Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[SaiK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNmY6LgHChY
???Arkaim: The evidence of ancient roots of humanity???

what the..

[Prem Kumar]

Witzel is an incredible imbecile

Exactly - which is why we shouldnt focus excessively on him. He is the Digvijaya Singh of the AIT-Nazi party

[Prem Kumar]

One more observation regarding languages and PIE. If you look at words, not all of them are equally ancient. Words for father, mother, body parts etc must have existed in human vocabulary for thousands or even tens of thousands of years. So, their commonality across languages indicates a very early human dispersal from possibly a common origin.

Words for Horse, on the other hand, would be relatively recent.

Therefore, the assumption that PIE speakers went from the Pontic Steppe 3500 years ago to all parts of the world and gave each civilization a common word for father, mother, nose etc (in addition to Horse) - which completely supplanted their earlier native words en-masse, is a ridiculous idea.

Any linguistic theory must account for the fact that there were possibly several migrations, several interactions and several loan words. The "single source, one migration, all sound changes within a short duration" sounds extremely fishy & theoretically convenient

Reminds me of this quote

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong

[A_Gupta]

^^^ The problem is that the linguistic data is so sparse that it can constrain only the simplest of models. It underdetermines any more complex models.

[shiv]

Therefore, the assumption that PIE speakers went from the Pontic Steppe 3500 years ago to all parts of the world and gave each civilization a common word for father, mother, nose etc (in addition to Horse) - which completely supplanted their earlier native words en-masse, is a ridiculous idea.

Absolutely. The idea that no different, non IE words for "father", "mother" or "eye" existed in India over a distance of 1500 km from Punjab to Bengal around 1000 BC and that after 1000 BC all 2 million sq km of North India uniformly started using IE words for father, mother and eye is too ridiculous to contemplate.

Indo European as a language has to have been spread over a vast area of India and Europe for many millennia before 1000 BC starting from a remote ancestor that I believe may go back to at least 10,000 years considering that internal evidence from Sanskrit itself gets us back about 7000 years.

If you look at how little Sanskrit and ancient Greek have changed in 3500 years, it is really surprising to hear that it took just about 1000 years for PIE to morph into the very very different Greek and Sanskrit, after which those languages did not change much for 3500 years.

The more I read, the more I realize that western and European scholarship have been hampered by early linguists bias to look for biblical timelines based on the Noah story of sons Ham (Africans/African languages), Shem (Semites- Hebrew/Arabic languages), leaving the rest of the world with Japheth and Indo-European/Aryan. I have one cite for this which I will post in due course - from one Mallory in his book about Indo-European.

Mallory also points out that many linguists were deeply offended by a man in the 19th century who reconstructed a story in PIE and that PIE was very much like Sanskrit. Mallory shows two newer versions of the same story that move away from Sanskrit. Whichever way you cut it the Sanskrit link causes enough trouble among linguists that they cannot ignore it, but cannot accept it. And hence their hostility to any time lines that date back to an earlier era than which they can offer proof.

[RajeshA]

So, their commonality across languages indicates a very early human dispersal from possibly a common origin.

Words for Horse, on the other hand, would be relatively recent.

Therefore, the assumption that PIE speakers went from the Pontic Steppe 3500 years ago to all parts of the world and gave each civilization a common word for father, mother, nose etc (in addition to Horse) - which completely supplanted their earlier native words en-masse, is a ridiculous idea.

There is no common word for horse in Indo-European languages! The claim that there is one is a cunning sleight of hand! There is no truth to it!

[RajeshA]

Mallory also points out that many linguists were deeply offended by a man in the 19th century who reconstructed a story in PIE and that PIE was very much like Sanskrit. Mallory shows two newer versions of the same story that move away from Sanskrit. Whichever way you cut it the Sanskrit link causes enough trouble among linguists that they cannot ignore it, but cannot accept it. And hence their hostility to any time lines that date back to an earlier era than which they can offer proof.

For those interested,

here is the link to the book!

[shiv]

So, their commonality across languages indicates a very early human dispersal from possibly a common origin.

Words for Horse, on the other hand, would be relatively recent.

Therefore, the assumption that PIE speakers went from the Pontic Steppe 3500 years ago to all parts of the world and gave each civilization a common word for father, mother, nose etc (in addition to Horse) - which completely supplanted their earlier native words en-masse, is a ridiculous idea.

There is no common word for horse in Indo-European languages! The claim that there is one is a cunning sleight of hand! There is no truth to it!

