just to clarify, my mention of 'earlier parts of MBH' were based on the reasoning that something so big as we have today would have been damn difficult to be produced in one lifetime by one person.

Damn difficult - yes, Impossible -no. Very few are aware of enormous quantity of writings done by Swatantryavir Savarkar. It includes prose, drama and poetry. Majority of it was done by him when he was in prison and when he had little of NO access to pencil and pen. He used to compose it and then memorize it. His work, when added, amount to the size that is Mahabharata.

Saint Eknath from 16th century wrote, a quantity, when measured amounts to what is Mahabharata.

Besides something so central to human existence as the moral code exposed in the MBH is a sure target for interpretations/reinterpretations/translations/translations of translations/arguements/counter arguements/plays/extensions/appendics/explanations/commentaries and what not.

Well, there are many commentaries on MBH text. And in recent times (last 100 years) all kinds of psudo-scholars have written on it -both in India and outside. 'Psudo-scholar' is not invective but a reality grabber.
Consistenly I have shown that (it would fill 5-10 books and no plans of that right now)these so called scholars who have written on MBH, have hardly bothered to read MBH text. When they have read it, it is only to quote what fitted their thesis (not unlike .. draw a straight line through scatter plot and then eliminate/remove/pretend non existance....of those points that did not fall on the straight line). These are who's who in Indian intellecutals (psudo-intellectuals) and thus have contribued their might---willingly or not --to further ignroance of Indian population about MBH which was writeen by Vyasa with the aim of "Prajwalita Jnanamaya Pradipa"

On the other hand MBH text as it stands today does not have commentaries. Likes of Nilakanth, who wrote commetaries state it to be so. As to trasnscription/transliteration errors, a triviallly true occurance, Critical edition prepared by BORI, with footnotes for all variations, validates occurances of such errors.

My comment had nothing to do with the 'earlier parts' as established in common parlance probably based on 'linguistic evidence'.

This 'early parts' nonsense is not based on any 'linguistic evidence', but rather result of careless armchair theories with no purpose. Those who have made such claims (both East and West) are ridiculous to say the least (from evidence standpoint) + motivated by desire to fit AIT chronology.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 09 Sep 2012 00:25

Nilesh ji,

I did not believe in RV as a history for both AIT and OIT. But by what you tell us about your experience with MBH internal consistencies, seems like even MBH cannot be used by Linguists for AIT, while it still remains useful for OIT since linguistics is not the core of the OIT arguements.

While I can not predict what Linguists would use out of MBH Text, my experience with testing of MBH internal consistency was as follows..

Every time I doubted a statement as 'later insertion', my testing of it to prove that claim, rebounded in my face (not unlike analogy employed by Ernest Rutherford with his discovery of nucleus - a bullet fired at a thin paper, rebounding back!)

A common claim - for Shanti Parva/Anushasan Parva to be later additions (and per psudo scholars very recent.. whatever that means) is without any basis. On the other hand, the opposite of it can be proved, which is exactly what I have done. BTW, that was not my main objective, rather a useful byproduct of what I was working on.

Commentaries on MBH - interpretations and what not, can be seen in portions of Puranas but also in books such as 'History of Dharmashastra - vol 1-5' by Bharat Ratna P V Kane.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2012 02:32

Wikipedia: List of R1a frequency by population

The Balts
Lithuania is ~44% R1a1
Latvia is ~41% R1a1
Estonia is ~33% R1a1

The Slavs
Sorbian is ~63% R1a1
Slovenia is ~38% R1a1

There is considerable Indian male gene pool among these people!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2012 03:04

AIT posts of a Blog

Sowing Seeds of Thought --> Aryan Invasion Theory

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2012 03:31

AIT-Sepoy Propaganda

Published on Sep 05, 2012
By Javali, Suraj Rajan
Hall of Shame: On a Hindutva Apologist’s Recent Lectures at IIT Madras

Code: Select all

http://nirmukta.com/2012/09/05/hall-of-shame-on-a-hindutva-apologists-recent-lectures-at-iit-madras/

It seems, for Dr. Gopalakrishnan even monumental discoveries like the fundamental ideas of counting, arithmetic, geometry, divisions of time, position of stars, axioms of Euclid, writing paper, printing, rockets, democracy, glimpses of analytical philosophy etc. - the huge list of worthy things developed by other civilizations independent of India – are irrelevant. If continuity is a measure, Chinese civilization surpasses Indian by any yardstick.

