Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
member_23686
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_23686 »

>and this is the paper

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/e ... bev.mss207
The inverse correlation between skin pigmentation
and latitude observed in human populations is
thought to have been shaped by selective
pressures favoring lighter skin in order to facilitate
vitamin D synthesis in regions far from the
equator. Several candidate genes for skin
pigmentation have been shown to exhibit patterns
of polymorphism that overlap the geospatial
variation in skin color. However, little work has
focused on estimating the timeframe over which
skin pigmentation has changed and on the
intensity of selection acting on different
pigmentation genes. To provide a temporal
framework for the evolution of lighter
pigmentation, we used forward Monte Carlo
simulations coupled with a rejection sampling
algorithm to estimate the time of onset of selective
sweeps and selection coefficients at four genes
associated with this trait in Europeans: KITLG,
TYRP1, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 . Using compound
haplotype systems consisting of rapidly evolving
microsatellites linked to one SNP in each gene, we
estimate that the onset of the sweep shared by
Europeans and East Asians at KITLG occurred
about 30,000 years ago, after the out-of-Africa
migration, while the selective sweeps for the
European-specific alleles at TYRP1, SLC24A5, and
SLC45A2 started much later, within the last
11,000-19,000 years, well after the first migrations
of modern humans into Europe. We suggest that
these patterns were influenced by recent increases
in size of human populations, which favored the
accumulation of advantageous variants at different
loci.
ukumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 77
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by ukumar »

peter wrote: Reason why I believe dating of Mbh is related to defeating AIT is because the more weapons we have the deeper we can bury AIT.

IMO, what would be interesting is to identify list of observation on which scholars agree and possible dates when they were true. This should at least identify the lower bound date for MBh. I believe it would come out to be Iyenger's ~1500BC. That would push Rigveda at least to ~1900BC, contemporary with Harappans, earliest attested IE language and make it harder to argue that Mittani folks were before Rigveda.

After that we can continue to establish next possible date.
Last edited by ukumar on 27 Sep 2012 12:39, edited 1 time in total.
ukumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 77
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by ukumar »

brihaspati wrote:peter ji,
onus is not anyone. You dismissed completely that Indians could manage to track an astronomical phenomenon over very long periods of time. Your own example requires 500 years of anticipatory observation. Someone has to carry on observing and have a means of passing it on to be compared 500 years later. It seems that for you, 500 years is okay but 5000 or 8000 is not okay. If there is a potential indication that it might have been actually maintained - we should not rule it out simply because you have any hidden bias against believing Indians being capable of devising such transmission mechanisms [even orally].
I have one doubt with date older than forth millenium BC. World population becomes very small as we go deep in to prehistory. I think society needs critical mass of people, technological advancement and social organization to free up brain power to preserve knowledge. You need people dedicating their life to memorize Vedas and they need support from the society. Beyond certain time depth it may not be possible to remember anything more than legends. So some legends from Rigveda may go deep in to prehistory but the whole MBh text is a stretch.
KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by KLP Dubey »

A_Gupta wrote: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.
This seems like much ado about nothing. The link you sent seems to be a sophomoric lesson in Vedic Sanskrit. Neither the teacher nor the students have likely ever actually heard or pronounced the Veda correctly, nor ever looked up the pratishakhya.

These people seem to be suggesting that the Indian text editors were so disingenuous that they did not know about the oral transmission which preserves the meter exactly, nor indeed the pratishakhya whose rules back up the oral transmission. The text editions were actually just supplements/references, in which the sandhi rules were applied enthusiastically. It was obvious to the text editor that a knowledgeable person, having actually memorized the Veda from oral transmission, and knowing the pratishakhya, would produce the sounds with metric correctness. Therefore, he did not "idiot-proof" the textual version. Or perhaps that was the idea in the first place - i.e., to confound idiots who attempt to reproduce the Veda from a text, thereby ending up producing the wrong sounds and hence deriving no benefit from it. :rotfl:

What is most amazing is that the realization of this elementary fact is being claimed as some sort of a great "reconstruction" of the Rgveda! A simple reference to the pratishakhya (section XVII.21-26) would have cleared up all doubts on how to ensure maintenance of the meter. For example,

From the first sukta of the RV, we have Rk I.1.5 in gayatri (3 x 8 syllables)

yad anga dASushe tvam | agne bhadram karishyasi | tavetat satyam angiraH |

Obviously, as is well known and mentioned in the pratishakhya, one must resolve the coalesced vowel in the first pada, i.e. resolve "tvam" into "tuvam" (pronounce in slow motion) in order to obtain 8 syllables.

Similarly, the famous "Gayatri" mantra (RV III.62.10):

tat savitur varenyam | bhargo devasya dhimahi | dhiyo yo nah pracodayAt |

requires the resolution of "varenyam" into "vareni-am".

The main problem these confused people have, is the tendency to regard the Rgveda as an authored work in Vedic Sanskrit. The Rgveda is not in Vedic Sanskrit. It is a collection of primeval sounds, not of human agency. The Vedic Sanskrit phonetics, sandhi, and grammatical rules were derived from it but obviously cannot be "fitted" to it perfectly. The people writing BS articles like the one linked above need to make up their mind whether they are wanting to reproduce Rgvedic sounds (I very much doubt it - too much effort!), or whether they are wanting to study Vedic Sanskrit (the language constructed from observing Rgvedic sounds) for some "academic" purpose. The latter should be studied using the Brahmanas and Upanishads.

In summary - a case of the blind leading the blind!

KL
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

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

Post by Lalmohan »

major astronomical observations can stretch into prehistory - without necessarily a lot of science attached to them. hunter gatherers have the stars as their constant companions and are very aware of them. they use them to navigate, to understand time, etc. it is possible that a lot of what has been codified does indeed stretch into prehistory - but was only codified later when populations became more settled
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

On the general topic of "language change" here is a view on the differences/similarities between ancient Greek and modern Greek (about 2500 years?)