And Rajesh is dead right. See the stupid contortions and lame excuses that have to be made to claim that Indo-European languages had a common word for Horse namely "*ekwo-"
http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/pho ... word3.html

Root/Stem: *ekwo-

Meanings: a horse

Cognates: Greek hippos (horse) - an example of how *kw > p in Greek
Latin equus (horse)
Common Celtic *ekwos (horse) >
Gaulish epos, eqos, Goidelic *ehwah, Ogham Irish eqa, Old Irish ech, Irish and Scottish Gaelic each, Welsh & Cornish ebol (a colt), Breton ebeul (a colt)
Common Germanic *ihwaz >
Gothic aihwa- (horse), Old English eoh, Old Norse jo'r, Old Saxon ehu-, Old High German eha-
Hieroglyphic Hittite asu, asuwa (horse) - this form made some scientists say that *-k- in *ekwo- was palatal *-k'- that changed into -s- in Anatolian languages;
Lycian esbedi (cavalry)
Tocharic A yuk (a horse), B yakwe
Sanskrit açva- (horse), Mitanni Aryan asvasanni (a stableman)
Avestan asva- (a horse), Old Persian asa-, Pamir yas', Ossetic jäfs
Thracian esb, esvas (a donkey, a horse),
Phrygian es' (a donkey)
Old Baltic *as'u-, probably >
Lithuanian as'va (a mare), Old Prussian aswinan (mare's milk)

The German word is "pfaard"
The Dutch word is paard or ros,
English - horse
French cheval
Italian cavallo


Just look at the different words. 'Eqqus"? "Hippos" Kw changed to P? wtf?

If you look carefully ashwa, esb, asu, ehu, eha and even eq/equ are clearly related. At a stretch french "cheval" is "(a)shwa(l) which has lost the initial "a".

Hippos, horse, ros, pfaard, etc are way out

In fact there are at least 3 other ancient words for horse. One is "assa" of Sumerian, which could be the Biblical ass and in Thracian "esv". Hippos is totally an outlier. The Tocharian word that sounds like "yak" is closes to equus. Ancient Greek had "eq" and not hippos

So this business of "same word for horse" is a bluff when you see the relative similarities for words like numbers or "father".

[Abhibhushan]

Talking of Sa muting to Ha and languages Greek and Sanskrit,

The Goddess Hekate

and http://hermetic.com/webster/hekate-review.html ,

Are we talking about Godess Shakti?

[Murugan]

How a TED like platform will work in India for theory/ies we are discussing here.

Added Later:
I mean something with Desi setup and tenor.

[RajeshA]

Talking of Sa muting to Ha and languages Greek and Sanskrit,

The Goddess Hekate

and http://hermetic.com/webster/hekate-review.html ,

Are we talking about Godess Shakti?

Sounds very plausible! Good find!

This 'S' to 'H' mutation is one sided.

What is interesting here is that Hekate does not come up as a Indo-European Goddess.

I had linked a few books earlier on "Indo-European Mythology" by PIE Charlatans. [1] [2]

Here is a list of Indo-European deities by Ceisiwr Serith from the link.

Code: Select all

Dyaus Pitar => Dyé̄us Pté̄r
Aryaman => Xáryomen
Parjanya => Perkwū́nos
Aśvins => Diwós Sunú
Agni => Xákwōm Népōt
Yama & Manu => Yemós and Mannus
Pūṣan => Pāxuson
Mḗnōt

Mādhavī => Héḱwonā
Govinda => Gwouwindā
Uṣas => Xáusōs
Sūryā => Sawélyosyo Dhugətḗr
Danu => Donu
Westyā
Dyavapṛthivī => Dhéǵhōm Mā́tr
Sarva => Kolyos

The Indologists claim that the Rigvedic Deities are a memory of the Rigvedic composers from earlier times. These are the Rigvedic Deities and the frequency of their naming:

Code: Select all

Major Deities
-------------
Indra 289
Agni 218
Soma 123 (most of them in the Soma Mandala)
Vishvadevas 70
the Asvins 56
Varuna 46 [1]
the Maruts 38
Mitra 28[1]
Ushas 21
Vayu (Wind) 12
Savitr 11
the Rbhus 11
Pushan 10
the Apris 9
Brhaspati 8
Surya (Sun) 8
Dyaus and Prithivi (Heaven and Earth) 6, plus 5.84 dedicated to Earth alone
Apas (Waters) 6
Adityas 6
Vishnu 6
Brahmanaspati 6
Rudra 5
Dadhikras 4
the Sarasvati River / Sarasvati 3
Yama
Parjanya (Rain) 3
Vāc (Speech) 2 (mentioned 130 times, deified e.g. in 10.125)
Vastospati 2
Vishvakarman 2
Manyu 2
Kapinjala (the Heathcock, a form of Indra) 2

Minor deities (one single or no dedicated hymn)
-----------------------------------------------
Manas (Thought), prominent concept, deified in 10.58
Dakshina (Reward for priests and poets), prominent concept, deified in 10.107
Jnanam (Knowledge), prominent concept, deified in 10.71
Purusha ("Cosmic Man" of the Purusha sukta 10.90)
Aditi
Bhaga
Vasukra
Atri
Apam Napat
Ksetrapati
Ghrta
Nirrti
Asamati
Urvasi
Pururavas
Vena
Aranyani
Mayabheda
Tarksya
Tvastar
Saranyu

Nowhere is Shakti mentioned. Shakti is not mentioned in the Rig Veda, so the argument that Shakti is a memory from earlier times from a common (non-Indian) Aryan Home cannot be true.

