Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 13 Jun 2012 15:32

LM,
Sahi. elephants are good defense.
History mentions that Alexander the gay had pili chaddi knowing that Magadh army has between 9,000-15,000 elephants.

Ok. elephant warfare is also Indian 'gift' to the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_elephant

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 13 Jun 2012 15:44

it is true that the use of elephants by indian and then persian armies against the europeans was much feared. however, elephants can be defeated and are relatively high maintenance

search with google chacha "roman treaty elephant" . there are plenty of examples about use of elephants by non-persian/non-indians against romans and how they played important roles and how much the elephants were dreaded romans.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 13 Jun 2012 16:10

Manish ji,

Through out Hindu theological history, many Gods came and diminished in prominence (relatively speaking), but they never went away in totality, every God has prominence, even today, if you need rain, we turn to Indra, yagnas for Indra are performed, people don't pray to Vishnu but Indra alone. Many reincarnations of Vishnu too came and went, now you cant say that these days Mastya avatar of Vishnu is not prayed to hence Vishnu lost prominence or forgotten. Infact Vivekananda says that even to RgVedics, Mitra, Varuna, Indra meant of one and only one God.
From Vivekananda's Complete Works:

That is why I want you to remember it: "Whom they call Indra, Mitra, Varuna — That which exists is One; sages call It by various names."

Even though Brahma is not prayed to, unlike other two Gods, he too has a temple in Pushkar.

Hence it's totally a western perspective that you are putting forward that Indra is 'forgotten' (that's your first contention). Only a western scholar who doesn't understand the unity concept of Gods in Hindusim can say that. To him, Hindus have zillions of Gods, some more powerful than others, some more important than others, some forgotten some not.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 13 Jun 2012 16:26

And there are no functioning sun temple left, people still worship Sun god, who comes riding daily on chariots with 7 Horses

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 16:47

I have a hard copy of Vaman Apte's dictionary with me and looking for "Indra" I am amazed to find a half page exposition on the Vedic and subsequent Indra. Apte says that while Indra is a lord or ruler of men, he is also, in the Vedas placed as "first rank" among gos. Yet he is not uncreated like other gods and is referred to as having been bor.

The Indra of the vedas (in my reckoning) could possible have referred to a man and a God and a power (Rain/lightning). I was unable to find any reference to Indra meaning "man" although "great man" could be an inference to the name (my guess) because of how the name survives as a suffix to male Hindu names. Indra was also supposed to be a randy bugger who had it off with wimmens and one curse had a 1000 yonis (c*nts) stamped on him (Sayoni)

The "-inder" suffix made me think of Greek names like Menander and Aexander and the fact that Greek for "man" is "andros" (as opposed to Gyn...something that the word gynaecology derives from)

Just an interesting link although I saw a PIE root "hner" for "andr" mentioned along with Sanskrit "nar" which is totally unconvincing to me. Some of these connections seem like young interns/research assistants in linguistics depts sitting in front of computer databases sorting names in multiple languages by meaning and/or sound.

Actually in my view Andr is closer to Tamil "Aan".

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 13 Jun 2012 16:56

Indra is probably a Designation. A Rank.

I dont know the context of the 1000 yoni curse, but generally, 1000 yoni curse may also mean one has to pass thru 1000 different species. According to purans there are 84 lac yonis (== beings == species)

If one wants to take birth in manushya yoni, one has to pass thru 84 lac minus (-) 1 yonis. From amoeba to ape than human

Yoni is just not c*nt, iirc.

This is like translating Sujalam Sufalam = good water good fruit, but actual near-translation will be auspicious waters and benign fruits

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 13 Jun 2012 16:59

Watch chanakya serial. Alexander is known as Alakshendra by people of Bharat. Sandhi vichchhed may be = a + laksh + indra = indra with no set goal !

Menander was known as Milind in Bharat.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 13 Jun 2012 17:00

I started thinking... it appears to me perhaps there were multiple Indras look here:

The Manu of the first Manvantra is Swayambhuva_Manu. Vishnu was incarnated as the Varaha (boar) during his time. His wife was Sataroopa. Yama and others were the Devas. Vishnu is said to have born in the Manu's lineage and become the Indra.

The second Manvantra had Svarosisha, with the Manu of the same name. Rochana was the Indra. The Devas were comprised of Dushita (who is this?) and others. The SaptaRishis consisted of Stambha, Dhattatreya, Atri, Chyavana, Prana, Kashyapa and Brihaspati. Lord Vishnu was incarnated as Vibhu (again, not part of the 10 avatars) in this Manvantra. The Indra of this age was Bhanusangyak.

