Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[Arjun]

your colleague, Wim Borsboom, does refer to PIE language in his work at one place. Perhaps you could let him know that that is really very manufactured and doubtful, created out of prejudices, and if possible he should make his point differently.

Excellent analysis overall, RajeshA ji.

A small point - PIE in itself may not be problematic, and has its uses for the OIT scenario as well. The key issue is where one locates the birthplace of the PIE language.

[Nilesh Oak]

I see zero change in his attitude. When he says "Sanskrit has contributed to Indus Civilization", he means something different
I hope somebody is able to decipher the Indus Valley Script and send all these AIT-Nazis into retirement.

Nilesh Oak ji,

your colleague, Wim Borsboom, does refer to PIE language in his work at one place. Perhaps you could let him know that that is really very manufactured and doubtful, created out of prejudices, and if possible he should make his point differently.

RajeshA ji,

Good analysis. I began wondering based on 'story title'. I did read the interview, but again, both Parpola and person asking Q were talking/writing in cloudy language.

I started wondering if Sue Sullivan conivinced him of her work and now he wanted to take credit before that chance goes away. On a side bar, I have noticed few researchers, these days, taking position similar to 'Sue Sullivan research outcome', but without showing anying in support of their claim, unlike Sulllivan Code.

PIE - The whole aim here was to turn Sanskrit from Mother to daughter, with a dog bone of 'sister' thrown in to pacify someone who came with stron evidence against PIE. PIE was BS from day one and not different than careless and casual theory of '2 or 3 or 4 languages in the "old' strata of Sanskrit'. It is pure BS, but as long as it appears in peer-reviewed journals, all is fair, but I digressed again.

Sanskrit - the word itself has that sense of 'created - krit' language. But that does not mean it came from PIE. In fact, until discovery of Sanskrit (discovery to who?) and even more critical, discovery of Panini , western world had no ability to connect languages - other than - guesses.

The term 'PIE' is still used (I am not defending Wim, he does not need defense from me) in the sense of we still use 'AIT' or state something like "AIT wall is crumbling, when there never was AIT wall that was ever standing".

Do you have specific reference of his related to PIE in mind?

My thoughts are known to Wim on PIE.

[Nilesh Oak]

A small point - PIE in itself may not be problematic, and has its uses for the OIT scenario as well. The key issue is where one locates the birthplace of the PIE language.

Arjun ji,

Point well taken. There were definitely language(s) before Sanskrit. That is implicit in the word 'Sanskrit' itself. So those who proposed PIE were warranted in their 'Guess" (conjecture, hypothesis, theory) and utterly wrong/deluded (well politicians may be deluded in the sense of being wrong, but then they know exactly what they are doing - as far as their personal benefit is concerned) in sticking with PIE, in spite of their inability to come up with evidence for PIE as original language and Sanskrit as daughter of PIE.

For imaginary PIE, one would have to look for imaginary land for its origin.

[chetak]

I see zero change in his attitude. When he says "Sanskrit has contributed to Indus Civilization", he means something different
I hope somebody is able to decipher the Indus Valley Script and send all these AIT-Nazis into retirement.

RajeshA ji,

Good analysis. I began wondering based on 'story title'. I did read the interview, but again, both Parpola and person asking Q were talking/writing in cloudy language.



PIE - The whole aim here was to turn Sanskrit from Mother to daughter, with a dog bone of 'sister' thrown in to pacify someone who came with stron evidence against PIE. PIE was BS from day one and not different than careless and casual theory of '2 or 3 or 4 languages in the "old' strata of Sanskrit'. It is pure BS, but as long as it appears in peer-reviewed journals, all is fair, but I digressed again.

Not going to bite the hand that feeds him, no? The dravidian champions must have primed him properly before they "gave" him the prize. His "work" fits nicely into their bogus theories. He's even thrown in the ‘Thirukkural’ for good measure and even promised to "properly" translate it.

Parpola, whose path-breaking study on 'A Dravidian Solution to the Indus Script Problem' had bagged the 'Kalaignar M Karunanidhi Classical Tamil Research Award' at the 'World Classical Tamil Conference (WCTC)' in Coimbatore, is remarkably self-effacing and realistic. A diligent scholar from Finland in both 'Vedic' and 'Dravidian' studies

[member_22872]

Not to sound like an alarmist, but:

Parpola, whose path-breaking study on 'A Dravidian Solution to the Indus Script Problem' had bagged the 'Kalaignar M Karunanidhi Classical Tamil Research Award' at the 'World Classical Tamil Conference (WCTC)' in Coimbatore

That is bothersome and is politically motivated more than anything than to do with truth and more than political it is divisive, too sad to see politicians like Karunanidhi make no bones in supporting these white AIT-Nazis in the name of Aryan subjugation, it only divides India. I am sacred of guys like these.

[RajeshA]

Do you have specific reference of his related to PIE in mind?

My thoughts are known to Wim on PIE.

In the Word document "ABCD or ABRACADABRA" which you were so kind to send, Wim Borsboom does use PIE on Page 36, Table 6.

It is not some grave "transgression" or anything of the kind! It is just important that he is aware of the issue of absurdity of PIE! It is however his wish, if he wishes to use it or not! But if you say he is aware, then it is good!

[RajeshA]

your colleague, Wim Borsboom, does refer to PIE language in his work at one place. Perhaps you could let him know that that is really very manufactured and doubtful, created out of prejudices, and if possible he should make his point differently.

Excellent analysis overall, RajeshA ji.

A small point - PIE in itself may not be problematic, and has its uses for the OIT scenario as well. The key issue is where one locates the birthplace of the PIE language.

Arjun ji,

As Nilesh Oak ji has said, Sanskrit is itself "refined speech". So as far as I am concerned, we need not assert that Sanskrit is the mother language of all Indo-European languages. In fact, if Sanskrit is the refined language, there would have been several languages in use, as is to be expected, which would not be "refined" - the Prakrits.

Our stand is that

1. The Prakrits from which Sanskrit developed were Indic languages, spoken in India.
2. None of the Prakrits which participated in the development of Sanskrit came from outside India.
3. Sanskrit itself was developed/composed in India itself.

If somebody finds a justification, then he is free to choose any of the historic Prakrits as the Proto-Indo-European language. However such a model of language development with one language sitting at the root is a rather naive model.

However the big problem with PIE is that it is outside the hands of Indics and in the hands of AIT-Nazis. The AIT-Nazis own it and control it, and using it they want to prove that Indo-Aryans came from outside India.

History of Sanskrit should be owned by Indics alone!

[Arjun]

When I referred to PIE I was referring to the concept that there is one single proto-language from which all languages in the Indo-European family largely derive from. I don't mean the specific PIE with identified words (!) that the comparative linguists claim to have reconstructed using their 'science'. The supposed 'reconstruction rules' for getting to this proto-language, as defined by comparative linguists - seem highly speculative and would hardly satisfy Feynman's definition of what constitutes a science.

I think it is interesting to note that it is the existence of a single proto-language (without necessarily getting into trying to 'reconstruct' it) that would imply that NOT AIT == OIT and vice versa. This actually lands up providing both camps an additional route to prove their respective theses. In any case, PIE in itself and comparative linguistics in general cannot prove or disprove anything - that is left to archeology and other disciplines that can provide 'hard' dating techniques.

If you take as axiom that there was one single proto-language in the past - that does raise alternate avenues for proof of your thesis. But yes, possibly one needs to question if this is necessarily a valid axiom.

[A_Gupta]

All histories are elaborate efforts at mythmaking. Therefore, when we submit to histories about us written by others, we submit to their myths about us as well. Mythmaking, like naming, is a token of having power. Submitting to others' myths about us is a sign that we are without power. After the historical work of Dharampal, the scope for mythmaking about the past of Indian society is now considerably reduced.

If we must continue to live by myths, however, it is far better we choose to live by those of our own making rather than by those invented by others for their own purposes, whether English or Japanese. That much at least we owe ourselves as an independent society and nation - Claude Alvares, quoted by D.P. Agarwal

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/manda ... ameset.htm

[RajeshA]

When I referred to PIE I was referring to the concept that there is one single proto-language from which all languages in the Indo-European family largely derive from. I don't mean the specific PIE with identified words (!) that the comparative linguists claim to have reconstructed using their 'science'. The supposed 'reconstruction rules' for getting to this proto-language, as defined by comparative linguists - seem highly speculative and would hardly satisfy Feynman's definition of what constitutes a science.

