Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 29 Mar 2016 17:08

Prem Kumar wrote:
When it comes to trade and craft, the layers suggest that, from initially making jewellery from materials such as shell and beads imported from Gujarat, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, the civilisation progressed to using intricate tin-glazed pottery, then lapis lazuli imported all the way from Afghanistan, and finally, trinkets made of 18-carat gold imported from the Hatti gold mines in Karnataka.


This clear-cut sign of intra-national trade between Haryana & South India bangs another nail in the AIT coffin. It shows that Indian races are one & the same - and have been trading/mixing with each other since antiquity. So, what did the supposed Aryans do? Invaded Haryana, replaced their language with Sanskrit & stop trade with the black Dravidians? What crock!

Absolutely. That apart - I am nearly half-way through Dalrymple's "Last Mughal". Judging from that book it seems to me that the entire concentration of the British was from their Kolkata capital towards a Mughal Delhi and further Northwest from there. They had alerady declared the south as a different set of kingdoms of a different people, completely ignoring the history and narrative of India as Indian knew it. No one knows how the Gaekwad of Baroda was related to the royal families of Mysore and how the Maratha kingdom extended from way up north to Gingee in the South - off Pondicherry - south of Chennai.

By the 1800s the British had developed a healthy dislike for Indians and even anglo Indians whom they considered mixed breed. I feel sorry for anglos - who were placed neither here nor there. They were on an evangelical jihad by the mid and late 1800s. Incidentally there was a famous Tytler family among the Brits - some of whom had taken Indian wives. Wonder if Jagdish Tytler is descended from that?

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 717
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby csaurabh » 29 Mar 2016 20:37

shiv wrote:
When it comes to trade and craft, the layers suggest that, from initially making jewellery from materials such as shell and beads imported from Gujarat, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, the civilisation progressed to using intricate tin-glazed pottery, then lapis lazuli imported all the way from Afghanistan, and finally, trinkets made of 18-carat gold imported from the Hatti gold mines in Karnataka.


^^ I wonder how they know that gold came from Karnataka, etc. ? Like, what is the reasoning behind that conclusion? (gold can come from anywhere )

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2069
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Prem Kumar » 29 Mar 2016 20:57

^^ Mineral/Metallurgical analysis probably.

Google chacha to the rescue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_fingerprinting

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby ramana » 30 Mar 2016 02:36

Chandragupta wrote:Check out this twitter account - https://twitter.com/indianinterest

The Tocharian alphabet goes

"Ka-Kha-Ga-Gha".

The Tocharians lived in present-day western China ~ 3-4000 years ago.
https://twitter.com/indianinterest/stat ... 4012346369

Talks about Indian sphere of influence as far as western China.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 30 Mar 2016 05:36

ramana wrote:
Chandragupta wrote:Check out this twitter account - https://twitter.com/indianinterest

The Tocharian alphabet goes

"Ka-Kha-Ga-Gha".

The Tocharians lived in present-day western China ~ 3-4000 years ago.
https://twitter.com/indianinterest/stat ... 4012346369

Talks about Indian sphere of influence as far as western China.

Thanks for posting
If the image is accurate "Tocharian" is not just another "Indo-European" language but another language like Hindi, Bengali of Gujarati with a Sanskrit based alphabet - and the later is true of Kannada and Telugu as well.

So this is how the West does "identity erasure". They take an obvious daughter language of Sanskrit and give it a general name like "Indo European". Just like they take India and say "South Asia"

Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 30 Mar 2016 05:38

^^ Many letters above are similar to Devnagri: eg ta tha and va. Some similarities in other letters as well

kenop
BRFite
Posts: 1333
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 07:28

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby kenop » 30 Mar 2016 07:29

It may be topical here and pardon if it is a repetition for the gurus
About western alphabet sequence
“Alphabet or Abracadabra? - Reverse Engineering The Western Alphabet” details a ground-breaking discovery: the origin of the western ‘abecedary’ - the alphabet's sequence of letters.(Not to be confused with the origin of the design of the western alphabet letters.)

It must have been somewhere between 3400 and 3700 years ago that the western alphabet's linear sequence of characters (abecedary) was created by following an already existing tabular model of a South Asian Pre-Sanskrit ‘abugida’ or ‘alpha-syllabary’. In spite of it looking quite disorderly, the western alphabet letter sequence is found to be based on that ancient orderly pattern, a pattern that categorized sounds by how and where they were articulated in the mouth.

This study retraces the steps of how that copying process took place, a process that also included a number of 'errors and omissions' made by one, perhaps two ancient scribes most likely from the Near East. The errors eventually resulted in the apparent disorder of the western 'ABC'. By tracking these 'copied' errors across a number of ancient alphabets, the author was not only able to reconstruct the copying process, but he also arrived at a date before which it must have taken place.

Important point is that there was copying at some some stage.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Satya_anveshi » 30 Mar 2016 08:19

shiv wrote:If the image is accurate "Tocharian" is not just another "Indo-European" language but another language like Hindi, Bengali of Gujarati with a Sanskrit based alphabet - and the later is true of Kannada and Telugu as well.

So this is how the West does "identity erasure". They take an obvious daughter language of Sanskrit and give it a general name like "Indo European". Just like they take India and say "South Asia"


I made a request earlier about this:

schinnas wrote:Well...Tamil is more Sanskritic than Hindi. Other than the Devanagiri script which is used by both Sanskrit and Hindi, Tamil has more in common with Sanskrit than Hindi, which is heavily influenced by Persian and Arabic. More than 50% of words in Tamil are of Sanskrit origin and the very first grammer book of Tamil clearly calls out how to modify pronunciation of words when they are borrowed from Sanskrit. It beats me as to why would any scholar worthy of merit would consider Tamil as not being in the same category of languages as Sanskrit. This whole dravidian family of languages thing is highly suspect.



What exactly is Indo-European Language Family? and What is Dravidian Language Family? What makes them different?

In the "Indo-European" terminology, what exactly is european about it?

Similarly, how similar/dis-similar are other Indian languages like Telugu, Tamil that get categorized as "dravidian." and how does these compare with the so called members of the same family "Indo-European"?

