Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

peter wrote:This is turning into a circus. It feels like I am talking to the brain washed crowd . How may times have I asked Nilesh about Dhruva reference? He keeps saying it is Mars. Sanskrit Scholars like KM Ganguli, scientists like RN Iyengar say that it is Dhruva and not Mars. You want to believe Nilesh be my guest. But I will rather believe Ganguli and Iyengar and not Nilesh.
How many times have you asked him on the other thread in a collegial friendly manner? You are coming here with a confrontation in mind! Why do you expect others would want to respond to you?

On this thread, it is one thing to confront the stand of AIT-proponents and to talk about antiquity as a argument from our side. It is however not a thread to discuss the details of a particular dating!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

peter wrote: Hmmm. Not sure what you are talking about.
That is quite clear to me. Thanks for admitting it.


peter wrote:a) Suppose you have two linguists L1 and L2.
Both believe PIE is true.
L1 believes PIE is true and it arose in area x.
L2 believes PIE is true and it arose in area y.
Further constraint is x = !y : this means x and y cannot be true at the same time.

Now let us form a function f(PIE,x,y) = PIE . x + PIE . y
This is same as PIE.x + PIE.(!x)
This is same as PIE.
Hmmm, Fascinating. So PIE exists. But the geographic area is in dispute. That is well known. And the archaeology of the Pontic steppe has been connected with Rig Veda to put PIE in Pontic steppe.


peter wrote:b) If you follow the work of Satya Mishra he pointed out (in 1970's or 80's) that Finno Uralic languages have a lot of loan words from Sanskrit. These loan words have the form of Old Indo Aryan. e.g.
Image
In addition there exist no loan words in Vedic or Classical Sanskrit from Finno Ugric languages.

The claim that aryans at pontic steppe were in an interaction zone with finno ugric speakers to the north gets falsified because aryan tongue has no loans from finno ugric.

Since it is further known that FU speakers never lived near India then it just means that FU speakers acquired the loans from a group a emigrating aryans out of India.
Beautiful sir. Beautiful. But I have a couple of issues here.

1. The image you have posted has words like *ora, and *resma and *onke. What is the function or pronunciation of that "*"?

2. Uralic languages have many commonalities with Dravidian languages. How do you know they did not live in or near India? Gene wise they have some inheritance from Southeast Asia as per Wiki. Particularly, how do you know that they are loan words from people migrating from India. What happened to those people who migrated?
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4536
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Post by Prem Kumar »

Peter: Nilesh has done the research and written a book. One of the central premises/goals of his book is the explanation of the AV statement. None of the others are able to explain it - only he can. You are bypassing this central point altogether and are bringing up another point regarding the Pole Star.

Also, when he asks you to explain how Achar has interpreted Bhishma 3.17, you respond with
Answer the questions that we have asked you and then expect more answers. You cannot demand answers till you provide some to our questions.


Well - there is a problem with this style of argumentation. Since he wrote the book and did the homework, why don't you show him a little respect and answer his question first. I think he has earned it. A little humility wouldn't hurt & you may actually be able to get other people to see your POV.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

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

Post by Arjun »

peter wrote: a) Suppose you have two linguists L1 and L2.
Both believe PIE is true.
L1 believes PIE is true and it arose in area x.
L2 believes PIE is true and it arose in area y.
Further constraint is x = !y : this means x and y cannot be true at the same time.

Now let us form a function f(PIE,x,y) = PIE . x + PIE . y
This is same as PIE.x + PIE.(!x)
This is same as PIE.
Elementary, my dear Peter...

Because you have forgotten L3 who believes in OIT whose belief is that PIE / proto-Sanskrit is true and it arose in or around IVC.

PIE.x +PIE.y is not PIE because x and y are not exhaustive in listing the universe of possibilities. A case can also be made for PIE.z where z represents India.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Post by peter »

RajeshA wrote:
peter wrote:This is turning into a circus. It feels like I am talking to the brain washed crowd . How may times have I asked Nilesh about Dhruva reference? He keeps saying it is Mars. Sanskrit Scholars like KM Ganguli, scientists like RN Iyengar say that it is Dhruva and not Mars. You want to believe Nilesh be my guest. But I will rather believe Ganguli and Iyengar and not Nilesh.
How many times have you asked him on the other thread in a collegial friendly manner? You are coming here with a confrontation in mind! Why do you expect others would want to respond to you?

