Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[peter]

peter ji,

Here is a suggestion if you feel up to it. In any discussion which involves comparison of two works (Nilesh Oak ji (NNO) and of Dr. Narhari Achar (NA)) basically on the same domain (Dating of Mahabharata War), it can get pretty confusing if not done in a structured manner.
[..]

I would have loved to do what you are suggesting but I don't have access to either Skymap or Voyager. This is why I was hoping Nilesh would be able to create this comparative table and fix / merge/ argue both theories.

peter ji,

for the table, you don't need any astronomical software. For the moment you can take their word or reference their sky map where they show something. Much more important is how they do the interpretations, and what they claim to show.

So don't feel disadvantaged in this undertaking! Please continue.

Really there is nothing to continue. It is upto Nilesh to verify and reconcile his date and that of Achar. We cannot have multiple dates for the same event.

[peter]

Ok, folks. Here it is.

Here is proof that the entire concept of PIE was created to disprove the idea that Sanskrit could have been a mother language to any European language. This is a Pakistanic quest of "Not Indian" and suffers from the same problem - i.e if there is anything Indian, it will be covered up because the aim is to be "Not Indian"

This is fine. But the key problem is that we have to dislodge the mainstream. And that can only be done by
i) assuming PIE is true
ii) show counter examples which go against PIE.

Evidence is what should kill PIE.

[peter]

My point is: If Arundhati got ahead of Vashistha in 13000 BC how are Rishis supposed to have remembered this till 5500 or 4500BC and mention it only in Mahabharata supposedly in 5500 or 4500BC? This causes us to suppose that constellations and the knowledge of precession was known in 13000 BC. Very hard to believe.

why is it "very hard to believe"? You cannot rule it out either - can you?

I guess what you are saying is in 13000 BC (or whenever) someone saw Arundhati get ahead of Vashishta. They knew that Vashishta in ~8000 years will be again ahead of arundhati. Thus in the period 13000 BC to 4500 BC each astronomer needs to be taught that eventhough Arundhati is ahead now but eventually Vashishtha will overtake her.

Where is it said, that those who started observing that Arundhati had "overtaken" Vashishta (around 11091 BCE as per Nilesh Oak ji), knew that in around 4508 BCE, Vashishta would again "overtake" Arundhati. This is not implied from the Mahabharata reference, nor has it been implied by Nilesh Oak ji.

Ofcourse it is implied. Else why would you not just change "the astronomy textbook" and forget Vashistha was ahead?

[RajeshA]

Where is it said, that those who started observing that Arundhati had "overtaken" Vashishta (around 11091 BCE as per Nilesh Oak ji), knew that in around 4508 BCE, Vashishta would again "overtake" Arundhati. This is not implied from the Mahabharata reference, nor has it been implied by Nilesh Oak ji.

Of course it is implied. Else why would you not just change "the astronomy textbook" and forget Vashistha was ahead?

No it is not implied. When a Supernova happens or a star disappears, would the astronomers simply update the textbooks or would they write it down.

If continuous observation of the skies had shown that Arundhati overtakes Vashishta, then that is a substantial change in the sky map and that too would be written down as a remarkable occurrence.

[member_20317]

I guess what you are saying is in 13000 BC (or whenever) someone saw Arundhati get ahead of Vashishta. They knew that Vashishta in ~8000 years will be again ahead of arundhati. Thus in the period 13000 BC to 4500 BC each astronomer needs to be taught that eventhough Arundhati is ahead now but eventually Vashishtha will overtake her.

Where is it said, that those who started observing that Arundhati had "overtaken" Vashishta (around 11091 BCE as per Nilesh Oak ji), knew that in around 4508 BCE, Vashishta would again "overtake" Arundhati. This is not implied from the Mahabharata reference, nor has it been implied by Nilesh Oak ji.

Ofcourse it is implied. Else why would you not just change "the astronomy textbook" and forget Vashistha was ahead?

I beg to differ Peter ji, that is not implied.

For such ancient times if they had to do it then they would have needed the capability to calculate the trajectories along a curve when that trajectory itself is embeded in another curve and this goes on and on. Calculus for differential motion would be needed. That too of a very high calibre. Calculus in India came with the kerala school (this is one place where both the Indics and west is not in conflict).

This kind of expectation cannot be placed on even modern computer based models that the starmap softwares are. In fact you yourself have criticised as being unreliable for periods more then 5000 years (ref. your claim of skymap being not good enough beyond 3000 BC). In such a scenario how reasonable would it be to burden people at such ancient times with such a necessity of such a knowledge.

Peter ji, pointed question. Could AV observations have been of the same class as that of other Hindu astronomical observations?

Indian astrologers are not astronomers. Their may have been spillovers of one kind getting involved in other disciplines but that is not the rule. And Indian astrologers have been making stellar and planetary and satelite observations since god knows when.

[peter]

I guess what you are saying is in 13000 BC (or whenever) someone saw Arundhati get ahead of Vashishta. They knew that Vashishta in ~8000 years will be again ahead of arundhati. Thus in the period 13000 BC to 4500 BC each astronomer needs to be taught that eventhough Arundhati is ahead now but eventually Vashishtha will overtake her.