Can I request learned folks of this subject to give a primer/ throw some light on this please? Or if you can identify experts who can, please provide names and we shall explore options to bring them to this thread?



Given that entire "dravida" concept increasingly appears to be an (social) engineering concept, its linguistic, ethnic, religious, and genetic roots are highly suspect. And so is the "European" tag.

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 717
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby csaurabh » 30 Mar 2016 12:48

Why is the history of India determined through texts written from historians outside India?

Megasthenes visited India and wrote a book called Indica.
Chinese travellers like Fa-Hein visited some places like Nalanda and wrote some things.
Muslim historians like Al Beruni came with the invaders and wrote somethings
English, Portugese, etc. travellers visited parts of India ( long before colonial era ) and wrote things - their diaries are still accessible.

And this is all pieced together with a distorted interpretation of some Sanskrit texts.. and the result is called 'Indian history'!
Result is obvious- not only the nonsense with Aryans and Dravidians, but many other things like Alexandar's invasion are highly suspect.

But we have our own texts and oral traditions. What do they say about the same subjects? We know that Indians were trading with Greeks and Romans. Why didn't they come to the conclusion that Greek and Latin are 'Indo-European' languages? Similarly the case of 'Dravidian' languages? Why don't we have answers to these questions?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 30 Mar 2016 16:15

saurabh - even a lot of stuff written by Ctesias and other Greeks and some stuff by Al Beruni have simply been ignored when the Brits wrote history for us in English which we read in English and translate into other Indian languages.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 30 Mar 2016 16:42

Satya_anveshi wrote:I made a request earlier about this:



What exactly is Indo-European Language Family? and What is Dravidian Language Family? What makes them different?

In the "Indo-European" terminology, what exactly is european about it?

Similarly, how similar/dis-similar are other Indian languages like Telugu, Tamil that get categorized as "dravidian." and how does these compare with the so called members of the same family "Indo-European"?

Can I request learned folks of this subject to give a primer/ throw some light on this please? Or if you can identify experts who can, please provide names and we shall explore options to bring them to this thread?



Given that entire "dravida" concept increasingly appears to be an (social) engineering concept, its linguistic, ethnic, religious, and genetic roots are highly suspect. And so is the "European" tag.

Let me try. Excerpts from my never ending saga to make a book from this stuff

1. As Europe "rose" in the 19th century they occupied the Levant and discovered marvellous ruins that went right back to the old testament. This was a shock because their history was biblical and here these semites had an older history. This was unacceptable.

That is when Sanskrit was "discovered" in Indiia. Sanskrit with its extraordinary grammar and great antiquity suddenly made Europeans realize why all European languages were similar but not the same.

Max Muller wrote
The world had known Latin and Greek for centuries, and it was felt, no doubt, that there was some kind of similarity between the two. But how was that similarity to be explained? Sometimes Latin was supposed to give the key to the formation of a Greek word, sometimes Greek seemed to betray the secret of the origin of a Latin word. Afterward, when the ancient Teutonic languages, such as Gothic and Anglo−Saxon, and the ancient Celtic and Slavonic languages too, came to be studied, no one could help seeing a certain family likeness among them all. But how such a likeness between these languages came to be, and how, what is far more difficult to explain, such striking differences too between these languages came to be, remained a mystery, and gave rise to the most gratuitous theories, most of them, as you know, devoid of all scientific foundation. As soon, however, as Sanskrit stepped into the midst of these languages, there came light and warmth and mutual recognition. They all ceased to be strangers, and each fell of its own accord into its right place. Sanskrit was the eldest sister of them all, and could tell of many things which the other members of the family had quite forgotten.’


A fellow called Sayce wrote
Had it not been for Sanscrit, with its copious grammar, its early literature, and the light which it threw on the forms of Greek and Latin speech, comparative philology might never have been born. Sanscrit was the magician's wand which had called the new science into existence,and without the help of Sanscrit the philologist would not have advanced beyond the speculations and guesses of classical scholars.


While some people felt Sanskrit was a mother language this was not something that Europeans liked. Time and again one after another European Orientalists Indologists and Sanskrit "scholars" wrote that an original "Indo-European" language must have developed in Europe and set about looking for proof.

Proof was cooked up in astoundingly complex ways. The Syrial Mitanni texts were proof that "Indo-European speakers" had passed from Europe to Syria on their way to Iran and India. Sanskrit translations and transcripts of the Zoroastrian gathas - the so called Zend Avesta were used to cook up a language called Avestan which was made into a "sister language" of Sanskrit that took birth as "Indo-European" moved from Europe to Syria to Iran to India.

What about Dravidians. Soon after the "discovery" of ancient Sanskrit in the Vedas held by North Indian and Bengalee Brahmins it was felt that these people were long lost Europeans. Soon their darker skin complexion needed to be explained. It was explained by "translations" of the Vedas. The Aryans of the Vedas conquered their way east and created this fantastic Rig Veda and Sanskrit grammar that explained European language grammar. But on their way they met dark skinned Dasyus whose butt they kicked and sent them way way down south to places that the Brits did not know much about and were not interested in. Those people spoke a language with a curly wurly indecipherable text and weird pronunciations and the Brits called those black skinned losers "Dravidians" and "Kolarians" Nobody gave a flying fuk whether the language spoken by the Dravidians had any connection with Sanskrit. It could not have any connection because these black savages had been rightly defeated and had "corrupted" the Aryans by intermarriage despite Aryans attempts at remaining pure by creating a caste system. The Aryans had brought a pure monotheistic religion from Europe and these bleddy Dravidians had mixed up their polytheisms with the European purity. India was fully explained. Nothing more was necessary. The empire had to move on.

So:
1. Dravidians were "the others"
2. No one could understand their language or see the connection of the South with Sanskrit or see India as a whole

This is what was recorded as British descriptions of India. This is what has been taught to generations of Indians

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Satya_anveshi » 30 Mar 2016 18:46

Thank you for your response Shiv.