On this thread, it is one thing to confront the stand of AIT-proponents and to talk about antiquity as a argument from our side. It is however not a thread to discuss the details of a particular dating!
Look no confrontation is the intention from the beginning. Hope was and is that we can solve Mbh dating. But does not seem likely. I have made my points.

Maybe you can ask him in a collegial friendly manner and he will respond better to you! All the best!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

peter wrote:
Yes. I think you are wrong. That is a problem. But not my problem, its yours.
Opinion or you have some proof?
Sir you will have to believe me when I say it is not my problem. As regards the statement that it is your problem, you will continue to provide proof of that as this discussion progresses, just as you have admirably done so far. You have a choice of not making it your problem, but it is your choice, not mine.
Last edited by shiv on 24 Sep 2012 21:56, edited 1 time in total.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Post by peter »

Arjun wrote:
peter wrote: a) Suppose you have two linguists L1 and L2.
Both believe PIE is true.
L1 believes PIE is true and it arose in area x.
L2 believes PIE is true and it arose in area y.
Further constraint is x = !y : this means x and y cannot be true at the same time.

Now let us form a function f(PIE,x,y) = PIE . x + PIE . y
This is same as PIE.x + PIE.(!x)
This is same as PIE.
Elementary, my dear Peter...

Because you have forgotten L3 who believes in OIT whose belief is that PIE / proto-Sanskrit is true and it arose in or around IVC.

PIE.x +PIE.y is not PIE because x and y are not exhaustive in listing the universe of possibilities. A case can also be made for PIE.z where z represents India.
This is trivial if you equate PIE== Sanskrit. Do note x, y and z still do not overlap.

But my equation was to show the current state of affairs where linguists have their favorite PIE homelands with just onething in common that they are all outside India.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Post by peter »

Prem Kumar wrote:Peter: Nilesh has done the research and written a book. One of the central premises/goals of his book is the explanation of the AV statement. None of the others are able to explain it - only he can. You are bypassing this central point altogether and are bringing up another point regarding the Pole Star.

Also, when he asks you to explain how Achar has interpreted Bhishma 3.17, you respond with
Answer the questions that we have asked you and then expect more answers. You cannot demand answers till you provide some to our questions.


Well - there is a problem with this style of argumentation. Since he wrote the book and did the homework, why don't you show him a little respect and answer his question first. I think he has earned it. A little humility wouldn't hurt & you may actually be able to get other people to see your POV.
Dude I have been answering all his questions. Please read the threads. I do not think he has any intention of dealing with Dhruv since it is Mars in his Universe.
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

RajeshA ji is such an inspiration (+ a doer mentality), he does not have to ask a question.

I already quoted Bhishma 3:17 and also 3:18 (because interpreting them together makes sense and both verses are corroborated for 5561 BC).

I quoted them on page 139, message #5 from top, in addition to quoting specific pages of my book, where I discuss this at length, from every possible angle.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Post by peter »

ramana wrote:When I visited the Chechen Itza pyramid in Cancun, Mexico, I learned that the pyramid architecture takes into account the astronomical records of the transit of Venus going back to 3000BC. The pyramid is sited to account for the equinox over the millenia. The astronomical records were found in Mayan script in another building close to the pyramid. So if the Mayan can keep track of visual astromincal records, why would Hindus be unable to gather such data especially when they were deeply interested in teh stars and sky?
What I find interesting is that in the case of egyptian pyramids too there was a lot of analysis done that the peep holes were to see Thuban but modern scientists have proven conclusively that it was not the case.

Would you know what is the name of Mayan document and whether it has been deciphered and published?
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Post by peter »

peter wrote:
Yes. I think you are wrong. That is a problem. But not my problem, its yours.
Opinion or you have some proof?
shiv wrote: Sir you will have to believe me when I say it is not my problem. As regards the statement that it is your problem, you will continue to provide proof of that as this discussion progresses, just as you have admirably done so far. You have a choice of not making it your problem, but it is your choice, not mine.
Still an opinion.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

peter wrote: Maybe you can ask him in a collegial friendly manner
Don't tell me, let me guess.