I think it is interesting to note that it is the existence of a single proto-language (without necessarily getting into trying to 'reconstruct' it) that would imply that NOT AIT == OIT and vice versa. This actually lands up providing both camps an additional route to prove their respective theses. In any case, PIE in itself and comparative linguistics in general cannot prove or disprove anything - that is left to archeology and other disciplines that can provide 'hard' dating techniques.

If you take as axiom that there was one single proto-language in the past - that does raise alternate avenues for proof of your thesis. But yes, possibly one needs to question if this is necessarily a valid axiom.

Arjun ji,

as I see the issue of language development, I see it as organic and multi-sourced, where sometimes elite-based imposition of one language (variant) across a larger swath of land consisting of several language groups, can of course lead to one variant getting a sort of advantage.

1) Consider an area with many linguistic groups. Each groups language i has influence INFi,j over another group j's language which is directly proportional to proximity and interaction, and also depends on the strengths of the group, say in services, trade, agriculture, etc.

2) Consider a additional model of elite-based area. The elite can be the state which decides in favor of one national language. It can be an empire, where the language may the one of the dominant group. It can be some intellectual class which develops a certain language of knowledge, as perhaps was in the case of Sanskrit. Such an elite language brings in a new dynamic. It seeps into the local elite of a linguistic group and over the local elite into the common people, thus affecting the language of the group beyond the considerations of proximity and interaction.

3) Consider a third model. In this elite language scenario, it is not a one-way street. The local languages also have an affect on the elite language, and many words seep in into the elite language. Through the elite language the words get dispersed over a wider area as would have been possible through the first model. Often these words are cultural in nature.

4) Also if the elite language gets continuously standardized sometimes it becomes impervious to inflow of new words, so that is a factor one also needs to consider.

---------

Now I would imagine that the groups which migrated out of India as per OIT, were not Sanskrit speakers as such but were those who would have had their own Prakrits, but over which Sanskrit had had long term influence. Those words which were received from Sanskrit, were of course changed phonetically as per their own intonation. Perhaps these Prakrit languages themselves had an influence on Sanskrit.

So the model is much more complex than some hierarchical PIE hierarchy. So all the assumptions on which PIE is founded, in fact the whole of comparative and historical linguistics is founded is suspect. And here we are talking only about the Tree Model.

One can talk of linguistic distance between languages, but all these parent-child relationships can give a very wrong impression.

All the axioms which form a part, is another question altogether.

So I would base OIT not on one root language, but on a family of Prakrits spoken by neighborly tribes, Prakrits which all to some extent contributed to the refinement into an elite-language Sanskrit, but which were also subjected to this elite-language Sanskrit from which they borrowed words into themselves, changing these words as per the intonation of their speakers.

So the tribes which migrated out may in fact have many many words still in them which were from times before their migration even started but were not part of Sanskrit.

1. So one would have to speak of tribes with pre-migration vocabulary and Sanskrit adoption with changed phonetics before they started out. Together these formed the tribe's language.
2. One would have to consider all the people they assimilated on their migratory path and the effects of those intermediary groups on the tribe's language and its pronunciation.
3. One would have to consider the language of all those people with whom they interacted on the way from which they took over loan words.
4. One would have to consider the language of the indigenous European groups with whom the migrating group mixed once they reached Europe.
5. And all the evolution of the language due to passage of time, which makes pronunciation of the vocabulary easier.

If you look at the language model in this way, one would see that it becomes increasingly difficult to extrapolate how the proto-languages looked and sounded like, which makes PIE a joke!

[ramana]

Gandhi and Churchill: Arthur Herman

Chapter 8

ON NOVEMBER 7 GANDHI AND H. O. ALI attended a banquet for one hundred members of Parliament in the Grand Committee Room at Westminster. The banquet received lavish coverage in the Times and ended with a resolution in support of the repeal of the Black Act. Certainly Gandhi’s delegation had powerful friends behind it, white and nonwhite alike. Among them were the two Indian members of Parliament, Dadabhai Naoroji (who sat for the London suburb of Central Finsbury) and Sir Mancherjee Bhownagree. The former was Britain’s first Indian Tory MP; the latter was a founding member of the Indian National Congress.

The delegation also included ex-Indian civil servants like Sir Henry Cotton and even Sir Lepel Griffin, who had been Randolph Churchill’s mentor on Indian affairs and was a hard-liner opposing Indian self-rule. But the treatment of Indians in the Transvaal, he told everyone, resembled imperial Russia’s vicious pogroms against the Jews. Such behavior was “unheard of under the British flag,” he said. Indians were “the most orderly, honorable, industrious, temperate race in the world,” Griffin added, and since they were descendants of the ancient Aryans, they were “people of our own stock and blood.” Surely they deserved better.1

Griffin spoke those words when the delegation met Colonial Secretary Lord Elgin at his Downing Street offices on Thursday, November 8. Naoroji had suggested that the delegation be headed by a white man, Lepel Griffin, rather than an Indian; in fact the delegation consisted of seven whites and five Indians, only one of whom was a Hindu, Gandhi himself.*34 They were the respectable “civilized” face of India: men in dark frock coats with gold watches, gloves, and canes, flanked by their equally respectable white patrons—protectors, almost. The average age of the delegation members (excluding Gandhi and Ali) was sixty-three. Dignity, wisdom, and self-restraint were engraved in every lined face and gray whisker.2

[shiv]

I have no specific objection to the concept of a Proto Language, but I will oppose what I see as bullshitting particularly when the latter bullshitting involves distorted portrayal of Indian culture and tradition and a rewriting of Indian history simply because such distortion and rewriting are necessary to make someone else's pet theories come true.

I see two aspects to this and both will run a parallel course. One is to discover or rediscover Sanskrit's true origins. The other is to dig up and expose fake theories and methods that have been used to cook up wild theories that trash Indian tradition and history as an incidental casualty in the overarching desire of some scholars to push certain theories. If those theories are untenable, those theories must be trashed. A number of obvious unexplained inconsistencies exist in this business of cooking up a PIE which makes the name "Proto Indo-European" as suspect and "sullied" expression and if we refer to any other proto language we need to make sure that we do not use the name PIE for that which is inextricably linked up with cookery. The way theories are conjured up and passed off as "accepted scholarly wisdom" makes me suspect that it has been going on for a long time making it par for the course to cook up any bullshit with no one actually asking questions. And that makes me sure that we should be able to find a lot more inconsistency as we dig deeper into the methodology that has been applied.

Apart from all that has been pointed out so far, look at this simple sleight of hand used with Sanskrit and Central Asia horse. Look at the egregious line of reasoning that has been used and put in print as scholarly wisdom.

• Where was Sanskrit "discovered"? India.
• But did Sanskrit originate in India? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
• Where did it originate? Currently "we" think, Central Asia
• Why? What language did they speak in Central Asia? Proto-Indo-European
• What proof exists in the form of spoken languages, texts, coins bearing names, seals with messages? None whatsoever.
• If there is no proof of language in Central Asia how is it possible to say exactly what language was spoken in Central Asia? Oh we just think so. The graves in central Asia have horses and chariots in them and the Rig Veda mentions horses and chariots. So we conclude that the language of the Rig Veda came from central Asia.
• So you find a language in India, and you find no language at all in central Asia and you conclude that the language in India came from central Asia? That is correct.
• Is it possible that the Central Asia people could have spoken some other language? We don't think so.
• Is it possible that an Indian language could have gone to central Asia? We don't think so.
• What is the evidence you have? Ah. Now you are talking science. You see the language "Proto-Indo European" (whch we cooked up earlier) has these sounds and it is known that as time passes people change certain sounds in a predictable way. Sanskrit has newer sounds and we have calculated the older sounds that Proto Indo European must have had, and we can say that Proto Indo European spoken in Central Asia had these earlier sounds. That is why Proto Indo European, spoken widely in Central Asia came before Sanskrit and as the people moved towards India they made languages like Avestan, Old iranian and Sanskrit
• But surely if you have no evidence of any language at all in central Asia how do you place a non existing language in central Asia and claim that Sanskrit was derived from that non existent language? What! Are you saying there was no language in Central Asia? You are a Hindu right winger with an agenda and need to be dismissed as the heretic witch doctor that you are.