That being the overarching dynamic that went into engineering the dravidian element, we will need technical rebutting to prove (at the min):

- the demarcation between Indo-european and Dravidian language family (word by word) is flimsy with a big Q.E.D
- the extent of Sanskrit in "Dravidian" is way more than the supposed european-ness in Indo-European (again word by word) with a big Q.E.D
- HUGE replication and recognition of this work within India that sets the baseline for future debate i.e., academic and scholarly rejection of the prevailing theory

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12918
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Lalmohan » 30 Mar 2016 18:49

i recall reading my history text books in desh school and scratching my head as to why the AIT didn't really seem to correlate with anything on the ground of what i could see around me of national culture

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5337
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby vishvak » 30 Mar 2016 19:24

Lalmohan wrote:i recall reading my history text books in desh school and scratching my head as to why the AIT didn't really seem to correlate with anything on the ground of what i could see around me of national culture

The confusion is due to mixture of religion and state based on pompous lies and deception. Hindi is more Sanskrit than Urdu or English yet it is controversial as unifying factor. Plus racist BS about how Tamil is totally different languages because white man said so. All hotchpotch colonial drama even making it to history books in schools. The curly undecipherable text and dark skinned Dravidian part is what it was all about - looks like AIT and such BS theories will make a lot of joking and jesting when history is correctly written at least.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 30 Mar 2016 19:47

Lalmohan wrote:i recall reading my history text books in desh school and scratching my head as to why the AIT didn't really seem to correlate with anything on the ground of what i could see around me of national culture


I went through that too and a lot of people on BRF have admitted feeling that way. That is, of course, cognitive dissonance.

A lot of us go through schooling putting our school knowledge and our experiences in "separate mental compartments". A few of us who have the time and opportunity later tend to dig deeper to see what is going on..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 30 Mar 2016 19:59

Satya_anveshi wrote:Thank you for your response Shiv.

That being the overarching dynamic that went into engineering the dravidian element, we will need technical rebutting to prove (at the min):

- the demarcation between Indo-european and Dravidian language family (word by word) is flimsy with a big Q.E.D
- the extent of Sanskrit in "Dravidian" is way more than the supposed european-ness in Indo-European (again word by word) with a big Q.E.D
- HUGE replication and recognition of this work within India that sets the baseline for future debate i.e., academic and scholarly rejection of the prevailing theory


From a 1910 book that belonged to my grandfather. That book sits within arms reach for me right now. This is called "living memory" because of my own contact with my grandparents. The "black heathendom" who corrupted the Aryans were "Dravido-Kolarian aborigines" who used to be in Aryavarta and the Dekhan (presumably until their butts were kicked into Sooth India). Also note how the British accepted and included Rajputs, Jats and Paktypes as having finer Aryan features which made them feel kinship with them and gave these groups attitude that still shows today while the blackies were to be disregarded (see last lines of scan). Mental colonization works both ways - it made some feel proud of their superior kinship with Europeans and made others feel inferior.Buth both indicate mental colonization and swallowing of a British construct

Image

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5219
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Mar 2016 20:17

Let me share my embarrassing experience. I distinctly remember this was 5th grade history class. The punishment for a mischievous kid was to sit in the middle of two girls on a bench in class with 3 students on each bench. This punishment was for a week. (how delicious, thinking back).

The topic was about the Aryans and their description. The teacher made me stand up as an example of how an Aryan looked like. Light hair, light eyes, light complexion, tall and tight assed. Thought then what a great compliment in front of the whole class. Many of these markers are no longer true but at that time felt "superior" to many other short dark dravidian souls in the class. Shiv ji's SDRE is very apt for this feeling of superiority due to lighter skins not only exists amongst Pakistanis but among many north Indians too. Such superficial diversities mask the much deeper linkages that do exist. The only complaint I have is with English being a link language amongst the elites.

The English did not stop just with Aryan / Dravidian. They also took our concept of Varna and completely ******** it, with its association with the meaning of "color" to race! This is what happens when foreigners do our translations. They took Jati's and transformed it to match the European class system to come up with castes.

What is not clear is, then how did they explain the popularity of our Epics and Puraans in SE Asia (Malay, Java, Bali, Cambodia, Thailand), which to my knowledge was possible only with Sanskrit in those times. So, somehow dravidian language was an independent branch but old Malay was not? How do they explain that?

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Agnimitra » 30 Mar 2016 21:59

Wendy Doniger to speak in Hyderabad

The timing of the visit is interesting. Univ. of Hyderabad is still burning. They've brought in Kanhaiyya and co.

Added: The organizers are leveraging one varsity with another. A section of Hyderabadi Muslims is stepping in. Useful to follow such events to see the formations.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Satya_anveshi » 30 Mar 2016 22:45

Shiv,

Apparently it all starts with this book written by Alexander D. Campbell in 1816: Grammar of the Teloogoo Language

One can download the pdf from HERE

The language of which a Grammar is now offered to the Public is commonly, but improperly, termed by Europeans the Gentoo. It is the Andhra of Sanscrit authors, and, in the country where it is spoken, is known by the name of the Trilinga, Telinga, Teloogoo, or Tenapgoo. This language is the vernacular dialect of the Hindoos, inhabiting that part of (he Indian Peninsula, which, extending from the Dutch settlement of Pulicat on the Coast of Coromandel, inland to the vicinity of Bangalore, stretches northwards, along the coast as far as Chicacole, and in the interior to the sources of the Tapti ;
bounded on the east by the Bay of Bengal, and on the west by an irregular line, passing through the western districts belonging to the Soubahdar of the Deccan, and cutting off the most eastern provinces of the new state of Mysore : -a tract including the five Northern Circars of Ganjam, Vizagapatam, Rajahmundry, Mastili-* patam, and Guntoor ; the greater portion of the Nizam's extensive territories; the districts of Cuddapah and Beliari ceded by him to the British ; the eastern provinces of Mysore; and the northern portion of the Carnatick : nor is this
language unknown in the more Southern parts of India, for the descendants of those Teloogoo families which were deputed by the Kings of Vidianagara to control their southern conquests, or which occasionally emigrated from Teljngana to avoid famine or oppression, are scattered all over the Dravida and Oarnataca provinces ; and ever retaining- the language of their forefathers, have diffused a
knowledge of it throughout the Peninsula.