Sanskrit 'Shakti' becomes Greek 'Hekate'!

Now how do the AIT-Nazis explain that?

May be they will say no, no, no, no! That is not a cognate! Cognates are only those words which have been attested as such by the Indologists! There are many complicated rules one has to consider! Not every that sounds similar is necessary a cognate! ......

[member_20317]

Reminds me of this quote

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong

indeed a great quote. In league with what SaiK posted about judging a fish on its tree climbing abilities.

Tell that to the people at Indian Economy thread.

WTH Life is better here with you bloody Internet Hindus. I wish I could work with you guys on my Big Idea.

On a more serious note.

The members seem to have made enough progress on linguistics and I now feel confident of asking the following question:

If postulations of successive sound changes if mapped on to each other lead to a state that existed at some point in past then would it be too much to ask of a true linguist to make these postulations work into the future?

I had confronted ManishH ji with this. Then I withdrew because I was not sure on the If-then construct of my query. Was I rigth in withdrawing.

Probably this is less about linguistics and more about darshanshastra.

[shiv]

Talking of Sa muting to Ha and languages Greek and Sanskrit,

The Goddess Hekate

and http://hermetic.com/webster/hekate-review.html ,

Are we talking about Godess Shakti?

Oh my what a fascinating connection

Hekate was the protector of the oppressed, both on earth and in the underworld. Many believe that it was her role as the ruler of the spirit world, that gave the goddess extra tolerance for those that most humans would ignore, misunderstand, and mistreat.

[A_Gupta]

*kw > p in Greek

Looking for other examples.
One is here:

http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/coction
Coction:
Word History: Today's Good Word goes back to Latin coquere "to cook, boil". The original root was *pekw- "cook, ripen", visible today in Russian peku "I bake", which still vaguely resembles English bake itself. In Sanskrit the root held its ground: pakva in that language means "ripe". However, this root took a mighty twist upon entering Greek and Latin. In Greek, the [kw] turned into another [p] under the influence of the first [p] (assimilation). The result was peptein "to cook, digest", which we borrowed as peptic, as in peptic ulcer. In Latin just the opposite occurred: the [kw] converted the initial [p] into another [k], giving coquere, pronounced [kokwere]. Hard to believe, but true.

[shiv]

If postulations of successive sound changes if mapped on to each other lead to a state that existed at some point in past then would it be too much to ask of a true linguist to make these postulations work into the future?

I had confronted ManishH ji with this. Then I withdrew because I was not sure on the If-then construct of my query. Was I rigth in withdrawing.

Yes. You were right in withdrawing because you are asking if an earlier construct/fairy tale can be used to create a later one.
The answer is yes. You did not see the previous one occurring and the new one will be written so it can happen only after you are gone

[A_Gupta]

Indo-European kw or kw became p regularly in Greek (with definite exceptions),

http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~ohala/ ... y_of_w.pdf

[A_Gupta]

Grimm's and other laws:
http://grammar.ucsd.edu/courses/lign150/IElaws.pdf

[A_Gupta]

It will amuse/infuriate you to know that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit

Vedic Sanskrit has been orally preserved as a part of the Śrauta tradition of Vedic chanting, predating the advent of alphabetic writing in India by several centuries. For lack of both epigraphic evidence and an unbroken manuscript tradition, Vedic Sanskrit can be considered a reconstructed language. Especially the oldest stage of the language, Rigvedic Sanskrit, the language of the hymns of the Rigveda, is preserved only in a redacted form several centuries younger than the texts' composition. Recovering its original form is a matter of linguistic reconstruction.

Linguists have attempted the reconstruction
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/RV/

The form in which the Rigveda was handed down by Indian tradition, the saṃhitā text, applied later rules of sound combination throughout that systematically destroyed the metrical form of the poems. These inappropriate combinations have to be resolved before the text can be read, and they frequently obscure meaning. For illustration of the many ways in which the later editorial process distorted and obscured the original, see section 45.1 of our online course on the language of the Rigveda, Ancient Sanskrit Online.