Where is it said, that those who started observing that Arundhati had "overtaken" Vashishta (around 11091 BCE as per Nilesh Oak ji), knew that in around 4508 BCE, Vashishta would again "overtake" Arundhati. This is not implied from the Mahabharata reference, nor has it been implied by Nilesh Oak ji.

Ofcourse it is implied. Else why would you not just change "the astronomy textbook" and forget Vashistha was ahead?

I beg to differ Peter ji, that is not implied.

Well then we have to agree to disagree.

[peter]

Where is it said, that those who started observing that Arundhati had "overtaken" Vashishta (around 11091 BCE as per Nilesh Oak ji), knew that in around 4508 BCE, Vashishta would again "overtake" Arundhati. This is not implied from the Mahabharata reference, nor has it been implied by Nilesh Oak ji.

Of course it is implied. Else why would you not just change "the astronomy textbook" and forget Vashistha was ahead?

No it is not implied. When a Supernova happens or a star disappears, would the astronomers simply update the textbooks or would they write it down.

Both are same whether you update the text book or write it down (though write down how in 11000 BC?) . You are still missing the point. In 11000 BC no humans were capable of naming a star Arundhati and keeping that observation current till 4500 BC. Anyway this debate is now futile.

[member_20317]

In the entire period 11000-4800 Arundhati is ahead of Vashistha. Ask yourself what is unique about this event on the eve of Mahabharat?

Peter ji, indeed this is a very relevant question.

You see in the night sky there are quite a few field stars that appear exceedingly close when in fact they are not binaries.

In fact I am intrigued that AV system was not treated as such and are actually tied up together in mythology. The mythology of the AV system is intimately tied up in turn with the mythology of the other stars in the Big dipper.

That took me to the speculation that probably in ancient times AV system had something to do with marriage rituals. Like we have today the officiating Brahmin advising the marrying couple to look at the Dhruv Tara. There were times when there were no real pole star and AV system could have been in use during such times. This is off course speculation only. But what this speculation does is it allows us to build a narrative that ties up the two observations (one express observation - 'A moving ahead of V' and one implied observation - 'A was not moving ahead of V at some point in history'). Marriage rituals could have been the reason why both these observations stayed in the collective memory. And marriage rituals can be expected to be rather stable for very very long periods unless some force tampers with it on purpose.

Uptil here it was the speculative background i was developing.

Peter ji, I am surprised you cannot see the link between the Epoch of Arundhati and the story of Draupadi which is what the colloquial understanding of MBH has been since forever.

[Virendra]

Regarding Saraswati river. To exactly ascertain when it flows one needs to dig all along its supposed bed, collect samples, and determine its age. I don't know of any comprehensive study that has taken place. But a date 3067 BC for MbH war is not incompatible with the flow of Saraswati. The Dwarka research is still not on solid ground.

TIFR scientists also have written in multiple reports/paper that skymap pro is the most accurate. They concur, independently, with Achar.

I think Sarasvati has been accepted as real even by the Govt. now, after its own agencies confirmed the same via research.

Replyingto a question by Prakash Javadekar, MP, in parliament, the government
admitted that scientists have discovered water channels indicating "beyond doubt" the existence of the "Vedic Saraswati"
citing conclusions of a study jointly conducted by scientists of ISRO, Jodhpur and the Rajasthan Government's Ground
Water Department, published in the Journal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing. The study reports "clear signals of
palaeo-channels on the satellite imagery in the form of a strong and powerful continuous drainage system in the North-
West region and occurrence of archaeological sites of pre-Harappan, Harappan and post-Harappan ages beyond doubt
indicate the existence of a mighty palaeo-drainage system of the Vedic Saraswati river in this region... The description
and magnanimity of these channels also matches with the river Saraswati described in the Vedic literature." It is a
significant shift of the government from its earlier position since UPA assumed power at the centre. The UPA government
had earlier maintained that there was no trace of lost Vedic Saraswati River

The same is echoed in international circles as well:
Liviu Giosan, a geologist with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, US
http://en.newsbharati.com//Encyc/2012/5 ... wsMode=int

[A_Gupta]

How Latin is pronounced has been "reformed" in recent times. It turns out at the urging of the same German philologists. I had a memory from reading (not the movie) Goodbye Mr Chips, and the discussion here triggered that memory.

http://imaginativeuniversal.com/blog/po ... ikero.aspx

[Nilesh Oak]

PS: the problem seems to be that these folks approached their subject with an idee fixe, if not an ideological commitment. We won't do much better if we do the same.

Could not agree more.

Approch the subject with open mind.. searching for truth.. or for approximation of it. With Fearlessness (which mean neither taking BS from pseduo-authorities, chairs, gurus, professors, scholars, experts etc and searching for truth irrespective of consequences) and Humbleness (Humbleness means, we may have our views, even strong ones, but we always remain teachable, and willing to change our mind in the light of new evidence).

[A_Gupta]

Looks like Latin pronunciation is all over the map;I wonder how much of the classical pronunciation is recoverable, and just how much reconstructions that try to get PIE from unknown Latin pronunciation versus accurate Vedic pronunciation can work.

Of course, this is just scratching the surface.
http://latindiscussion.com/forum/attach ... nd-pdf.74/

[A_Gupta]

Classical Latin pronunciation is known only through reconstruction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spel ... nunciation

How then can anything phonological about Latin be used to reconstruct PIE?