A tradition current in Telingana, and noticed by many of it's best native * Authors, states the original name of this language, aa well as that of the country in which it is spoken, to have been Tri-lingum, or in pure Teloogoo Modagalingum ; t namely the language or country of the three lingums : a name derived from the three lingums, or mystic symbols of the divinity, in the form, of which
Shiva, the destructive and re-producing power in the Indian Trinity, is reported to have descended upon the mountains of Shri Shuelum or Purvatum, Caleswarum, and Bheemeswarnm or Dracharamum, where he is supposed still to hold his awful abode, and is worshipped under the respective names of Mullecarjoona, Calanadha, and Bheemeswara. These three lingums are said to have marked the chief boundaries of the country known in modern times by the name of Telingana.

The first, that of Shri Shuelum, still celebrated in the Deccan, is particularly described in the extract from Captain Colin Mc'Kenzie's journal inserted in the 5th volume of the Asiatic Researches, of which a part is subjoined in a note below. * It is romantically situated in an unfrequented spot, surrounded by an almost impenetrable forest, among the wild mountains through which the impetuous current of the Kistna forces it's passage from the high table land to the plains, and forms the termination of that chain of hills, which, from the vicinity of the great temple at Tripetty, winds to the north in irregular and separate ranges. In Arrowsmith's Map of 1804, it is placed near the Nalmul hill* in Canoul (Kurnool) under the name of Parrawottum, upon the Kistna, just before that river takes a sudden but short direction to the north. It is the second of the twelve Jyotee lingums mentioned as peculiarly holy, in the 38th Ac^iyaye of the Sheev Pooran ; and, in the Brahmanda Pooran, it is also mentioned as the eighth of the second class of mountains. In tfye year 1677, we find Sevajee, the celebrated founder of the Mahratta Empire, performing penance at this shrine f ; and, on the annual recurrence of the Shivaratree, or the night sacred to Shiva, immense crowds of peoplg still flock thither from all parts of Hindoostan.

The second lingutn at Caleswarutn, visited occasionally by a great concourse of pilgrims, is situated on the spot where Arrowsmith places Callysair Ghaut on the Godavary, and is the same that is described by Captain Blunt, in the seventh volume of the Asiatic Researches, under the name of a Pagoda sacred to Call, standing on the very boundary of Telingana, where the Baun Gunga joins the
Godavary. I have not yet succeeded in establishing to my satisfaction the site of the third liogum, worshipped under the name of Bheemeswara, which I am inclined to believe is the same as Bheema Shenker, the sixth of the twelve Jyotee lingums, enumerated in the Sheev Pooran, and there stated to be situated in the Deccan. The best informed natives give a very vague account of the site of this temple, some asserting it to be in the Northern Circars, where it is known by the name of Dracharamum, others in the western Ghauts, or, as they describe it, " towards
Poona" A Temple of this name is cursorily mentioned by Dr. Francis Buchanan as standing in the immense chain of hills which runs along the western side of the Peninsula; and, as this is near the southwest junction of the Mahratta, Mysore, and Telingana territories, it is perhaps the third lingum * Be this as it may, the situations of the two other lingums sufficiently evince the correctness of the tradition which describes them as the boundaries of the country termed Tri-lingum> subsequently known to the Mahommedan conquerors of the Deccan under the modified name of Telingana ; for the northern and southern limits of Telingana proper, as exhibited in our best maps, will be found to coincide very nearly with the sites of these two temples. In further confirmation of this tradition, it may be noticed that Ptolemy mentions " Triglyphon vel Trilingum regia " f but places it beyond the Ganges ; and that Pliny, alluding to the same region, under it's purer name of Modogalingum
makes it an island in the Ganges " Insula in gange estmagncs amplititdmis, gentem continens unam, Modogalingum nomine" Inaccuracies respecting situation are not uncommon in the writings of the
ancients relative to Indian geography, and those which have just been mentioned, with some other similar inconsistencies, may perhaps be reconciled, by supposing that under the name of the Ganges, either the Ganges proper, or the Godaverv, may occasionally be understood. In The Peninsula, each of these rivers is known by the name of the Gunga, and they are looked upon as sister streams. ** The Godavery is here considered the elder of the two, perhaps from it's being the first known to the inhabitants of these regions ; and the Ganges proper is deemed the more holy, apparently from the present religion of India, having originated, or been more early established, on its banks. The ancient books* of the Hindoos, indeed, bear testimony that, even in the most remote times, these two*
rivers have occasionally been considered as one ; for, in more than ,one place in the Poorans, the Ganges proper is described as passing through Calinga, a country which we know to be the region watered by the Godavery*. So far, therefore, as regards the course of the Ganges through Calinga, described in these ancient books, it must be the Godavery to which they allude. From the adjective Trilinga, by a general grammatical rule \ is derived Tilinga,^ or as it is more generally written Telinga From Tilinga also, by corruption, the Native Grammarians derive the words Tenoogoo and Teloogoo which is the name now generally given to the language in the country where it is spoken. The little resemblance between Tenoogo or Teloogoo, and Telinga, may induce an English reader to question this derivation : but, as I have remarked in a subsequent part of this work, great deference is due by a foreigner to the testimony of Native Authors; and when it is considered that many words have passed into Teloogoo through the medium of the Pracrit, or other corrupted dialects of the Sanscrit, and ' have been naturalized in it for ages, the little connexion now to be traced between some original words, and their corruptions, ought not alone to invalidate the established etymologies of successive Grammarians. It may not be irrelevant, however, to observe, that Teloogoo may possibly be derived from I the adjective Tellu. ** fair, white, an appellation which might with much propriety be applied to the people of Telihgana, compared with the neighbouring nations and that Tenoogoo may be translated sweet, from Tene, honey, a denomination by no means inapplicable to a language that has often been termed the Italian of the East> The Country known by the name of Modogalingum or Trilihgum appears to have been subdivided, at a very early period, into the Calinga and Andhra provinces. Calinga* stretched northwards along the coast, from the Godavery towards the Ganges ; including those regions which are situated in the vicinity of the second lingum at Caleswarum, from which it probably took it's name Calingum** The nation is mentioned by Pliny as "
Calingce prozimimari" and ' Gentes gangaridum Calinffaruni" and the people and language of Telingana are still known to the inhabitants of the Eastern islands by no other name than Caling or Keling4 Andhra, whence the first ancient dynasty of Hffictoo Emperors appear to have derived their name,*** seems to have been an inland subdivision to the south of the Godavery, greater in extent than Calinga. Pliny, after specifying the names of several Indian nations, alludes to the Andhrae as a superior people " Validior deinde gens Andhrte " plurimis vicis XXX oppidis, guce muris turribusque muniuntur regi prcebetpeditum " C. M. equitum M. M. ekphantos -M" and Andhra, which is the name given to the Teloogoo by all Sanscrit Grammarians who have written respecting it, continues to
be the current appellation of the language in many parts of the Country. The most ancient Teloogoo Grammarian of whom mention is made in the native books is the sage Kunva, who is said to have been the first that composed a treatise on the principles of the language. It f is stated that he executed this work by command of a king of Andhra, named Andhra royoodoo, son J of Soochundra who
reigned at Siccacollum on the banks of the Krishna. On the death of Soochundra, Andhraroyoodoo quitted the capital of Siccacollum, and established his residence on the banks of the Godavery possibly at Rajahmundry, which we afterwards find mentioned as the capital of the Kings of the Chalookia race. Many fabulous accounts of the feats of this prince are current in, Telingana, and such has been the veneration of the people for his virtues, that they have deified him as an incarnation of the God Vishtnoo, in which character he is still worshipped at the ancient capital of Siccacollum near Masulipatam. The works of Kunva, of Audharvan Achary, and of several other ancient Grammarians, are not now to be found. All the treatises on Teloogoo grammar, at present I extant, consist of Sanscrit commentaries, (5n*a series of concise apothegms written in Sanscrit by a Bramin named Nannapa, or Nunniah Bhutt. The text of Nunniah Bhutt, as explained by his best commentators, has been my principal guide in the work which I now offer to the Public ; but as the illustrations, comparisons/ and arrangement of these Authors are borrowed exclusively from , the language in which they compose, and from a system of grammar *the most artificial perhaps ever invented by human ingenuity., I have adhered to them in these respects, so far only as they are calculated to assist an English
Student. I have often been obliged to deviate from them, and, in imitation of my guides, to accommodate my illustrations &c. &c. to the grammar of the language in which I write. Nunniah Bhutt, the author of the apothegms above mentioned, undertook also the herculean labor of translating the voluminous Mahabarut from Sanscrit into Teloogoo verse ; and although he did not live to finish this work, which was subsequently completed by Tickuna Somiazooloo, he succeeded in immortalizing his memory in this part of India, by rendering this book the great standard of Teloo-' goo poetry. We learn from the introduction to * the Teloogoo Mahabharut that Nunniah Bhutt was cotemporary with the King Vishtnoo Vurdhana, ** of the Shiva sect and Chalookia race, who reigned at Rajahmundry on the banks of the Godavery. Colonel Wilkes, in his Historical Sketches of the South of India, makes the Chalookia race more ancient than the Cadurnba kings of Bunawassi, whose dynasty is stated to have been subverted in the second century of the Christian aera. If this be admitted, the works of Nunnia Bhutt may boast of great antiquity.