Uttama Manvantra is the third. Uttama is the Manu, and his sons Pavana, Srunjaya and others were the Devas. The sons of Vasishta led by Pramadha are the SaptaRishis. Satyajit was the Indra. Lord Vishnu was incarnated as Satyasena, which is not counted in his ten major avatars. Sadhyanga was the Indra.

so on...

From :
http://www.apamnapat.com/articles/Introduction03.html

Hindu mythology talks about multiple yugas, one yuga's Indra is not the same another yuga's Indra.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 13 Jun 2012 17:08

Adrija wrote: Given that - as per your own post- the RgVed was composed in India, what exactly is YOUR position on the whole AIT/ OIT?

Would it be possible to state this in a single post please?

Parts of AIT I agree with :
At the turn of 2nd millenium BC, the first speakers of a language which is a branch of indo-european family entered Indian subcontinent. The language now called 'Vedic Sanskrit' is developed in India, the first snapshot we see of a their language is the ṛgveda.

Parts of AIT I disagree:
I don't think speakers of IE branch ever displaced speakers of Dravidian family. Nor did speakers of IE branch cause the demise of Harrappan cities. I don't think skin colour was a marker of ethnicity for immigrants - language and theology were the markers.

Problems with current OIT theories:
- Current evidence of horse domestication is not in favour of Indian origin
- An OIT which makes Vedic Sanskrit the origin of all of IE family is phonetically unsound
- An OIT which makes PIE or Proto-Sanskrit originate in India is more viable; but still lacks corroboration from horse domestication evidence.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 13 Jun 2012 17:10

Ok, 84 Lac yonis, according to our seers is divided in four main types

Andaj = born out of eggs = sandhi anda+ja = Ande se janma hua
Swedaj = born out of sweat (!!) = swed + ja = Swed se janma hua (sweat has derived from sanskrit swed?), e.g, lice
Udbij = born out of seed = Ud + big = jiska bij se udbhav hua
Jarayuj = born out of embryo = jarayu (embryo) + j

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Jun 2012 17:11

Just a reminder, before things start going OT, theological issues should be discussed only as long as they are relevant for the discussion on OIT, AIT, AMT, ....

Otherwise it is a topic for GDF.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 13 Jun 2012 17:18

venug wrote: Hence it's totally a western perspective that you are putting forward that Indra is 'forgotten' (that's your first contention).

venugaru: please point me to the post where I've used the word 'forgotten' with indra ?

My first post on indra in this thread is here ...
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1294653

... and it uses the word 'transformed'.

You are imagining that I'm saying something which I'm not; and then proceed to write a long post refuting what you imagined I said.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 17:28

ManishH wrote: At the turn of 2nd millenium BC, the first speakers of a language which is a branch of indo-european family entered Indian subcontinent.

On what basis is this particular time period being stamped on an event that has left no demonstrable proof.

If they arrived after the last date of the Indus valley civilization but before the date of the Rig Veda they are unlikely to have done much exploring - to have missed massive urban remains. The place of composition of the Rig veda is stated by my unkal Googal as being in the Punjab region. The dates you mention for "entry" of people coincides with the hypothesized end of the Indus valley/Harappan civilization.

Looks like the two peoples have missed each other completely.

Or is this whole bunch of theories flawed and incomplete because if all the holes in it
1. No one knows who the Harappans were
2. No horses in India

Maybe Sanskrit and the Rig Veda were both brought into India from the steppes and developed in India. That would be the easiest explanation. Sanskrit itself may be a foreign language to India. That would explain everything without the need to create a non existent PIE that had to develop into Sanskrit in India while they sang about far away gods/princes in the steppes they left behind at a time when their forefathers spoke another pre-Sanskrit language. It would probably explain the closeness of Tocharian and Avestan and Iranian and yet have no issues with Indra, Zeus, Greek whoever.

Would you be able to help demolish this (attractive to me) theory/straw man.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 13 Jun 2012 17:29

venug wrote: Hindu mythology talks about multiple yugas, one yuga's Indra is not the same another yuga's Indra.