If somebody likes to take a bite off this AIT-Sepoy, please feel welcome!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Sep 2012 04:18

RajeshA wrote:There is considerable Indian male gene pool among these people!

Don't we need the gene pool match up with the migration paths? Any data on pool movements and migration ?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 09 Sep 2012 05:35

Shaffer, J.G., 1984, 'The Indo-Aryan invasions: cultural myth and archaeological reality", in J.R. Lukacs (editor) 'The People of South Asia, the Biological Anthropology of India, Pakistan and Nepal', New York, Plenum Press, 77-90.

This paper, Colin Renfrew tells us, finds that "the balance of the evidence...is in favor of the presence of an Indo-European speaking population during the Harappan civilization and not exclusively later".

(You have to remember that the archaeologists and the historic linguists do not exactly get along. Colin Renfrew is an archaeologist.)

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 09 Sep 2012 06:37

Article from 1875, from Max Muller, about his correspondence with T.H. Huxley, trying to explain the 34-ribbed Vedic horse.
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... -ribs.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2012 06:47

Satya_anveshi wrote:
Also, Wiki chacha tells that "Assyria" is derived from "Athura." Could the word "assa" and "asura" also be linked?

http://www.livius.org/as-at/assyria/assyria.html

The word Assyria is derived from mât Aššur, which means "the country of the god Aššur".

Quite possible

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2012 06:48

SaiK wrote:
RajeshA wrote:There is considerable Indian male gene pool among these people!
Don't we need the gene pool match up with the migration paths? Any data on pool movements and migration ?

SaiK I think it is one more bluff to try and link genes with language.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 09 Sep 2012 06:56

Chapter 5 of Colin Renfrew's Archaeology & Language: The puzzle of Indo-European Origins, is an archaeologist's take on historical linguistics; it is titled "Language and Language Change" and is well worth reading, if you can get your hands on it.

For here, I just note that Renfrew quotes Bloomfield, L., 1935, "Language", as follows:

The American linguist, Leonard Bloomfield, has however pointed out that
The comparative method assumes that each branch or language bears independent witness of the forms of the parent language, and that identities or correspondences among the related languages reveal features of the parent speech. This is the same thing as assuming, firstly that the parent community was completely uniform as to language, and secondly that this parent community split suddenly and sharply into two or more daughter communities, which lost all contact with each other.
These assumptions do indeed work tolerably for the descendants of Latin - and it should be remembered that the derivation of the Romance languages from Latin was the prototype example when the notion of the family tree model was applied to languages, and it remains the most frequently quoted example. However, as Bloomfield concludes:
The earlier students of Indo-European did not realize that the family-tree diagram was merely a statement of their method: they accepted the uniform parent languages and their sudden and clear-cut splitting, as historical realities.
Although the family tree model is a perfectly coherent one, it certainly does not adequately take into account the variety of ways in which languages change.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2012 07:19

A_Gupta wrote:Article from 1875, from Max Muller, about his correspondence with T.H. Huxley, trying to explain the 34-ribbed Vedic horse.
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... -ribs.html

I agree with your take on this 100%

It is precisely such conclusions that made me state that Witzel's bluffs of today are merely a continuation of institutionalized bluffing that has merrily been used in this field for over a century

These men are, to borrow an expression from Nilesh Oak, explaining away a finding rather than explaining it. And they are satisfied with the explaining away. They ascribe actions and motivations to people thousands of years ago with zero evidence of how they are able to ascribe such specific and precise actions, and avoid even a brief foray into why they might be wrong and how badly their own theories and belief might be upset if they are wrong. This is not science, it is plain dishonesty which I thought existed only in the 19th century, and I see it turn up in the 21st. This has an exact analogy in Nilesh Oak's statement of how Indologists are afraid that their theories will come crashing down if they re look at what they currently believe