Although the Teloogoo would thus appear to have been a cultivated language at a very early period, it is hardly to be expected, among the different political and religious convulsions which have so often violently agitated the Deccan, that many of the productions of so remote an age should have reached these times. Accordingly, with the exception of the abovementioned works of Nunniah Bhutt, and some books composed towards the close of the twelfth century, during the reign of Pertaub Roodroo, one of the last kings of the Belial dynasty, which succeeded that of Cadumba, we find that nearly all the Teloogoo works now current in the country were written after the dissolution of the ancient government of Telingana, and the establishment of the more modern empire of
Vidianagara. On the capture of Warunkul, t Tftecapital of the Belial Kings of Telingana, by the Pattans, A. D. 1323, certain officers of these ancient princes are stated to have emigrated to the southern provinces, where they founded the celebrated city of Vidianagara or Vizianagara, the Bijanagur of Arrowsmith, and established a new dynasty of twenty princes* known by the name of Raya or Rdtjaloo,
who gradually extended their sway all over the South of India, and reigned from the commencement of the fourteenth to the close of the sixteenth century. Of these kings, the most celebrated was Krishna Royaloo, a prince who reigned -during the earlier part of the sixteenth century. He is highly renowned* in Telingana for his piety in repairing the numerous temples in the Carnatick, and for the great personal bravery he displayed in the course of his extensive conquests in the Peninsula, but Chiefly for his munificent encouragement of Teloogoo literature.