The approach taken by van Nooten and Holland to restore the original form of the poems was exclusively systematic. A precise set of procedures was applied, which owed their origin to suggestions made by a number of nineteenth-century Rigvedic scholars, among them Kuhn, Bollensen, Oldenberg, Grassmann, and E. Vernon Arnold. These procedures were:

Restoration of lost syllables. A large number of inappropriate vowel combinations are resolved, both within and between words. For example, the vocative "índraagnī" is restored for "índrāgnī" at 6.059.2b, where the metre clearly shows that the compounded name of the two deities retained the original four syllables. (Note: an alternative restoration, "índrāagnī", with dual ending to both members, is preferred by others, including Grassmann.)

Vocalization of the semivowel. There are innumerable instances where the semivowels y and v in the ancient editions clearly have syllabic value, and were originally vowels. The corresponding vowel (i before y, u before v) has been inserted. This single procedure alone restores the correct syllable count to a large number of verse lines. Where the semivowel resulted from an ancient internal sandhi convention it has simply been removed and the original vowel restored: vyáñjana and abhyáñjana at 8.078.02 are restored to viáñjana and abhiáñjana.

Marking of disyllabic long vowels. A number of long vowels, including the diphthongs e and o, in some words always have disyllabic value. Where the origin of the dissyllable remains uncertain this is indicated by use of a tilde over the vowel. Where the origin of the dissyllable is clear the original form has been restored.

Vowel insertion. The metre can frequently be restored by inserting a dropped vowel into some word forms. For example, the genitive/locative form "pitrós" should always be read "pitarós", and neuter nouns in "-man" and "-van" regularly had later syncopation applied to oblique cases by the ancient editors which is here restored. The name "índra", similarly, is often trisyllabic, "índara".

Correction of representation of "iva". This is consistently given as trisyllabic by the ancient editors, but frequently should read "va" in the Rigveda (see section 41.1 of Ancient Sanskrit Online).

Quantitative restoration. Where metrical irregularity was consistently found in the representation of the same word or morphological form, it was clear that that word or form had suffered in the transmission of the text. For example, the word "pāvaká" is always metrically to be read "pavāká". Long vowels occurring in a number of dual forms have been revised for the same reason: "āśate" is given for "āśāte", "rāsathām" for "rāsāthām".

Use of the rest sign (midline dot). This editorial sign was adopted to mark a pause equivalent to the length of a syllable.

A table of specific restorations can be found at the end of this introduction.

[shiv]

*kw > p in Greek

Looking for other examples.
One is here:

http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/coction
Coction:
Word History: Today's Good Word goes back to Latin coquere "to cook, boil". The original root was *pekw- "cook, ripen", visible today in Russian peku "I bake", which still vaguely resembles English bake itself. In Sanskrit the root held its ground: pakva in that language means "ripe". However, this root took a mighty twist upon entering Greek and Latin. In Greek, the [kw] turned into another [p] under the influence of the first [p] (assimilation). The result was peptein "to cook, digest", which we borrowed as peptic, as in peptic ulcer. In Latin just the opposite occurred: the [kw] converted the initial [p] into another [k], giving coquere, pronounced [kokwere]. Hard to believe, but true.

I can't believe this.

[shiv]

It will amuse/infuriate you to know that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit

Arun, these people are dealing with the written text and I have no reason to disagree. The only authentic veda can be the one that is recited with metrical accuracy. I have read that much has already been lost forever, but we still have the possibility of audio recordings of current day veda experts reciting the vedas correctly. Only that can serve as a template for the written form.

[Nilesh Oak]

A Gupta wrote.

kw > p in Greek

Looking for other examples.
One is here:

http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/coction
Coction:
Word History: Today's Good Word goes back to Latin coquere "to cook, boil". The original root was *pekw- "cook, ripen", visible today in Russian peku "I bake", which still vaguely resembles English bake itself. In Sanskrit the root held its ground: pakva in that language means "ripe". However, this root took a mighty twist upon entering Greek and Latin. In Greek, the [kw] turned into another [p] under the influence of the first [p] (assimilation). The result was peptein "to cook, digest", which we borrowed as peptic, as in peptic ulcer. In Latin just the opposite occurred: the [kw] converted the initial [p] into another [k], giving coquere, pronounced [kokwere]. Hard to believe, but true.

Great find.
As many would be aware (if not, now is the time, ), 'Soup' is a sanskrit word. If you search (google) etc, it will take you various routes, via Dutch to Indonesia, via Germany/Italy to words such as Zuppe, spanish Sopa.. and then it will state, origin is not known.

In Mahabharata, Bhima (while at court of Virata) is described as 'Soup-karta' in his role as 'Ballava- Head Chef'.