I guess that this is an example of a collegial friendly statement
peter wrote:It feels like I am talking to the brain washed crowd
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

peter wrote: Still an opinion.
..and I am certain that you can live with opinions. I have an opinion. You have an opinion. Achar has an opinion. Iyengar has an opinion. Oak has an opinion. AIT nazis have their opinions. The person/s whose opinion is most convincing to the largest number of people gets his opinion believed as the truth.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Peter, I don't know if its translated and published but they did find a lot of records. You need the records going over many years to site the pyramid such that the sunlight lights up the serpentine figure on the steps of the pyramid. Its amazing how the sunlight lights up the serpent's head and gradually the rest of the body giving the appearenace of a descending serpent!
This happens every equinox and hearlds the arrival of change of seasons.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

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

Post by Arjun »

peter wrote: But my equation was to show the current state of affairs where linguists have their favorite PIE homelands with just onething in common that they are all outside India.
Look its obvious that for getting !(PIE.x) you can either prove !PIE or !x....

So !PIE is a sufficient condition for proving !AIT, yet it is not a necessary condition. It can also be proven with !x.

Further, you seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that there are several well-developed theories PIE.x, PIE.y, PIE.z (all outside India) and that rather than coming up with !x, !y & !z, it would be easier to come up with !PIE.

Couple of points that you may want to keep in mind here-

1) In reality while there are 3,4 non-Indian contenders for PIE homeland, the theory for how they came into India is ONLY well-developed for the Steppe case. The others don't even have a well-developed theory and dealing with them would not be as much of an issue as dealing with the issue of horse, chariot, wheel etc of Kurgan theory.

2) Coming up with !x or !y is easier than coming up with !PIE. The reason is simple - the latter is a field based on inductive reasoning which is morover not falsifiable. Any field based on inductive reasoning which is not falsifiable gives plenty of scope for charlatans to exist forever without being dislodged....You come up with any argument, the opposing camp is sure to cook up some inductive reasoning of cognates/substrates/superstrates and respond. This is not to say that one shouldn't try - but there need to be dedicated researchers whose lifetime job would be to keep chipping away at the other sides responses.

On the other hand, !x and !y depend on archeological and philological (including archeo-astronomy) arguments. There is scope for tomfoolery in these areas but not as much - purely because the reasoning here is not inductive. All one has to prove is to provide one (only one) scenario of how PIE could have spread from z (India) while satisfying the archeological assumptions that are inherent in PIE. As long as this is not refutable, you are done.
Last edited by Arjun on 24 Sep 2012 22:49, edited 2 times in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

OK. Time for a truce. No more name calling, insinuation or even a hint of it from now on.
Thanks,

ramana
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13528
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

The way I organize it there are two main contenders in AIT/AMT space:

1. The horse and chariot theory (migrations/invasions) : The causative factor for spread of IE languages is the invention of the horse-drawn chariot. The mechanism of language adoption is "elite dominance" of the invading or migrating people.

The PIE homeland dispute comes down to - where exactly did this development take place, and there are a lot of candidates for it, because the area of the horse is quite large.

The typical time frame for the initial events is about 4000 or 4500 years before present.


2. The agriculture (demic diffusion theory): The causative factor for spread of IE languages was the diffusion of the invention of agriculture. There is very little actual movement of people; it is just that the agriculturalists have a population explosion relative to the hunter-gatherers, and that is why the IE languages came to dominate.

The PIE homeland becomes the place where agriculture was invented, typically Anatolia.

The typical time frame for the initial events is about 10,000 years before present (or earlier).

Linguists don't like this theory because it means languages changed very much slower than the linguists think. It probably also means that a lot of what the linguists describe as cognates are really borrowed words with modifications.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

A_Gupta ji,

it really is necessary to repeat to this AIT-crowd that Horse is a dead issue. The Home of Horse is not Home of Aryans. They have been able to keep this fantasy alive by saying that the word for horse in Indo-European languages is a cognate. It is not. The Central Asian horse was perhaps important for the Aryan migration/invasion of Europe but it played no role in India. India has a word for horse which is a cognate with many West Asian languages and perhaps Lithuanian, but not with Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Greek or even Slavonic.

So Aryans may have come to Europe from Central Asia or Anatolia, that is fine, but they went there from India.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

I am posting a thread from an AIT-friendly forums for net-practice onlee!

Do you believe South Asia is the origin of the R1 Y-DNA?: Forum-BioDiversity
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Published on November 3, 2011
By David Braun
Modern Humans Wandered Out of Africa via Arabia: National Geographic

Image

Modern humans migrated out of Africa via a southern route through Arabia, rather than a northern route by way of Egypt, according to research announced at a conference at the National Geographic Society this week.

“Evolutionary history shows that human populations likely originated in Africa, and the Genographic Project, the most extensive survey of human population genetic data to date, suggests where they went next…Modern humans migrated out of Africa via a southern route through Arabia, rather than a northern route by way of Egypt,” said a news statement released by IBM.

National Geographic and IBM’s Genographic Project scientific consortium developed a new analytical method that traces the relationship between genetic sequences from patterns of recombination — the process by which molecules of DNA are broken up and recombine to form new pairs, the news statement explained.

The statement continued:

“Ninety-nine percent of the human genome goes through this shuffling process as DNA is being transmitted from one generation to the next. These genomic regions have been largely unexplored to understand the history of human migration.

“By looking at similarities in patterns of DNA recombination that have been passed on and in disparate populations, Genographic scientists confirm that African populations are the most diverse on Earth, and that the diversity of lineages outside of Africa is a subset of that found on the continent.

“The divergence of a common genetic history between populations showed that Eurasian groups were more similar to populations from southern India, than they were to those in Africa.”

“The divergence of a common genetic history between populations showed that Eurasian groups were more similar to populations from southern India, than they were to those in Africa. This supports a southern route of migration from Africa via the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait in Arabia before any movement heading north, and suggests a special role for south Asia in the ‘out of Africa’ expansion of modern humans.”

Ajay Royyuru, senior manager at IBM’s Computational Biology Center, said: “Over the past six years, we’ve had the opportunity to gather and analyze genetic data around the world at a scale and level of detail that has never been done before. When we started, our goal was to bring science expeditions into the modern era to further a deeper understanding of human roots and diversity. With evidence that the genetic diversity in southern India is closer to Africa than that of Europe, this suggests that other fields of research such as archaeology and anthropology should look for additional evidence on the migration route of early humans to further explore this theory.”

According to IBM, the new analytical method looks at recombinations of DNA chromosomes over time, which is one determinant of how new gene sequences are created in subsequent generations. “Imagine a recombining chromosome as a deck of cards. When a pair of chromosomes is shuffled together, it creates combinations of DNA. This recombination process occurs through the generations<” IBM explained in its statement.

“Recombination contributes to genome diversity in 99% of the human genome. However, many believed it was impossible to map the recombinational history of DNA due to the complex, overlapping patterns created in every generation. Now, by applying detailed computational methods and powerful algorithms, scientists can provide new evidence on the size and history of ancient populations.”

Reconstructing Genetic History

IBM researcher Laxmi Parida, who defined the new computational approach in a study published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, said: “Almost 99% of the genetic makeup of an individual are layers of genetic imprints of the individual’s many lineages. Our challenge was whether it was even feasible to tease apart these lineages to understand the commonalities. Through a determined approach of analytics and mathematical modeling, we undertook the intricate task of reconstructing the genetic history of a population. In doing so, we now have the tools to explore much more of the human genome.”

The Genographic Project continues to fill in the gaps of our knowledge of the history of humankind and unlock information from our genetic roots that not only impacts our personal stories, but can reveal new dimensions of civilizations, cultures and societies over the past tens of thousands of years, IBM’s statement added.

“The application of new analytical methods, such as this study of recombinational diversity, highlights the strength of the Genographic Project’s approach. Having assembled a tremendous resource in the form of our global sample collection and standardized database, we can begin to apply new methods of genetic analysis to provide greater insights into the migratory history of our species,” said Genographic Project Director Spencer Wells. (Read a News Watch post by Spencer Wells about his book Pandora’s Seed, taking us back to a seminal event roughly 10,000 years ago, when humans made a radical shift in their way of life: we became farmers rather than hunter-gatherers, propelling us into the modern world.)

Mapping how Earth was Populated

The recombination study highlights the initial six-year effort by the Genographic Project to create the most comprehensive survey of human genetic variation using DNA contributed by indigenous peoples and members of the general public, in order to map how the Earth was populated. Nearly 500,000 individuals have participated in the Project with field research conducted by 11 regional centers to advance the science and understanding of migratory genealogy. This database is one of the largest collections of human population genetic information ever assembled and serves as an unprecedented resource for geneticists, historians and anthropologists.

The Genographic Project seeks to chart new knowledge about the migratory history of the human species and answer age-old questions surrounding the genetic diversity of humanity. The project is a nonprofit, multi-year, global research partnership of National Geographic and IBM with field support by the Waitt Family Foundation. At the core of the project is a global consortium of 11 regional scientific teams following an ethical and scientific framework and who are responsible for sample collection and analysis in their respective regions. The Project is open to members of the public to participate through purchasing a public participation kit from the Genographic Web site (www.nationalgeographic.com/genographic), where they can also choose to donate their genetic results to the expanding database. Sales of the kits help fund research and support a Legacy Fund for indigenous and traditional peoples’ community-led language revitalization and cultural projects. Watch the video below for an overview of the Genographic project.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

From the map ture that humans went from Africa to India via Arabia but if you see the rest of the migration it was from India to the world and again via Kuwait!

So Arabs, North africans, Chinese and Europeans are all from India.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by svinayak »

RajeshA wrote:I am posting a thread from an AIT-friendly forums for net-practice onlee!

Do you believe South Asia is the origin of the R1 Y-DNA?: Forum-BioDiversity
Check how the stupid race theories have created identities which are fabricated and manufactured


Established Member

Race Scientist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last Online:Today 08:44
Join Date:2010-02-08
Posts:476
Gender:Male
Age:27
Race:Australoid
Metaethnos:Dravidian
Ethnicity:Chera Dynasty
Religion:Holism
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4536
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Post by Prem Kumar »

RajeshA wrote:A_Gupta ji,

it really is necessary to repeat to this AIT-crowd that Horse is a dead issue. The Home of Horse is not Home of Aryans. They have been able to keep this fantasy alive by saying that the word for horse in Indo-European languages is a cognate. It is not. The Central Asian horse was perhaps important for the Aryan migration/invasion of Europe but it played no role in India. India has a word for horse which is a cognate with many West Asian languages and perhaps Lithuanian, but not with Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Greek or even Slavonic.

So Aryans may have come to Europe from Central Asia or Anatolia, that is fine, but they went there from India.
RajeshA: even if horse was not native to India and we borrowed the word & the animal, how does that imply AMT/AIT? That's the 2nd fantasy - small scale migration, travel, trade etc can all explain it (as you've also mentioned in earlier posts)
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13528
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

Not that I understand the paper.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9711004885
In structure-like analyses, membership in multiple ancestry components can be interpreted as admixture, shared ancestry, or even unresolved ancestry. [25] and [69] However, some heuristic interpretations of the ancestry proportions palette in terms of past migrations seem too obvious to be ignored. For example, it was first suggested by the German orientalist Max Müller that ca. 3,500 years ago a dramatic migration of Indo-European speakers from Central Asia (the putative Indo Aryan migration) played a key role in shaping contemporary South Asian populations and was responsible for the introduction of the Indo-European language family and the caste system in India. A few studies on mtDNA and Y-chromosome variation have interpreted their results in favor of the hypothesis, [70], [71] and [72] whereas others have found no genetic evidence to support it. [3], [6], [73] and [74] However, any nonmarginal migration from Central Asia to South Asia should have also introduced readily apparent signals of East Asian ancestry into India (see Figure 2B). Because this ancestry component is absent from the region, we have to conclude that if such a dispersal event nevertheless took place, it occurred before the East Asian ancestry component reached Central Asia. The demographic history of Central Asia is, however, complex, and although it has been shown that demic diffusion coupled with influx of Turkic speakers during historical times has shaped the genetic makeup of Uzbeks [75] (see also the double share of k7 yellow component in Uzbeks as compared to Turkmens and Tajiks in Figure 2B ), it is not clear what was the extent of East Asian ancestry in Central Asian populations prior to these events. Another example of an heuristic interpretation appears when we look at the two blue ancestry components (Figure 2B ) that explain most of the genetic diversity observed in West Eurasian populations (at K = 8 ), we see that only the k4 dark blue component is present in India and northern Pakistani populations, whereas, in contrast, the k3 light blue component dominates in southern Pakistan and Iran. This patterning suggests additional complexity of gene flow between geographically adjacent populations because it would be difficult to explain the western ancestry component in Indian populations by simple and recent admixture from the Middle East.

Several aspects of the nature of continuity and discontinuity of the genetic landscape of South Asia and West Eurasia still elude our understanding. Whereas the maternal gene pool of South Asia is dominated by autochthonous lineages, Y chromosome variants of the R1a clade are spread from India (ca 50%) to eastern Europe and their precise origin in space or time is still not well understood.[76] In our analysis we find genetic ancestry signals in the autosomal genes with somewhat similar spread patterns. Both PC2 and k5 light green at K = 8 extend from South Asia to Central Asia and the Caucasus (but not into eastern Europe). In an attempt to explore diversity gradients within this signal, we investigated the haplotypic diversity associated with the ancestry components revealed by ADMIXTURE. Our simulations show that one can detect differences in haplotype diversity for a migration event that occurred 500 generations ago, but chances to distinguish signals for older events will apparently decrease with increasing age because of recombination. In terms of human population history, our oldest simulated migration event occurred roughly 12,500 years ago and predates or coincides with the initial Neolithic expansion in the Near East. Knowing whether signals associated with the initial peopling of Eurasia fall within our detection limits requires additional extensive simulations, but our current results indicate that the often debated episode of South Asian prehistory, the putative Indo-Aryan migration 3,500 years ago (see e.g., Abdulla15) falls well within the limits of our haplotype-based approach. We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration. The admixture of the k5 and k6 components within India, however, could have happened more recently—our haplotype diversity estimates are not informative about the timing of local admixture.
Image
ajhg-89 by macgupta, on Flickr
Last edited by ramana on 25 Sep 2012 02:57, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Added color and bold highlights-ramana
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

Reading Talageri's Rigveda- A Historical Analysis.

He mentions work of one Mair, where he supposedly began writing about 'In search of Home of Indo-Europeans' and draws time-lines of spread beginning with 4200 BC down to 100 BC and claimed all of this based on all sorts of evidence.. Only problem is he has already decided that 'Southern Russia' is the homeland. This is not unlike the issue of one of the ancient Indian events we had heated discussion about on this thread..where someone wanted to settle the issue.. for a chosen date...already settled in his mind. Only problem was evidence. Mair ran into the same problem. In any case both parties couldn't care less for evidence.

Ok, back to rice and Tiger (or their apparent non-mention) in Rigveda.
Anantha
BRFite
Posts: 1351
Joined: 25 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: US

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

Post by Anantha »

X posted from the GDF thread
I read Nilesh's book and Nilesh's work correlates with all major observations better than any other researcher. Nilesh's book also describes the shortcomings of other authors.

This is how Nilesh explains dhruva, which the other knowledgeable member is disputing
Description of the motions and the positions of Mars make it
ample clear that Mahabharata astronomers referred to oblique crossing
of the ecliptic by a planet as ‘vakri’ motion while the true
retrograde motion of a planet was described as being steady (dhruva
or sthayi), or traveling in reverse (apasavya) direction.


I wish the members disputing Nilesh's work would at least read the whole book and compare the closeness of his work in percentage terms to the works of other researchers.
Another aspect to consider is how good is Voyager 4.5 versus the software used by others. Nilesh's work may not hold if some one shows that Voyager 4.5 is not the best or is flawed.

I consider it this way; P.V. vartak's work is like Alexander Fleming's Penicillin, time will tell if Nilesh's work is like terramycin (one level better) or the modern 5th generation antibiotic (fully exhaustive).
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

Nilesh Oak wrote:
Ok, back to rice and Tiger (or their apparent non-mention) in Rigveda.
Sex is not mentioned in the Rig Veda no? The Vedics knew nothing about sex.

But frankly I get the feeling that the idea that Indo-European languages kind of "took birth" just 4000 years ago as an assumption without basis. Language is much older and I am certain IE is much older.

Empirically I would classify a language that has a 4000 year history as "young" in terms of human history
10,000 - 20,000 years would be a (in my estimate) a fair guess of how long humans have had a sophisticated system of communication by language.

100.000 years is in my estimate the minimum period of time that languages have been around.

These are of course my own guesses/estimates and I can offer no proof. I see it as a working hypothesis that allows me to look at the issue in a way that allows my mind to work free from the time constraints imposed by existing hypotheses.

On the one hand you have the theory that all languages change. Based on this is the hypothesis that after a period of X millennia, the original language would have morphed so much as to be unrecognizable and not identifiable with the original. The entire business of "glottochronology" and lexico statitstics started off with an attempt to fix and codify the rate at which languages change so that a back calculation could be applied to date languages. This is a very tempting exercise even if it has been discredited because rates of change can be very different. But since change is taken as a "inevitable" even this "discredited" idea of dating languages based on language change has not been given up totally, despite denials.

For example if you say that "palatalization" is a one way street that converts an "earlier" K to a later S, the words "earlier" and "later" are a method of dating. They are "chronology" whether you admit it or not. If you have a language "bhasha1" with an attested "k" word and a date for the language, and you judge that another language "bhasha2" which has an "S" word that is a cognate of the K word that has been changed to "S" by palatalization, they you are making the judgement that bhasha1 came earlier than bhasha2. So linguistics IS used for dating in this manner, and the claim that dating is "discredited" is untrue.

However we have to resort to clever logical tricks to estimate the antiquity of languages without any other proof or if you are unwilling to accept the proof that is provided in existing texts such as dates, astronomical and geographic references.

For example, let us take some texts that can be read even today, without any need for decoding. The Ashoka edicts that are over 2000 years old can be directly read after 2000 year. That means, despite the inevitable "language change" there has been stability and intelligibility of language for 2000 years. If language can maintain stability for 2300 years from 300 BC, the possibility that it had remained stable for 2300 years prior to that cannot be excluded on the grounds of logic. If Emperor Ashoka had found an inscription that was 2300 years old when he was king, it may have been readable to him much like his own inscriptions are readable today. So a date for an Indo European language that goes back to 2500 BC is perfectly credible.

If you look at other evidence, similar logic can be used to back date IE languages to 5000 BC or earlier

For example, the Mitanni texts are clear as crystal after 3500 years. Living languages today can be used to translate and understand them. Extend that stability back by 2000 years and we end up at 3500 BC, or even 5000 BC depending on how far back you are willing to allow your assumption to go.

If you look at the Mitanni texts of 1500 BC and the earliest Greek texts of around the same period in time, you find two very different IE languages. One is reconizably Sanskrit from 1500 BC. The other is recognizably Greek from around 1400 BC. Both these IE languages have remained readable and after 3500 years. But both are very different.

If these two very different languages remained stable for 3500 years, how many years did it take for them to develop the differences that they already had in 1500 BC, assuming they came from a common PIE? The linguists who propose PIE suggest a mere 1000 years. They say that PIE existed in 2500 BC, and it rapidly changed in 1000 years to become the Ancient Greek of 1500 BC and the Ancient Indo-Aryan of 1500 BC Mitanni. There is no proof that the linguists are wrong in this assumption. But it is odd that a PIE that rapidly became Ancient Greek and Mitanni (IndoAryan/Sanskrit) in just 1000 years, then remained perfectly stable for the next 3500 years despite all the rules about "inevitable language change" so that both ancient Greek and the Mitanni texts are readable and understandable today. This is a very odd theory. But it can be remedied easily.