Witzel too explains away the anomalous number as "numeral symbolism". If you explain away everything that does not fit in with your viewpoint with a story that is free from the burden of proof, then you can pass off anything as correct. Even ManishH said about Sanskrit words in cuneiform: "If they had spoken Sanskrit they would have devised a written symbol for a retroflex phoneme". In other words the absence of such a letter serves as proof that the language spoken lacked retroflex phonemes. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This story has more holes than a dosa and is as good as any I have read from the brothers Grimm. It explains away all objections like any fairy tale is designed to do.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 09 Sep 2012 08:00

Have gone through Malati Shendge's work in more detail. Its quite fascinating....She proves two major issues quite well, but unfortunately screws up a third one.

The two that she manages to prove are that (1) IVC represented Rig Vedic culture, and that Vedas/Sanskrit are homegrown & (2) The Mittanis can only be explained as a set of Vedics who went out of India, most likely around the time of the collapse of the IVC (1800 BC or thereabouts) or slightly earlier.

Where she screws up is in assuming that Sanskrit is derived from Akkadian. Clearly there is a huge amount of borrowings between Akkadian and Sanskrit (being in adjacent geographies) - but the one way relationship she derives is untenable.

The interesting question is if the Vedics could have spread as far as Syria / Anatolia by mid second millenium BC, why could they not have had a major role to play in Greece thereafter, especially considering the correspondence between Sanskrit and Greek ? A key issue that remains to be uncovered...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Sep 2012 08:29

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 319029.cms
Now, you may get to visit Mohenjo-Daro as tourist

Dan Mazer · Post by **Dan Mazer** » 09 Sep 2012 11:58

Let's say that all the purely linguistic arguments are accepted i.e. the relations between Sanskrit and the other Indo-European languages and its descent from PIE. Let's say that we also accept the claim that PIE originated and spread from outside India.

Now, what are the additional arguments and assumptions involved within the AIT in making the leap to the claim that the Rig Veda is the record of a community that brought Sanskrit and the rituals and traditions (described in the RV) to India? In other words what is the evidence for the claim that a community of 'Aryans' existed at some point in time?

In ancient India, after the advent and spread of Sanskrit (acc. to AIT), there would have been a multitude of groups - some who could speak Sanskrit, some who couldn't, some who spoke more than one language. Different groups would have been practicing different sets of rituals. There would have been a lot of cross-fertilization and groups would have adopted rituals from each other. A subset of these described in RV. Now in such a scenario, who are the Aryans?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2012 11:59

I have searched on an off for several weeks to find out if anyone has actually figured out how many cognates (in actual numbers of words) a given European language such as Greek or Latin or German has with Vedic Sanskrit. I have met with partial success, but in most cases I am unable to find cognates for more than 200 odd words. 200 cognates out of say 2000 words is not a huge percentage and if one starts looking at "parentage" based on 10% commonality it is essential also to explain how the 90% non cognates came out of this assumed common parentage.

Almost anyone (and every article) about Indo European use the same old list of cognates of "father, brother, sister, mother, leg, mouth" etc as examples of cognacy. On an impulse I decided to look at some fundamental and common human words to see why they did not seem to have cognates with some ancient European languages and Sanskrit.

I looked at the word for "pain" which is pida in Sanskrit. In Greek it is odynos or algos (as in neuralgia), and in Latin it is dolor. Why don't all languages share a cognate like "father" or "leg". If all the languages share cognates for father, leg, horse and wheel, does it mean that they knew about father, leg, horse and wheel before they knew any pain?

Another word is that for "to swallow". Latin has "glutire" as in deglutition and glutton. Greek has "katha-pino" (down-drink). Sanksrit from an online dictionary blew me away because there are at least 100 words for "swallow". But I picked out the most commonly known ones - i.e. gilana, nigalati { nigal }; nigirati { nigRR }

Here are a couple that sounded like they may be utilized as cognates for the word "swallow" itself which also exists as "svelgh" etc in other European languages. The sanskrit word I picked as likely were sarvagila (swallowing all) and sarvagraha (eating or swallowing all at once). Clearly these latter words are compound words and if they are cognates for "swallow" or "svelgh" the latter are likely to be later corruptions of an earlier Sanskrit word.