[A_Gupta]

KLP Dubeyji,
Your comments on this please!
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ ... 09_GP45_01

However, study of the metre of the poems of the Rigveda demonstrates that the ancient editors of this continuous text systematically applied rules of pronunciation that were regularly wrong. They were dealing with material composed in a period when the language was less rigidly regulated than it was in theirs, and it is apparent that this freer form was unfamiliar to them.

[RajeshA]

The thing is that a civilization that has a larger corpus of texts, also has a larger corpus to protect, and the Western wasps have a bigger corpus of texts to attack with ever new claims. That is the whole thing, they will keep on making wild and evil claims and we will continue to defend all that what we hold dear. That is why the West has large departments of Indologists, linguistics, anthropology, etc. - to analyze all the texts and cultures of the others so as to attack the other better. One will give you compliments, while the others would attack you! Because of the sympathy of one, one would not attack them, as that would not be honorable. And so the Western Civilization does not get attacked.

This is where I like C.K. Raju. He attacks the West where it hurts them most - their historical shallowness and their reconstruction of their own history based on inadequate evidence, vague judgments and outright stealing. All their dates and accomplishments are also frauds.

[member_22872]

I emailed one of the Kanchi mutt's resident Sanskrit (could be vedic) scholar if he could help translate couple of Rg Vedic hymns referred by David Anthony, he told me that without sAyaNa he can't even understand the hymns so can't do the translation correctly. I wonder if these Vedic experts who write books actually care to refer to sAyaNa.

[member_23686]

It will amuse/infuriate you to know that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit

Arun, these people are dealing with the written text and I have no reason to disagree. The only authentic veda can be the one that is recited with metrical accuracy. I have read that much has already been lost forever, but we still have the possibility of audio recordings of current day veda experts reciting the vedas correctly. Only that can serve as a template for the written form.

Like this-

In case anyone want audio of all vedic recitations-

Rgveda

https://vedavichara.com///Vedavichara/V ... da/001.mp3
to
https://vedavichara.com///Vedavichara/V ... da/064.mp3

Krishna Yajurveda

https://www.vedavichara.com///Vedavicha ... da/065.mp3
to
https://www.vedavichara.com///Vedavicha ... da/146.mp3

Samveda

https://www.vedavichara.com///Vedavicha ... da/147.mp3
to
https://www.vedavichara.com///Vedavicha ... da/213.mp3

Atharvaveda

https://www.vedavichara.com///Vedavicha ... da/214.mp3
to
https://www.vedavichara.com///Vedavicha ... da/237.mp3

Shukla Yajurveda

https://www.vedavichara.com///Vedavicha ... da/238.MP3
to
https://www.vedavichara.com///Vedavicha ... da/257.MP3


Just keep on changing the number at the end of url from 001 to 257

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1340657
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1340658

[A_Gupta]

What I quoted above starts with the simple premise that the Rig Vedic hymns should follow the meter exactly - and this apparently shows that vowels have been mangled - simple syllable counting.

[member_23686]

KLP Dubeyji,
Your comments on this please!
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ ... 09_GP45_01

However, study of the metre of the poems of the Rigveda demonstrates that the ancient editors of this continuous text systematically applied rules of pronunciation that were regularly wrong. They were dealing with material composed in a period when the language was less rigidly regulated than it was in theirs, and it is apparent that this freer form was unfamiliar to them.

I am amused that the people who can't even pronounce our names correctly are attacking our tradition of vedic pronunciation.

[shiv]

What I quoted above starts with the simple premise that the Rig Vedic hymns should follow the meter exactly - and this apparently shows that vowels have been mangled - simple syllable counting.

I doubt if these people are working on audio files. They are working on text files of the Rig Veda transcribed into Roman alphabet.

[Lalmohan]

the thing with historians is that they love to disagree with each other
all of the noise from overseas will be lost under the deluge of new indian research
all it will take is for indians to start doing it

[Satya_anveshi]

The way the Sanskrit was preserved due to its direct relationship with Vedas is that inordinate efforts were spent in preserving content, order, and the sound output of the chants.

It is not uncommon among certain families in India where elders get quite mad or even use a cane on the musharraf to enforce correct pronunciation of the mantras/slokas/stotras.

This wiki page on Pathas talks about the ways used to learn, recite, preserve the vedas.