A great number of books, composed during the reigu of Krishna Royaloo, are still to be found in the libraries of the present Polygars, of whom many in the Northern Districts, as far as Nellore, and several in the South, are descended from the former officers of the Vidianagara government : but the intolerant zeal of the Mahommedans, whose irruptions into the South of India terminated in the overthrow of the Vidianagara Empire, has left of the more ancient Teloogoo works little else remaining than the name. The works still extant, however, are sufficiently numerous and various to evince
the great degree of refinement to which the Teloogoo has attained. Few languages will be found more copious, more nervous, or more regular in construction, and it may boast, in a peculiar manner, of great elegance of expression, and melody of sound. Under the fostering auspices of fhe British Government, it is confidently hoped that the Teloogoo may recover that place which it once held among the languages of the East, and that the liberal policy of the Legislature f may bo successful in renewing, among the Natives of Telingana {Aha..Tamil is new Telugu}, that spirit of literature and science, which formerly so happily prevailed among them, and still so much endears to their remembrance the days of the most enlightened of their, Hindoo Rulers* Nearly the whole body of Teloogoo literature consists of Poetry, written iu what may be termed the superior dialect of the language ; but so different is this from the inferior or colloquial dialect, in common use among all classes of the people, that even to the learned, the use of commentaries is indispensable for the correct understanding of many of their best works. This peculiarity of two dialects is common to the Teloogoo, with the Tamil and the Karnataca. In the course of this work, I propose to give all the rules for the superior dialect, as being that from which the other is derived, but 1 shall carefully notice the peculiarities of
the common dialect. The reader will bear in mind that in conversation and official business, the inferior is used to the entire exclusion of the superior dialect, and that in all books or studied compositions, a contrary rule obtains. Such as have acquired a knowledge of the Teloogoo language merely with a view to colloquial intercourse with the people, or to the transaction of official
business, and have confined their studies exclusively to the inferior dialect, may accuse me of entering on an unprofitable and unnecessary task, in treating of the other, which, in their estimation, may be deemed altogether foreign to the Teloogoo. An attentive examination of the two may possibly lead to a very different conclusion: at all events, as this work is intended as much to enable the student to < understand the rules which regulate the classical compositions of the Natives, as to teach him to speak or write the common Teioogoo, I have deemed it my duty to follow the Native Grammarians by tracing the language to it's original source in the superior dialect at the same time, I have not neglected it's more useful branches in the inferior dialect, which, as being vulgar, Native authors have
considered beneath the notice of the learned. The Teloogoo is spoken with the greatest purity in the Northern Circars, I and with much of it's native simplicity by the Ratsawars, Velmawars, and other
superior classes in those districts. More conversant with arms, however, than with books, the Ratsawars * and Velmawars are in general ignorant of the princii pies of their own tongue- Indeed the three inferior classes of Telingana, unlike their neighbours of the Tamil Nation, seem to have abandoned the culture of their language, with every other branch of literature and science, to the sacred tribe* The Vussoochuritru is the only Teloogoo work of note not composed by a Bramin. But, with the manners and habits of their ancestors, the Velmawars, Comtees, and Soodra casts, descended from the aborigines of the country, retain a great deal of the original language of Telingana, and are more sparing in the use of Sanscrit words than the Bramins. It has been very generally asserted, and indeed believed, that the Teloogoo has it's origin in the language of the Vedums, and many of the most eminent oriental scholars have given their authority in support of this opinion. It is not *' * ... without much deference, therefore, that I venture publicly to state my inquiries to have led me to contrary conclusion ; but I do so with the less hesitation, as I find myself supported by the concurrent evidence of all Native Authors who have ever written on the subject of the Teloogoo language. On this, and on several other material points connected with the structure of the Teloogoo, I regret that my sentiments should be entirely at variance with, those of so celebrated an orientalist as Dr. Carey, one of the learned Professors in the College of Fort William, to whom the Public are indebted for a very copious Grammar of the Sanscrit language, and for a series of works on the elements of the spoken dialects of India. In the preface to a Telinga Grammar, which issued
from the press after the present work had been completed and submitted to Government, Dr. Carey writes as follows, " The languages of the South of India " I. e. the Telinga, Karnata, Tamil, Malayala, and Cingalese, while they have " the same origin with those of the North" (viz. the Sanscrit) differ greatly from " them in other respects : and especially in Having a large proportion of words the
"origin of which is unascertained ; or, as he afterwards terms them, words current " in the country, "^^^, of which the derivation is uncertain-"


This is where he inserts his divisive bile. In the book itself he will go on to make up this sheet which needs to be debunked.

This divisive bile will further get a significant boost from one Robert Caldwell in 1856 with his book : Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages making the entire set of south indian languages as a diff branch of family from that of Sanskrit even though natives themselves believed their language is tied to Sanskrit and in fact originated from Sanskrit.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5337
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby vishvak » 30 Mar 2016 23:18

By the way, about curly undecipherable language, if you do happen to read words and each letter, a lot of it is Sanskrit. This is by my limited experience. The idea of whodunit is just divide and conquer it seems. It is similar to how we can all sing Vandemataram but can't read original in Bengoli - so if you come across a text of the song, you may think it is secular Jana Gana Mana praising phoren kingdom because Bengolis do not praise Bharatmata?!?!

Knowledgeable BRF members can comment more on the curly letters. It is not going to be any different for Tamil too I think.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby ramana » 30 Mar 2016 23:46

Satya_Anveshi, Looks like British had early plans for Teloogo which got transferred to Tamil by Robert Caldwell time.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Satya_anveshi » 31 Mar 2016 04:19

Exactly Ramana ji. The author dedicated this book to the Brishit Gov Gen of India of the time and the tone suggests that he wrote with an agenda in mind.

I agree with your comment and hence my comment in that post that Tamil is the new Teloogoo. In my cursory reading thru the book (not completed) it appears most of it is a rehash of general grammer rules that are common to Sanskrit, Telugu, Kannada, and Tamil. The differences aren't that significant at all. But I think subject matter experts can go example by example and debunk this thesis and suggest alternative.

Pattabhi Rama Shastry (and family) looks like was a willing conduit to be used for this purpose.

I am also amused by the term 'Gentoo' used for Teloogoo language. We know this term from the Code of Gentoo Laws (published in 1776) that Shiv referred about earlier.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 31 Mar 2016 06:57

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that Telugu, Kannada, Tamil and Malayalam have non Sanskrit words for many common day-to-day objects and concepts indicating that South Indian languages are now a mixture of two very old languages. What is really odd is the way languages like German and other Germanic languages like English that have a huge mix of a non-Sanskritic language are called "Indo-European" while South Indian languages that have a huge mix of Sanskritic languages are non Indo-European.

When a child is taught Kannada alphabet he is learning Sanskrit alphabet in curlywurly letters. When he learns grammar he is learning Sanskrit grammar.

Part of the problem stems from a European racist tendency to "classify" people as Aryan, Dravidian, heathen, Kolarian, Hamite, Semite, Persian etc based on appearance and language. We follow this taxonomy and internalize its errors.

If I mentally combine the genetic findings of ASI/ANI with archaeological finds on humans 60,000 years ago near Hyderabad, and the intense mixture of Sanskrit and a non Sanskrit language extending in a smooth continuum from North to South it appears to me that there has been a very old admixture - much more than the touted 10 to 12,000 years old. Some of our languages and traditions are seriously old and should not be hobbled by the myth of Jesus Christ a mere 2000 years ago - which was declared as the beginning of history.