PS a link like this suggests Ancient Latin pronunciation is well known.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/lati ... nounce.htm
Not sure that the confidence is merited.

[A_Gupta]

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin

Again PIE seems to intrude on reconstructions of ancient Latin.

[Nilesh Oak]

Respected BRF thread members,

You are all (most of you, anyway) veterans here and you will certainly know when are you dealing with filled pot with room for more fluid, hollow pot which will take lots of effort to fill and crack pot where all efforts to fill would go in vain.

I am impressed by tremendous comprehension shown by members here in understanding of EoA theory and AV cluster? (I have to go back and read the nomenclature of ravi-g! ). When members are defending my theory, at times they are introducing small errors in interpretation, but the spirit is more important. In addition, I am aware that these introduction of errors is due to completely whimsical position of other side and also next to zero comprehending ability. (closest analogy I can offer...is when I begin to talk with say, a chinese.. with poor command over English language for example, my English goes down in a hurry).

I do want to clarify something about what B ji wrote

Vasistha-Arundhati relative movement is not significantly affected by precession. It is more about the departure from the parallax assumption for distant star/star clusters - due to orbital, local cluster orbital or galactic-centre relative orbital motion.

If Bji means Proper motions (both D and RA direction), then yes, it is not affected at all by precession. On the other hand their relative motion (and who is ahead of who) around the point of North Celestial Pole is VERY MUCH affected by precession. Prcession results in change of position of NCP and this relative position of NCP to A and V is responsbiel for who is ahead and who is behind. See figures posted by me few pages before this.

Now back to my random or not so random thoughts.....

I would encourage members to ignore the dumb question of 'Pole star'. The question is so dumb, I would not even acknowledge it. I am writing about it because I see so many members attempting to respond to it.

Be assured that I have interpreted the MBH refernces and have corroborated in multiple ways. The references that is alleged to have something to do with 'pole star' has NOTHING to do with pole star. It has everything to do with 'Mars'. And Achar has simply ignored that references completely, whether the reference referred to pole star or Mars.

Those who have read my book (acknowledgement) may know that I have communication with Achar and I have also acknowledged his assistance for two specific things. I am also in communication with R N Iyengar. So when someone shows up full of himself (or herself) with no 'fearlesnesss (ie. not willling to go in search of truth.. rather ... hanging on to some agenda/comfort blanket) and with no humbleness (i.e. is not teachable), I have no time to spare.

In addition, I may mention that I wrote pages (exceeding 200+ ) of detailed criticism of work of Achar, Vartak, Gupta, Iyengar, Kak, Vaidya, Kane, Anand Sharan, Holay and ~10 more MBH researchers, before I began writing my book on MBH War. My plan is to bring this work of mine to light... it is project #4, and I am right now working on project #2.

Project #4 is tentatively titled as 'The Truth - Measuring, Analyzing and evaluating'. In this book I will talk of how to measure truth (corroboration, falsification) how to analyze (irrefutability, inconsistency, tautology) and how to evaluate (essentially compare theories/proposal of two or more theories). In all three parts I will evaluate theories/proposals of all MBH researchers mentioned above, but also theories/proposals from areas of Ramayana, but also cosmology, evolution, Quantum Mechanics.

I meet many individuals (Indians and otherwise), fealess and humble and curious to know so much about these subjects. When I can not reach such enthusiastic audience, I have no intention of wasting my time. I am all for cold calling, but I also know when to say 'Adios' and hang up.

[Nilesh Oak]

What we need is a comprehensive, rigorously developed, new framework of Indian linguistics, history/chronology, archaeology, etc, which does not give any serious weightage to AIT/PIE nonsense. Scattered attempts to combat the AIT/PIE theories are indeed playing on their turf (as I mentioned in an early post). We do not need to do this. Once our framework is developed, it will take root, grow, and destroy the false theories perpetrated by quacks. KL

On the money!

[brihaspati]

I guess what you are saying is in 13000 BC (or whenever) someone saw Arundhati get ahead of Vashishta. They knew that Vashishta in ~8000 years will be again ahead of arundhati. Thus in the period 13000 BC to 4500 BC each astronomer needs to be taught that eventhough Arundhati is ahead now but eventually Vashishtha will overtake her.

Please tell me how is this a unique event which the Mahabharata scribe should mention at the date Nilesh has dated MBh at. Remember she was ahead for the last 8000 years!

Exactly, because you have not searched for significant events before 3000 BCE, you cannot imagine as to why this might be important. I will give you a few cues, look for significant events - climatic, or otherwise, connected to the Indian subcontinent, around 19kya, 17kya, 13 kya, and of course 5.5-6 kya.

There are two inherent doubts in your formulation:
(a) why should such long period changes be so important for Indians to remember and carry through generations
(b) how can there be any mechanism to remember such long period/slow changes over such long periods.

Both of these are doubts, and not necessarily self-evident truisms. They are dependent on assumptiuons, including lack of knowledge in relevant areas.

Pole star in 5500 BC or 4500 BC is relevant because MbH mentions it moving left. So if a pole star does not exist or is not visible or is not unique enough for the naked eye to see it does oppose the arundhati theory.