Pathas
The various pathas or recitation styles are designed to allow the complete and perfect memorization of the text and its pronunciation, including the Vedic pitch accent. Eleven such ways of reciting the Vedas were designed - Samhita, Pada, Krama, Jata, Maalaa, Sikha, Rekha, Dhwaja, Danda, Rathaa, Ghana, of which Ghana is usually considered the most difficult.[3]

The students are first taught to memorize the Vedas using simpler methods like continuous recitation (samhita patha), word by word reciation (pada patha) in which compounds (sandhi) are dissolved and krama patha (words are arranged in the pattern of ab bc cd...); before teaching them the eight complex recitation styles.[4]

A pathin is a scholar who has mastered the pathas. Thus, a ghanapaathin (or ghanapaati in Telugu) has learnt the chanting of the scripture up to the advanced stage of ghana. The Ghanapatha or the "Bell" mode of chanting is so called because the words are repeated back and forth in a bell shape. The sonority natural to Vedic chanting is enhanced in Ghana. In Jatapatha, the words are braided together, so to speak, and recited back and forth.[5]

Mnemonic Devices

Prodigious energy was expended by ancient Indian culture in ensuring that these texts were transmitted from generation to generation with inordinate fidelity.[1][6]
Towards this end, eight complex forms of recitation or pathas were designed to aid memorization and verification of the sacred Vedas. The texts were subsequently "proof-read" by comparing the different recited versions.

Some of the forms of recitation are —

The jaṭā-pāṭha (literally "mesh recitation") in which every two adjacent words in the text were first recited in their original order, then repeated in the reverse order, and finally repeated again in the original order.[7] The recitation thus proceeded as:

word1word2, word2word1, word1word2; word2word3, word3word2, word2word3; ...


In another form of recitation, dhvaja-pāṭha[7] (literally "flag recitation") a sequence of N words were recited (and memorized) by pairing the first two and last two words and then proceeding as:

word1word2, word(N-1)wordN; word2word3, word(N-3)word(N-2); ...; word(N-1)wordN, word1word2;


The most complex form of recitation, ghana-pāṭha (literally "dense recitation"), according to (Filliozat 2004, p. 139), took the form:

word1word2, word2word1, word1word2word3, word3word2word1, word1word2word3; word2word3, word3word2, word2word3word4, word4word3word2, word2word3word4; ...

These extraordinary retention techniques guaranteed the most perfect canon not just in terms of unaltered word order but also in terms of sound.[8] That these methods have been effective, is testified to by the preservation of the most ancient Indian religious text, the Ṛgveda (ca. 1500 BCE){bah!}, as a single text, without any variant readings.

Here is an example of Ghanapaatha - about 60% down the page you can play it to listen. You can also look at example on utube but without associated text.

It is the usual attempt at insulting this time tested practice to say that mispronunciation have crept it across all the vedashalas which run parallelly and independently.

[Nilesh Oak]

Here is what my dear friend wrote.. (he is working in Biochemistry.. genetics and stuff, but has varied interests. He is also an able and enthusiastic collborator of Sullivan Code project aka SSVC script decipherment.).

I will find a way to post the links to papers he sent.

(emphasis mine)

Nilesh-da,

For BMAC gene flow, I had referred Haber et al 2012. I had told in the fb page about a "gene flow INTO afghanisthan/BMAC around 1500 BC".
Very few good papers have come from blood samples drawn from Afghan and Iranians. This partly for a Muslim superstition as to be buried with a "defect"- the syringe hole!!! Anyway,

Haber et al 2012 publishes some fascinating results.
His outcomes:

1. "R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does NOT support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India."

2. "This genetic affinity and gene flow (from India)suggests interactions that could have existed since at least the establishment of the region’s first civilizations at the Indus Valley
and the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex".

3. "This means that the 2 major waves of splitting could have occurred earlier, but since RM networks of the major haplogroups show limited gene flow between the ethnic groups and since the population structure suggested by MDS and Barrier correlate populations from the historically connected [2] Bronze Age sites to Pashtun and Tajik, BATWING (the software, not Batman's plane!!!! ) suggested splits in Afghan populations at 4.7 kya (95% CI 2,775–7,725) are very probable."
4700-2000 = 2700 BC. This is the upper limit of transfer.

For my interpretation, have a look at Fig. 3. Afghans branched off from North Indians at least 800 years back.. during the time of Muslim conquest, movement of Pashtuns. before that, another common ancestor for Afghans and Indians existed at 1.9 plus 0.8 , i.e, 1900 + 800 years back = 2700;
Now, 2700-2000 = 700 BC is the lowest limit. So the gene transfer happened before that.

Combining both facts, we have: (2700 + 700)/2 = 1700 BC, which is the date I had given Sue.

Along with this, I'm also sending you a paper from an Iranian journal who confirm the gene movement from India TO iran. The sad part is, there are people who choose to ignore these data just because they challenge their well-set believes.

Few months back, I had tried changing the stupid "genetics of South Asia" entry in wikipedia because it was full of biased statements and wrongly interpreted data results. Within two hours, my write-up was removed and replaced by the same crap. In the discussion forum, I found out two AIT-supporters, actively destroying any evidence given to the contrary. It is strange that grown-up people behave in such an unscientific, prejudiced manner.