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2647.htm
Pronunciation
How close is the sound of Modern Greek to that of Classic Greek?

Phonetically, Classic Greek would sound rather alien to contemporary Greeks, but don’t ever say this to them! It is an issue that most Greeks, even educated ones, ignore. I suspect it is because the alphabet has remained the same, so Greeks can read classic texts with no trouble at all (pronouncing in Modern Greek). After all, it all looks Greek to them! If any (non-Greek) scholar attempts to pronounce classic texts in the reconstructed(1) pronunciation, that, to Greeks is tantamount to sacrilege. As a contemporary Greek myself, I can give you my personal feeling for how the reconstructed pronunciation sounds: it is as if a barbarian is trying to speak Greek.
<snip>
On the other hand, the truth is when non-Greek scholars attempt to pronounce Classic Greek in the reconstructed way, they think they pronounce accurately. To me, American scholars sound distinctly American (like Platos with spurs and cowboy hats), Germans sound German, etc. Probably nobody can reproduce exactly the Classic Greek pronunciation, not only because as native speakers of this or that language we necessarily carry over our native phonology, but also because the Classic Greek pronunciation used pitch to differentiate vowels in words, while nearly all modern European languages (including Modern Greek) use stress instead.(4)
Talk about linguists pronouncing sanskrit.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

I am putting this link (for Latin pronunciation) here for the record - i believe it is an important reference point to show how doubtful phonology of ancient Latin is - so much for "reconstruction of PIE"

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/ ... ccent.html
Initially c was written to mark a softened [k’] sound before the anterior vowels e and i and the diphthongs ae and oe, while k was written before a, o, stressed u and the consonants and was pronounced in a hard manner. Because the difference between the two consonants was not significant to the speakers and there were not grammatical functions associated with it, it became a common practice to mark both sounds by the letter c.

The letter f probably represented by classical times a labiodental sound pronounced with the lower lip touching the upper front teeth like its English equivalent) but earlier it may have been a bilabial (pronounced with the two lips touching or approaching one another).

H was pronounced only by educated speakers even in the classical period, amd references to its loss in vulgar speech are frequent.

The [j] sound (technically called consonantal i) appears in the beginning of the words before a vowel or in the middle of the words between two vowels, as in ius [jus] and cuius ['kujus]; the compound words preserve the [j] sound of the element, that begins with it, cf. coniunx [konjunks] and adiectivum [adjektivum]. For convenience we will use the letter j (named jota) to mark the [j] sound, as it is common from the Middle Ages onward; so we will write the above words as jus, cujus, conjunx and adjectivum.

The usage of the letter k was preserved in several words, as Kalendae, Kaeso, Karthago (also Carthago) etc.

The letter q was written before unstressed semivowel u [=w] to mark a voiceless labiovelar sound [q], as in quinque ['qwinqw] (presented also as ['kwinkw]) with the accent on i. When u was stressed and thus not of semivowel type, there was written c instead of q, cf. cui ['kui] to whom (with accent on u) vs. qui ['qwi] who? (with accent on i).

R was probably a tongue trill at the classical period, like in modern Castilian, but there is earlier evidence that in some positions it may have been a fricative or a flap.

It is suggested that Latin s had a pronunciation like that of modern Castilian (with the tip, rather than the blade, raised behind the teeth, giving a lisping impression). In early Latin it was often weakened in final position.

The [w] sound was pronounced before vowel, as in solvo ['slw] or quartus ['kwartus], while before consonant in the beginning or the middle of the word and after consonant at the end of the word was heard , as in unda ['unda], natura [na'tu:ra] and natu ['natu:]. In the modern printed Latin texts u stands usually for and v for [w].

The letter y was introduced from the contemporary Greek alphabet to mark the [y] sound, inexistent in Latin, but frequently found in the numerous Greek loan words.

Like y, z was also introduced from the contemporary Greek alphabet to mark the [dz] sound, especially at the beginning of the words.


Also:

In addition to the consonants shown, educated Roman speakers evidently used a series of voiceless aspirated stops, written ph [], th [], ch [x], originally borrowed from Greek words but also occurring in native words (pulcher beautiful, lachrima tears, triumphus triumph, etc.) from the end of the 2nd century BC. The rh, surely not distinguished phonetically from r, was written in the beginning of the Greek loan words only (like rhetor, rhombus etc.).

The sound [] (as in English ‘sing’), written ng or gn, may not have had phonemic status (in spite of the pair annus/agnus year/lamb, in which [] may be regarded as a positional variant of [g]).

Consonants written double in the classical period were probably so pronounced (a distinction was made, for instance, between anus old woman and annus year). When consonantal i appeared intervocalically, it was always doubled in speech.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:
Abhibhushan wrote: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

Image
Continuing from my earlier post,

I think we need to look at Goddess Hekate a lot more closely and see what connections we can find with Shakti. Whatever be the nature of similarity and derivation of Greek mythology from Indian mythology, Greek mythology also has significant differences, so finding similarities may not be that easy. In fact the Greek derivation may be hidden through different narratives and different means of integration into the pantheon, but there may be some obscure hints.

In case somebody here feels to have a good handle over the breadth of Indian mythology, perhaps one can try to search for such similarities between Hekate and Indian Goddesses associated with Shakti.

Here is a good recap of Goddess Hekate.

The fact that she is the lone Titan to be honored by the Olympians, I find interesting.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Post by Murugan »

Lalmohan wrote:major astronomical observations can stretch into prehistory - without necessarily a lot of science attached to them. hunter gatherers have the stars as their constant companions and are very aware of them. they use them to navigate, to understand time, etc. it is possible that a lot of what has been codified does indeed stretch into prehistory - but was only codified later when populations became more settled
One man (civilization)'s prehistory is other man's history!