But if we stick to the glutire, gilana and Nigal it suggests multiple origins from possible earlier onomatopoeias like "ng" or "glug". In fact "nglg" is a good word that sounds like swallowing from which you can derive nigal, glug, glut and gilan. But not swallow or svelgh. And why did the Greeks reject all that and go for katha pno?

Clearly there are a lot of gaps in the theory of reconstruction of proto languages. And as was pointed out with reference to my PIE diagram above

matrimc wrote: there could be more than one proto-languages.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2012 17:39

Professor V. Lakshmikantham wrote the book "The Origin and History of Mathematics" in which made the daring revelation that Āryabhaṭa was born in 2765 BCE.

Professor V. Lakshmikantham founded the Journal "Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications" and taught at the Florida Institute of Technology.

Professor V. Lakshmikantham passed away on June 7, 2012.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 09 Sep 2012 18:40

Dan Mazer wrote:Let's say that all the purely linguistic arguments are accepted i.e. the relations between Sanskrit and the other Indo-European languages and its descent from PIE. Let's say that we also accept the claim that PIE originated and spread from outside India.

Now, what are the additional arguments and assumptions involved within the AIT in making the leap to the claim that the Rig Veda is the record of a community that brought Sanskrit and the rituals and traditions (described in the RV) to India? In other words what is the evidence for the claim that a community of 'Aryans' existed at some point in time?

If PIE originated and spread from outside India, the very first question becomes, when did it enter India and what was the causative event? There are two main answers - first, with the horse and chariot, around 1500 BC and second, with the advent of agriculture, some five thousand years earlier.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2012 19:09

Dan Mazer wrote:Let's say that all the purely linguistic arguments are accepted i.e. the relations between Sanskrit and the other Indo-European languages and its descent from PIE. Let's say that we also accept the claim that PIE originated and spread from outside India.

Now, what are the additional arguments and assumptions involved within the AIT in making the leap to the claim that the Rig Veda is the record of a community that brought Sanskrit and the rituals and traditions (described in the RV) to India? In other words what is the evidence for the claim that a community of 'Aryans' existed at some point in time?

In ancient India there would have been a multitude of groups - some who could speak Sanskrit, some who couldn't. Different groups would have been different sets of rituals. There would have been a lot of cross-fertilization and groups would have adopted rituals from each other. A subset of these described in RV. Now in such a scenario, who are the Aryans?

Assuming that the linguistic arguments are correct is a pathetic cop out. They are demonstrably fake. However I had earlier summrized the AIT points and here is a rehashed version of that

The Aryan Migration/Invasion Theory hinges around the following assumptions:

Ancient Greek (Mycenaean) dates from around 1800 BC
Since Greek is "Indo-European" it is assumed that there must have been a single common earlier language dating to before 2000 BC
That single earlier language "PIE" is assumed to have existed and must have given rise to all the Indo-European languages
That language is assumed to have originated in Central Asia Pontic steppe and spread to all other areas. Rig veda is used for proof of this (see below)
The basic assumption is that movement of language from central Asia to India, powered by conquering people in fast moving chariots pulled by horses occurred towards India from Central Asia Pontic steppe
Because no proof for such movement exists anywhere, it has therefore been cooked up by bluffing about passages in the Rig Veda where the text is assumed to represent a people who have a "horse cult"
Graves of some people who had a "horse cult" have been discovered 3000 km away from India, north of the Caspian sea in the "Pontic steppe" of central Asia. Absolutely no evidence exists of what language they spoke. But they have graves with horses bones buried along with chariots and assumed leaders.
It is assumed that the people who are in the graves with horses and chariots were the speakers of the assumed original language PIE.
This is where the Rig Veda is needed to make this theory work. The connection with horses, burials and Rig Veda is vital. No proof of their language actually exists. Rig Veda is claimed to have passages talking of Central Asia horse burial.
It is claimed that these people got on to horse pulled chariots, composed Rig Veda on the way and settled down in India 3000 km away
The Rig Veda is assumed to be a set of poems about a Central Asian culture that existed 1000 years previously in a place 3000 km away.
You must believe this, or else you can stuff it