[shiv]

Within two hours, my write-up was removed and replaced by the same crap. In the discussion forum, I found out two AIT-supporters, actively destroying any evidence given to the contrary. It is strange that grown-up people behave in such an unscientific, prejudiced manner[/u].

[/quote]

This means that this is exactly the sort of propaganda and overwhelming Wiki trolling that we non professionals can excel at if need be. We need a dedicated bunch of Wiki trolls who are given content to cut and paste into Wiki every time it is changed by assorted oiseaules. After all many of us have contributed to Wiki both financially and intellectually.

[member_22872]

^^^ Is it possible to do it programmatically? more like a daemon process? if so nothing can beat that.

[Nilesh Oak]

^^^ Is it possible to do it programmatically? more like a daemon process? if so nothing can beat that.

I love this Venug, ji.

Where is the Indian IT/IM Supercomputer/programing power?! Time for action!

This also fit perfect with the theme of 'Strategy', 'International issues' and 'action -doer mentality'.

[shaardula]

attn., brihaspati, atri, rajesh, shiv et. al,

have you heard of this guy called daniel everett? very interesting story. full blown evangelist. goes to brazil and lives with an amazonian tribe (piraha) for decades, and ends up losing faith, and family. and ends up stirring the field of linguistics, and its mighty guru chomsky.

turns out that the pirahas have a very simple language, nothing like what we'all have. as a consequence of this, or perhaps more curiously, along with the simple language structure they have, they are also highly empirical. i mean, we were all brought upto think that magna carta was some sort of a pinnacle in human empiricism, the ultimate covenant of the contemporaries, but it turns out that these guys have an epistemology that rejects everything that has not been experienced by any of the contemporaries. the key to all this turns out to be their language; simple structure, but its fairly advanced in that it lends itself richly to the description of the present. but past and future very limited vocabulary. now there are good and bad things to this. the good is that, they are incredibly confident community, bad is that without ways to transcribe past, they have limited advances in "science".

pardon me if i repeat myself, but this IMHo is precisely what many of our ancestors were intensely aware of. they called it shabda sutaka. the vulgarization/corruption of reality that arises from putting experiences in words. if notice, the real good ones amongst us like ashtavakra et al., are all very minimalistic. there is a reason for that. but we have always been a civilization. we, like the westerners, perpetuate ideas, desires, and ambitions. but like, the europeans, blind to the fact that these cause attachment and retrogression in return. we cling to the ideas of maaya,of sutakas and are evangelistic about it in our own ways.

i think we somehow fall in between the pirahas and the west. our cultural gestalt is such that we too know what the pirahas know, but we are also samsaarik in that we have the intellectual curiosity and an impulse for perpetuation of an abstraction based on experiences of the western mind.

[shiv]

My current focus is on trying to get a handle on the earliest language records. I am convinced that "Indo-European" itself is far older than it is thought to be - the shallowness and arbitrariness of current linguistic methods in assigning dates leaves me cold.

For all those ridiculous and incredible sound changes that Greek underwent - it appears the process had occurred by 1200 BC. No why didn't further changes occur to make modern Greek even more different from early Greek? You can have the excuse that Sanskrit just happened to develop a phoneme preserving algorithm. But even on that "IndoIranian" side change from 1500 BC to 500 BC was minor.

I find it difficult to believe that in just 1000 years PIE became Greek and Sanskrit. I also find it laughable that the reconstructed PIE is so different from both Greek and Sanskrit that people seriously claim all those mad sound changes just happening to occur in PIE alone to create different languages and then nothing further happened to those languages in 3500 years.

We have to search for the earliest references to old languages and old people.

Clearly Sanskrit texts like the Rig Veda geography (Saraswati) and Mahabharata astronomy and archaeological evidence like the Aihole (pronounced eye-holay) inscription suggest that Sanskrit existed as an independent language before 3000 BC. Perhaps earlier. Surely PIE - whatever its nature must be older than that.

What else could give a clue in Europe? Greek too must be older. You cannot have a sudden change creating two languages like Greek and Sanskrit. I find it difficult to believe that Greek might have arisen from a Sanskrit like language that was in Syria in 1500 BC. In fact Greek text in Linear B has been discovered from 1400 BC. Ancient Greek and a Sanskrit like language were well established by 1500 BC. It hardly seems likely that the first horse riding hordes were teaching the sophisticated city civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Indus valley how to say 'Horse" and "Horse dung". The Mitanni texts were texts that were read in Egypt - so translators were there and there were people exchanging information - eg horse training techniques between these far flung civilizations by 1500 BC. This is not a time when pastoralists were just beginning to settle in a replace an older language.