It depends on who defines what to be called 'prehistory' ! The word prehistory is political and related to some sort of identity politics.

For us, there is no prehistory! It is utpatti, sthiti and laya...
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

Appendix Probi

The Appendix Probi is a list of 272 words that allegedly got a Roman grammarian's chaddi in a knot because of all the sound changes that had occurred in "vulgar Latin" spoken by mango man. He made a list of corrections which show many of the common sound changes that most of us will recognize. No hint of the "K>S" palatalization. Googal chacha says that Russian is the one language in which pronunciation tends to favor palatalization. You see, Greek, Latin and Sanskrit have remained relatively stable for thousands of years and the idea that a cockeyed PIE had a word called "*kemtom" that became palatalise to Sanskrit "shata" sounds ridiculous to me.

The Russian word for 100 is "sto"; the French word "cent" is pronounced "sawn"; The Spanish word is "pronounced "sien"; Only Italian is pronounced "chent".

The pronunciation is all "sa" or "sha" or "cha"

Other than that Greek is "ekato" (or probably pronounced "ehato"

German is "hundert"

How the fck did linguists come up with this ridiculous "satem-centum" divide? There is no such divide. Linguist have misreead lating "cent" as "kent". It is cent as in sent. they have misread Greek hundred as "ekato", the "k" in Greek is pronounced as a "ha" All "ha" words in Greek have "sh/sa" words in Sanskrit as cognates.

A couple of days ago I was looking at a sanskrit doctionary for all sanskrit words for 100. One word struck me "eka shatam" - as in "one hundred" You see , "eka shatam" of sanskrit would become "ekhato" in Greek as sarpa became herpes and "Sindhu" became "Hindu" via Persia.

I suspect that Latin and Italic languages reflect the original Sanskrit like pronunciation better, but Greek has been modified by its invasions from Persia.

The Sa>Ha change is a typical Avestan event and that same change occurs in Greek, but not in Latin and its daughter languages.
Last edited by shiv on 27 Sep 2012 15:27, edited 1 time in total.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Post by Murugan »

hunter gatherers have the stars as their constant companions and are very aware of them. they use them to navigate, to understand time, etc.
Not necessarily hunter gatherers, stars are still constant companions of modern humans too who are not hunter gatherers, and they use them to navigate, understand time and maintain calendar. The link is active.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

RajeshA wrote:
I think we need to look at Goddess Hekate a lot more closely and see what connections we can find with Shakti.

I just had a related thought. It was Abhibhuhan who pointed out the Shakti-Hekate similarity. In fact there is an earlier post about the Sa>Ha change made by Abhibhushan in response to Murugan
Abhibhushan wrote:
Murugan wrote:in Gujarat, especially in saurashtra region, Sa become Ha as one proceeds from well educated population to sparsley populated and illiterate regions

Saaru becomes Haaru, saaru means good
Samajyo becomes Hamajyo, samajyo means understood
Saat becomes Haat, saat means seven
Saatu becomes Haatu

Cha becomes Sa
Samachar becomes hamasaar, haara hamasaar means good news
Saachu becomes haasu, saachu means satya, true

Imho, the population occupied in layman jobs do not like to speak energy intensive sounds

This mutation of sa to ha is common to Bangla dilects of eastern districts (now in Bangladesh) like Barisal/Kumilla etc.
Rajesh if you read genetics papers you find that Gujaratis and Bengali brahmins have high concentrations of central Asia R1. I may be mixing up things though. :oops: Is there a link between the tendency to change Sa to Ha extending from Bengal and Gujarat via Iran all the way to Greece?
ManishH
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic

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

Post by ManishH »

KLP Dubey wrote: These people seem to be suggesting that the Indian text editors were so disingenuous that they did not know about the oral transmission which preserves the meter exactly, nor indeed the pratishakhya whose rules back up the oral transmission.
...

What is most amazing is that the realization of this elementary fact is being claimed as some sort of a great "reconstruction" of the Rgveda! A simple reference to the pratishakhya (section XVII.21-26) would have cleared up all doubts on how to ensure maintenance of the meter. For example,

From the first sukta of the RV, we have Rk I.1.5 in gayatri (3 x 8 syllables)

yad anga dASushe tvam | agne bhadram karishyasi | tavetat satyam angiraH |

Obviously, as is well known and mentioned in the pratishakhya, one must resolve the coalesced vowel in the first pada, i.e. resolve "tvam" into "tuvam" (pronounce in slow motion) in order to obtain 8 syllables.
Dubey-ji: I beg to differ. On the matter of semi-vowels in metrically incomplete pāda-s, the ṛg-prātiśākhya itself is far from unambiguous.

http://archive.org/details/rgvedapratisakhy031599mbp

====
VII.40 In an incomplete pāda, the perfection (ie. the required no. of syllables) should be sought by means of a resolution (व्यूह) of semi-vowels as well as coalesced vowels.
====

v/s

====
XVII.22 In pādas which are incomplete, one should, for the sake of perfection, resolve the coalesced combinations
XVII.23 Conjuctions with semi-vowels, however should one separate by means of corresponding vowels
====

IOW, VII.40 says it should be pronounced tu-am But XVII.23 says it should be pronounced tu-vam. Both variations restore the syllable count.

Of course the so called fidelity of "oral reproduction" is often overrated and doesn't follow prātiśākhya at all. This is the audio snippet which shows that the traditional reciter lengthens the later word 'agne' instead of 'tvam':

http://tinypic.com/r/33nxlxk/6
(c) Kapali Shastri Institute

Q: So why is this technicality important in AIT thread ?