How many years do you estimate is needed to register the fact that "polestar has moved to the left"?

Thuban approached the pole around 3200 BC and got into its overhead position in ~2700 BC.[/quote]

I asked you the question to show you that you are yourself automatically assuming that people carried on past astronomical observation/records over long periods of time. By your own estimate this implied at least in your example, 500 years of observations.

Do you think scientists even know the actual course or courses of Saraswati well?

Do you think scientists know the course or courses of ancient Rhine well?

Dwarka research is of course not on solid grounds - its underwater mud after all. Moreover, because it could claim a much earlier date than assigned to IVC because of sea-level rise arguments, it cannot be allowed to be on solid grounds.

This is in Modi's backyard. This excuse is not good enough.

Who says it is an excuse? Moreover why should Modi be brought in everything irrelevant as congrez or its foreign patrons do?

TIFR scientists also have written in multiple reports/paper that skymap pro is the most accurate. They concur, independently, with Achar.

At some point you have to defer to people who know more than you. If TIFR scientists and Achar claim skymap pro is the best I see no reason to doubt them.

Unfortunately this is an area not subject to linguist or historian dogma - that their interpretation is the only true one. I have access to TIFR scientists. If you kindly mention the exact personages, I can very well ask them. I am sure you are aware that software needs to be tested on benchmarking data or problems before you can declare one to be more accurate than others. If the TIFR scientists have done this, the results will be available.

[ramana]

Bji, Maybe PIE is a secular search for the language before the Biblical Tower of Babel episode. So PIE is also a Biblical quest. Some scholar was saying that the anthropology quest for people's origins is a quest for God!


Nilesh, What is project #3? If I may ask you to at least write the outline for Project #4 as its important for Indics to think critically and I believe your book might help.

[brihaspati]

ramana ji,
It was definitely guided in part by the Biblical obsession.

[shiv]

Shiv, sorry, I don't get your point.
They claim that the PIE "and" was *ke.
This turned into the unattested *che.
And then into the Sanskrit cha.

In the other IE branch it turned into the Latin -que.
PS
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-que

This is how the theory seems to have come about. Linguists have "looked for correspondence" between seeming cognates "cha"(च) of Sanskrit and "que" of Latin. When you hear the words independently without reading them as text they sound similar. To the ears there are no "lost vowels" in Sanskrit "cha" (च) and Latin "que" which would simply be written as the letter "ka"(क) in any Indian language. For a person who is either listening to the sounds without text, or reading those words in Devnagari there is no missing vowel. They are two different sounds used for the same meaning, possibly from a similar remote origin. No missing vowel.

When you compare the phonemes "cha" and "que" and want to postulate an earlier word from which both the phoneme "cha" and the phoneme "que" may have arisen you have to arrive at a conclusion of what that earlier (PIE) word might have been and why the sound changed.

Now why would anyone want to postulate such a connection at all? The need to postulate such a connection arises from the inevitable need to somehow include Sanskrit and its sounds in the lexicon of Indo-Euroepan languages and yet create a language earlier than Sanskrit that can be demonstrated to have given rise to Sanskrit as well as other European languages. This is what is done done for every single PIE word that arises out of a cognate that Sanskrit has with any European language.

In the case of "que" and "च" (cha) the story that has been made up is as you have described

• Once upon a time there was a PIE word *ke"
• Now we all know that when fricative "k" is associated with a front vowel like "e", making it sound like "s" or "ch"
• Therefore Sanskrit speakers started hearing and saying *ke as *che. Then they dropped the "e" and started saying "cha"
• Latin speakers on the other hand kept on saying *ke and are left with *que

Now never mind whether this story is correct or not. It is a story that satisfies the needs of European linguists to postulate some earlier word that includes all European languages that have cognates for "que" and somehow manages to include Sanskrit by means of a roundabout set or rules, even if the story is laughable and unbelievable.

If you ask me to cook up some story like this I could say that the original PIE word was more like "ksha" which became "ka" in Latin and then changed to "que" but such an argument is pointless because the PIE story has nothing to do with finding the history of Sanskrit. It is an attempt to find the history of European languages while including this damn Sanskrit that has too many cognates.

The requirement for us Indians is hardly to argue with PIE. We have a need to postulate our own history. We already know the antiquity of Sanskrit. We do not need to "include Sanskrit" to find the history of our language.We need to look at the information within Sanskrit literature to remote events in the past. That actually gets us to incredibly remote dates in human history. If the PIE people want to take these dates inTo account they are welcome to do that. They lose nothing. These remote dates for Sanskrit will only mean that their PIE was even older. No why should any European worry if he finds that his Greek and Latin are 10,000 years old and not 1000 years old as they had imagined? PIE can be made older if Sanskrit happens to be older.

[shiv]

I think the Europeans have tied the destiny of Sanskrit with their languages, and they will continue to fit Sanskrit into their narrative, regardless of how we think about it.

The only way out I see is for us to write the narrative of the whole class of Indo-European languages. They may protest here and there or criticize it, but we should continue to build up the narrative and propagate it with all means possible.