One yuga's Brahma is not the same as another yuga's Brahma.
e.g.,
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... inity.html

"O King of Gods, I have known the dreadful dissolution of the universe. I have seen all perish, again and again, at the end of every cycle. At that terrible time, every single atom dissolves into the primal, pure waters of eternity, whence all originally arose. Everything then goes back into the fathomless, wild infinity of the ocean, which is covered with utter darkness and is empty of every sign of animate being. Ah, who will count the universes that have passed away, or the creations that have risen afresh, again and again, from the formless abyss of the vast waters? Who will number the passing ages of the world, as they follow each other endlessly? And who will search through the wide infinities of space to count the universes side by side, each containing its Brahma, its Vishnu, and its Shiva? Who will count the Indras in them all—those Indras side by side, who reign at once in all the innumerable worlds; those others who passed away before them; or even the Indras who succeed each other in any given line, ascending to godly kingship, one by one, and one by one, passing away? King of Gods, there are among your servants certain who maintain that it may be possible to number the grains of sand on earth and the drops of rain that fall from the sky, but no one will ever number all those Indras. This is what the Knowers know."

"The life and kingship of an Indra endure seventy-one eons, and when twenty-eight Indras have expired, one Day and Night of Brahma has elapsed. But the existence of one Brahma, measured in such Brahma Days and Nights, is only one hundred and eight years. Brahma follows Brahma; one sinks, the next arises; the endless series cannot be told. There is no end to the number of those Brahmas—to say nothing of Indras."

"But the universes side by side at any given moment, each harboring a Brahma and an Indra: who will estimate the number of these? Beyond the farthest vision, crowding outer space, the universes come and go, an innumerable host. Like delicate boats they float on the fathomless, pure waters that form the body of Vishnu. Out of every hair-pore of that body a universe bubbles and breaks. Will you presume to count them? Will you number the gods in all those worlds—the worlds present and the worlds past?"

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Jun 2012 17:42

ManishH wrote:Problems with current OIT theories:
- Current evidence of horse domestication is not in favour of Indian origin
- An OIT which makes Vedic Sanskrit the origin of all of IE family is phonetically unsound
- An OIT which makes PIE or Proto-Sanskrit originate in India is more viable; but still lacks corroboration from horse domestication evidence.

ManishH ji,

Let's for the moment forget the Hindu timeline regarding Mahabharat ~3137 BC, and Ṛgveda being dated ~5000 BC accordingly. That is the Hindu Timeline.

Out-of-India Theory is separate, independent of the Hindu Timeline.

So you still have not answered the question:
a) How does Ṛgvedic "past memory" requires horse domestication? All it talks of is a prestigious status for horse. There is no memory of domestication or an environment supporting wild horses.

So what is wrong with "Aryans" sitting in India being delivered domesticated horses from Central Asia through trade either with non-IE people or with Indian émigré groups.

b) I personally don't know how exactly Vedic Sanskrit really developed. But it does seem to be a language on which its developers gave particular attention to. I presume there were many proto-Prakrits being spoken in the Indian Subcontinent at that time. So if Vedic Sanskrit was in itself an effort at "standardization" or making the language "a higher form", as is often the case in the development of language in civilizations requiring more standards, then it would mean that Vedic Sanskrit need not really be the parent language for the IE languages.

It is more natural that those groups who migrated out of India would have been having their own proto-Prakrit dialect with a parallel knowledge of some proto-Vedic Sanskrit.

The notion that languages develop through phonetic branching of some parent language seem to me a model which completely bypasses the model that usually they develop through interchange of vocabulary, which often undergoes a phonetic shift upon being spoken by a "non-native" speaker and thus by a mouth apparatus trained to speak differently.

c) Horse domestication evidence is simply not needed, because the AIT/AMT proponents have said nothing convincing as to why
- "prestige for an animal" == "indigenous domestication" AND NOT "coveting an imported rarity"

In the 80s when the video recorder was still new, especially in India, one could see how video rental shops used to put up boards. Video Recorder was prestigious, but it was not even locally assembled, leave alone manufactured.

So horse domestication really sounds now like a jarring broken record.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 17:44

ManishH wrote: - An OIT which makes Vedic Sanskrit the origin of all of IE family is phonetically unsound
- An OIT which makes PIE or Proto-Sanskrit originate in India is more viable; but still lacks corroboration from horse domestication evidence.

Sorry I missed this when I wrote my previous rhetorical question.

If you take the origin of Sanskrit (proto-Sanskrit) as a broad area encompassing North India, Afghanistan and Central Asia it would neither be into India nor out of India. It will be both.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 17:49

RajeshA wrote: In the 80s when the video recorder was still new, especially in India, one could see how video rental shops used to put up boards. Video Recorder was prestigious, but it was not even locally assembled, leave alone manufactured.