A: The notion that an Indian receiving oral tradition in a traditional vedaśāla is somehow immune to sound change and corruption is wrong. So is the notion that Ṛg is a revealed text whose meaning is not known. The reality is that sound change is a sub-conscious process that is increasingly getting better understood. And Ṛg is of-course man-made verses out of a language that was already spoken. Natural elements (The Universe) of course inspired it (as gāyatri says - dhiyo yo naḥ pracodayāt). Also wrong is the notion that a western scholar is somehow dumb and cannot provide insights into vedic texts just because he is not an Indian. I prefer to criticize ideas and theories, not the origin and ancestry of people who propound them.
In summary - a case of the blind leading the blind!

KL
Appears so.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

shiv saar,

I think also the centum-satem divide is really not there.

I'll make a conjecture: all the Indo-European languages which spread from India via a route North of Caspian retained the 'sa', while all those which spread via the route South of Caspian changed to 'ha'.

Perhaps one should look at sound changes of the type Sanskrit 'sa' > Persian 'ha' > Southern European 'ka' (under the influence of Semitic)
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Post by Virendra »

How many of you visit "India Archeology" Yahoo group?
That group is frequented by people from all camps (AIT/AMT/OIT).
Abhibhushan
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 20:56
Location: Chennai

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

Post by Abhibhushan »

Following RajeshA's link on Hekate there is a reference of her war against Gigants which sounds like Deva Danava Sangharsha

A furter link from there takes me to this picture

Image

which reminds me of Mahishasura Mardini !!!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

RajeshA wrote:shiv saar,

I think also the centum-satem divide is really not there.

I'll make a conjecture: all the Indo-European languages which spread from India via a route North of Caspian retained the 'sa', while all those which spread via the route South of Caspian changed to 'ha'.

Perhaps one should look at sound changes of the type Sanskrit 'sa' > Persian 'ha' > Southern European 'ka' (under the influence of Semitic)
Rajesh the sa>ka change may well be a bogey.

See this link about the evolution of the name Jesus in Greek.
http://jesus8880.com/chapters/gematria/yehoshua.htm
The Greek name Ihsous

When the Greeks wanted to turn a Hebrew name into a Greek name there were two ways to bring it across the language barrier. One way was by translation, which tries to capture the meaning of a word ... but in the process, loses it's sound. The other way was by transliteration, which tries to capture the sound of the Hebrew word ... but in the process, loses it's meaning.

Let's look at the most probable scenario of how the four Hebrew letters in the name Y'-Sh-U-A (Yod-Shin-Vav-Ayin) were transliterated to Koine Greek.

The first Hebrew letter YOD has a “YE” sound. Unfortunately, the Greek language does not have a letter nor a diphthong that has the "Y" sound as in YES! The Greek solution was to pair the two letters IOTA-ETA to produce the sound “EE-AY” which was deemed to be close enough to the Hebrew sound "YE."
The second Hebrew letter SHIN has the "SH" sound. This was an even bigger problem because the "SH" sound does not exist in Greek. The Greek solution was to employ the "S" sound made by the letter SIGMA.
The third Hebrew letter Vav has a "U" sound. The Greek diphthong "ou" OMICRON-UPSILON is an exact match because it has the same "OO" sound.
The fourth Hebrew letter AYIN has the "AH" sound. According to the Greek rules of grammar, masculine names never end in a vowel sound, and when they do, the name should always be closed with the letter "S" whenever possible. The Greek solution was to drop the final "AH" sound and close out the name with an "S."
These four steps produce the name “Iesous” (IhsouV) which is pronounced "EE-AY-SOOS."
I cannot vouch for the credibility of the link, but i am mainly interested in the fact that the sound "sh" does not exist in Greek. Neither does the sound "ha" exist either. And as another link I posted said - only the uppercrust Romans pronounced "ha" in Latin. Or else it was simply dropped.

If the original PIE word had been "shata" or even "shet-" or some people who later spoke Greek or Latin would not have been able to say it. the would have said "seta" or "xeta" or "hata" as the closest approximation. The word was surely written down centuries after it was invented and the writing from may just have used "sa" (Latin) or "ka" (Greek).

The old Latin pronunciation of "s" itself is not clearly known but it could be a match here. The Latin word may have been "tsent" or - close enough to both "ch" and "s"

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/ ... ccent.html
It is suggested that Latin s had a pronunciation like that of modern Castilian (with the tip, rather than the blade, raised behind the teeth, giving a lisping impression). In early Latin it was often weakened in final position.



Why the "n" in cent?

If you look at Appendix Probi of sound changes in Latin
http://ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/germani ... probi.html

The grammarian gets his chaddis in a knot in cases where an unnecessary "n" sound is added to Latin words that never had them
cultellum non (not)cuntellum
Hercules non (not) Herculens
formosus non (not) formunsus
occasio non (not)occansio
pusillus non (not)pisinnus
meretrix non pusillus non (not) pisinnusmenetris
There is only one case where an "n" is dropped!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

ManishH wrote: The reality is that sound change is a sub-conscious process that is increasingly getting better understood. And Ṛg is of-course man-made verses out of a language that was already spoken.
Interesting rhetoric sir. The whole idea of memorizing the Vedas and the precise metrics was likely to have been because the FACT of sound change has been recognized for thousands of years and not something that is "increasingly getting better understood" (unless you are referring to a bunch of self opinionated and blinkered linguists) . Would you believe it better if the idea that it was well known was presented to you in the form of the Appendix Probi of 1700 years ago?

The Vedas are likely an example of how sound change can be fought and minimized if not eliminated. Sound change occurs but is overrated by linguists who are quick to orgiastically celebrate sound changes and compress the time span over which they occur to suit their pet theories. And clearly modern linguists seem to think that no one has thought of this earlier and people just innocently allowed changes to occur. Such an auto-omphalocentric viewpoint is laughable, if miserable.