Rajesh, even without fighting anyone we can say that Sanskrit, from internal Sanskrit records is at least 7000 years old, It is not our problem to prove or disprove AIT or PIE. Linguists are welcome to keep on postulating AIT and PIE. All they need to do is to pre date their own theories by 5000 years. Let PIE be 10,000 years old. Let AIT be 7000 years old. Maybe I I will accept both PIE and AIT then.

[shiv]

This boils down to the arguments that "support" Sanskrit cannot be PIE and hence there must be "proto" language. There is a long list of arguments for the "support". I do not know all the arguments. Some we have already seen like k>sh.

Sanskrit is not PIE. Sanskrit exists. PIE does not exist.

[shiv]

Ok, folks. Here it is.

Here is proof that the entire concept of PIE was created to disprove the idea that Sanskrit could have been a mother language to any European language. This is a Pakistanic quest of "Not Indian" and suffers from the same problem - i.e if there is anything Indian, it will be covered up because the aim is to be "Not Indian"

This is fine. But the key problem is that we have to dislodge the mainstream. And that can only be done by
i) assuming PIE is true
ii) show counter examples which go against PIE.

Evidence is what should kill PIE.

We need not do anything to kill PIE. All we need to show is that there is plenty of evidence that Sanskrit itself dates back to anywhere between 3000 BC (Achar) and 7000 BC (Oak). I would welcome seeing PIE and AIT pre dated to an earlier era. There should be no for linguists problem in doing that no?

[Arjun]

All we need to show is that there is plenty of evidence that Sanskrit itself dates back to anywhere between 3000 BC (Achar) and 7000 BC (Oak). I would welcome seeing PIE and AIT pre dated to an earlier era. There should be no for linguists problem in doing that no?

The final goal out here is very clear & I presume there is no ambiguity on that point - it is to prove the autochthonous origins of Sanskrit and the Rig Veda. In other words to prove that both of these are wholly products of the Indian civilization.

If you think that proof of Sanskrit (Vedic Sanskrit?) being dated back to at least 3000 BC provides the easiest path in achieving the above - then it should be fine. But lets not confuse the means with the end goal.

[A_Gupta]

The reconstruction of ancient Greek phonology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Gr ... nstruction

If the lengthy text is correct then the reconstruction does not rely much on PIE.

It does depend a lot on interpretation of what ancient grammarians wrote, and so on.
But it would be only the second language of which we can be confident of the ancient pronunciation. Much less so than Vedic, of course.

So we have ancient Greek, 500 BC, let us say.

I think for Avestan, we only have modern testimony of pronunciation, even though the texts are ancient.

I think any reconstruction of a precursor language should proceed from Vedic and a scrutinized reconstruction of ancient Greek. Every thing else is at least 2000 years younger.

PS: whether ancient Greek has a derivation from Vedic needs to be seen.
As pointed out earlier, it seems likely that the phonology of ancient Latin is sufficiently unknown that no conclusions should be drawn from it.

[A_Gupta]

The final goal out here is very clear & I presume there is no ambiguity on that point - it is to prove the autochthonous origins of Sanskrit and the Rig Veda. In other words to prove that both of these are wholly products of the Indian civilization.

If you think that proof of Sanskrit (Vedic Sanskrit?) being dated back to at least 3000 BC provides the easiest path in achieving the above - then it should be fine. But lets not confuse the means with the end goal.

Whatever the truth turns out to be, by evidence and reasoning we trust, and that does not resort to misquotes to undermine any counter arguments.

[A_Gupta]

Finally, a recording, of how ancient Greek might have sounded.
http://www.amazon.com/Pronunciation-Rea ... ical+Guide

[ramana]

Arjun, We are SDRE onlee. Let the truth prevail.
Satyameve jayate.

There are:
- Their views
- Our views
And the reality or facts.
Only the views based on facts will endure as the Himalayas.

[Arjun]

Whatever the truth turns out to be, by evidence and reasoning we trust, and that does not resort to misquotes to undermine any counter arguments.

I agree. Authochthonous origins of Sanskrit & RV is a hypothesis...and this hypothesis needs to be proven, hopefully with better logic (& intellectual honesty) than the duds who cooked up AIT. Even if the proof is not by comprehensive deductive logic (which is unlikely for pre-history) - it should be a better fit using Occams Razor than other competing hypothesis. This is anyway the case for OIT today - the need is to detail this out further using a multi-disciplinary approach.

But certainly helps to have no ambiguity as to what the hypothesis ultimately is.

[A_Gupta]

As suspected, Avestan pronunciation at best can be attested from 200-600AD only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan_language#Phonology
Quote:

The Avestan language is attested in roughly two forms, known as "Old Avestan" (or "Gathic Avestan") and "Younger Avestan". Younger Avestan did not evolve from Old Avestan; the two differ not only in time, but are also different dialects. Every Avestan text, regardless of whether originally composed in Old or Younger Avestan, underwent several transformations. Karl Hoffmann traced the following stages for Avestan as found in the extant texts. In roughly chronological order:
The natural language of the composers of the Gathas, the Yasna Haptanghaiti, the four sacred prayers (Y. 27 and 54).
Changes precipitated by slow chanting
Changes to Old Avestan due to transmission by native speakers of Younger Avestan
The natural language of the composers of grammatically correct Younger Avestan texts
Deliberate changes introduced through "standardization"
Changes introduced by transfer to regions where Avestan was not spoken
Adaptions/Translations of portions of texts from other regions
Composition of ungrammatical late Avestan texts
Phonetic notation of the Avestan texts in the Sasanian archetype
Post-Sasanian deterioration of the written transmission due to incorrect pronunciation
Errors and corruptions introduced during copying

Many phonetic features cannot be ascribed with certainty to a particular stage since there may be more than one possibility. Every phonetic form that can be ascribed to the Sasanian archetype on the basis of critical assessment of the manuscript evidence must have gone through the stages mentioned above so that "Old Avestan" and "Young Avestan" really mean no more than "Old Avestan and Young Avestan of the Sasanian period."[4]

End quote.