I will be looking at a few data points in due course. Estimated populations in IVC and Mesopotamia as well as the language of Egypt.

[brihaspati]

shaardula ji,
yes I have known about him. His name came up in my earlier explorations of Chomsky's effects. Can expound later! I do support your thinking in this regard.

Nilesh ji,
have you ever looked into saptarshi and the numbers associated with them [in texts as well as astronomy]? The discussion on Arundhati-Vasistha rekindled a very old curioisty and hunch of mine about the so-called internal structure of RgVeda. Vyas's name connected to both made me suspect that both MBH and RgVeda served/or was deliberately arranged to serve the dual purpose of story-telling as well as encoding astronomical observations which were deemed to be of tremendous importance, and of sufficient importance to be studied for a long time into the future. Hence the insistence that RV is the source of all knowledge and that it had to be remembered exactly as formulated.

[shaardula]

please do.

[Nilesh Oak]

B ji,

No, I have not looked into Saptarshi, with specific focus you are referring to. While reading MBH or Bhagavata, or other puranas, I have encountered numerous stories related to Saptarshi's or how each Manvantar would have its own set of 7 sages and so on.

MBH does have too much emphasis on numbers (so does Rigveda).e. g. in MBH, War lasting 18 days, 18 Parvas (even if this is later development), 18 Aukshahini - warrior units, distribution of these units as 7:11, Position of beginning of War at 6th Parva, forest stay of 13 years one of which to be spent incognito. So , yes, I am aware of it. But mostly focusing on easy to catch prey.. and some of them are taking years!

Subhash Kak does talk about Astronomy/astronomical code ...embedded... in Rigveda.

[anmol]

Europeans did not inherit pale skins from Neanderthals

14:55 26 September 2012 by Karl Gruber

The people who built Stonehenge 5000 years ago probably had the same pallid complexion of many modern inhabitants of the UK. Now it seems that the humans occupying Britain and mainland Europe only lost the darker skins of their African ancestors perhaps just 6000 years earlier, long after Neanderthals had died out. The finding confirms that modern Europeans didn't gain their pale skin from Neanderthals – adding to evidence suggesting that European Homo sapiens and Neanderthals generally kept their relationships strictly platonic.

There is a clear correlation between latitude and skin pigmentation: peoples that have spent an extended period of time at higher latitudes have adapted to those conditions by losing the skin pigmentation that is common at lower latitudes, says Sandra Beleza at the University of Porto in Portugal. Lighter skin can generate more vitamin D from sunlight than darker skin, making the adaptation an important one for humans who wandered away from equatorial regions.

Those wanderings took modern humans into Europe around 45,000 years ago – but exactly when the European skin adapted to local conditions had been unclear.
Three genes

Beleza and her colleagues studied three genes associated with lighter skin pigmentation. Although the genes are found in all human populations, they are far more common in Europe than in Africa, and explain a significant portion of the skin-colour differences between European and west African populations.

By analysing the genomes of 50 people with European ancestry and 70 people with sub-Saharan African ancestry, Beleza's team could estimate when the three genes – and pale skin – first became widespread in European populations. The result suggested that the three genes associated with paler skin swept through the European population only 11,000 to 19,000 years ago.

"The selective sweeps for favoured European [versions of the three genes] started well after the first migrations of modern humans into Europe," says Beleza.

The finding agrees with earlier studies suggesting that modern humans did not lose their dark skins immediately on reaching Europe, says Katerina Harvati at the University of Tübingen in Germany. "[The new study] is interesting because it suggests a very late differentiation of skin pigmentation among modern humans," she says.

An earlier analysis of ancient DNA in 40,000 and 50,000-year-old Neanderthal bones, respectively from Spain and Italy, suggested that our extinct cousins had light-coloured skin and reddish hair in their European heartland. But the Neanderthals went extinct around 28,000 years ago – long before modern humans in Europe gained a pale skin. Evidently Neanderthals did not pass these useful local adaptations on to modern humans, despite genetic evidence that the two species interbred.
Middle Eastern contact

That might seem unusual given that the two species lived cheek-by-jowl in Europe for several thousand years. But it makes sense if the interbreeding evident in the genes occurred in the Middle East, where modern humans and Neanderthals first met, says Chris Stringer at the Natural History Museum, London.

In that region, Neanderthals may have had darker skins, explaining why our species did not gain a pale skin after interbreeding with them. Indeed, a study earlier this year of ancient DNA suggested that Neanderthals living in what is now Croatia had dark skin and brown hair.

"Neanderthal skin colour was probably variable, as might be expected for a large population spread out over a large territorial expanse," says Harvati.