The intense development of Sanskrit as a language and its adoption all over India along with history, tradition and culture was not some accidental occurrence that happened as soon as some horse riding Aryan dismounted, but a long and continuous settled development. I think we need to use our own logical minds to understand that the volume of knowledge in the Vedas and the fine development of Sanskrit as a language is something that took many centuries and did not happen around 1000 BC as currently stated by a 200 year history of biased scholarship and Indian mental colonization of people like Romila Thapar

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 717
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby csaurabh » 31 Mar 2016 18:55

shiv wrote: What is really odd is the way languages like German and other Germanic languages like English that have a huge mix of a non-Sanskritic language are called "Indo-European" while South Indian languages that have a huge mix of Sanskritic languages are non Indo-European.


Sanskrit content in English is quite negligible. Other than a few numerals derived from Latin, what else is there actually?
On the other hand, Sanskrit content in Dravidian languages is very high.

Which one is more 'Aryan' now?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10625
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 31 Mar 2016 21:09

Quote from Balu's book "The Heathen..."

"You must not, however, think that all Indians shared this singular honour of being placed alongside the pagans from the Graeco-Roman world. There were whole groups of people in what is now Sri Lanka, for example, who did not even have a language. Poor souls, they went around grunting to each other like the animals that they were. Today, mistakenly one supposes, we call the same grunts a language – the Sinhalese.
Max Müller quotes Sir Emerson Tennent to the effect that the Veddahs of Ceylon have no language: “they mutually make themselves understood by signs, grimaces, and guttural sounds, which have little resemblance to definite words or language in general.” In fact they speak Sinhalese (an Indo-European tongue) (Evans-Pritchard 1965: 106).


So these guys can't recognize a language, even an Indo-European language, when they hear one!!!!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby RajeshA » 31 Mar 2016 22:37

Basically Vedveer Arya's book, The chronology of ancient India / victim of concoctions and distortions alone is enough to set Indian history from 1189 BCE (Mahavira Nirvana Era) onwards on a very very sound calendrical basis.

AND ALL THAT IS AFTER THE PURANIC DYNASTIES LIKE Barhadrathas, Prajyotas, Shishunagas, Nandas, Mauryas and Sungas. Before that comes the epic age. Before that the Suryavanshis. Before that we have the several phases of vedic age.

We are talking about a very very deep history.

Also see, in General Discussion Forum.

Greeks and Romans are all johnnys come late, and that too after most of the party is over and all girls have been taken :mrgreen: (meaning that the philosophical and scientific foundations of human civilization have already been firmly laid).

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5337
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby vishvak » 31 Mar 2016 22:52

What is really odd is the way languages like German and other Germanic languages like English that have a huge mix of a non-Sanskritic language are called "Indo-European" while South Indian languages that have a huge mix of Sanskritic languages are non Indo-European

AIT hides such things very well. Such is the local scholarship that didn't, or never wanted to, do such research. It is the Indian scholarship who should be at leadership of "history" instead of masks put up by pirate empires.

When a child is taught Kannada alphabet he is learning Sanskrit alphabet in curlywurly letters. When he learns grammar he is learning Sanskrit grammar.

When you know the language then there is not just curly letters anymore but rich desi cultural. Just like any other state - as obvious and mature as mentioned here - evolved over thousands of years.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby ramana » 01 Apr 2016 03:39

shiv wrote:
ramana wrote:{quote="Chandragupta"}Check out this twitter account - https://twitter.com/indianinterest

The Tocharian alphabet goes

"Ka-Kha-Ga-Gha".

The Tocharians lived in present-day western China ~ 3-4000 years ago.
https://twitter.com/indianinterest/stat ... 4012346369

Talks about Indian sphere of influence as far as western China.

{/quote}

Thanks for posting
If the image is accurate "Tocharian" is not just another "Indo-European" language but another language like Hindi, Bengali of Gujarati with a Sanskrit based alphabet - and the later is true of Kannada and Telugu as well.

So this is how the West does "identity erasure". They take an obvious daughter language of Sanskrit and give it a general name like "Indo European". Just like they take India and say "South Asia"

Image


So if we do mapping where among the different scripts would Tocharian fit?

Its not Brahmi or Nagari aka curly/wurly!

Agnimitra?

And can someone compare to Tibetan?


Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Agnimitra » 01 Apr 2016 04:44

ramana wrote:So if we do mapping where among the different scripts would Tocharian fit?

Its not Brahmi or Nagari aka curly/wurly!

Agnimitra?

And can someone compare to Tibetan?

It is similar in many ways to the Siddham script, which was widely exported to N.E. Asia, and is currently found on some shrines in Japan, for instance.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby ramana » 01 Apr 2016 05:04

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharian_alphabet

The Tocharian alphabet is a version of Brahmi script used to write the Central Asian Indo-European Tocharian languages, mostly from the 8th century (with a few earlier ones) that were written on palm leaves, wooden tablets and Chinese paper, preserved by the extremely dry climate of the Tarim Basin. Samples of the language have been discovered at sites in Kucha and Karasahr, including many mural inscriptions.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 01 Apr 2016 06:40

shiv wrote:
Image

Compare with Oriya. Will post other scripts in due course. There are some remarkable similarities which are not coincidence.
Image

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10625
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Apr 2016 07:04

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 16152.html
Nature, Mathieson et al. "Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians"

I am told:
"Further evidence that migrations originating as far west as central Europe may not have
had an important impact on the Late Bronze Age steppe comes from the fact that the Srubnaya possess exclusively (n=6) R1a Y chromosomes (Supplementary Data Table 1), and four of them (and one Poltavka male) belonged to haplogroup R1a-Z93, which is common in central/south Asians, very rare in present-day Europeans, and absent in all ancient central Europeans studied to date."

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 01 Apr 2016 07:22

Encyclopedia Britannica on Tocharian, this is tilted towards AIT. It claims despite using Brahmi script and north Indian alphabet the language is closer to Germanic, Slav etc.