[RajeshA]

There was a long debate on how to pronounce Latin, for they had only writings but no pronunciation, which they tried to "reconstruct" using the modern derivations of Latin, but what about sound changes then?

Here is an excerpt from Alexander Pope's Dunciad (1742), where some linguist Richard Bentley is being satirized.

”Tis true, on words is still our whole debate,
Disputes of me or te, of aut or at,
To sound or sink in cano, O or A,
Or give up Cicero to C or K.

[svinayak]

.We need to look at the information within Sanskrit literature to remote events in the past. That actually gets us to incredibly remote dates in human history. If the PIE people want to take these dates inTo account they are welcome to do that. They lose nothing. These remote dates for Sanskrit will only mean that their PIE was even older. No why should any European worry if he finds that his Greek and Latin are 10,000 years old and not 1000 years old as they had imagined? PIE can be made older if Sanskrit happens to be older.

I like this.
Why do the PIE people keep hanging at the coats of sanskrit

[KLP Dubey]

The final goal out here is very clear & I presume there is no ambiguity on that point - it is to prove the autochthonous origins of Sanskrit and the Rig Veda. In other words to prove that both of these are wholly products of the Indian civilization.

Please do not jump to such pronouncements. We should be clear on the differences between the Rgveda and Sanskrit:

The Rgveda is not a "product of Indian civilization" or any human civilization. The sounds of the RV have nothing to do with human history or culture. It is a Universal heritage, which, however, has been preserved in an uncorrupted form ONLY by Indians. Therefore, the Indians are the only competent persons to educate the rest of the world about it.

We do not know - and will possibly never know - if humans in different parts of the world may have received it, or not. It is possible that only some people living in northwest India received it. Whatever be the case, the plain fact is that the Rgveda is NOT in Sanskrit. It is primeval sound that is not of human agency. What is called "Vedic Sanskrit" should refer to authored works imitating the Veda - specifically the Atharva Veda, the Brahmanas, and the canonical Upanishads.

As for Sanskrit (both Vedic and non-Vedic), yes I agree it is a product of Indian civilization. It was obtained by observation and analysis of the RV sounds, and assignments of earthly meanings to RV sounds. This process led to huge achievements by the Indians in the fields of phonetics, phonology, grammar, and linguistics: quite literally, the refined science and art of speech. The resulting language, Sanskrit, has then been used for many purposes.

If you think that proof of Sanskrit (Vedic Sanskrit?) being dated back to at least 3000 BC provides the easiest path in achieving the above - then it should be fine. But lets not confuse the means with the end goal.

According to Nilesh Oak and Narahari Achar, Epic Sanskrit (the Mahabharata) is at least as old as 3000 BCE and even as old as ~5500 BCE. Epic Sanskrit is not Vedic Sanskrit. Vedic Sanskrit would be even older, since the author of the Mahabharata is well aware of the Brahmanas and Upanishads.

Again, investigations into the relative antiquity and "dates" of civilizations should exclude consideration of the RV, and as a matter of fact it is NOT REQUIRED for such purposes. This has been realized by MANY Indians of high intellectual caliber over the ages, as well as by several prolific authors on this thread. To put it bluntly: "RV dating" is unadulterated quackery.

KL

[KLP Dubey]

As suspected, Avestan pronunciation at best can be attested from 200-600AD only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan_language#Phonology

And furthermore, we do not know even the name of a single Avestan grammarian or phonetic expert of antiquity, let alone an ancient phonetic record or grammatical text. Like most languages evolving out of human "trial-and-error" efforts, it is just another language developed "from here and there". But due to its proximity to India, it has picked up quite a bit from Vedic Sanskrit.

KL

[Satya_anveshi]

Folks noted earlier that in parts of Gujarat, even today we find that S is pronounced as Z. Could be that Zoraster (Zarathustra) is derived from "Saurashtra" the region in India? It would have interesting implications on the direction of Avesta/Zend Avesta.

[RajeshA]

Last revised March 31, 2010
Latin Pronunciation Demystified
By Michael A. Covington
Program in Linguistics, University of Georgia

2 Four rivals
The pronunciation of Latin becomes much less puzzling once you realize that there are at least four rival ways of doing it. The pronunciations you hear in biology or astronomy class don’t match the ones you learned from your Latin teacher, and guess what? That doesn’t mean they’re wrong. They just reflect different periods in history.