Perhaps your protestations about the Vedas would be more convincing if you were to demonstrate consistent examples of corruptions of the same words/names between earlier, older Vedas and later ones. I put it to you that no such sound change is demonstrable suggesting the fundamental robustness of the error correction paradigm. I am willing to eat my words if you can do that. Contrary to your fake earlier accusation I am not afraid of being wrong. But someone is going to have to be afraid of my being right
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Virendra ji,
I do visit "India Archaeology" group, but usually it is through Google!
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13535
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

KLP Dubey wrote: This seems like much ado about nothing. The link you sent seems to be a sophomoric lesson in Vedic Sanskrit. Neither the teacher nor the students have likely ever actually heard or pronounced the Veda correctly, nor ever looked up the pratishakhya.
It is not much ado about nothing, if you think of how this western "wisdom" will displace Indian knowledge - unless we take vigorous action. It is in exactly this way that AIT got its start.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13535
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

shiv wrote: Interesting rhetoric sir. The whole idea of memorizing the Vedas and the precise metrics was likely to have been because the FACT of sound change has been recognized for thousands of years and not something that is "increasingly getting better understood" (unless you are referring to a bunch of self opinionated and blinkered linguists) . Would you believe it better if the idea that it was well known was presented to you in the form of the Appendix Probi of 1700 years ago?
One has to take the generations upon generations of Vedists who memorized the vocallics of the Vedas to have been automata, never thinking twice about what they were devoting their whole life to; its ideology (that Vedic sound, not meaning is primary), and trying to keep the sounds pristine.

Today, maybe, with the decline of these schools, perhaps change is happening.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

A_Gupta wrote: It is not much ado about nothing, if you think of how this western "wisdom" will displace Indian knowledge - unless we take vigorous action. It is in exactly this way that AIT got its start.
A_Gupta ji,

you are quite right! For ages now, learned Vedic scholars have been too smug, so full of the invincibility of their stand, they have considered it beneath their dignity to respond to the Western onslaught on Indian texts and culture. In the mean time, the West has long displaced them as the determiners of the dominant narrative on Indian culture and history.

Many are still too smug, and basically treat all Western criticism of India as inconsequential, even though the Indian educational system, media policies, youth culture, politics are all there to give maximum space in Indian discourse to this Western criticism.

It could be a consequence of closed group dynamics, surrounded by similar thinking people, and even perhaps a naive expectation from the Westerner of his sincere interest in Indian Civilization.
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

Ukumar wrote
IMO, what would be interesting is to identify list of observation on which scholars agree and possible dates when they were true.
EoA - Epoch of Arundhati from 11091 BC - 4508 BC, based on one straighforward observation I identify for Indians to agree on (forget scholars... they may or may not agree.. depending on their level of comprehension, their ability and willingness to free themselves of age old shackles, their ability to understand method and logic of science, and their desire for truth). My insistance on EoA (thanks to ravi-g for short nomenclature) is not because I was lucky enough to stumble on it and resolve it, but rather because of its simplicity, verifiability, testability (all mean the same, but anytime I hear word scholar.. I get into my scholarly mode.. sorry!)
This should at least identify the lower bound date for MBh.
I agree. This is the point RajeshA ji recognized first and formost when he read my book, that the roadblock to any scientist, astronomer, astrophysicist, geologists, sanskrists, AITer, PIE-ty, Linguists etc.. is this roadblock of 4508 BC.
I believe it would come out to be Iyenger's ~1500BC. That would push Rigveda at least to ~1900BC, contemporary with Harappans, earliest attested IE language and make it harder to argue that Mittani folks were before Rigveda.
It comes out to 4508 BC and not 1500 BC. That pushes Rigveda ...before 4500 BC, before Harappan civilization and also FALSIFIES claim that 'Mittani folks were before Rigveda' (no need to argue.. hard, harder, hardest..etc.)
After that we can continue to establish next possible date.
I suggest after this, researchers can explore EoA for year of MBH War, if they don't agree MBH corrborations for 5561 BC + continue to search for other ancient Indian events.
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

ukumar wrote:I have one doubt with date older than forth millenium BC. World population becomes very small as we go deep in to prehistory. I think society needs critical mass of people, technological advancement and social organization to free up brain power to preserve knowledge. You need people dedicating their life to memorize Vedas and they need support from the society. Beyond certain time depth it may not be possible to remember anything more than legends. So some legends from Rigveda may go deep in to prehistory but the whole MBh text is a stretch.
What is so magical about 4th millennium BC, that doubts should begin for a time period only before this time?

As we go back in further antiquity, we will face problems of higher complexity and of multiple dimension....not just populations, but also technology, communication, languages, art of writing, and many more.

This is when 'fearlessness (Abhayam) and humbleness (a-manita) comes in handy. As a seeker (seeker after truth that is.) we will have to question every existing theory....iron/bronze/stone age thinking, 'civilization after 3500 BC nonsense', 'written languages after 3000 BC, horse domesticatin after 3500 BC, Astronomy observation only after establishment of NASA.. and so on.

Many of these are based on scholarly opinion and foolishness, others are based on statements made by people in position of power (religious, administrative, military, wealth, resources..etc.)

What part of MBH text is stretch? You say 'whole MBH text, so I will re-phrase the question..."What specific aspect of MBH text bothers you the most?"
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Nilesh Oak ji,

From the Epoch of Arundhati, actually we get a second Age also - that is the age before the Dharma-Sankat of Arundhati walking before Vashishta!

When the star Arundhati was named Arundhati, it still used to follow Vashishta in the night-sky. This naming would have happened before 11091 BC - before the start of the Epoch of Arundhati.

Looking at it differently, the naming would also have been done to honor the real Arundhati - Vashishta's wife. So both the naming of the star and the life of real Arundhati, the person, would have been prior to 11091 BCE.