At least some of this pseudo-scholarship stems from the rape of the Rig Veda which has been described most aptly by David Frawley. Most of the translations of the Rig Veda were done by "scholars" who considered ancient people as savages and any difficulty or ambiguity in translation was never considered inadequacy on the part of the translator but that the original author was a half-wit who wrote crap. Current theories about spread of language in the world rests on this type of faulty scholarship that consistently misinterprets and twists and bends existing evidence to suit some flight of fancy. It is important to rake up this nonsense and expose it even as we write a more credible and accurate history of Sanskrit and the Vedas that does not have to resort to faking.

[Nilesh Oak]

The other is to dig up and expose fake theories and methods that have been used to cook up wild theories that trash Indian tradition and history as an incidental casualty in the overarching desire of some scholars to push certain theories. If those theories are untenable, those theories must be trashed.

Shiv Ji,

This is precisely the reason I asked (resident AIT-believers) to make a statement of AIT theory stating What, when, where, how...etc. AIT, PIE and many others have survived because of their lack of clear stament of what they are claiming (what, when, wher, how, etc.) and they are formulated as 'irrefutable' theories.

That has kept Indologist and related Linguists (many times one and the same) in discussing (not solving or making progress) same nonsense ad infinitum.

It became a fashion in last 200 years (Hegel was king of this nonsense) to write in a compllicated language. If you read random writings of Hegel (anything you read by him will appear random and totally nonsensical), you will start rollling on the floor.
Anyway.. His philosophy (if we can call that) is alive and well through his disciples.. To summarise.. He, cunningly, I must admit....stated it as "Whatever is real is reasonable, whatever is reasonable is true".
And for what is 'real', he borrowed it from Aristotle. Aritstotle was decent biologist, but he destroyed growth of next 1500+ years (and frankly next 2000+ since we have idiots around in our times) by proposing the method how to check reality... "THINK". That is why AIT/PIE camp use evidence only when it suits them..

[Nilesh Oak]

In addition, these AIT/PIE gang,

use language such as "however his/her work (work that contradicts their agenda) is been challenged/overthrown/contradicted .....etc... by blah blah blah.

On the other hand, if they want to push their untenable agenda (even when it contradicts with hard evidence, commonsense etc.) they usually write,

"Such and such thing is already been established by XXXX 150/100/50 years ago"

[shiv]

Nileshji you have accurately summed up the exact tactics used by linguists who are dabbling with history. Complicated language, incomprehensible jargon and gobbledygook are the order of the day.

Let me ask you and others a rhetorical question. You can write an entire book about a painting, say the Mona Lisa. You can say whatever you want - the woman is pretty, the woman is ugly, she is pretty ugly, she's smiling, she's worried, she's pregnant, she's male whatever. But if a photograph or a picture of the original is missing, your text is missing a fundamental point. A painting is a visual expression and if you do not have a visual example you are leaving out the most important part.

Imagine the same thing about say Kishore Kumar. You can write a book about each song of his. But you need to listen to one song to convey what Kishore Kumar means. Audio recording technology has now been available for about a century. For at least 40 years audio recording has been possible for anyone who owns a tape recorder. And for 15 years it has been possible to share audio with the world on the internet. I have myself made audio-video files of the IAF and I put them on the internet over a decade ago. And I am an amateur.

Is it that difficult to make audio-video files of phonology, "fricative", "palatal", "dental" "'aspirate, "laryngeal" and make a video of how Old German became new German and what a "backward calculated" PIE would sound like?

It is astounding that with millions of video and audio files available on the internet and the media full of references to PIE and "phonology" there is not one single file of one single "scholar" telling us one single word in "Proto Indo European"? I see this as deliberate obfuscation. There is so much confidence in these cooked up proto languages that they are being touted as the ultimate reality. As though they exist and have been known to exist for so long that you are stupid to not know about them. But they exist in texts only. Like writing a book about Kishore Kumar with no audio. Where's the audio? Let's hear how PIE became proto Indo Iranian and how proto Indo Iranian became Sanskrit. Let us hear the language of the Central Asians whose graves show no evidence of any language, and we have to believe the "scholars" who say they have identified the exact language spoken by those dead people as well as the languages that came after that.

[ManishH]

2. I think, AFAIK, the concept of zodiac (raashi) was not used by Indians. they almost always used Naakshatriya system instead. so this can't be interpreted this way.

Atriji, I agree with you. To add, the nakṣatra system is lunar mansions, and the moon doesn't deviate more than 5.15 degrees from the ecliptic, therefore the importance of ecliptic in pre-historic observational astronomy. And therefore, the unlikelihood of choosing Sirius, that lies 39.6 degs away from the ecliptic today, as an observational data-point. And therefore, the unlikelihood that RV_1,161.13 contains an astronomical observation.

Rajesh-ji: as I said in the post, it's just speculation that the above mantra refers to asterisms. No more or less valid than the speculation that it could be a clan name. The precedent for the latter speculation is in the famous "maṇḍūkaḥ sūkta"

RV_07.103.06.1{04} gomāyureko ajamāyurekaḥ pṛśnireko harita eka eṣām<BR>
RV_07.103.06.2{04} samānaṃ nāma bibhrato virūpāḥ purutrā vācaṃ pipiśurvadantaḥ<BR>

Wherein the chanting priests are called cow, goat and frog respectively.

B-ji: nothing juvenile in any discipline like archaeo-astronomy. But interpretation of texts needs to be done in a much more disciplined manner.

[Arjun]

It is important to rake up this nonsense and expose it even as we write a more credible and accurate history of Sanskrit and the Vedas that does not have to resort to faking.

Agree with most of what you and others have to say. Just that there may be ways to hang the Indologists down the road using their own rope - and we MAY want to be alive to some of those possibilities.

But for now, PIE has been misused so much by Anglo-Germanic racists - that it would make sense to discredit the term wholesale.

[shiv]

B-ji: nothing juvenile in any discipline like archaeo-astronomy. But interpretation of texts needs to be done in a much more disciplined manner.

The only rider here is whose interpretation you consider as "disciplined".

Here is David Anthony's interpretation of parts of Rig Veda 1.162. He calls it a funeral (you should be able to tell us how Rig Veda 1.162 refers to a funeral) and compares the horse parts being offered to Agni in the Rig Veda to the arrangements of horse bones in graves. He clearly says that the "graves match this description". Where does 1.162 talk about burial? And he claims that people were saying "It smells good, Take it away".

It is the interpretation that I have a problem with. What funeral? What grave? Take what away? And where?

If David Anthony is not a Rig Veda scholar who the fug is he to cook up history using the Rig Veda as a source? This is pure balderdash.

The horse sacri-
fice at a royal funeral is described in RV 1.162: "Keep the limbs undam-
aged and place them in the proper pattern. Cut them apart, calling out
piece by piece." The horse sacrifices in Sintashta, Potapovka, and Ftlatovka
graves match this description, with the lower legs of horses carefully cut
apart at the joints and placed in and over the grave. The preference for
horses as sacrificial animals in Sintashta funeral rituals, a species choice
setting Sintashta apart from earlier steppe cultures, was again paralleled
in the RV. Another verse in the same hymn read: "Those who see that the
racehorse is cooked, who say, 'It smells good! Take it away!'

[ManishH]

Please pick a specific inscription, a specific sound and demonstrate why it is incorrect. It's easy to flay your hands calling anything that is inconvenient as fake.

No sir. You have said so yourself. That is really convenient. This is what you wrote:

Who claims to know the exact phonology. There are known knowns and known unknowns.

If you don't know the exact phonology any assumption or extrapolation back in time about sound change that you make about what the sound used to be in the past will be fake. And if that is fake the older cooked up proto language is fake. That is why it is fakeology.

To establish the relationships between languages, it is not necessary to reconstruct every bit of the phonetics To give an analogy, it was not required to make the discovery of frozen ice on the moon to establish that the earth is the parent of the moon.