Table 1 displays the four main methods. The ancient Roman pronunciation wasn’t accurately reconstructed until about 1900. Before that, scholars in every European country pronounced Latin as if it were their own language. With English this gave particularly comical results because English pronunciation had undergone drastic changes at the end of the Middle Ages. Here’s an example:

Code: Select all

Julius Caesar = YOO-lee-us KYE-sahr (reconstructed ancient Roman)
                YOO-lee-us (T)SAY-sahr (northern Continental Europe)
                YOO-lee-us CHAY-sahr (“Church Latin” in Italy)
                JOO-lee-us SEE-zer (“English method”)

Today, we still use the English Method to pronounce historical and mythological names in English context. The constellation Orion is called O’Ryan, not o-REE-on, and Caesar is called SEE-zer.

Italian “Church Latin” is widely though not universally used in the Catholic Church and in singing. Church Latin pronunciation is very variable. In Church Latin, long and short vowels are usually not distinguished, and the pronunciation of some consonants (e.g., t in words like dictio) is subject to variation.

I recommend the northern Continental pronunciation for unfamiliar scientific terms, since it resembles many modern languages and is, in fact, the pronunciation used by Copernicus, Kepler, Linnaeus, and other scientific pioneers. Northern Europe is not, of course, perfectly uniform; I give a compromise between several regional variations. For example, in Germany you will hear oe pronounced like German ö.

The ancient Roman pronunciation is of course what we use when teaching or seriously speaking Latin. Its biggest peculiarities are that v is pronounced like English w, and ae like English ai in aisle. These two sounds were already changing at the end of the classical period.

3 Do we know how the Romans pronounced Latin?

Surprisingly, yes. The details of the reconstruction are given in W. Sidney Allen, Vox Latina (written in English), Cambridge, 1965. There are several main sources of knowledge:

• The Latin alphabet was meant to be entirely phonetic. Unlike us, the ancient Romans did not inherit their spellings from any earlier language. What you see is what you get. {Yeah, right! This he has simply taken over from his study of Sanskrit and projected it to Latin}
• Language teaching was big business in Roman times, and ancient Roman grammarians give us surprisingly detailed information about the sounds of the language.
• Languages derived from Latin give us a lot of evidence. In fact, many of the letters of the alphabet are pronounced the same way in French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. It stands to reason that the original Latin pronunciation has survived.
• Spelling errors made by the ancient Romans are very informative. If two letters are often mixed up, they must sound fairly similar. Likewise, if two letters are never mixed up, we know they sounded different.
  
  Here’s an example. In classical times, the natives had no trouble keeping ae distinct from e; if they ever misspelled ae it came out ai. Later on, they started changing ae to e. That enables us to pinpoint when the sound of ae changed.
• Finally, transcriptions into other writing systems, such as Greek and Sanskrit, often pin down the ancient pronunciation of Latin very precisely. {Latin did not have all the consonants to express Sanskrit, so how would the transcriptions be correct? Also which transcriptions into Sanskrit?}

So basically the whole reconstruction of Latin was simply guesswork!
______________


Here is another book that is often used for referencing Latin Pronunciation



First Publication Date: 1965
Author: W. Sidney Allen
Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin [Google] [Amazon]

Download Links

Code: Select all

http://uploading.com/files/W85JI6Z7/VoxLatinaClassical.rar.html
http://depositfiles.com/files/epfs8rcpx

Allen also wrote the "Vox Graeca: A Guide to The Pronunciation of Classical Greek". Interesting is that before Allen wrote his Vox Latina, he studied Sanskrit, and in 1953 wrote on the the Phonetics of Sanskrit!

Publication Date: 1953
Phonetics in Ancient India [Amazon]

Publication Date: 1962
Sandhi: the theoretical, phonetic, and historical bases of word-junction in Sanskrit [Amazon]

However both books are out of print.

___________________

Here is some history to the reconstruction of Classical Latin



Publication Date: 1894
Author: Frances E. Lord
The Roman Pronunciation of Latin: Why We Use It, and How To Use It [Gutenberg Project]

The argument brought against the ‘Roman pronunciation’ of Latin is twofold: the impossibility of perfect theoretical knowledge, and the difficulty of practical attainment.

If to know the main features of the classic pronunciation of Latin were impossible, then our obvious course would be to refuse the attempt; to regard the language as in reality dead, and to make no pretence of reading it. This is in fact what the English scholars generally do. But if we may know substantially the sounds of the tongue in which Cicero spoke and Horace sung, shall we give up the delights of the melody and the rhythm and content ourselves with the thought form? Poetry especially does not exist apart from sound; sense alone will not constitute it, nor even sense and form without sound.

But if it is true that the task of practical acquisition is, if not impossible, extremely difficult, ‘the work of a lifetime,’ as the objectors say, do the results justify the expenditure of time and labor?

[Arjun]

The Rgveda is not a "product of Indian civilization" or any human civilization. The sounds of the RV have nothing to do with human history or culture. It is a Universal heritage, which, however, has been preserved in an uncorrupted form ONLY by Indians. Therefore, the Indians are the only competent persons to educate the rest of the world about it.

We do not know - and will possibly never know - if humans in different parts of the world may have received it, or not. It is possible that only some people living in northwest India received it. Whatever be the case, the plain fact is that the Rgveda is NOT in Sanskrit. It is primeval sound that is not of human agency.