So the conjecture would be that all stories where Arundhati appears as a person, are depictions of a time before 11091 BCE. However she is considered the great-grandmother of Vyas, so one would have to be a lot more careful in such analysis.
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

ukumar wrote:Beyond certain time depth it may not be possible to remember anything more than legends. So some legends from Rigveda may go deep in to prehistory but the whole MBh text is a stretch.
What gets remembered is not a linear function of time. We know more about Ramayana and Mahabharata characters than say Kalidas, King Ashoka, Aryabhatta, Saint Tukarama, Rani Laximibai of Zhansi, or Saint Tulasidas.

What is remembered is a function of what was perceived by society, its intellectual, spiritual and political leaders as important/critical ...worth remembering for posterity. But even bigger factor is chance. (Daivam chaivatra panchamam). An important document lost to earthquake or religious burning of heathen books can be lost for ever, no matter how critical its consequences for posterity.

As a thought experiment.. imagine someone from not far ago.. pick your date.. 1800, 1600, 1200, 800 AD etc. and their ability to imagine what we have today.. in terms of technology.....what a stretch it would be for them!
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

RajeshA wrote:Nilesh Oak ji,

From the Epoch of Arundhati, actually we get a second Age also - that is the age before the Dharma-Sankat of Arundhati walking before Vashishta!

When the star Arundhati was named Arundhati, it still used to follow Vashishta in the night-sky. This naming would have happened before 11091 BC - before the start of the Epoch of Arundhati.

Looking at it differently, the naming would also have been done to honor the real Arundhati - Vashishta's wife. So both the naming of the star and the life of real Arundhati, the person, would have been prior to 11091 BCE.

So the conjecture would be that all stories where Arundhati appears as a person, are depictions of a time before 11091 BCE. However she is considered the great-grandmother of Vyas, so one would have to be a lot more careful in such analysis.
Your conjecture is being tested by employing observations of Ramayana!

What is the deal with Arundhati as great-grandmother of Vyasa?
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Nilesh Oak wrote:What is the deal with Arundhati as great-grandmother of Vyasa?
Sometimes one sees a collapse of history, where generations can vanish within genealogical lines, and the absent generations are simply ignored.

Parāśara: Wikipedia
According to the Vedas, Brahma created Vashista who with Arundhati had a son named Shakti-muni who sired Parāśara. With Satyavati, Parāśara fathered Vyasa. Vyasa sired Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura through his dead brother's wives. Vyasa also sired Śuka through his wife, Jābāli's daughter Pinjalā (Vatikā). Thus Parashara was the great-grandfather of both the warring parties of the Mahābhārata, the Kauravas and the Pāndavas.

--------

Perhaps other sources can throw more light on these genealogies.
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

Take it for what is it worth.. and relevant

Sue tells me that Indian "Kali' (godess) changed to Irish (?) "Hel"

I also wonder, in the spirit of 'cupiditatas speculandi'...if Helio (sun) came from transformation of "Kal' to 'hel'.. in the sence of Kal = time, and not Kali-black. To ancients, Sun was definer of time (i.e. day and night), and moon aided in its (time) measurement (via its position and phases).
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

RajeshA wrote: Sometimes one sees a collapse of history, where generations can vanish within genealogical lines, and the absent generations are simply ignored.

Parāśara: Wikipedia
According to the Vedas, Brahma created Vashista who with Arundhati had a son named Shakti-muni who sired Parāśara. With Satyavati, Parāśara fathered Vyasa. Vyasa sired Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura through his dead brother's wives. Vyasa also sired Śuka through his wife, Jābāli's daughter Pinjalā (Vatikā). Thus Parashara was the great-grandfather of both the warring parties of the Mahābhārata, the Kauravas and the Pāndavas.
In Ramayana times (much before MBH, and thus much before Satyavati, Vyasa, Parashara of MBH times, etc.) Vasistha and Arundhati existed (Vasistha was royal priest of Dasharatha) and these living Vasistha/Arundhati also refer to Vasistha/Arundhati of Ursa Major (saptarshi cluster).....not unlike El Presidente (the USA fame) and the first lady existed in 1864, 1939, but also in 2011 (albeit with different shade of color and handsome arms!). However all these years (1864, 1939 or 2011) probably only saw 'statue' (instead of dedicated star) of El Presidente de Primero... George Washington!

Even the Vishwamitra of Ramayana is descendant of famous Vishwamitra that we know many stories about. Valmiki was also around in MBH times, but has nothing to do with Valmiki of Ramayana (of course other than distant in time descendant of Valmiki of Ramayana).

This problem has also led to error of 'Vriddha Garga' and his time and subsequent confusion related to timing of Krishna. Timing of 'Parashar Samhita' is another such confusing problem. Long list.

Your explanation is correct.. for loss/ignoring of multiple generations. I (and many others) have identified such problems with Parikshit/Janmejaya (since there were people with these names before P/J we know of MBH times...even in that sequence.. i..e Father/son,.. and thus helluva confusion...) and many other ancient names.
This time/name confusion (i.e. compression of time based on names and hilarious consequnces in vice versa...fashion) is analogus to 'time-temperature' 'temperature-stress' superimposition models employed in food sciences, material sciences, fatigue tests, lifetime of parts predictions, reliability, risks etc.

Timing of Buddha is good illustration of this same recurring issue...... at times done deliberately, other times due to lack of good records or due to inept chronology makers...etc.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Nilesh Oak wrote:Take it for what is it worth.. and relevant

Sue tells me that Indian "Kali' (godess) changed to Irish (?) "Hel"

I also wonder, in the spirit of 'cupiditatas speculandi'...if Helio (sun) came from transformation of "Kal' to 'hel'.. in the sence of Kal = time, and not Kali-black. To ancients, Sun was definer of time (i.e. day and night), and moon aided in its (time) measurement (via its position and phases).
Well Kāla (Time) is the destroyer of everything and brings death to everything. So Hel/Hell could have their roots in Kāla.
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

RajeshA wrote: According to the Vedas, Brahma created Vashista who with Arundhati had a son named Shakti-muni who sired Parāśara. With Satyavati, Parāśara fathered Vyasa. Vyasa sired Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura through his dead brother's wives. Vyasa also sired Śuka through his wife, Jābāli's daughter Pinjalā (Vatikā). Thus Parashara was the great-grandfather of both the warring parties of the Mahābhārata, the Kauravas and the Pāndavas.
Anytime one sees this 'leap of faith' (recall Indiana Jones and appearance of a bridge) from say 'Brahma down to whereever narrator needs it to be', one should be cautious, and as a first approximation..must make a conejcture that 'Narrator does not know.. s/he is clueless'.