Eg. it is not known if the dental in PIE was a hart dental (as in mute) or a soft one (booth). But what rules out Vedic from being a parent of the entire IE family is that no other language (inscriptions or otherwise) preserve the contrast in dental (takṣaka) v/s retroflex (janiṣṭa). The retroflexion is the serial effect of 1) RUKI rule which turned all PIE 's' to 'ṣ' and then 2) assimilation of the dental to retroflex 'ṭ'.

I asked you a simple question - pick any phonetic reconstruction of a Hittite cuneiform syllabogram from Melchert's book and show me how it is fake.

If you cannot demonstrate your allegation of 'fakeness' with a simple example, I'm quite sure that you don't want to get into specifics because that's where you are scared to find the truth. You'd rather talk in rhetoric, just like the last time, when you were unwilling to lookup simple words in Sanskrit dictionary.

[ManishH]

Here is David Anthony's interpretation of parts of Rig Veda 1.162. He calls it a funeral (you should be able to tell us how Rig Veda 1.162 refers to a funeral)

You're very right to point that one spurious conclusion of Anthony's. There is no funeral in that entire sūkta. Anthony is an archaeologist and not the expert on RV. He must've got this interpretation from somewhere else.

[shiv]

Here is David Anthony's interpretation of parts of Rig Veda 1.162. He calls it a funeral (you should be able to tell us how Rig Veda 1.162 refers to a funeral)

You're very right to point that one spurious conclusion of Anthony's. There is no funeral in that entire sūkta. Anthony is an archaeologist and not the expert on RV. He must've got this interpretation from somewhere else.

But he uses this spurious conclusion to support the contention that the culture of the Rig Veda composers is the same as the culture of the people who slaughtered and buried horses at funerals. From this he builds up his theory of how the language must have been the same, and from the dates of horse burials he arrives at a date for Rig Veda. And from the nudge-nudge-wink-wink "evidence" that horses led to mobility, chariots led to victory he concludes that the horses and chariots went to India.

This is not scholarship. It is fiction. Science fiction where known fact is bent and garnished with small lies and fables to cook up a good story.

But look at the lies upon lies that are required to support the Central Asia origin?

- First the spurious cultural connection.
- Then the cooked up language PIE.
- Then the fake connection between the cooked up language and the Central Asian graves.

A series of little bluffs are added together and they are telling me my history with this. And this man David Anthony appears to be a widely quoted reference. Since there is no one to question his egregious tripe, he is feted and anointed as Sanskrit history king along with the Witzels of the world.

[shiv]

To establish the relationships between languages, it is not necessary to reconstruct every bit of the phonetics .

There is a huge difference between between establishing a connection and cooking up words. The connection is known. The words are guessed as is the phonology. Making up words and phonology and then using those made up words and phonology as "proof" is fakeology. As time passes, on this thread, I will pick up examples of this fakeology of how PIE is used as an existing known language to "demonstrate" its parenthood of a modern or dead language.

I asked you a simple question - pick any phonetic reconstruction of a Hittite cuneiform syllabogram from Melchert's book and show me how it is fake.

If you cannot demonstrate your allegation of 'fakeness' with a simple example, I'm quite sure that you don't want to get into specifics because that's where you are scared to find the truth. You'd rather talk in rhetoric, just like the last time, when you were unwilling to lookup simple words in Sanskrit dictionary.

No Manishji no. You underestimate me but that is OK. Many people do that. I am not scared of being wrong. In the case of Hittite phonology I am merely ignorant because the phonology of Hittite has been cooked up from many sources over the course of more than a century. And if I have to be more honest with myself (which I am) than what some linguists have shown themselves to be I will have to work hard to do what you ask and not trap myself as easily as many linguists seem to do with their fakeology.

Some of the phonetics of Hittite has come from "scholars" who used the phonology of Sanskrit via Old Persian to decipher Akkadian Cuneiform which was then used to read Hittite. I need to access those original ideas. This is not going to be easy, but I promise you i will do it one way or other. For a man in my position the sources are difficult to come by, but they will turn up as I keep looking. I am certain that the challenge becomes easy for you because responding to it honestly is not easy. But it was not easy to see the fakery of Witzel and Anthony or even PIE earlier in this thread. It is easier now. i am sure I will get back with an answer about Hittite.

Please don't talk of being scared. But the more I dig the more I find stuff that is going to be embarrassing for the community of linguists who have sworn by the accuracy of dubious earlier gurus. No need to be angry with me as you sound when you bring up fake accusations from earlier in this thread. Neither you nor I need to be scared of the truth. Or scared of being wrong. In fact i asked you for some help, but you seem to be more interested in challenging me. I asked you if you could point me to some audio files of someone speaking Hittite voicing all those missing laryngeals. I would be surprised if such sound files don't exist. I think it is odd that phonology is discussed in text only with no audible examples. Don't you?

[shiv]

Eg. it is not known if the dental in PIE was a hart dental (as in mute) or a soft one (booth). But what rules out Vedic from being a parent of the entire IE family is that no other language (inscriptions or otherwise) preserve the contrast in dental (takṣaka) v/s retroflex (janiṣṭa). The retroflexion is the serial effect of 1) RUKI rule which turned all PIE 's' to 'ṣ' and then 2) assimilation of the dental to retroflex 'ṭ'.

Thank you. You have taught me something here in words that a lay person with some interest can understand and have given me something else to learn about (RUKI rule) and ask or argue if I have a problem with these rules. Let me accept the uote above as 100% true and accurate.

But none of this information can be used to attribute a language to dead people in graves with no evidence of the language they spoke.

Why is this so important? it is important because the grave-language connection is being used to give dates to the Rig Veda. Those dates are in no way proven or acceptable as accurate using this method of fakeological language attribution and dating.

The Rig Veda remains undated, and as long as the Rig Veda remains undated the entire Indo branch of the Indo-European language tree remains undated no matter what dates are attributed to the European side. And while it remains undated the direction in which the languages spread, if from a common source, also remains uncertain until new information is found.

One question that follows from this is if linguists who claim ownership of interpretation of the Rig veda are serious about looking objectively at other information? I am not sure that is the case.

[Anand K]

The methodology used to arrive at PIE would have been the same as other examples of reconstructed proto languages, no?
So, the whole reconstruction thingie is fakeology or is it a "compounding error" in the Sanskrit case?

[Anand K]

AFAIS, we have folks here making round condemnation of the method of linguistics....

If the AIT is true, the method used to link the daughter languages to "Old Sanskrit" should also work in the search for the Pre/Proto Sanskrit. What is happening here is that the linguists are latching on to the in-vogue theory of AMT/AIT..... which has a timeline and an explanation (erroneous or not) for a people speaking Sanskrit.
Now where is the linguistic leg of the OIT theory? If a case can be made for the development of Sanskrit within the Brahmavarta/Aryavarta (or even the southern areas), the OIT will be more reinforced. As I have harped on I the past, the OIT must be supported by genetic, literary, anthropological, linguistic, archaeological (which has pointers to economic/social aspects) and geologic/climate science evidence. On the flip side, all the legs on which AIT/AMT stands (i.e. genetic, literary, anthropological etc....) also have to be investigated by supporters of the OIT.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh-ji: as I said in the post, it's just speculation that the above mantra refers to asterisms. No more or less valid than the speculation that it could be a clan name. The precedent for the latter speculation is in the famous "maṇḍūkaḥ sūkta"

RV_07.103.06.1{04} gomāyureko ajamāyurekaḥ pṛśnireko harita eka eṣām<BR>
RV_07.103.06.2{04} samānaṃ nāma bibhrato virūpāḥ purutrā vācaṃ pipiśurvadantaḥ<BR>

Wherein the chanting priests are called cow, goat and frog respectively.

The following is the T.H. Griffith translation:

RV_07.103.06.1 Onc is Cow-bellow and Goat-bleat the other, one Frog is Green and one of them is Spotty.
RV_07.103.06.2 They bear one common name, and yet they vary, and, talking, modulate the voice diversely.

As you say the sūkta is about Frogs.

In the whole sūkta, not in a single instance is the talk about priests or Brahmins. The whole sūkta is bout frogs, and in this ṛca, it speaks of how a scene (imagined or observed) where the frogs make different noises. The talk is about 2 frogs, the Green who makes noises like the bellowing of the cows, and the other, the Spotty makes the noises like the bleating of the Goat. However from the translation it is not clear whether there are just two frogs (Green/Cow-bellow and Spotty/Goat-bleat) or four (Green, Spotty, Cow-bellow, Goat-bleat) as the ṛca 10, they are all named.

RV_07.103.10.1 ghomāyuradādajamāyuradāt pṛśniradād dharito no vasūni |
RV_07.103.10.2 ghavāṃ maṇḍūkā dadataḥ śatāni sahasrasāve pra tiranta āyuḥ ||

RV_07.103.10.1 Cow-bellow and Goat-bleat have granted riches, and Green and Spotty have vouchsafed us treasure.
RV_07.103.10.2 The Frogs who give us cows in hundreds lengthen our lives in this most fertilizing season.

Even when the sūkta talks about the Brahmins, it is the Frogs who are compared to the Brahmins, both in ṛcas 7 and 8.

RV_07.103.07.1 brāhmaṇāso atirātre na some saro na pūrṇamabhito vadantaḥ |
RV_07.103.07.2 saṃvatsarasya tadahaḥ pari ṣṭha yan maṇḍūkāḥ prāvṛṣīṇaṃ babhūva ||
RV_07.103.08.1 brāhmaṇāsaḥ somino vācamakrata brahma kṛṇvantaḥ parivatsarīṇam |
RV_07.103.08.2 adhvaryavo gharmiṇaḥ siṣvidānā āvirbhavanti ghuhyā na ke cit ||

RV_07.103.07.1 As Brahmans, sitting round the brimful vessel, talk at the Soma-rite of Atiratra,
RV_07.103.07.2 So, Frogs, ye gather round the pool to honour this day of all the year, the first of Rain-time.
RV_07.103.08.1 These Brahmans with the Soma juice, performing their year-long rite, have lifted up their voices;
RV_07.103.08.2 And these Adhvaryus, sweating with their kettles, come forth and show themselves, and none are hidden.

The message in the sūkta is however clear, on the one hand it is a poem to the Frogs and on the it is a call to the Brahmins that just as the Frogs honor their appointment with monsoon, so too should the Brahmins honor time-keeping and the punctuality of the rituals. This can be seen in the following ṛca.

RV_07.103.09.1 devahitiṃ jughupurdvādaśasya ṛtuṃ naro na pra minantyete |
RV_07.103.09.2 saṃvatsare prāvṛṣyāghatāyāṃ taptā gharmā aśnuvate visargham ||

RV_07.103.09.1 They keep the twelve month's God-appointed order, and never do the men neglect the season.
RV_07.103.09.2 Soon as the Rain-time in the year returneth, these who were heated kettles gain their freedom.

So the premise is completely wrong that the chanting priests are called cow, goat, and frog! So if this is the sole precedent for considering goat, then I think your assertion that the symbolism of dog and goat in Rigveda 1.161.13 can mean clans and not asterisms is wrong. The Rigveda 1.161.13 refers clearly to asterisms.

Rigveda 1.161.13 … "Oh, Rbhus! You were asleep, thereafter ask the sun Agohya, who is it that woke us up. The He-goat replied, the hound is the awakener. As the year is passed, today you declare the same"

And that was the ṛca used as an archaeo-astronomical indicator, which you contested.

B-ji: nothing juvenile in any discipline like archaeo-astronomy. But interpretation of texts needs to be done in a much more disciplined manner.

The AIT-Nazis in the West have had two centuries time to do archaeo-astronomical research on our scriptures. They have not used all the various indications to do any meaningful research or to try to date the scriptures. Instead they have tried to make their case solely on pseudo-linguistics and speculation.

When well-meaning Indians have started to undertake this on their own initiative, there should be no reason to try to dissuade them. Even in the academic circles in India, controlled by Marxists and Pseudo-seculars, there was ample time to undertake this initiative, but even here their ideology prevented them from doing so!

There is no reason to defer the matter further to them! Their "disciplined manner" was found to be wanting!

[svinayak]

The AIT-Nazis in the West have had two centuries time to do archaeo-astronomical research on our scriptures. They have not used all the various indications to do any meaningful research or to try to date the scriptures. Instead they have tried to make their case solely on pseudo-linguistics and speculation.

When well-meaning Indians have started to undertake this on their own initiative, there should be no reason to try to dissuade them. Even in the academic circles in India, controlled by Marxists and Pseudo-seculars, there was ample time to undertake this initiative, but even here their ideology prevented them from doing so!

There is no reason to defer the matter further to them! Their "disciplined manner" was found to be wanting!

We see that Indian academics are assiting the western scholars to keep the western narrative still going on

[shiv]

The methodology used to arrive at PIE would have been the same as other examples of reconstructed proto languages, no?
So, the whole reconstruction thingie is fakeology or is it a "compounding error" in the Sanskrit case?

It has got to be fakeology plus error. But I have yet to see anyone talking of "proto-Sanskrit. They talk of "Proto Indo-Iranian". The fakeology here comes from the following facts. Suppose you had at least one or perhaps two true sister languages contemporary to Sanskrit. You could take those languages along with Sanskrit, look at the cognates, apply Grimms law and think of what the sound might have been in a proto language. What you get may not be accurate, but at least you have used 3 different sister languages to try and figure out something.

Unfortunately Sanskrit has no true known sister languages. The languages considered as sister languages are Avestan (Zoroastrian) and Old Iranian. The peculiar thing about Avestan is that almost all evidence of Avestan comes from Sanskrit. Even Witzel garu points out that Avestan's utility becomes limited because all knowledge of Avestan has come via knowledge of Sanskrit. As for Old Iranian, the language was deciphered only because of knowledge of Sanskrit. The phonology of Avestan and old Iranian is inextricably linked to the phonology of the Sanskrit used in decipherment or translation. So cooking up a proto language from the phonology of three instances based on Sanskrit should give you Sanskrit onlee as proto Indo-Iranian. I found one online resource for learning old Iranian that said that anyone who knows Sanskrit will be able to follow Old Iranian from day 1. Avestan too is so close to Sanskrit that online Avestan resources call Avestan and Sanskrit dialect of the same language.

[shiv]

Now where is the linguistic leg of the OIT theory? If a case can be made for the development of Sanskrit within the Brahmavarta/Aryavarta (or even the southern areas), the OIT will be more reinforced. As I have harped on I the past, the OIT must be supported by genetic, literary, anthropological, linguistic, archaeological (which has pointers to economic/social aspects) and geologic/climate science evidence. On the flip side, all the legs on which AIT/AMT stands (i.e. genetic, literary, anthropological etc....) also have to be investigated by supporters of the OIT.

The way I see it is as follows. Suppose I trash AIT. It does not automatically mean OIT
But to think of OIT, it is necessary to trash AIT for they cannot exist together.

I believe AIT in its current from is trash/horse manure for all the reasons I have kept repeating. But let me summarize a few salient points about what happens if AIT is trashed.

The current AIT hinges around the date of the Rig Veda. The Rig veda earliest verses have been dated as before the Iron age, i.e prior to 1000 BC. But they say it is after Indus valley - when ends at about 2000 BC. Since central Asian horses and chariots are about 2000-1500 BC, it gives a "window" from 1500 BC to 1000 BC for horse riders to ride from central Asia to India depositing Old Iranian and Avestan along the way before becoming Sanskrit by about 1500 to 1200 BC.

But the horse connection is rubbish. It is cooked up - and I am not going to repeat my last 2-3 posts on the issue. That badly screws up dates for Rig Vedic Sanskrit. Avestan is known from 1200 BC. Mitanni Sanskrit horse training texts from 1500 BC. If Sanskrit is dated any earlier it goes smack bang into Indus valley civilization and all that trash about pastoral society coming from central Asia gets into deep trouble.

Actually, from the point of view of anyone sitting anywhere in the world a date of 2500 BC for Rig Veda, coinciding with Indus valley is no problem at all. The only things that get badly screwed are the Central asian horse riders and the currently assumed dates for European languages.

You may not have checked but European languages are thought to be very very recent. The oldest, Greek, barely extends beyond 500 BC. Linguists are desperate to keep Sanskrit between 1500 BC and 1000 BC because any change will bring down a whole lot of related theories and a whole lot of reputations. They do not fancy the idea of rethinking and rewriting history to reflect an older Sanskrit unconnected with horse burials and perhaps much much older European languages that they did not think about. And if Rig Veda gets dated prior to 2000 BC, all bets are off regarding which way language travelled in the world. Horse burials are not Rig veda. Everything esle about the rg veda points to an earlier date.

It is entirely possible that all European languages are much older than scholars give them credit for, but the source of the languages may not be central Asia or middle East. India remains a valid candidate.

[ManishH]

Rajesh-ji: as I said in the post, it's just speculation that the above mantra refers to asterisms. No more or less valid than the speculation that it could be a clan name. The precedent for the latter speculation is in the famous "maṇḍūkaḥ sūkta"

RV_07.103.06.1{04} gomāyureko ajamāyurekaḥ pṛśnireko harita eka eṣām<BR>
RV_07.103.06.2{04} samānaṃ nāma bibhrato virūpāḥ purutrā vācaṃ pipiśurvadantaḥ<BR>

Wherein the chanting priests are called cow, goat and frog respectively.

The following is the T.H. Griffith translation:

RV_07.103.06.1 Onc is Cow-bellow and Goat-bleat the other, one Frog is Green and one of them is Spotty.
RV_07.103.06.2 They bear one common name, and yet they vary, and, talking, modulate the voice diversely.

As you say the sūkta is about Frogs.

No. The sūkta uses the analogy of croaking frogs to compare them to chanting priests. Neither asterisms, nor frogs 'modulate their voice diversely'' (virūpāḥ purutrā vācaṃ pipiśurvadantaḥ). This is a clear reference to various pāṭha-s and vikṛti-s that are, FYI, even today taught in vedashalas.

Neither do asterisms and frogs, learn by reciting lessons of the teacher (anyasya vācaṃ śāktasyeva vadati śikṣamāṇaḥ).

However from the translation it is not clear whether there are just two frogs (Green/Cow-bellow and Spotty/Goat-bleat) or four (Green, Spotty, Cow-bellow, Goat-bleat) as the ṛca 10, they are all named.

RV_07.103.10.1 ghomāyuradādajamāyuradāt pṛśniradād dharito no vasūni |
RV_07.103.10.2 ghavāṃ maṇḍūkā dadataḥ śatāni sahasrasāve pra tiranta āyuḥ ||

RV_07.103.10.1 Cow-bellow and Goat-bleat have granted riches, and Green and Spotty have vouchsafed us treasure.
RV_07.103.10.2 The Frogs who give us cows in hundreds lengthen our lives in this most fertilizing season.

These 3 aren't actual frogs they are chanting Brahmins; whose prayers give cows (may stand for knowledge too). Look at earlier mantra 6 which introduces the triplet and where the same triplet is mentioned as 'virūpāḥ purutrā vācaṃ pipiśurvadantaḥ' (abundantly speaking in diverse voice).

[member_20317]

Atriji, I agree with you. To add, the nakṣatra system is lunar mansions, and the moon doesn't deviate more than 5.15 degrees from the ecliptic, therefore the importance of ecliptic in pre-historic observational astronomy. And therefore, the unlikelihood of choosing Sirius, that lies 39.6 degs away from the ecliptic today, as an observational data-point. And therefore, the unlikelihood that RV_1,161.13 contains an astronomical observation.

I have no view on what RV 1.161.13 refers to. It clearly refers to something that harks out to the whole world. If a ‘dog’ and a ‘goat’ can ‘declare’ and act as ‘wakener’ for whoever is ‘thou’ then clearly the verse is addressed to not a particular set of people by a particular set of people. I am inclined to believe that the Priest would have said the same thing, be he in CA or in India and to whoever would have cared to listen. ‘Dog’ and ‘goat’ thus are clearly not any clan which by the very nature of things would have been restricted to a particular location and therefore could have addressed their ideas only to nearby people. Esp. considering that these clans would have been SDRE types without the benefit of horses that can cover large distances in one lifetime.

Also if the reference to the cyclic pattern of time is present and that cyclic pattern of time is well known to have been tied up with Clouds and those clouds are known to be able to cover the whole land mass of India in about a month then everybody on the land mass of India would be really in awe of such a clan that can travel the whole of India in a month, meeting and wakening up the other clans in the whole country that too without horses. I am sure witmer can do that on foot. But these dumb SDREs would not be up to it. Or probably they actually did it using a Pushpak vimana.


For reference:

Nilesh Oak Post subject: Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to TruthPosted: 06 Aug 2012 01:17
13 When ye had slept your fill, ye Ṛbhus, thus ye asked, O thou whom naught may hide, who now hath wakened us?

The goat declared the hound to be your wakener. That day, in a full year, ye first unclosed our eyes.

Manish ji, what are the chances that there was a ‘pre-historic observational astronomy’ and there was also a ‘pre-historic observational astrology’. Both sets intersecting but not being identical. You will notice that both are in agreement as to the observations being preserved since very old times w.r.t. stars and star groups that are not near the ecliptic.


I am quoting from two sites one AIT-nazi one and the other one of a goddamned Internet Hindu

http://members.westnet.com.au/gary-davi ... 11-23.html

Appendix 2: Constellations other than the naksatras were also known. Stars and constellations identified by the Hindus (that are similar to our own Western constellations) include: Dhruva (the Pole Star), the Rksas (Seven Rishis (the "seven sages" but perhaps earlier called the "seven bears"); the 7 stars of the Greater Bear, Ursa Major), and Lesser Bear (Ursa Minor), Asvinau (the two divine Dogs, Canis Major and Canis Minor/Castor and Pollux), the Boat (Argo Navis), Tisya/Mrgavyadha (Sirius (also later called Lubdhaka), but some identify the Praesepe), Canopus, the Krittikas (the Pleiades [in Taurus], the wives of the Seven Rishis (the "seven bears"), Orion, Rasabha (Twin Asses), and Rohini (Aldbaran, but possibly ? Tauri). The Three Kalakanjas may refer to ?, e, d Orionis. The pole star (Dhruva) is mentioned in Vedic and Puranic texts. In the Rig Veda Sirius is Tisya [Tishya]. It would appear that α (alpha) Carinae (Canopus (Agasthya)) in Argo Navis was the only star in the southern sky named during the Vedic period. The Aitareya Brahmana mentions Mrga (Orion), and Mrgavyadha (Sirius). The Satapatha Brahmana provides an overview of the broad broad aspects of Vedic astronomy. It has been argued on etymological grounds that mention of Asva, Rasabha, Aja, and Kurma refers to the Sun, Gemini, Capricorn (goat), and Cassiopeia respectively. Trisanku remains an unidentified constellation.

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/stars_appendix.htm

Astronomical identity of Vedic star Agasthya
While the 27/28 daily stars Krittika to Bharani are in the ecliptic plane, the Saptha Rishis in the extreme north near the Dhruva/Polaris, only one star in the southern sky has been named during vedic period. It is Agasthya (canopus). Agasthya Rishi crossed vindhya mountains southwards and it is a major event in the vedic chrononlogy. He is held in great reverence in the south and associated with Lopamudhra his wife. Thus it is not surprising that a star in southern extreme is named after Agasthya.

The astronomical identity of Agasthya can be determined based on Varaaha Mihira's work Brihat Samhita(Ref 12). He has dedicated the whole of 12th kaanda (chapter) to Agasthya Rishi. Varaaha Mihira(550 AD) again refers to the authority of Rishi Vriddha Garga (2400 BC ) in identifying Agasthya. This identity is not as explicit as the Saptha Rishi's, but he gives the season in which Agasthya is visible. That means the star was not visible during nearly 4-5 months near summer at Ujjain where Varaaha Mihira was located. Based on this, it is very easy to identify the star as Canopus in constellation Carina as Agasthya. Canopus is 53 degrees south, and in summer when earth tilts 23.5 degrees north, people north of Tropic of Cancer can not see Canopus, because of daylight and being down in horizon. The figure 22 shows the star Agasthya Rishi.

Agasthya is so far south that people in Northern Hemisphere, like New York, Athens etc can never see Agasthya. Agasthya and Constellation Carina are not even shown in popular star charts and books sold in USA. Agasthya is best visible in the winter months near winter solstice for people living south of 25-30 degree latitude as the dark period increases in Northern Hemisphere. People living in Australia, can easily see Agasthya most of the time. The brightness of this star is very high at -0.72. Amongst the 37 stars (including daily stars Krittika to Bharani, Saptha Rishi's, Arundhathi, Dhruva and Agasthya), Agasthya is the brightest of them all. Following table provides the formal astronomical identity of Agasthya.
Nakshatra Other name Bayer Identity Henry Draper SAO Brightness
Agasthya Canopus 1  CAR HD 45348 234480 -0.72

To establish the relationships between languages, it is not necessary to reconstruct every bit of the phonetics To give an analogy, it was not required to make the discovery of frozen ice on the moon to establish that the earth is the parent of the moon.

ManishH ji, this is just cruel, any which way you look at it. The analogy is just plain wrong. Mars is showing signs of carrying frozen ice, none has yet claimed/not claimed it as a parent/offspring of earth. But let me add this is not as big a crime as what you wrote immediately before the analogy. You are bringing in Statistics without even acknowledging it. Is it that you already know the reputation of Statistics that you want to avoid acknowledging its presence/absence in the very basis of your proposal. How much of phonetic reconstruction is necessary to establish relationships between extinct languages? Now that seems like an interesting question.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh-ji: as I said in the post, it's just speculation that the above mantra refers to asterisms. No more or less valid than the speculation that it could be a clan name. The precedent for the latter speculation is in the famous "maṇḍūkaḥ sūkta"

RV_07.103.06.1{04} gomāyureko ajamāyurekaḥ pṛśnireko harita eka eṣām<BR>
RV_07.103.06.2{04} samānaṃ nāma bibhrato virūpāḥ purutrā vācaṃ pipiśurvadantaḥ<BR>

Wherein the chanting priests are called cow, goat and frog respectively.

The following is the T.H. Griffith translation:

RV_07.103.06.1 One is Cow-bellow and Goat-bleat the other, one Frog is Green and one of them is Spotty.
RV_07.103.06.2 They bear one common name, and yet they vary, and, talking, modulate the voice diversely.

As you say the sūkta is about Frogs.

No. The sūkta uses the analogy of croaking frogs to compare them to chanting priests. Neither asterisms, nor frogs 'modulate their voice diversely'' (virūpāḥ purutrā vācaṃ pipiśurvadantaḥ). This is a clear reference to various pāṭha-s and vikṛti-s that are, FYI, even today taught in vedashalas.

Neither do asterisms and frogs, learn by reciting lessons of the teacher (anyasya vācaṃ śāktasyeva vadati śikṣamāṇaḥ).

The sūkta is actually a beautiful bit of poetry, if one is willing to understand it.

Of course, the sūkta at some level is used as an analogy. I referred to that later. It has a message - that priests should, like frogs, keep the 12 month's God-appointed order, and men should never forget to note down the season (using the various methods of time-keeping).

But during the whole sūkta, not once does the analogy deviate from the theater of frogs in monsoon. Everything in the sūkta is directly related to this "opera" of the frogs.

You say frogs don't modulate their voices diversely! Now that is really a big claim! All animals and birds have variations in their speech, some more than others. Whales sing songs with a huge diversity. One frog's croaking style is being compared to that of the Cow's bellowing, while another frog's croaking style is being compared to a Goat's bleating!

Or are you implying that it is the Brahmins the whole time who are bellowing like the cows and bleating like the goats!!! That would be very self-critical even for the critically-minded Brahmins! No?

This sūkta is actually one wonderful example of an early case of anthropomorphy, in which the croaking of the frogs has been shown so much admiration!

In mantra 7.1, the frogs gathering around the pool of water at the beginning of monsoon is even compared to the Atiratra ritual, thus heaping praise on the frogs.

RV_07.103.05.1 yadeṣāmanyo anyasya vācaṃ śāktasyeva vadati śikṣamāṇaḥ |
RV_07.103.05.2 sarvaṃ tadeṣāṃ samṛdheva parva yat suvāco vadathanādhyapsu ||

RV_07.103.05.1 When one of these repeats the other's language, as he who learns the lesson of the teacher,
RV_07.103.05.2 Your every limb seems to be growing larger as ye converse with eloquence on the waters.

Here in ṛca 5.1, the two frogs are compared to Guru and Shishya, who sit opposite each other, and just as the teacher says something, the disciple repeats, and in a similar manner one frogs repeats the sound the other makes.

Or would you say the Brahmins are sitting here in a puddle of water, conversing?

There is in fact no room for misunderstanding in what is being implied!

However from the translation it is not clear whether there are just two frogs (Green/Cow-bellow and Spotty/Goat-bleat) or four (Green, Spotty, Cow-bellow, Goat-bleat) as the ṛca 10, they are all named.

RV_07.103.10.1 ghomāyuradādajamāyuradāt pṛśniradād dharito no vasūni |
RV_07.103.10.2 ghavāṃ maṇḍūkā dadataḥ śatāni sahasrasāve pra tiranta āyuḥ ||

RV_07.103.10.1 Cow-bellow and Goat-bleat have granted riches, and Green and Spotty have vouchsafed us treasure.
RV_07.103.10.2 The Frogs who give us cows in hundreds lengthen our lives in this most fertilizing season.

These 3 aren't actual frogs they are chanting Brahmins; whose prayers give cows (may stand for knowledge too). Look at earlier mantra 6 which introduces the triplet and where the same triplet is mentioned as 'virūpāḥ purutrā vācaṃ pipiśurvadantaḥ' (abundantly speaking in diverse voice).

What three?
There is talk of "Cow-bellow" and not Cow! There is talk of "Goat-bleat" and not Goat? So where are you bringing these animals from?
Twice these have been mentioned, but only as animal sounds, never as as animals!

"Cows in hundreds" refer to prosperity, which one gets from a good harvest, which comes from good monsoons - the most fertilizing season!

The ṛca refers to frogs assuring this prosperity by dutifully doing their croaking/"chanting" to herald the monsoons!

As I said, in the end it all does call upon the Brahmins to dutifully and punctually undertake their rituals, but in this "opera" the frogs are the main stars, whereas the message is for Brahmins to take home!

The whole verse makes complete sense as I see it. I can't even imagine what sense it would all make in your reading - complete reading! You haven't even provided any sense to what the mantra would mean and have just been plucking feathers here and there in the verse!

Neither do asterisms and frogs

Now isn't that an absurdity to use these two words together? Of course I am aware of these formulations and from which school they come!

Never was an asterism implied by me in this sūkta! It was your choice to give examples of misleading asterism-interpretation possibilities, which in this case doesn't seem to have worked out very well!

By putting a few plucked feathers together, you'll not get a hen! Your interpretation of the mantra has to make some sense!

So any more ideas on why the He-Goat points an accusing finger at the poor Dog for being the Alarm-Clock?

[Nilesh Oak]

To establish the relationships between languages, it is not necessary to reconstruct every bit of the phonetics To give an analogy, it was not required to make the discovery of frozen ice on the moon to establish that the earth is the parent of the moon.

ManishH ji, this is just cruel, any which way you look at it. The analogy is just plain wrong. Mars is showing signs of carrying frozen ice, none has yet claimed/not claimed it as a parent/offspring of earth.

ravi_g ji,
Mars as offspring of the Earth. On this count, you are plain WRONG.

some 7500 years ago, Mahabharata author 'scientifically...may be via science of linguistics ....clearly established' that Mars is son of the Earth.

Here is evidence : Exhibit#1, Dhara-Putra= Mars = Son of the Earth, (Shalya Parva, 18th day of War, Ref. 17 in my book, page 86).

Now let's go find frozen water= ice, frozen further = frozen ice on Mars.

But as Mainsh ji has suggested, it does not matter if we find frozen ice on Mars or not, if authority (in this case Mahabharata) says so, it must be true, more like tlue (in juvenile speak).

Frozen ice on moon. I will leave that topic for anohter day.