There's no reason for me to oppose this version. The primary hypothesis being defended would then need to be modified to say that the RV was received and deciphered (or attempts made to decipher through what we know today as RV shlokas) within the geographical bounds of the pre-historic Indian civilization. Any attempt at decipherment would have used cultural, geographical and other markers peculiar to the people who undertook the decipherment. AIT-Nazis would try to prove, even within the scenario you've outlined, that the attempt at decipherment used some markers that were alien to what we consider today as ancient Indian civilization, hence proving AIT. So while RV itself may be Universal heritage -for the purpose of demolishing AIT it is key to prove that the decipherment occurred within the precincts of ancient Indian civilization, as generally accepted.

As an interesting aside - what if one were to redefine the bounds of the ancient Indian civilization as stretching from Indian peninsula all the way north into present-day Russia? That would be a win-win for both AIT and non-AIT camps...

As for Sanskrit (both Vedic and non-Vedic), yes I agree it is a product of Indian civilization. It was obtained by observation and analysis of the RV sounds, and assignments of earthly meanings to RV sounds. This process led to huge achievements by the Indians in the fields of phonetics, phonology, grammar, and linguistics: quite literally, the refined science and art of speech. The resulting language, Sanskrit, has then been used for many purposes.

This would imply Sanskrit was a Constructed Language, as opposed to a natural one. Hence the normal rules of sound change and comparative linguistics cannot apply...totally killing the AIT linguistics arguments. Wonder if there can be ways by which one can prove the fact of Sanskrit being a constructed language - that would be a huge step. Note this Wiki page on Constructed Languages has no mention of Sanskrit - so even if I were to be fully on board with this hypothesis, we do need evidence to address the skeptics.

Again, investigations into the relative antiquity and "dates" of civilizations should exclude consideration of the RV, and as a matter of fact it is NOT REQUIRED for such purposes. This has been realized by MANY Indians of high intellectual caliber over the ages, as well as by several prolific authors on this thread. To put it bluntly: "RV dating" is unadulterated quackery.

I personally have no problem in using a hypothesis to make deductions from, even if I am not completely on board with the hypothesis. So, lets say I believe completely in the hypothesis of Sanskrit being a constructed language. I would still be happy to work under both assumptions (constructed language and natural) to try and disprove AIT in either scenario.

So the way to look at the work of Indian authors using RV dating is that their work is based on usage of a hypothesis that has been forced upon them by the opponent's usage of the same hypothesis. If AIT can be disproved under either hypothesis (RV as authored, and RV as heard) that just adds to the strength of the anti-AIT argument.

[KLP Dubey]

Folks noted earlier that in parts of Gujarat, even today we find that S is pronounced as Z. Could be that Zoraster (Zarathustra) is derived from "Saurashtra" the region in India? It would have interesting implications on the direction of Avesta/Zend Avesta.

The initial "z" is more likely a corruption of Sanskrit "h", not of "s" or "S". E.g., "zasta" (Skt. "hasta" = hand), "zaotR (Skt. "hotR" = a type of Yajna official).

The Western interpretation of Zarathusthra is by splitting into "Zarath-ushtra". The latter word has a meaning of "camel"...whereas the former is explained as "golden", which sounds suspicious, as "zarath" does not have any meaning in Avestan as far as I know.

"zaranya" in Avestan means golden, it is a corruption of Vedic "hiraNya" (assigned to "gold" in Sanskrit). The latter word is one of those Vedic sounds that has not yet been fitted satisfactorily to a Sanskrit root. The Nirukta admits to being quite confused about this word. Of the two possible roots given by Yaska, "hary-" (to long for) and "hRd" (the heart), neither has any direct connection with "gold".

KL

[shiv]

Here’s an example. In classical times, the natives had no trouble keeping ae distinct from e; if they ever misspelled ae it came out ai. Later on, they started changing ae to e. That enables us to pinpoint when the sound of ae changed.

[*] Finally, transcriptions into other writing systems, such as Greek and Sanskrit, often pin down the ancient pronunciation of Latin very precisely. {Latin did not have all the consonants to express Sanskrit, so how would the transcriptions be correct? Also which transcriptions into Sanskrit?}

Reconstructions are all guesswork to a greater or lesser extent and these European linguists are totally confused because the language they live and work with does not have the means to express what is normally expressed without even pause for breath in any Indian language

For example we could have

• e > इ
  ae > ई
  ai > ए

I may be wrong about the Latin bit but it shows how the different sounds of language were assigned different letters in Sanskrit even if that assignment was a late event long after the development of the spoken language. In the time gap between the spoken language and the written word, the phonology of Sanskrit was maintained by texts such as the Vedas. So the Vedas were not an account of horse riding kings as sung by bards, but a phonological and philosophical record of the Indian civilization. No one who lacks such a record can understand what it means. It is our fault for being unable to tell others what the Vedas stand for and for blindly swallowing bullshit fed to us.

[Prem]

ramana ji,
It was definitely guided in part by the Biblical obsession.

They are trying to narow down to Anatolia, Mt Ararat, Noah and his 3 (tiered)colored sons . Any thing Out of India is like Sarkanda stuck horiznetaly in their deep dark spot.