Tocharian languages

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby johneeG » 01 Apr 2016 09:54

Also look at the range of dates given for Tocharians
From wiki:
The Tocharians or Tokharians (/təˈkɛəriənz/ or/təˈkɑːriənz/) were Indo-European peoples who inhabited the medieval oasis city-states on the northern edge of theTarim Basin (modern Xinjiang, China) in ancient times. Their Tocharian languages, a branch of the Indo-European family, are known from manuscripts from the 6th to 8th centuries AD, after which they were supplanted by theTurkic languages of the Uyghur tribes.

These people were called "Tocharian" by late-19th century scholars who identified them with the Tókharoi described by ancient Greek sources as inhabiting Bactria. Although this identification is now generally considered mistaken, the name has become customary.

Some scholars have linked the Tocharians with theAfanasevo culture of eastern Siberia (c. 3500 – 2500 BC), the Tarim mummies (c. 1800 BC) and the Yuezhi of Chinese records, most of whom migrated from western Gansu toBactria in the 2nd century BC and then later to northwestern Indian subcontinent where they founded the Kushan Empire.



3500 bce -2500 bce, 1800 bce, 200 bce, 800 ce.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10625
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Apr 2016 12:00

Dipanker's link to the Encyclopedia Britannica on Tocharian says:
Rather, Tocharian shows a closer affinity with the western (centum) languages: compare, for example, Tocharian A känt, B kante ‘100’ and Latin centum with Sanskrit śatám; A klyos-, B klyaus- ‘hear’ and Latin clueo with Sanskrit śru-; A kus, B kuse ‘who’ and Latin qui, quod with Sanskrit kas.


I've wondered about that. E.g., Caesar, as in Julius Caesar, became "Kaiser" in German. Then e.g., as in the New York Monthly Magazine, in a note dated October 17, 1834, we have

LORD GRENVILLE, says Warburton, had long wanted to pass an evening with {Alexander} Pope. When his wish was accomplished, two hours were almost wholly taken up by his lordship in debating and settling how the first verse of the Aeneid was to be pronounced, and whether we should say Cicero or Kickero. This circumstance is alluded to in the Dunciad.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=eFd ... ro&f=false

Multiple questions come to mind, including how did the pronunciation of Latin from Roman times to modern times shift so much; what were the arguments that "Cicero" should become "Kickero" and "centum" should become "kentum"? Were the arguments that the 19th century pronunciation of "Cicero" should be "Kickero" merely to fulfill the centum/shatam divide that the linguists had hypothesized? Or were there solid grounds for it?

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12918
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Lalmohan » 01 Apr 2016 12:36

i think we can broadly agree that the current eurocentric interpretation of history (dating back to early humans) is mostly garbage - not just for bharat, but for almost all other civilisations, including even the european ones. increasing evidence of human development and progress waaaaay before gora north europeans came on the scene to 'do god's work'. was just watching a programme on nat geo about the complete over turning of theories regarding the polynesian peoples. add to that increasing evidence from other areas, e.g. greek origins in egypt, etc., and the key conclusion is that we have to all dig deeper and challenge the status quo

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby RajeshA » 01 Apr 2016 16:06

One thing we need to understand about North Europeans is that they have no historical texts, in fact, they have no texts at all that go before 1000 CE, except may be a line or two, in their own languages!

All information is averred to from one or two Roman books.

And so a people without history go out and appropriate the history of others, and claim to own it based on their theft of the cultural artifacts and the volume of scholarship on it.

More than that, they try to belittle the historical texts of others like Indians, Southeast Asians, etc, claiming they are confusing and non-dateable. This coming from a people without any history at all is really a mouthful.

What they have is the need to work out their trauma of being a people without history! For us Indians, we have the issue of having too much of history, and Europeans sitting on our backs like Vetala who have confounded that mass of history, and wouldn't let us put it together again.

The Europeans stress the need of "archaeological findings" not because these have more of an historical value than texts, but because they themselves have no texts to work with, and as such archaeology remains their only course, and so they have made their necessity into a high principle.

So let's not always be harsh on the Europeans, let's also sometimes take pity on them! :wink:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 01 Apr 2016 20:22

A_Gupta wrote:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v528/n7583/full/nature16152.html
Nature, Mathieson et al. "Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians"

I am told:
"Further evidence that migrations originating as far west as central Europe may not have
had an important impact on the Late Bronze Age steppe comes from the fact that the Srubnaya possess exclusively (n=6) R1a Y chromosomes (Supplementary Data Table 1), and four of them (and one Poltavka male) belonged to haplogroup R1a-Z93, which is common in central/south Asians, very rare in present-day Europeans, and absent in all ancient central Europeans studied to date."

Interesting data point. Z93 comes further downstream from M17. I recall reading earlier about these fous steppe mummies. Initially (and this appeared even on BRF) they found R1a and said "Hah! This proves AIT". This was quietly given a burial when it was discovered that the four had R1a1a1 M17 from Sooth Asia. That too was posted on this forum earlier (by me).

Now we have a further clarification that it was R1a1a2/b2 or Z93 that occurs in SDREs. Even here you ned to recall that when a gene is found in Pathans in Afghanistan, they often call it central Asia

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 01 Apr 2016 20:24

RajeshA wrote:One thing we need to understand about North Europeans is that they have no historical texts, in fact, they have no texts at all that go before 1000 CE, except may be a line or two, in their own languages!

All information is averred to from one or two Roman books.

And so a people without history go out and appropriate the history of others, and claim to own it based on their theft of the cultural artifacts and the volume of scholarship on it.

More than that, they try to belittle the historical texts of others like Indians, Southeast Asians, etc, claiming they are confusing and non-dateable. This coming from a people without any history at all is really a mouthful.

What they have is the need to work out their trauma of being a people without history! For us Indians, we have the issue of having too much of history, and Europeans sitting on our backs like Vetala who have confounded that mass of history, and wouldn't let us put it together again.

The Europeans stress the need of "archaeological findings" not because these have more of an historical value than texts, but because they themselves have no texts to work with, and as such archaeology remains their only course, and so they have made their necessity into a high principle.

So let's not always be harsh on the Europeans, let's also sometimes take pity on them! :wink:


Good point. That is why they clung on to one text they could get - the Bible, and after that they started writing history and claimed that only their written chronicles can be accurate.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests