Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 21 Sep 2012 22:29

KLP Dubey wrote:There is also absolutely no evidence that the RV sounds are "culled from various sources". Historically, the evidence shows that Sanskrit grammar and phonetics have diffused OUT of India, and reverse (outside) influences have been very marginal. The reason is the existence of the Vedic standard and the rules of pronunciation and grammar. The difference between Vedic and other languages was the existence of an unbroken oral record and a phonetic record that backs up the oral record. That is an extremely significant point, and any credible theory of language diffusion MUST make this a cornerstone. Otherwise we are back to neo-PIE speculations.

True. That's food for thought, if the Vedic chhandas is going to be distinguished from later "Sanskrit".
However, I still feel that the geographical and ethnic scope of what was "India" has changed historically. It was at least upto Gandhara in our recorded historical memory. And if we accept (as per Vedic and Avestan evidence) that the Iranics were expelled Out Of India, it means they were originally much closer home. So they would have been part of the pool of ethnicities that were involved in Vedic perhaps? Could you or someone explain the way the RigVeda differentiates between -
1. Arya and Anarya
2. Vaidika and non-Vaidika
Are all "Arya" Vedic? I doubt it. Were all Anarya outside the Vedic sphere? I doubt that also.

KLP Dubey wrote:The Nambudiris of Kerala are probably some of the most learned Vedic practitioners in India. Yet their pronunciation is perhaps the worst in all India, and is full of corruptions. It is not as if they have never read the RV pratishakhya. For some reason this corrupt pronunciation has become inveterate. Some traits become ingrained either due to speech defects of some early Nambudiri, or it is a deliberate insistence on "sounding different from others".

I think this is a good point. Even those who are deeply involved with the tradition will eventually deteriorate from its standards. Therefore you are setting up "Vedic" as a standard that is aloof from any particular ethnicity. This is logically self-consistent, but historians are going to ask the question - who set up that standard? Was it a particular tribal confederation, or an ancient pan-ethnic civilization? It would not be equivalent to "PIE speculation", as long as it is acknowledged that the core and axis of this world order was India, and that Vedic itself was the standard - not some pre-Vedic PIE in the sky.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 22 Sep 2012 00:45

shiv wrote:This was the point I have been making to ManishH. In linguistics, when a sound change occurs naturally in the direction that the linguists want it to go (from Central Asia to India) it is used as proof. But when sound changes cannot be explained - they simply construct a PIE word that has elements of both sounds and say "See? You can get both words out of the proto-word we have constructed. So that PIE word must have existed." Linguists don't seem to see the point that the PIE word exists only because they have constructed it to have both sounds. And when it does not have all the sounds they explain it away as further sound change. The whole think is a mess of faking mixed up with some genuine stuff. If a sound change can be explained without PIE it should be explained directly. You can actually reverse a "natural" sound change by an artificial construct like PIE.

I had raised the same point with ManishH (posting my question and his response below):

Question:

3) If neither can be the parent (due to violation of universal sound laws), then a proto-parent verb root is constructed. The verb root of the parent is setup such that its morphing into either X's or Y's verb root doesnt violate the universal laws. Question: what if only some verb roots require a proto-parent & for others, either X or Y could have been the parent?

ManishH response:

It can happen. Eg PIE *skabh is preserved exactly in Skt root "skabh".

This is what I gathered from the response: if one of the languages can be the parent for a word, then the PIE word is almost exactly like the parent word itself. So, basically PIE = Greatest Common Denominator of all the words for which either language can be the parent + newly constructed words for cases where neither language can be the parent

So, a PIE language is pre-supposed to exist. If S>H can happen but not the other way around, then the PIE word will be the S word.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Sep 2012 00:53

shiv saar,

thanks for the photos of Loulan beauty and Egyptian Mummy. It does confirm that one needs to be far more suspicious when buying anything the Westerners have to say about these Mummies being blond like Norwegians!

Who knows may be even the Chinese are happy to have these Mummies from Tarim Basin look European, and not Indian! Who knows what the eebel Hindoo may come up with next!

peter · Post by **peter** » 22 Sep 2012 05:39

ravi_g wrote:Peter ji, I have batted for Arundhati-Vashishtha observation.
[..]

My point is: If Arundhati got ahead of Vashistha in 13000 BC how are Rishis supposed to have remembered this till 5500 or 4500BC and mention it only in Mahabharata supposedly in 5500 or 4500BC? This causes us to suppose that constellations and the knowledge of precession was known in 13000 BC. Very hard to believe.

Pole star in 5500 BC or 4500 BC is relevant because MbH mentions it moving left. So if a pole star does not exist or is not visible or is not unique enough for the naked eye to see it does oppose the arundhati theory.

Regarding Saraswati river. To exactly ascertain when it flows one needs to dig all along its supposed bed, collect samples, and determine its age. I don't know of any comprehensive study that has taken place. But a date 3067 BC for MbH war is not incompatible with the flow of Saraswati. The Dwarka research is still not on solid ground.

TIFR scientists also have written in multiple reports/paper that skymap pro is the most accurate. They concur, independently, with Achar.

peter · Post by **peter** » 22 Sep 2012 05:43

RajeshA wrote:peter ji,

Here is a suggestion if you feel up to it. In any discussion which involves comparison of two works (Nilesh Oak ji (NNO) and of Dr. Narhari Achar (NA)) basically on the same domain (Dating of Mahabharata War), it can get pretty confusing if not done in a structured manner.
[..]

I would have loved to do what you are suggesting but I don't have access to either Skymap or Voyager. This is why I was hoping Nilesh would be able to create this comparative table and fix / merge/ argue both theories.

peter · Post by **peter** » 22 Sep 2012 05:46

Prem Kumar wrote:[..]
So, a PIE language is pre-supposed to exist. If S>H can happen but not the other way around, then the PIE word will be the S word.

I am not sure they pre suppose that S>H and then come up with the PIE word with an "S". I think they do a vote function. Say you have n languages to compare. You compare the first letter/syllable and just see what is the majority pointing to. Similar for the next and so on.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2012 06:06

Prem Kumar wrote:
This is what I gathered from the response: if one of the languages can be the parent for a word, then the PIE word is almost exactly like the parent word itself. So, basically PIE = Greatest Common Denominator of all the words for which either language can be the parent + newly constructed words for cases where neither language can be the parent

Correct! And attributing an "age" to that greatest common denominator by calling it an ancient word from which other words developed is faking to a degree that defies comprehension.

If you look at certain axioms that seem to be accepted you have

1.All languages change over time. Change of language is change of sounds (pronunciation) and usage of words
2.Sanskrit has not undergone that change (due to error correcting design of the Vedas)

If we take both points as true we have the following logical sequence:

Assume that Sanskrit was "packaged and ready for use without change" at some time in the past (3000 to 7000 years ago)
Every IE language that existed from that time has changed, but only Sanskrit has not changed
Sanskrit has cognates with 80% of all existing or dead IE languages today
Cognates are words, and words have changed in all languages except Sanskrit
For these reasons if you take any two cognate words, one from Sanskrit and the other from any other living, current day language, it can be assumed that the Sanskrit cognate is phonetically closer to the word that existed 3000 to 7000 years ago.
If you use a current day cognate along with a Sanskrit cognate to construct a proto word, you are doing so without having any knowledge of the multiple sound changes that a living language may have undergone. You will create a proto word that incorporates the sound changes of the newer language (over many centuries) as well as the ancient sound of Sanskrit
That proto word is merely a kind of phonetic "average" between Sanskrit and the modern language.
Claiming that the proto word created represents a sound older than Sanskrit assumes that by simply comparing and mixing an older sound with a newer one you can arrive at a very ancient sound. This unprovable assumption is a formula for misuse and represents garbage of the highest order

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 22 Sep 2012 06:11

interesting article on the tarim mummies. in this article mair talks about the story on how he came up with his theories (urheimat a/c to this dude is in his country, austria and cherchen man is to be considered ur-david). the journo also gets pretty excited (unexpected sense of kinship) - her description of mair is very interesting too.

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/ ... arning.htm

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Sep 2012 06:23

peter wrote: My point is: If Arundhati got ahead of Vashistha in 13000 BC how are Rishis supposed to have remembered this till 5500 or 4500BC and mention it only in Mahabharata supposedly in 5500 or 4500BC? This causes us to suppose that constellations and the knowledge of precession was known in 13000 BC. Very hard to believe.

why is it "very hard to believe"? You cannot rule it out either - can you?

Pole star in 5500 BC or 4500 BC is relevant because MbH mentions it moving left. So if a pole star does not exist or is not visible or is not unique enough for the naked eye to see it does oppose the arundhati theory.

How many years do you estimate is needed to register the fact that "polestar has moved to the left"? I believe you are not willing to believe that they had with them currently used magnifying devices that are able to note relative discrepancies in overnight magnified images. Do you think such an observation happened on or within the one year of MBH war?

Regarding Saraswati river. To exactly ascertain when it flows one needs to dig all along its supposed bed, collect samples, and determine its age. I don't know of any comprehensive study that has taken place. But a date 3067 BC for MbH war is not incompatible with the flow of Saraswati. The Dwarka research is still not on solid ground.

Thank you for this wonderful geological argument. We should be able to use it for many crucial ancient river channel claims used in steppenwolf-civilizes-the-world archeology-crutch theories. By your criteria, all ancient river channel claimed/estimated so far in other parts of the worls are pure BS. In Euroland, lot is based on supposed Rhine channels. Can you please point me to an example of a "comprehensive study" that dug all along its supposed load, collected samples and determined their ages?

While you are yourself doubtful about the "flow of Saraswati" - you still find the proposed date of war not incompatible with the "flow of Sasraswati"? So you accept a certain flow theory without having verified it through available "comprehensive studies"?

Dwarka research is of course not on solid grounds - its underwater mud after all. Moreover, because it could claim a much earlier date than assigned to IVC because of sea-level rise arguments, it cannot be allowed to be on solid grounds. How much further do you plan to degrade the glorious European heritage by pointing at urbanized cultures existing too far beyond the time that glorious Greeks and Romans could show them? Shame! By the way, I guess the Thira underwater, or Maltese underwater explorations are not on solid grounds either! Or maybe they are - because they help to show antiquity of European civilizations. I am sure you have gone through all the papers on this for both regions - the Med and off-shore Gujarat, and after comparing them you still must have found the Dwarka research "not on solid grounds".

TIFR scientists also have written in multiple reports/paper that skymap pro is the most accurate. They concur, independently, with Achar.

We shoud take a vote as linguists and historians do. The majority having the same opinion are speaking the one and onlee truth. The minority are liers.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2012 06:32

peter wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:[..]
So, a PIE language is pre-supposed to exist. If S>H can happen but not the other way around, then the PIE word will be the S word.
I am not sure they pre suppose that S>H and then come up with the PIE word with an "S". I think they do a vote function. Say you have n languages to compare. You compare the first letter/syllable and just see what is the majority pointing to. Similar for the next and so on.

It sounds quite democratic to have a vote on speculation.

If an S of Sanskrit can become an H in Avestan but the reverse does not happen, how do the democratic voters decide it was not the S of Sanskrit that changed to H in Avestan, but it was actually an S of an earlier mythical PIE that remained S in Sanskrit but became H in Avestan?

When we are in the realm of speculation, there can only be a 50% probability that Sanskrit was the original, and a 50% probability that PIE existed. How does PIE become the accepted truth?

I have the answer to that. The answer that PIE existed and the cooked up sept- of PIE became sapta of Sanskrit and hapta of Avestan is based the theory that PIE originated in the Pontic steppe of central Asia where only horse graves have been found. And those graves contain horses. One verse of the Rig Veda describes a horse sacrifice. So it is said that the Rig Veda and the horse graves are one and the same people, but the central Asians took the horse to India, so the central Asian language was earlier and it is called PIE. Since Iran and Afghanistan come earlier on the route from central Asia to India, Old Persian and Avestan must be older than Sanskrit. Since H cannot become S, it is necessary to postulate a "PIE" word "sept-" that became sapta in Sanskrit and hapta in Avestan

If it is true that the Rig Veda represents a horse culture that describes horse burials and if proof of what language was spoken in Central Asia is found, then the IE story may become credible.

But Rig Veda has NO horse burials. No ancient horse burials have been found in India. No evidence of language has been found in central Asia. Therefore a PIE is pure speculation. The voters have voted for speculation as evidence.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2012 06:53

RajeshG wrote: http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/ ... arning.htm

At the height of summer, temperatures in the basin soared to a scorching 125 degrees Fahrenheit, without so much as a whisper of humidity, and in winter, they frequently plunged far below freezing. The desert at the basin's heart was one of the most parched places on Earth, and its very name, the Taklamakhan, was popularly said to mean "go in and you won't come out." Over the years, the Chinese government had found various uses for all this bleakness. It had set aside part of it as a nuclear testing range, conducting its blasts far from prying eyes. It had also built labour camps there, certain that no prisoner in his right mind would try to escape.

The Taklamakhan's merciless climate had one advantage, however. It tended to preserve human bodies.

Hm let me briefly recall an earlier discussion on this thread.

Someone asked "If bodies can be preserved in a place like Xinjiang, why not India?"

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 22 Sep 2012 07:39

peter wrote:
ravi_g wrote:Peter ji, I have batted for Arundhati-Vashishtha observation.
[..]
My point is: If Arundhati got ahead of Vashistha in 13000 BC how are Rishis supposed to have remembered this till 5500 or 4500BC and mention it only in Mahabharata supposedly in 5500 or 4500BC? This causes us to suppose that constellations and the knowledge of precession was known in 13000 BC. Very hard to believe.

Peter - Nilesh Oak said Arundhati ahead of Vasishta is a phenomenon that occurs over a few thousand years from 11000 BC to 4800 BC (see his diagram about 3 pages ago). Therefore MBH could have occurred anytime during this period. Its not as if this phenomenon occurred only in 13000 BC and someone remembered it

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 22 Sep 2012 08:38

Can we invite some Indian linguists with knowledge of Sanskrit and a composite understanding of our ancient texts and practices to this thread?

I ask this because Linguistics is scientific only to the extent that it can consistently only break down words into various kinds of sounds and categorize these sounds by where and how they are made in the mouth. The rest of its conclusions on historical usages, ideas these words convey are all based very subjective opinions. An honest linguist would know this basic fact. Why have academics in the field allowed such constructions of history and evolution of languages is somewhat that needs answering.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Sep 2012 08:54

Sure please issue the invitations.

ManishH, Carl and others are well versed in Sanskrit.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2012 09:18

The constructions of historical linguistics depend on several laws that have been mentioned from time to time by Manish. Among these are palatalization, rhotacization, Grimms law, Grassman's law etc.

I mention Grassmans "law" because Grassmans law is an observation made by Panini thousands of years ago. More germane to this thread is from Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassmann%27s_law

the fact that no other Indo-European languages show Grassmann's law, suggests that Grassmann's law developed separately in Greek and Sanskrit (although quite possibly due to areal influence from one language to the other), i.e. that it was not inherited from PIE.[1]

I followed the reference marked [1] there and got a book review about the reference volume
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3447333

N.E. Collinge's THE LAWS OF INDO-EUROPEAN sets out all the important rules of sound change that any student of comparative Indo-European linguistics should acquaint themselves with. Grimm's law, Grassman's law, the law of the palatals, they're all here. Besides the general laws affecting the major Indo-European languages (Germanic, Sanskrit, and Greek), Collinge also addresses the laws of the Baltic and Slavonic accents. This field is a mess, and it seems that most of the laws covered in the book somehow relate to the accent. An appendix covers minor laws (although some, such as Watkin's Law, have become major in their ramifications) and major tendencies.

One major downside to Collinge's presentation is that he fails to give a simple algebraic form of each law suitable for making flashcards. Another complaint, somewhat frequent in the academy, is that Collinge is so attentive in presenting seeming exceptions that he makes certain well-fixed laws appear as if they are undependable when in fact few would dispute them.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 22 Sep 2012 09:22

ShauryaT wrote:Can we invite some Indian linguists with knowledge of Sanskrit and a composite understanding of our ancient texts and practices to this thread?

I ask this because Linguistics is scientific only to the extent that it can consistently only break down words into various kinds of sounds and categorize these sounds by where and how they are made in the mouth.

You are overestimating the caliber of modern "linguists". Indians have been studying linguistics (as defined above) for a very long time. The pratishakhyas of the Rgveda and Yajurveda are testimony to that. They are truly remarkable documents unparalleled in the world. And then there are documents by Yaska and Panini. The massive works of Kumarila and Prabhakara. Together, most of the great linguistic discoveries were made by these guys, not the westerners.

Yet, you will be hard-pressed to find a modern Indian academic linguist who has (1) conducted a thorough study of the pratishakhyas, vyakarana, and mimamsa; and (2) is smart enough to understand how Vedic words have become corrupted in various forms.

ManishH, for instance, did not know anything much about the pratishakhyas; for example, he claimed that there is no discussion of sound changes in the pratishakhyas. This is truly amazing, for somebody who claimed to be both a linguist as well as a student of Vedic mantras!

It is for this reason (i.e., incompetence of Indian academic linguists) that people with a scientific background and deep knowledge of these subjects have put this thread together (or appeared in it). I think it is better this way, because:

(1) in India many of the best intellectual minds often go into engineering/medicine/science (no offense to anyone that is not in these fields)

(2) many of these people undertake study of the Veda, Sanskrit, etc out of their own deep interest, and understand it well. This is better than third-rate professional linguists and historians cranking out nonsense to make a living.

KL

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2012 09:28

ShauryaT wrote:Can we invite some Indian linguists with knowledge of Sanskrit and a composite understanding of our ancient texts and practices to this thread?

I ask this because Linguistics is scientific only to the extent that it can consistently only break down words into various kinds of sounds and categorize these sounds by where and how they are made in the mouth. The rest of its conclusions on historical usages, ideas these words convey are all based very subjective opinions. An honest linguist would know this basic fact. Why have academics in the field allowed such constructions of history and evolution of languages is somewhat that needs answering.

Shaurya I am beginning to suspect that people who are well versed with Sanskrit have no clue about modern linguistics and those who know modern linguistics do not know Sanskrit. Manish appears to know both but gets buried under a deluge of comments and criticisms which no single person can answer satisfactorily given that modern linguistics itself has been built up on many assumptions passed off as laws. By a process of self study of linguistics I find that my own doubts are not going away. The fundamental objections remain.

The best conclusion I can reach is that the community of linguists feed off each other and feed off each others biases and preconceptions. This whole business has to be built up from scratch using an entire new set of people from other fields who are willing to be as ruthlessly critical of assiduously built up linguistic paradigms as linguists are of any objectors. There is no short cut. But the volume of work that needs rechecking is simply mind boggling and much of it is in German or other non English European languages.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 22 Sep 2012 10:05

ramana wrote:ManishH, Carl and others are well versed in Sanskrit.

Ramana ji you're kidding. I'm a beginner student, a dilletante of the kind Dubey ji was mentioning, and havemore Q's than A's. I wish Dubey ji and other knowledgeable gurus could lead a systematic discussion, answering our questions, etc.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Sep 2012 10:41

shiv wrote:But the volume of work that needs rechecking is simply mind boggling and much of it is in German or other non English European languages.

I think brihaspati garu is working with a team who knows German.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Sep 2012 10:51

Prem Kumar wrote:
ravi_g wrote:Peter ji, I have batted for Arundhati-Vashishtha observation.
[..]
peter wrote:My point is: If Arundhati got ahead of Vashistha in 13000 BC how are Rishis supposed to have remembered this till 5500 or 4500BC and mention it only in Mahabharata supposedly in 5500 or 4500BC? This causes us to suppose that constellations and the knowledge of precession was known in 13000 BC. Very hard to believe.
Peter - Nilesh Oak said Arundhati ahead of Vasishta is a phenomenon that occurs over a few thousand years from 11000 BC to 4800 BC (see his diagram about 3 pages ago). Therefore MBH could have occurred anytime during this period. Its not as if this phenomenon occurred only in 13000 BC and someone remembered it

If somebody were to say that Arundhati walks before Vashishta in a tone which expresses surprise, unexpectedness, bad omen, etc., then it means one is aware of a time when this was not the case. Now as Nilesh Oak ji has calculated that the Epoch of Arundhati was between 11091 B.C. and 4508 B.C, then it means one remembers the time before 11091 BC. In fact one would be remembering a time when Vashishta would have been clearly in front of Arundhati, a time when it was normal to expect Vashishta to walk before Arundhati. So yes, there is a memory of people, of a time around 13,000 BCE.

There is nothing unexpected in this. The skies were around. People were around. Language was around. The only incredible thing is simply that Indians were able to preserve this memory for such a long time. But so what, then we are incredible!

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 22 Sep 2012 11:18

^^^ RajeshA ji, you said "There is nothing unexpected in this. The skies were around. People were around. Language was around. The only incredible thing is simply that Indians were able to preserve this memory for such a long time."

But what language was this memory transfered in from parents to offsprings.

What is the language or linguistic practices or linguistic habits, capable of remaining unchanged and transmitting information over such large durations of time.

Which brings me to my favourite speculation. What if all the ancient greats or at least most of them (Panini types) were not the original thinkers/researchers/scientists. What if they were only a normal teacher of their times. Only a bit more committed. Committed to the extent that they began to consolidate what was already known. Did these people claim original thought for themselves? Did they claim copyright?

Aside -
That also leads me to ask if any other language has this capability to transmit understandiing flying over the obstructive hump of propaganda which basically cannot last for too long because of the very nature of it?

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 22 Sep 2012 11:56

Peter ji,

I also asked Nilesh ji if Precession is the only reason for the AV combine to behave this way in the observation.

This is what Nilesh ji said.

Nilesh ji

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1339843

Precession but also proper motions of Arundhati and Vasistha.

Proper motion (PM-D, i.e. Proper motion in the direction of declination - north south. and PM-A, Proper motion ascenstion - east west.)

Proper motion is the reason (especially PM -D, both are going south, but Vasistha is traveling twice faster than Arundhati) why 'Epoch of Arundhati ' is only a unique instance, as far as past in concerned.

Clearly knowledge of precession is not needed to make this observation.

I am not claiming that knowledge of precession, was/was not, present at such distant past. That would be a statement for which I am afraid I would have no proof. But the observation is there and so are its implications. Pratyaksh not proof no argumentation required.

For now I treat it the way I treat the hindu astronomical observations. Hindu astronomical observations factual and do not require knowledge of a lot of astronomy.

The bold underlined part is important if you decide to net-search for Star clusters. There may be some off chance that the star system that is AV either may not repeat this phenomena or repeat it only a few more times. In galactic terms and times this is could indeed be unique. The whole of big dipper is a constellation all of whose stars are moving in the same direction but at different speeds. Big Dipper looked a lot different in arrangement in the distant past. And it is definitely not going to look same in the distant future. AV being gravitationally bound may remain together for a considerable time into the future even as the Big Dipper itself changes its layout. To me it seems like this observation can stand without the knowledge of Precession or of orbits or of star clusters on part of the observer.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Sep 2012 12:42

peter wrote:
RajeshA wrote:peter ji,

Here is a suggestion if you feel up to it. In any discussion which involves comparison of two works (Nilesh Oak ji (NNO) and of Dr. Narhari Achar (NA)) basically on the same domain (Dating of Mahabharata War), it can get pretty confusing if not done in a structured manner.
[..]
I would have loved to do what you are suggesting but I don't have access to either Skymap or Voyager. This is why I was hoping Nilesh would be able to create this comparative table and fix / merge/ argue both theories.

peter ji,

for the table, you don't need any astronomical software. For the moment you can take their word or reference their sky map where they show something. Much more important is how they do the interpretations, and what they claim to show.

So don't feel disadvantaged in this undertaking! Please continue.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2012 17:52

Ok, folks. Here it is.

Here is proof that the entire concept of PIE was created to disprove the idea that Sanskrit could have been a mother language to any European language. This is a Pakistanic quest of "Not Indian" and suffers from the same problem - i.e if there is anything Indian, it will be covered up because the aim is to be "Not Indian"

The business started 150 plus years ago

Wiki on "Comparative Method"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_method

in his Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, originally published in 1861.[2] Here is Schleicher’s explanation of why he offered reconstructed forms:[3]
"In the present work ....... there is, I think, another of no less importance gained by it, namely that it shows the baselessness of the assumption that the non-Indian Indo-European languages were derived from Old-Indian (Sanskrit).

The need to prove that Sanskrit could not be any type of proto language led to the development of the "comparative method" whereby linguistic reconstruction would be used to achieve the following:

The comparative method developed out of attempts to reconstruct the proto-language mentioned by Jones, which he did not name, but subsequent linguists named Proto-Indo-European (PIE). The first professional comparison between the Indo-European languages known then was made by the German linguist Franz Bopp in 1816. Though he did not attempt a reconstruction, he demonstrated that Greek, Latin and Sanskrit shared a common structure and a common lexicon.[12] Friedrich Schlegel in 1808 first stated the importance of using the eldest possible form of a language when trying to prove its relationships;[13] in 1818, Rasmus Christian Rask developed the principle of regular sound changes to explain his observations of similarities between individual words in the Germanic languages and their cognates in Greek and Latin.[14] Jacob Grimm - better known for his Fairy Tales - in Deutsche Grammatik (published 1819-37 in four volumes) made use of the comparative method in attempting to show the development of the Germanic languages from a common origin, the first systematic study of diachronic language change.[15]

Both Rask and Grimm were unable to explain apparent exceptions to the sound laws that they had discovered. Although Hermann Grassmann explained one of these anomalies with the publication of Grassmann's law in 1862,[16] it was Karl Verner who in 1875 made a methodological breakthrough when he identified a pattern now known as Verner's law, the first sound law based on comparative evidence showing that a phonological change in one phoneme could depend on other factors within the same word, such as the neighbouring phonemes and the position of the accent,[17] now called conditioning environments.

Similar discoveries made by the Junggrammatiker (usually translated as Neogrammarians) at the University of Leipzig in the late 1800s led them to conclude that all sound changes were ultimately regular, resulting in the famous statement by Karl Brugmann and Hermann Osthoff in 1878 that "sound laws have no exceptions".[18] This idea is fundamental to the modern comparative method, since the method necessarily assumes regular correspondences between sounds in related languages, and consequently regular sound changes from the proto-language. This Neogrammarian Hypothesis led to application of the comparative method to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European, with Indo-European being at that time by far the most well-studied language family. Linguists working with other families soon followed suit, and the comparative method quickly became the established method for uncovering linguistic relationships.[10]

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 22 Sep 2012 18:03

Short OT (but related in big scheme of things) question for Language experts (ManishH, Shiv, Brihaspati, KLP, Carl, Prem kumar.. many more)

is 'Vande' (as in Vande mataram) related to english 'Veneration'?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Sep 2012 18:44

Verner's law should be the first thing we look at, then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neogrammarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verner's_law

PS: the problem seems to be that these folks approached their subject with an idee fixe, if not an ideological commitment. We won't do much better if we do the same.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2012 20:03

Nilesh Oak wrote:Short OT (but related in big scheme of things) question for Language experts (ManishH, Shiv, Brihaspati, KLP, Carl, Prem kumar.. many more)

is 'Vande' (as in Vande mataram) related to english 'Veneration'?

Not according to the online etymology dictionary that connects veneration with Venus/yoni/c*nt.

I think that etymology dictionary may be wrong (as often suspect it is)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2012 20:33

A_Gupta wrote:Verner's law should be the first thing we look at, then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neogrammarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verner's_law

I certainly will look deeper into that, but here is a curiosity I want to point out from the Wiki page on Comparative method, which chose the route of linguistic reconstruction to try and figure out a proto language that came before Sanskrit or any other IE language. This is the quote that comes just before the ref to verner's law in Wiki. I have highlighted the bit I want to talk about and wil try and explain to the best of my ability what I find curious

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

First, it was found that many sound changes are conditioned by a specific context. For example, in both Greek and Sanskrit, an aspirated stop evolved into an unaspirated one, but only if a second aspirate occurred later in the same word;[35] this is Grassmann's law, first described for Sanskrit by Sanskrit grammarian Pāṇini[36] and promulgated by Hermann Grassmann in 1863.

Second, it was found that sometimes sound changes occurred in contexts that were later lost. For instance, in Sanskrit velars (k-like sounds) were replaced by palatals (ch-like sounds) whenever the following vowel was *i or *e.[37] Subsequent to this change, all instances of *e were replaced by a.[38] The situation would have been unreconstructable, had not the original distribution of e and a been recoverable from the evidence of other Indo-European languages.[39] For instance, Latin suffix que, "and", preserves the original *e vowel that caused the consonant shift in Sanskrit:[/quote]

Just read the language used in the above passage. The exact words used are:

in Sanskrit velars (k-like sounds) were replaced by palatals (ch-like sounds)

This is very interesting use of language in the passage quoted. It assumes that something that preceded Sanskrit has already been discovered and documented. And it claims that some changes occurred in Sanskrit that would have been undiscobverable until the compared with Latin and found that the sound (qu) was associated with an vowel "e". Sanskrit has, according to this observation "lost" this vowel.

What makes me both angry and amused at this description is the fundamental fact that in sanskrit and many Indian languages, consonants like "cha" stand out on their own. You can write a single consonant like "cha" or "va" and they have a meaning and attested phonology without actually needing a separate vowel in the Roman alphabet sense. They do not actually require a vowel at all. It is a Roman alphabet problem, not a phonetic problem.

Do you see the way in which these linguists confuse a phonetic problem with a textual problem. This might be the consequence of this stupid linguists inability to use audio for phonetics and their obdurate insistence on using obscure 19th century phonetic symbology techniques.

In sanskrit the letter "cha" alone is pronounced as "cha" (as in "chuck") and carries the meaning "and"

"tvameva mata cha pita tvameva"

It is NOT ch. It is cha. Any imbecile who listens to Sanskrit will transcribe the letter "च" (as "cha" and not as "ch" minus vowel which is the moronic impression you get from the Roman scripts. And the idea that a, e and o "merged" as "a" in Sanskrit is also a lack of adequate definition of the sounds of "a", "e" and "o" in the Roman script. It is a script/text issue. Not a phonetic issue. Words like "that", "dare", "where", "peg", "women", "mere", "what' show great confusion about how vowels are pronounced. No such confusion exists in Sanskrit.

Sanskrit has not "lost" any vowel. It may well be a deliberate grammarian decision in Sanskrit to make the phonology accurate and free from confusion.

It is entirely credible that some IE language pre dated Sanskrit. It is entirely credible that Latin, Greek and other European languages may have inherited from that language or set of languages that pre-dated sanskrit. What is totally fake is the "reconstruction" that claims to have figured out "what happened in Sanskrit"

But this has given me a sudden moment of realization. Europeans are trying to find their own linguistic history. They are trying to fit Sanskrit somewhere in their world view because it has forced itself in by its antiquity and accuracy. here is no reason for us to fight with them They are welcome to decipher their own past.

We need to drop the fight and figure out our own linguistic history from our rich records and write it up in detail. If it does not fit with current linguistic views it does not matter. Current day linguists are not interested in Sanskrit. They are interested only in European languages. Sanskrit is only a tool, a route, a waypoint. For us it is different. We can safely ignore the bullshit and simply refuse to accept any rules and history made in the west as fake and write a parallel history knowing that we are fully capable of being both honest and objective, whether or not western linguists are that way or not. In a deep sense, all the arguments we are having here are a way to gain "acceptance" and "validation" from the moronic WitMers. We don't need that. All we need is a "balls to you". We have the time, numbers and motivation.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Sep 2012 21:08

Vasistha-Arundhati relative movement is not significantly affected by precession. It is more about the departure from the parallax assumption for distant star/star clusters - due to orbital, local cluster orbital or galactic-centre relative orbital motion.

Moreover - whether pole star left movement or VA movement, it needs centuries or even thousand year cumulative recordings to note such small changes - without assuming magnifying devices, or latest positional astronomical observatory instruments. So even the observed "pole star" movement claims cannot fix times into even within-year resolution.

One of the problems of using modern software - is an over-relaince on their model accuracy [most people have not actuallyw orked through the systems of PDE's and their numericla solutions - or approximations based on such systems, where empirical expansions of solutions in power series forms need coefficients estimated from current observations], and because we can shift thousands of years by a click, we pinpoint upper limits of observation years. We forget, that without assuming modern automatic highresolution instruments, the reality of human observational capacities require us to understand - that people must have observed phenomena for thousands of years to note the smallest discrepancies that we debate on.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Sep 2012 21:17

Shiv, sorry, I don't get your point.
They claim that the PIE "and" was *ke.
This turned into the unattested *che.
And then into the Sanskrit cha.

In the other IE branch it turned into the Latin -que.
PS
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-que

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Sep 2012 21:48

shiv wrote:But this has given me a sudden moment of realization. Europeans are trying to find their own linguistic history. They are trying to fit Sanskrit somewhere in their world view because it has forced itself in by its antiquity and accuracy. here is no reason for us to fight with them They are welcome to decipher their own past.

We need to drop the fight and figure out our own linguistic history from our rich records and write it up in detail. If it does not fit with current linguistic views it does not matter. Current day linguists are not interested in Sanskrit. They are interested only in European languages. Sanskrit is only a tool, a route, a waypoint. For us it is different. We can safely ignore the bullshit and simply refuse to accept any rules and history made in the west as fake and write a parallel history knowing that we are fully capable of being both honest and objective, whether or not western linguists are that way or not. In a deep sense, all the arguments we are having here are a way to gain "acceptance" and "validation" from the moronic WitMers. We don't need that. All we need is a "balls to you". We have the time, numbers and motivation.

I disagree a bit here.

I think the Europeans have tied the destiny of Sanskrit with their languages, and they will continue to fit Sanskrit into their narrative, regardless of how we think about it.

The only way out I see is for us to write the narrative of the whole class of Indo-European languages. They may protest here and there or criticize it, but we should continue to build up the narrative and propagate it with all means possible.

India's growing economic might would allow us to free up resources for research and media and thus allow us to reassert our narrative for all the others as well.

I see AIT, Arbitrary Definition of our "Sheet-Anchor of History", Shortchanging our Historical Chronology, Hosepiping our Scientific Accomplishments, as a direct unprovoked assault on our historical sovereignty. Whether we do it on the basis of Truth or simply Propaganda is something that would be our decision, but we should be the ones doing the writing.

Just like the way, they have been sponsoring Indians and buying the loyalty of Indian historians and political commentators and opinion makers, so too India would have to turn the tables and one day our money should be running the history departments in Europe and America.

I think the West has been very good teachers to us Indians, if we care to look!

Personally speaking, I can only say, that here Rajiv Malhotra has really been a great guru and guide, who has allowed Indians to dissect the Western way of subjugating other cultures, and BRF has taught me that one fights fire with more fire.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 22 Sep 2012 22:09

shiv wrote:Do you see the way in which these linguists confuse a phonetic problem with a textual problem. This might be the consequence of this stupid linguists inability to use audio for phonetics and their obdurate insistence on using obscure 19th century phonetic symbology techniques.

The entire field of "historical linguistics" is on a very shaky foundation. Even before sound changes and word changes are discussed, it is critical to know whether the phonetics of the key languages is established. The one language for which the phonetics is *perfectly clear* is Sanskrit (both Vedic and non-Vedic), since it is directly based upon the sounds of the Rgveda (which has been known generation after generation in an unbroken manner). From time to time we also find grammatical works that fully corroborate the phonetics. So, even if actual usage among some groups varied (as it does even today), the *unchanged standard* is always available for reference.

Let us check some of the other "old" languages: Greek, Hittite, Avestan. Is there a grammatical/phonetic text that verifies the pronunciation of syllables? I don't think so.

So in other words, even before PIE reconstructions begin, these guys have to work with "reconstructed" alphabets and phonetics of the above language, for which there is no reliable record. Even the Avestan language - closely related to Vedic - does not have a phonetic/grammatical text pertaining to the Gathas, and its phonetics are essentially reconstructed. In the absence of a phonetic standard, such reconstruction attempts are essentially arbitrary, and could be way off from what people actually spoke back then.

What Indians need to realize is the truly amazing and extraordinary nature of what we have. We are able to hear and reproduce RV sounds that were articulated in exactly the same, scientifically understood, manner for thousands of years. None of the other languages remotely allow that. The PIE/AIT crowd knows this, and hence the deliberate effort to "run down" and "diminish" the importance of anything Indian.

It is entirely credible that some IE language pre dated Sanskrit. It is entirely credible that Latin, Greek and other European languages may have inherited from that language or set of languages that pre-dated sanskrit. What is totally fake is the "reconstruction" that claims to have figured out "what happened in Sanskrit"

And equally credible that we were visited by aliens who plunked down 4-5 language "families" on earth for humans to learn.

But this has given me a sudden moment of realization. Europeans are trying to find their own linguistic history. They are trying to fit Sanskrit somewhere in their world view because it has forced itself in by its antiquity and accuracy. here is no reason for us to fight with them They are welcome to decipher their own past.

We need to drop the fight and figure out our own linguistic history from our rich records and write it up in detail. If it does not fit with current linguistic views it does not matter. Current day linguists are not interested in Sanskrit. They are interested only in European languages. Sanskrit is only a tool, a route, a waypoint. For us it is different. We can safely ignore the bullshit and simply refuse to accept any rules and history made in the west as fake and write a parallel history knowing that we are fully capable of being both honest and objective, whether or not western linguists are that way or not. In a deep sense, all the arguments we are having here are a way to gain "acceptance" and "validation" from the moronic WitMers. We don't need that. All we need is a "balls to you". We have the time, numbers and motivation.

Excellent!!

What we need is a comprehensive, rigorously developed, new framework of Indian linguistics, history/chronology, archaeology, etc, which does not give any serious weightage to AIT/PIE nonsense. Scattered attempts to combat the AIT/PIE theories are indeed playing on their turf (as I mentioned in an early post). We do not need to do this. Once our framework is developed, it will take root, grow, and destroy the false theories perpetrated by quacks.

Namaskar,

KL

peter · Post by **peter** » 22 Sep 2012 22:43

brihaspati wrote:
peter wrote: My point is: If Arundhati got ahead of Vashistha in 13000 BC how are Rishis supposed to have remembered this till 5500 or 4500BC and mention it only in Mahabharata supposedly in 5500 or 4500BC? This causes us to suppose that constellations and the knowledge of precession was known in 13000 BC. Very hard to believe.

why is it "very hard to believe"? You cannot rule it out either - can you?

I guess what you are saying is in 13000 BC (or whenever) someone saw Arundhati get ahead of Vashishta. They knew that Vashishta in ~8000 years will be again ahead of arundhati. Thus in the period 13000 BC to 4500 BC each astronomer needs to be taught that eventhough Arundhati is ahead now but eventually Vashishtha will overtake her.

Please tell me how is this a unique event which the Mahabharata scribe should mention at the date Nilesh has dated MBh at. Remember she was ahead for the last 8000 years!

brihaspati wrote:
Pole star in 5500 BC or 4500 BC is relevant because MbH mentions it moving left. So if a pole star does not exist or is not visible or is not unique enough for the naked eye to see it does oppose the arundhati theory.
How many years do you estimate is needed to register the fact that "polestar has moved to the left"?

Thuban approached the pole around 3200 BC and got into its overhead position in ~2700 BC.

brihaspati wrote:
Regarding Saraswati river. To exactly ascertain when it flows one needs to dig all along its supposed bed, collect samples, and determine its age. I don't know of any comprehensive study that has taken place. But a date 3067 BC for MbH war is not incompatible with the flow of Saraswati. The Dwarka research is still not on solid ground.
Thank you for this wonderful geological argument. We should be able to use it for many crucial ancient river channel claims used in steppenwolf-civilizes-the-world archeology-crutch theories. By your criteria, all ancient river channel claimed/estimated so far in other parts of the worls are pure BS. [..]

Do you think scientists even know the actual course or courses of Saraswati well?

brihaspati wrote: Dwarka research is of course not on solid grounds - its underwater mud after all. Moreover, because it could claim a much earlier date than assigned to IVC because of sea-level rise arguments, it cannot be allowed to be on solid grounds.

This is in Modi's backyard. This excuse is not good enough.

brihaspati wrote:
TIFR scientists also have written in multiple reports/paper that skymap pro is the most accurate. They concur, independently, with Achar.
We shoud take a vote as linguists and historians do. The majority having the same opinion are speaking the one and onlee truth. The minority are liers.

At some point you have to defer to people who know more than you. If TIFR scientists and Achar claim skymap pro is the best I see no reason to doubt them.

peter · Post by **peter** » 22 Sep 2012 22:48

peter wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:[..]
So, a PIE language is pre-supposed to exist. If S>H can happen but not the other way around, then the PIE word will be the S word.
I am not sure they pre suppose that S>H and then come up with the PIE word with an "S". I think they do a vote function. Say you have n languages to compare. You compare the first letter/syllable and just see what is the majority pointing to. Similar for the next and so on.

shiv wrote: It sounds quite democratic to have a vote on speculation.

If an S of Sanskrit can become an H in Avestan but the reverse does not happen, how do the democratic voters decide it was not the S of Sanskrit that changed to H in Avestan, but it was actually an S of an earlier mythical PIE that remained S in Sanskrit but became H in Avestan?
[..]

This boils down to the arguments that "support" Sanskrit cannot be PIE and hence there must be "proto" language. There is a long list of arguments for the "support". I do not know all the arguments. Some we have already seen like k>sh.

peter · Post by **peter** » 22 Sep 2012 22:50

peter wrote:
ravi_g wrote:Peter ji, I have batted for Arundhati-Vashishtha observation.
[..]
My point is: If Arundhati got ahead of Vashistha in 13000 BC how are Rishis supposed to have remembered this till 5500 or 4500BC and mention it only in Mahabharata supposedly in 5500 or 4500BC? This causes us to suppose that constellations and the knowledge of precession was known in 13000 BC. Very hard to believe.

Prem Kumar wrote: Peter - Nilesh Oak said Arundhati ahead of Vasishta is a phenomenon that occurs over a few thousand years from 11000 BC to 4800 BC (see his diagram about 3 pages ago). Therefore MBH could have occurred anytime during this period. Its not as if this phenomenon occurred only in 13000 BC and someone remembered it

In the entire period 11000-4800 Arundhati is ahead of Vashistha. Ask yourself what is unique about this event on the eve of Mahabharat?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Sep 2012 22:51

peter wrote:
peter wrote: My point is: If Arundhati got ahead of Vashistha in 13000 BC how are Rishis supposed to have remembered this till 5500 or 4500BC and mention it only in Mahabharata supposedly in 5500 or 4500BC? This causes us to suppose that constellations and the knowledge of precession was known in 13000 BC. Very hard to believe.
brihaspati wrote:why is it "very hard to believe"? You cannot rule it out either - can you?
I guess what you are saying is in 13000 BC (or whenever) someone saw Arundhati get ahead of Vashishta. They knew that Vashishta in ~8000 years will be again ahead of arundhati. Thus in the period 13000 BC to 4500 BC each astronomer needs to be taught that eventhough Arundhati is ahead now but eventually Vashishtha will overtake her.

Where is it said, that those who started observing that Arundhati had "overtaken" Vashishta (around 11091 BCE as per Nilesh Oak ji), knew that in around 4508 BCE, Vashishta would again "overtake" Arundhati. This is not implied from the Mahabharata reference, nor has it been implied by Nilesh Oak ji.

The only two things implied are that at the moment of Mahabharata, somebody remarked that Arundhati has overtaken Vashishta during that age, and that earlier it was the other way round.

peter · Post by **peter** » 22 Sep 2012 22:52

Prem Kumar wrote:
ravi_g wrote:Peter ji, I have batted for Arundhati-Vashishtha observation.
[..]
peter wrote:My point is: If Arundhati got ahead of Vashistha in 13000 BC how are Rishis supposed to have remembered this till 5500 or 4500BC and mention it only in Mahabharata supposedly in 5500 or 4500BC? This causes us to suppose that constellations and the knowledge of precession was known in 13000 BC. Very hard to believe.

RajeshA wrote: Peter - Nilesh Oak said Arundhati ahead of Vasishta is a phenomenon that occurs over a few thousand years from 11000 BC to 4800 BC (see his diagram about 3 pages ago). Therefore MBH could have occurred anytime during this period. Its not as if this phenomenon occurred only in 13000 BC and someone remembered it
If somebody were to say that Arundhati walks before Vashishta in a tone which expresses surprise, unexpectedness, bad omen, etc., then it means one is aware of a time when this was not the case. Now as Nilesh Oak ji has calculated that the Epoch of Arundhati was between 11091 B.C. and 4508 B.C, then it means one remembers the time before 11091 BC. In fact one would be remembering a time when Vashishta would have been clearly in front of Arundhati, a time when it was normal to expect Vashishta to walk before Arundhati. So yes, there is a memory of people, of a time around 13,000 BCE.

There is nothing unexpected in this. The skies were around. People were around. Language was around. The only incredible thing is simply that Indians were able to preserve this memory for such a long time. But so what, then we are incredible!

This is surely a joke right?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Sep 2012 22:55

peter wrote:
ravi_g wrote:Peter ji, I have batted for Arundhati-Vashishtha observation.
[..]
peter wrote: My point is: If Arundhati got ahead of Vashistha in 13000 BC how are Rishis supposed to have remembered this till 5500 or 4500BC and mention it only in Mahabharata supposedly in 5500 or 4500BC? This causes us to suppose that constellations and the knowledge of precession was known in 13000 BC. Very hard to believe.

Prem Kumar wrote: Peter - Nilesh Oak said Arundhati ahead of Vasishta is a phenomenon that occurs over a few thousand years from 11000 BC to 4800 BC (see his diagram about 3 pages ago). Therefore MBH could have occurred anytime during this period. Its not as if this phenomenon occurred only in 13000 BC and someone remembered it
In the entire period 11000-4800 Arundhati is ahead of Vashistha. Ask yourself what is unique about this event on the eve of Mahabharat?

It was obviously a well-established fact, but it was probably considered a cosmic phenomenon which defined the given age and people used to read from such cosmic markers whether it would in some way affect the flow of history on earth as some sort of omen!

peter · Post by **peter** » 22 Sep 2012 22:56

ravi_g wrote:Peter ji,

I also asked Nilesh ji if Precession is the only reason for the AV combine to behave this way in the observation.

This is what Nilesh ji said.
Nilesh ji

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1339843

Precession but also proper motions of Arundhati and Vasistha.

Proper motion (PM-D, i.e. Proper motion in the direction of declination - north south. and PM-A, Proper motion ascenstion - east west.)

Proper motion is the reason (especially PM -D, both are going south, but Vasistha is traveling twice faster than Arundhati) why 'Epoch of Arundhati ' is only a unique instance, as far as past in concerned.

Clearly knowledge of precession is not needed to make this observation.

But do remember that using proper motions alone Vashishta would always (well at least for very long periods) be ahead of Arundhati. It is the precession which does the trick in the 11000 BC-4500BC.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Sep 2012 22:57

peter wrote:
Rajesh wrote: If somebody were to say that Arundhati walks before Vashishta in a tone which expresses surprise, unexpectedness, bad omen, etc., then it means one is aware of a time when this was not the case. Now as Nilesh Oak ji has calculated that the Epoch of Arundhati was between 11091 B.C. and 4508 B.C, then it means one remembers the time before 11091 BC. In fact one would be remembering a time when Vashishta would have been clearly in front of Arundhati, a time when it was normal to expect Vashishta to walk before Arundhati. So yes, there is a memory of people, of a time around 13,000 BCE.

There is nothing unexpected in this. The skies were around. People were around. Language was around. The only incredible thing is simply that Indians were able to preserve this memory for such a long time. But so what, then we are incredible!
This is surely a joke right?

Please explain the joke to me! I do not seem to have the same quality of humor as you!