Take Solar dynasty... Brahma.. then Manu (vivaswat manu) then Ila/Pururva... we are ok after that ... but Brahma to Manu.. tells us we don't know.

Observe lists of 'Guru-Parampara - disciplic succession... if I have to get into profession of 'new age Guru', I would begin something like.. Me (current Guru) - my guru (say Vinoba.. and since I did not meet him in person.. he came in my dream and initiated me)..from there back to either Gandhi (let's skip that).....back to Jnaneshwar- Adi Shakaracharya....etc. ah I found my path backward...

Or I can take initiation from existing 'panth'.. say for sake of illustration.. "Hare Krishna' then I have current Guru .. going backwards .. AC Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada- B. Saraswati.. B. Thakur---Chaitanya--Madhavacharya- (and taking a big jump) ... Vyasa (in dream that is, per narration of Gaudiya Vaishnava)....Narada---Brahma.

No criticism intended (of any of the above including myself)...but I mentioned multiple examples to illustrate the process of 'filling the blanks'. Intention is right, data is sparse, no one is hurt, consistency of narration is preserved.....of course, same thing can be applied with wrong Intention.. to wit.. consider AIT or PIE.. and many may get hurt.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Nilesh Oak ji,

The Anukramaṇī speak of families of Ṛṣis, with genealogical lines, not based on blood, but based on school, Guru-Paramparas. And at any given time the head of the family used to carry the name of the founder, which by then had become a title.

This of course leads to the confusion you speak of, and later writers may thus have spun stories, unaware of the generation number or the non-title name of the ṛṣi.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:
shiv wrote: Interesting rhetoric sir. The whole idea of memorizing the Vedas and the precise metrics was likely to have been because the FACT of sound change has been recognized for thousands of years and not something that is "increasingly getting better understood" (unless you are referring to a bunch of self opinionated and blinkered linguists) . Would you believe it better if the idea that it was well known was presented to you in the form of the Appendix Probi of 1700 years ago?
One has to take the generations upon generations of Vedists who memorized the vocallics of the Vedas to have been automata, never thinking twice about what they were devoting their whole life to; its ideology (that Vedic sound, not meaning is primary), and trying to keep the sounds pristine.

Today, maybe, with the decline of these schools, perhaps change is happening.
Arun, I can see that you are doing at least as much reading as I am, perhaps much more. You see, when you search for information on this topic you clearly find references to sound changes ("typos") within just a single inscription because two or more different scribes were involved. It is said that the Ancient Greek tablets in Linear B were made by just a handful of scribes, each with a characteristic twist in his style or typical typos.I have read the same about the Bistoun inscriptions. You see, sound change and language change can occur as errors within a single 100 or 1000 word inscription. That bloody Appendix Probi I linked above was allegedly written for the consumption of scribes who made all these errors caused by sound change.

Now you have the entire body of the Vedas. Built up over 300 to 500 years years according to people like Witzel, and over 1000 years acc to Talageri. The number of composers who have contributed is large. Please tell me why there are no sound changes between composers and between Mandalas of the sort that people are suddenly becoming aware of nowadays, according to ManishH. Just because a 1937 author said that Pratishakya are not perfect does not mean much. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Show me some sound changes between books and composers within the huge corpus of the Rig Veda and then talk about sound change. :roll: The ability to bluff and bullshit is high, and this has gone on for too long.

Just five minutes ago I saw another example of linguistic bullshitting. I was looking at an online Google book that claimed that Darius himself must have dictated the Bistoun inscription but he was hmself illiterate. Why? Because he states that the inscription was read out to him after it was done. Friggin heck these schLOLars are so stupid and so quick to reach conclusions. Surely any fool should be able to guess that those inscriptions were made in such an inaccessible place that Darius is unlikely to have been up there to read it. So the conclusion is bullshit simply because it assumes without thinking things through.
Last edited by shiv on 27 Sep 2012 19:47, edited 1 time in total.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:Just five minutes ago I saw another example of linguistic bullshitting. I was looking at an online Google book that claimed that Darius himself must have dictated the Bistoun inscription but he was hmself illiterate. Why? Because he states that the inscription was read out to him after it was done. Friggin heck these schLOLars are so stupid and so quick to reach conclusions. Surely any fool should be able to guess that those inscriptions were made in such an inaccessible place that Darius is unlikely to have been up there to read it. So the conclusion is bullshit simply because it assumes without thinking things through.
Also the Behistun inscription is in three different languages. Darius need not have known all three of them!
KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by KLP Dubey »

ManishH wrote: VII.40 In an incomplete pāda, the perfection (ie. the required no. of syllables) should be sought by means of a resolution (व्यूह) of semi-vowels as well as coalesced vowels.
====

v/s

====
XVII.22 In pādas which are incomplete, one should, for the sake of perfection, resolve the coalesced combinations
XVII.23 Conjuctions with semi-vowels, however should one separate by means of corresponding vowels
====

IOW, VII.40 says it should be pronounced tu-am But XVII.23 says it should be pronounced tu-vam. Both variations restore the syllable count.
First of all, it is VIII.40 (not VII.40). VIII.40 (and XVII.22) make a general statement that both routes of maintaining the meter are available. XVII.23 also leaves open the question whether, after using the corresponding vowel, the semi-vowel should remain or not. If one decides to strictly retain the semi-vowel, then it should be "tuvam". Else "tuam". Same goes for "varenyam", which (if the semi-vowel is retained) becomes "vareni-yam" but is most commonly pronounced as "vareni-am".

The main point here is not the "ambiguity" in the pratishakhya. The main points are:

1) One has a standard for comparison. We KNOW that the pada text is "tvam", and we KNOW for a fact that the rules allow both "tuam" and "tuvam" in metrical recitation.

2) Furthermore, there rules are not to be applied randomly. For instance, "jihvA" (discussed earlier with Shiv) remains so, and does not become "jihua" or "jihuva". This is a world of difference from other languages where there is no standard and no rules regulating any sound changes.

3) The "sound changes" created are so minor in comparison to what the linguists claim happen in PIE ---> Sanskrit/Greek/Latin etc, that trying to use the above metrical lengthening of words to illustrate "sound changes" in Vedic is really laughable.
Of course the so called fidelity of "oral reproduction" is often overrated and doesn't follow prātiśākhya at all.

A: The notion that an Indian receiving oral tradition in a traditional vedaśāla is somehow immune to sound change and corruption is wrong.
Who said it was immune and that it currently follows the pratishakhya in all cases ? I didn't say it, neither did anyone else in the thread. Did I not point out myself that the pronuncation of many Vedic practitioners (e.g., those in Kerala) is badly corrupted ?

I said it CAN BE immune to corruption anytime one wants to make the effort, because the standard is always available. There is no two ways about this. Please do not try to create straw men where there is no issue at all. Earlier you kept posting odd replies to me about the "divine" nature of the Veda, whereas in fact I was never talking about any such thing in the first place.
So is the notion that Ṛg is a revealed text whose meaning is not known. The reality is that sound change is a sub-conscious process that is increasingly getting better understood.


Sorry. Again, these attempts to claim "sound changes" in the RV will not go unnoticed and un-demolished. The very fact of existence of a standard and intelligible rules (even limited number of options) is indeed proof of sounds change NOT occurring, and not the reverse. Even in modern times the VAST MAJORITY of sounds in the RV are pronounced correctly in India, and whatever errors have crept in can be corrected anytime by reference to the standard.
And Ṛg is of-course man-made verses out of a language that was already spoken. Natural elements (The Universe) of course inspired it (as gāyatri says - dhiyo yo naḥ pracodayāt).
Complete nonsense. None of the words in the RV by themselves betray any sign of human composition. It it the human mind which assigns such possibilities. The quality of knowledge obtained from such assumptions is dependent on the quality of the assumptions. In the case of "human authorship" of the Veda, we can plainly see the horrendously poor quality of knowledge obtained by various quacks. The meaning of the Veda is first and foremost in the correct reproduction of sounds. If you do not get this elementary fact, what should I say any further?
Also wrong is the notion that a western scholar is somehow dumb and cannot provide insights into vedic texts just because he is not an Indian. I prefer to criticize ideas and theories, not the origin and ancestry of people who propound them.
Again, creating straw men. It is not a question of a "western scholar being dumb". The question is, is the "western scholar" just reading the Veda from a text and thinking they are making some great discoveries, instead of actually hearing the Veda and reproducing it ? The former effort is indeed "dumb" and there are no insights to be obtained there. It would also apply to any Indians who are trying to do the same thing. Where does ancestry and origin come in here ?

KL
KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by KLP Dubey »

shiv wrote:
ManishH wrote: The reality is that sound change is a sub-conscious process that is increasingly getting better understood. And Ṛg is of-course man-made verses out of a language that was already spoken.
Interesting rhetoric sir. The whole idea of memorizing the Vedas and the precise metrics was likely to have been because the FACT of sound change has been recognized for thousands of years and not something that is "increasingly getting better understood" (unless you are referring to a bunch of self opinionated and blinkered linguists) . Would you believe it better if the idea that it was well known was presented to you in the form of the Appendix Probi of 1700 years ago?
It requires a special kind of genius to refer to processes in the RV that require certain conscious and deliberate changes in pronunciation (indeed even codified in texts such as the pratishakhya), and use it to support "sub-conscious" sound changes in spoken languages of daily parlance. The less said about this level of nonsense, the better.

KL
KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by KLP Dubey »

RajeshA wrote:
A_Gupta wrote: It is not much ado about nothing, if you think of how this western "wisdom" will displace Indian knowledge - unless we take vigorous action. It is in exactly this way that AIT got its start.
A_Gupta ji,

you are quite right! For ages now, learned Vedic scholars have been too smug, so full of the invincibility of their stand, they have considered it beneath their dignity to respond to the Western onslaught on Indian texts and culture. In the mean time, the West has long displaced them as the determiners of the dominant narrative on Indian culture and history.
A_Gupta and RajeshA,

By "much ado" I meant the technical claims made in the article that was linked, not the context - which I agree is important.

Also agree regarding the smugness and inertia.

I would suggest that some steps to correct this problem are to return to certain well-considered and well-known status quo positions which for some odd reason have been turned (mainly by westerners, but also some Indians) into matters of doubt and derision. We must respond to such attempts, but at the same time it should not include playing into the others' hands. One must refute, but only from the status quo position, not by trying to create fundamentally new positions which may turn out to be equally absurd as those of the western quacks.

KL
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

Mehrgarh female figurine with what appears to be sindhoor
Image
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Dubeyji, Am also coming to conclusion that the Vedas and the body of knowledge is god given.
Its not man made. When it was given I don't know. All we can guess is when it was written down and in which script. the lack of change is due to its god given nature. If it were man made it would have many transformations by now.

Reading selective interpretations of the Ramayana and Mahabharata leads one astray.
Locked