Heck I went abroad and conquered the UK just to acquire one of these.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Jun 2012 17:52

shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote: In the 80s when the video recorder was still new, especially in India, one could see how video rental shops used to put up boards. Video Recorder was prestigious, but it was not even locally assembled, leave alone manufactured.
Heck I went abroad and conquered the UK just to acquire one of these.

Is that why we now pronounce it "beedio rikardurr"?

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 13 Jun 2012 18:02

"World is moving at a fast pace today". How would a linguist parse this sentence 4000 years from today using a dictionary without knowledge of english? would s/he come to conclusion that world actually increased its speed by 40 km/hr extra for today? Presumably the meanings of word do not change per linguists., hence ispo facto the meaning of sentence would also not change and is not contextual?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 18:02

Here is a map of spread of the chariot. But Harappan carts are older than this date - so this must be horse chariot I guess.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Jun 2012 18:17

i find it hard to believe that technologies have single points of origin. i am sure that multiple human communities independently discovered/invented technologies that gave them utility and later competitive advantage... as indeed we do today

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 13 Jun 2012 18:22

Manish ji,
It wasn't your first post, you were replying to Bji's comment, nevertheless you mentioned that Hinduism being a natural religion tends to forget it's Gods:

The armada of charioteers and mounted riders is a myth. Theology is not a static characteristic of a culture, and esp. not 'natural' religions that derive from a 1-book and 1-god concept. Such development in 'natural' religions can be seen even post Vedic. Eg. does modern Hindu religious practice give the same importance to 'mitra', 'apām napāt', 'pūṣan' etc. Notice how the mightly RgVedic indra who released the rivers from the mountains and rides two brown horses is transformed to pauranic indra who rides an elephant and runs to other deities for help when in trouble.

Most natural religions evolve and forget Gods which are no longer relevant to them.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 13 Jun 2012 18:26

ManishH wrote:At the turn of 2nd millenium BC, the first speakers of a language which is a branch of indo-european family entered Indian subcontinent. The language now called 'Vedic Sanskrit' is developed in India, the first snapshot we see of a their language is the ṛgveda.

ManishH, Probably you mean 3rd millenium BC. 2nd millenium BC would be from 1999 BC to 1000 BC.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Jun 2012 18:28

hanumadu ji,

Max Muller's date for Aryan Invasion into India is 1500 BC.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 13 Jun 2012 18:29

venug wrote:Manish ji,
It wasn't your first post, you were replying to Bji's comment, nevertheless you mentioned that Hinduism being a natural religion tends to forget it's Gods:

The armada of charioteers and mounted riders is a myth. Theology is not a static characteristic of a culture, and esp. not 'natural' religions that derive from a 1-book and 1-god concept. Such development in 'natural' religions can be seen even post Vedic. Eg. does modern Hindu religious practice give the same importance to 'mitra', 'apām napāt', 'pūṣan' etc. Notice how the mightly RgVedic indra who released the rivers from the mountains and rides two brown horses is transformed to pauranic indra who rides an elephant and runs to other deities for help when in trouble.

Most natural religions evolve and forget Gods which are no longer relevant to them.

ManishH, I ask you again, how come the Romans and the Greeks did not forget their PIE gods?

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Jun 2012 18:31

ManishH ji -

The armada of charioteers and mounted riders is a myth. Theology is not a static characteristic of a culture, and esp. not 'natural' religions that derive from a 1-book and 1-god concept. Such development in 'natural' religions can be seen even post Vedic. Eg. does modern Hindu religious practice give the same importance to 'mitra', 'apām napāt', 'pūṣan' etc. Notice how the mightly RgVedic indra who released the rivers from the mountains and rides two brown horses is transformed to pauranic indra who rides an elephant and runs to other deities for help when in trouble.

Most natural religions evolve and forget Gods which are no longer relevant to them.

ManishH ji again being quoted by Brihaspati ji –

Quote:
Quote:
But Indra has not been forgotten and erased completely in the "Hindu".

Not forgotten - but transmuted into a helpless Nero-like personality. Thanks to a tradition of oral preservation and later on writing of manuscripts, nothing can be forgotten now.

No use pussyfooting here. The fact is that Indra has not been erased and wiped off the records. You want writing and oral tradition to jumpstart/sayambhu exactly at the convenient point of time that helps your AIT/PIEOI theory? And that jumpstart point will conveniently fluctuate wildly as and when new counterpoints turn up that problematizes such jumpstarts?