PS: *** this set of three asterisks is to allow me to find this post again in future

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Sep 2012 19:34

shiv ji,
a huge amount of modern/current work in archeology and linguistics of the supposedly proto-Greek and proto-Italic phase comes up with an inexplicable discontinuity. Currently, "experts" try to avoid the whole problem by saying - that the jump from PIE to proto-Greek and proto-Italian is unexplained. Which when translated - means - "we don't have any clue, anything in our theories and dogmas to justify the supposed transition".

I have repeatedly raised the issue to hear some response from the pro-linguistic voices here - deliberately without giving refs, to see whther there is the basic minimal honesty to own this up. Nada. Careful and ominous silence.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Sep 2012 19:58

thus,including Brahmagupta's references to him "in more than a hundred places by name".
Furthermore, inmost instances "Aryabhatta" does not fit the metre either.
Birth
Aryabhata mentions in the Aryabhatiya
that it was composed 3,630 years into theKali Yuga, when he was 23years old. This corresponds to 499 CE, and implies that he was born in 476 CE. Aryabhata provides no information about his place of birth. The only information comes fromBhskara I, whodescribes Aryabhata as makya, "one belonging to the amaka country." It is widely attested that, during theBuddha's time, a branch of the Amaka people settled in the region between theNarmadaandGodavaririvers in central India, today the South Gujarat±North Maharashtra region. Aryabhata is believed to have been bornthere.
However, early Buddhist texts describe Ashmaka as being further south, in dakshinapath
or theDeccan, while other texts describe the Ashmakas as having fought Alexander ,
Education
It is fairly certain that, at some point, he went to Kusumapura for advanced studies and that he lived there for some time. Both Hindu and Buddhist tradition, as well asBhskara I(CE 629, identify KusumapuraasPaliputra, modernPatna.

A verse mentions that Aryabhata was the head of an institution (kulapa)atKusumapura, and, because the university of Nalandawas in Pataliputra at the time and had an astronomical observatory, it is speculated that Aryabhata might have been the head of the Nalanda university as well. Aryabhata is also reputed to have set up an observatory at the Sun temple inTaregana, Bihar.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63107420/Aryabhata

Rajesh, we still have no proof where he was born.. some say he is from kerala. But, there should be some more stories that talks about his dad or school etc. ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2012 20:25

AntuBarwa wrote:
Model 3 with reference to Sanskrit......

Makes sense, however no need to put '4000 years' as a number - definite or approximate. What is the basis for 4000 years.

That was my belief and "safe assumption" on 16 Jun 2012 when I generated that image and posted it on BRF. I would change that to 7000 years now
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1297406

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2012 20:28

brihaspati wrote: I have repeatedly raised the issue to hear some response from the pro-linguistic voices here - deliberately without giving refs, to see whther there is the basic minimal honesty to own this up. Nada. Careful and ominous silence.

Don't hold your breath.

Anantha · Post by **Anantha** » 09 Sep 2012 20:47

RajeshA wrote:AIT-Sepoy Propaganda

Published on Sep 05, 2012
By Javali, Suraj Rajan
Hall of Shame: On a Hindutva Apologist’s Recent Lectures at IIT Madras
Code: Select all
http://nirmukta.com/2012/09/05/hall-of-shame-on-a-hindutva-apologists-recent-lectures-at-iit-madras/
It seems, for Dr. Gopalakrishnan even monumental discoveries like the fundamental ideas of counting, arithmetic, geometry, divisions of time, position of stars, axioms of Euclid, writing paper, printing, rockets, democracy, glimpses of analytical philosophy etc. - the huge list of worthy things developed by other civilizations independent of India – are irrelevant. If continuity is a measure, Chinese civilization surpasses Indian by any yardstick.
If somebody likes to take a bite off this AIT-Sepoy, please feel welcome!

Using the famous words of the local Hakim saab, this guy's disease needs a square danda up his musharraf, twisted round and round. I have done my bit.