[RajeshA]

Published ~1999
By Anand M. Sharan
On the Deciphering of the Indus Valley Script and the Solution of the Brahui Problem

The author seems to be still believing in Aryan invasions etc. but he does point out to Santhal tribals of Bihar using the Indus Valley Script, which seems interesting!

[RajeshA]

Gandhi and Churchill: Arthur Herman

Chapter 8

ON NOVEMBER 7 GANDHI AND H. O. ALI attended a banquet for one hundred members of Parliament in the Grand Committee Room at Westminster. The banquet received lavish coverage in the Times and ended with a resolution in support of the repeal of the Black Act. Certainly Gandhi’s delegation had powerful friends behind it, white and nonwhite alike. Among them were the two Indian members of Parliament, Dadabhai Naoroji (who sat for the London suburb of Central Finsbury) and Sir Mancherjee Bhownagree. The former was Britain’s first Indian Tory MP; the latter was a founding member of the Indian National Congress.

The delegation also included ex-Indian civil servants like Sir Henry Cotton and even Sir Lepel Griffin, who had been Randolph Churchill’s mentor on Indian affairs and was a hard-liner opposing Indian self-rule. But the treatment of Indians in the Transvaal, he told everyone, resembled imperial Russia’s vicious pogroms against the Jews. Such behavior was “unheard of under the British flag,” he said. Indians were “the most orderly, honorable, industrious, temperate race in the world,” Griffin added, and since they were descendants of the ancient Aryans, they were “people of our own stock and blood.” Surely they deserved better.1

Griffin spoke those words when the delegation met Colonial Secretary Lord Elgin at his Downing Street offices on Thursday, November 8. Naoroji had suggested that the delegation be headed by a white man, Lepel Griffin, rather than an Indian; in fact the delegation consisted of seven whites and five Indians, only one of whom was a Hindu, Gandhi himself.*34 They were the respectable “civilized” face of India: men in dark frock coats with gold watches, gloves, and canes, flanked by their equally respectable white patrons—protectors, almost. The average age of the delegation members (excluding Gandhi and Ali) was sixty-three. Dignity, wisdom, and self-restraint were engraved in every lined face and gray whisker.2

ramana garu,

all groups work in tandem. If there were Brits who were willing to use danda and bandook on Indians, there were also some Brits who were always willing to show "sympathy", but they were always advising Indians to use the proper channels to "register our protest". They would accompany us in various delegations, and act as if they were our partners and helpers. In the end they were just agents whose job was to make Indians acknowledge and respect the system imposed by others, to respect the institutions of the imperial occupation.

And we used to succumb hoping that problems would be solved thus without all too much bloodshed, which all sides wanted to avoid.

That is why Netaji's call "Give me blood and I'll give you freedom" is the only real call which needed to be heeded. If somebody oppresses you, you don't go to his institutions to seek justice, because then you change him from your opponent to your master, and that has an affect on generations and generations of oppressed people. Then they really become colonized.

That is why even in this case of AIT and OIT, we should not go on trying to convince AIT-Nazis of horse evidence in India. That is the wrong court! Nor do we need to accept the claims of past Western historians on anything to do with us. Everything, it's they, who need to prove to us and not expect us to bow before the prestige and word of some famous Western writer.

[Nilesh Oak]

Below is from another forum, written by Rajiv Malhotra to a query from forum member. While on that thread the context is of "Self criticism by Hindus' - need and reality, I thought Rajiv's thoughts are apt and apply to linguists/AIT-Nazis. They apply equally well to likes of Sunil Bhattacharjya (he is but a representation). Most of the enthusiam is for discussion but not solving anything and rarely contributing.

Replace the word 'Hindu' with any of the above ....

1. Don't you think we Hindus are the most self-critical, and that in effect has not let us be united?


Rajiv response: Hindus' self criticism is shallow, often as unconnected dots, like someone with a jumpy attention hopping from one item to another irrelevant one. I do not see enough deep analysis backed by rigor and consistency. Typical example would be to criticize "our Hindu caste system" with little depth of analysis of how caste differs from jati-varna. My assessment is based on literally thousands of debates from living rooms to public events in which I take on such superficial Hindus. But they are endless. They seem to lack continuity from one discussion to another, as if they hit the reset button after each such encounter to protect their emotional safety zone. (emphasis mine).

[fanne]

If somebody oppresses you, you don't go to his institutions to seek justice, because then you change him from your opponent to your master, and that has an effect on generations and generations of oppressed people. Then they really become colonized.

Now this equally applies to the AIT. We don’t have to convince AIT Nazis on the wrongness of AIT or the truthfulness of OIT. Probably they already know that. The time is to set our agenda. I say OIT is right. Why? Because I say so and believe say. When all of Indians believe that, that is end of AIT.

Now to achieve that, you may have to debunk AIT theories and challenge them, and work on their agenda. But Bottom-line is, in personal self have no doubt about this fact (that OIT is the truth). We can debate for next 1000 years on what happened 4500 years ago and short of a time machine, nothing can conclusively be proven. It doesn’t matter what AIT Nazis think, for they think wrong. Rest of us, it is mainly a task of lifting the veil on this AIT propaganda.

thanks,
fanne

[RajeshA]

Western Books to Besmirch Hinduism

Religion of the Nazis

Try to read to understand the roots of Nazi and neo Nazi ideology.

Essentially create Indo-European with out the Indian.

ramana garu,

in this article Koenraad Elst mainly reviews two books



Publication Date: December 1 2005
Author: Karla Poewe
New Religions and the Nazis [Google] [Amazon]




Publication Date: September 1, 2002
Author: Victor Trimondi
Hitler, Buddha, Krishna. Eine unheilige Allianz vom Dritten Reich bis heute [Google] [Amazon]
Hitler, Buddha, Krishna. An unholy alliance from the Third Reich to the present day

No need to buy these books!

Koenraad Elst says that these authors make big claims that Nazism was based on Neo-Paganism and even Hinduism and Buddhism, but all that is really shallow. The only religion of the Nazis was really 'Third Reich'!

Sure there were many Nazis who wanted to escape Judaism and Jewish Christianity, but it was not as if they had found a Nazi-Movement covering "philosophy"! There were a couple of people here and there who dabbled in Hindu books or in Pagan symbology, but it was a fairly limited introspection. Also...

I might add that even the swastika is very weak as proof of a Nazi connection with Hinduism and Buddhism. To the Nazis, the swastika was not an exotic import product from India or Tibet but an age-old heritage of the Aryans, i.e. of their own ancestors. Some wayward Aryans had taken it to the Orient, where Hindus and Buddhists were to embrace this exotic Occidental import product, but it was and remained first of all an Aryan symbol, at home in their European homeland. In Mein Kampf and in conversations, Hitler had clearly expressed his contempt for Hindus and Buddhists, so it is unlikely that he would have adopted the swastika as national flag if he had considered it as a Hindu-Buddhist symbol.

[RajeshA]

If somebody oppresses you, you don't go to his institutions to seek justice, because then you change him from your opponent to your master, and that has an effect on generations and generations of oppressed people. Then they really become colonized.

Now this equally applies to the AIT. We don’t have to convince AIT Nazis on the wrongness of AIT or the truthfulness of OIT.

fanne ji,

that is correct.

Many Indians, most of them nationalist Indics, who wanted to claim Indian Indigenism, have still been lured to "try to convince" Western Indologists and Sanskritists of the same! So every now and then, an Indian would find a horse bone and try to show it to Europeans. That is simply the wrong way to go about it!

There may be Westerners, I don't wish to name names, who may sound sympathetic to Indian cause, and would tell Indians that they should get it published in such and such Western journal, and they could help in its publishing. That is the wrong way to go!

First you publish something in an Indian Journal, only then you go to the Western journals. Every time we Indians publish something as a first in a Western journal, we are giving them power over us, we are giving them legitimacy!

However academic fights can be fought at all venues and all venues can be used to propagate one's message and cause! But that is different than legitimizing a particular anti-Indian Western journal!

[shiv]

Gods, Sages and Kings - David Frawley
http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/davi ... 16244.html

Highly recommended. Sums up what we have said in 85 pages in his first 10 pages. Available for a low of Rs 198 and high of Rs 1,786 depending on where and how you order it. I bought it from Infibeam at 198