So yes forgotten was used with Indra and then was retracted too to be supplanted by something else.

ManishH ji, you are transmutating the importance by some strange logic.

Can I respect my father more than I respect my Grand father or my Great Grand Father? I don’t have the name of my Great Grand Father. These are strange logic that you use to further your point.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 18:31

JwalaMukhi wrote:"World is moving at a fast pace today". How would a linguist parse this sentence 4000 years from today using a dictionary without knowledge of english? would s/he come to conclusion that world actually increased its speed by 40 km/hr extra for today? Presumably the meanings of word do not change per linguists., hence ispo facto the meaning of sentence would also not change and is not contextual?

4000 years ago it was thought God held the earth and oceans in his hand and ran to the kingdom of Democratos to protect it from Red people. Fast movement of the earth refers to this. Some authorities believe that there had been a great war before that event, but archaeological findings reveal many four wheeled metal chariots which may have been symbolically used in fertility or war rituals as a symbol of movement of God.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Jun 2012 18:32

hanumadu - they did. romans moved their principal deities depending on various factors including emperor's preferences. for example mithras was the most popular roman god for a long time before xtianity started making inroads into roman power circles. no one really remembers mithras any more. i dont think manish is talking about "forgetting" in a literal sense, but more in an evolutionary sense

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 13 Jun 2012 18:34

RajeshA wrote:hanumadu ji,

Max Muller's date for Aryan Invasion into India is 1500 BC.

Rajesh ji, no ji for me please.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Jun 2012 18:36

Here is something on Sanskrit, that I liked to share here. It is from a blog "uttiSTha bhArata"

The first inefficiency that creeps into the modern languages, originates from the very principle these languages (English, Hindi, German, Japanese etc) are based upon.

That principle is Words represent objects/entities.

This seems to be a very innocent and trivial fact and absolutely harmless. But, we will see later that it is this basic principle that is responsible for many inefficiencies in the modern communication protocols (aka languages). Sanskrit, however, is not based upon the above principle. Rather, in Sanskrit, Words represent properties of objects/entities and not objects/entities themselves.

Let’s see now with the help of examples in the Question and Answer format, what does all this mean.

Q) What is a tree called in English and Hindi ?
A) In English, a tree is called Tree
In Hindi, a tree is called पेड़

Q) What is a tree called in Sanskrit ?
A) There is no word in Sanskrit for a tree!

Q) Are you kidding me ?
A) No! Let me explain in greater detail. As said above, Words in Sanskrit represent properties of objects and not objects themselves. And, since a tree is an object, there is really no word in Sanskrit for a tree. In fact, there is actually no word in Sanskrit for any object (barring some exceptions, which are finite in number).

Q) What then, is वृक्ष ? I heard that वृक्ष in Sanskrit means a tree.
A) Ah! now you asked the proper question. वृक्ष is a Sanskrit word that may be used to represent a tree. As said and repeated earlier, Words in Sanskrit represent properties, so वृक्ष also represents a property.

वृक्ष = something that is cut and felled down

The word वृक्ष can be used to denote any object that has this property. If something is usually cut and fell down, then it can be called वृक्ष. That object need not be a Tree.
Similarly, there are many other words in Sanskrit that can be used to denote a tree. For example, तरु and पादप also may denote a tree. But even these words don’t necessarily mean a tree.

A tree drinks water by using its roots. Hence, also called pAdapa.

तरु = something that floats
पादप = something that drinks using its feet

Since a tree has the above properties, i.e. a (fallen) tree floats on water and also a tree absorbs water from the ground by its roots(feet), the above words can be used to denote a tree because a tree possesses the properties represented by these words. Not to mention that the above words may be used for other objects also, if they satisfy the above properties.

Q) Oh! I get it. So a trunk of a tree can also be called वृक्ष because, like a tree, even a trunk can be cut and felled.
A) Absolutely! You are a genius.

Q) So can you summarize ?
A) Sure! In most of the modern communication protocols, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the words and the objects they represent. But, in Sanskrit, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the words and properties.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2012 18:38

Rajesh such a greatly developed language would have needed a greatly developed people. Where is the evidence of that in India?

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 13 Jun 2012 18:40

Lalmohan wrote: for example mithras was the most popular roman god for a long time before xtianity started making inroads into roman power circles. no one really remembers mithras any more. i dont think manish is talking about "forgetting" in a literal sense, but more in an evolutionary sense

Thanks for pointing out about Mithras
I was talking only of pre christian era. Christianity took over Rome with force. Its not a natural religion I guess.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Jun 2012 18:40

shiv wrote:Here is a map of spread of the chariot. But Harappan carts are older than this date - so this must be horse chariot I guess.

Shiv ji, these buggers took 500 years for moving 2000 km. So people on horse back cannot travel all that much in one lifetime. Hain ji.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Jun 2012 18:42

shiv wrote:Rajesh such a greatly developed language would have needed a greatly developed people. Where is the evidence of that in India?

Great observation.

Also the greatly developed Great Britain never really developed any new language. Merely changed the spelling of a few words.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Jun 2012 18:45

shiv wrote:Rajesh such a greatly developed language would have needed a greatly developed people. Where is the evidence of that in India?

How about in Pakistan?

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Jun 2012 18:47

RajeshA Post subject: Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to TruthPosted: 13 Jun 2012 18:36
That is perhaps why we have common nouns like Chiriya/Pakshi while Malechas have as many names as are the birds.

Ayas also kya?

Perhaps ManishH ji can throw some light.

This may seem off topic but then if it actually is the case then that can support your hypothesis RajeshA ji (below)

RajeshA ji –

b) I personally don't know how exactly Vedic Sanskrit really developed. But it does seem to be a language on which its developers gave particular attention to. I presume there were many proto-Prakrits being spoken in the Indian Subcontinent at that time. So if Vedic Sanskrit was in itself an effort at "standardization" or making the language "a higher form", as is often the case in the development of language in civilizations requiring more standards, then it would mean that Vedic Sanskrit need not really be the parent language for the IE languages.

It is more natural that those groups who migrated out of India would have been having their own proto-Prakrit dialect with a parallel knowledge of some proto-Vedic Sanskrit.

The notion that languages develop through phonetic branching of some parent language seem to me a model which completely bypasses the model that usually they develop through interchange of vocabulary, which often undergoes a phonetic shift upon being spoken by a "non-native" speaker and thus by a mouth apparatus trained to speak differently.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Jun 2012 18:51

RajeshA wrote:
shiv wrote:Rajesh such a greatly developed language would have needed a greatly developed people. Where is the evidence of that in India?
How about in Pakistan?

They managed to change God from Khuda to Allah. I say that is mightier than developing new languages.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Jun 2012 18:57

I was just wondering that if Sanskrit really names objects according to properties, as mentioned in the post earlier, then the notion that the word अश्व need not have developed pre-dispersal of the proto-Vedic Sanskrit speaking PIE people. It could have happened at any time after the dispersal, and the name of the animal would be the same, where ever the dispersing PIE would have seen the animal.

So whether the PIE Indics went to Kurgan or Botai, they named it अश्व (Ashva), when the animal was brought to India, the couch Indians also called it अश्व (Ashva). Of course, when the Indics came across the proto-Greeks, they stumbled over their syllables and started calling it hippos.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Jun 2012 19:02

hanumadu, mithras replaced many other gods before he came along also. gods can change in popularity if they are felt to have beneficial or ill effects on the outcomes of events. typically a culture that is overawed or overwhelmed by another tends to adopt its gods and behaviours - only very resilient ones maintain their core belief systems

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Jun 2012 19:06

A humble request!

Added Later: Good post RajeshAji. Thanks for posting it. The santi mantra in Purusha Suktam calls trees "Urtham Jigaatu" = things that grow upwards

Words in Sanskrit (even in other Indic languages - In telugu Komma means a branch and a woman) often have disparate meanings. Doing blind word searches and trying to interpret them from one specific meaning may not be accurate. One good source is Amara Kosamu. for example sound have the following variations/names

Shabde' ninaada ninada dhwani dhwana rava swana:
Arava aarava samraava, viraava mara marmara:

Then there is the contextual meaning of a word. For example Brahma/Brahman can be used to describe Param, Chaturmukha Brahma/Creation, Brahman the true seeker or Brahmana varna. One needs to be conscious about it.

Vedas need to be read using both swara and sabda because only that way one can understand where/how to break a word to get the real meaning. To understand them one needs a sampradaya guru, who knows the real purpose of Vedas, which is to know oneself. Reading Vedas as another book is not only useless but also leads to mis-interpretations as we see in western/socialist/dalit interpretations.