Since PIE is a hypothetical language, it is easy to modify the hypothesis to say that PIE dates from 5000 BC and not 2500 BC. That gives PIE enough time (3500 years) to morph into Greek and Sanskrit after which they remained stable as Greek and Sanskrit. This is still not a good hypothesis but it's better. In fact a pre-dating of PIE to 10,000 BC or earlier may be needed to explain how two very different IE languages like Greek and Mitanni (Sanskrit) existed 3500 years ago.

So why do linguists believe that PIE came in 2500 BC and not earlier? We know the answer to that. Those dates are based on the finding of buried horses and chariots in central Asia (with no known language) and the need to link that with the Rig Veda (with cooked up dates)
Last edited by shiv on 25 Sep 2012 08:31, edited 2 times in total.
Anantha
BRFite
Posts: 1351
Joined: 25 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: US

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

Post by Anantha »

Interesting comment in Amaz0n about Talageri:

His is an extremely well-written and well-researched book that anyone who is at all interested in India's history would find fascinating. The author later went on to write a second book, Rigveda: A Historical Analysis, which so powerfully reinforced his thesis that Harvard University wrote to him and offered him a "fully-paid scholarship" if he would agree henceforth to be "flexible" in his views (p.vi, Preface to the First Reprint) as it seems he was making some invasionist weasel very uncomfortable there. Happily for us the author, as an honorable man, refused, preferring truth over pelf and prestige.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13528
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

Shiv, look at western translations of RV 10.86 ( specifically Wendy Doniger).
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

shiv wrote: For example if you say that "palatalization" is a one way street that converts an "earlier" K to a later S, the words "earlier" and "later" are a method of dating. They are "chronology" whether you admit it or not. If you have a language "bhasha1" with an attested "k" word and a date for the language, and you judge that another language "bhasha2" which has an "S" word that is a cognate of the K word that has been changed to "S" by palatalization, they you are making the judgement that bhasha1 came earlier than bhasha2. So linguistics IS used for dating in this manner, and the claim that dating is "discredited" is untrue.
This is important point. It is challenging to get rid of old notions. For example, while it is true that Samhita came before Brahmans, this is not to say that All Samhita's were written at one time and then all Brahmans were written at another time following Samhita...... juvenile timing narration created by Indologists: Samhita, then Brahmana, then Upanishad, then Purana etc.

As number of these documents are dated, albeit tentatively and apprxoimately, this should become clear.

Afterall...we do have coexisting books from 1st grade through graduate level at any given time and we have all genre coexisting. The quality may change, style might change..but coexisting nevertheless. Different and new editions, yes, but nothing linear about them.... in the sense of S came before B and U came after B and P came after U.

This is the reason we have to be on alert with our assumptions (including unconscious) while building our theories. (e.g. yesterday as P ji said .. oh married couple looking at AV is a 'later' tradition and married couple looking at 'Dhruv' is older tradition. The statment implicitly accepts nonsense of European Indology work. This is the reason, I do partly agree with argument of KL ji, as it relates to dating of Veda, but I will also include Brahmanas, Upanishads and Puranas. In fact one can see that Puranas attempt to recall even much older history, no wonder they appear as confusing mess...at least in the context of dating their contents.

Shiv ji,

I am glad you have good set of assumptions for time duration (existance of language, etc.) and in our current context, it is broad enough to not restrict you (unlike Indologists of past who were working with only 6000 year old earth and only son of God).

I work with no boundaries when I am speculating, oh, that joy of speculation (Cupiditas speculandi!). Thus while I am not going anywhere close to 100K for my timing of Ramayana, when someone comes with argument of One milliion years for Ramayana, I don't flinch, because I am ok with it.. as long as there is evidence, some logic, proof and that proposal is falsifiable. Usually it is this list of criteria where people fail.. whether it is Ramayana occuring million years ago or PIE being the Mama of all IE languages.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:Shiv, look at western translations of RV 10.86 ( specifically Wendy Doniger).

:lol: Good Call!!!

The Rig Veda knows about sex after all. Specifically RV 10.86.6 from the Hindi translation which is more specific than the Victorian angrez one. For those who are interested it is page 1346 of the Hindi translation by Ramgovind Trivedi

But that entire set of stanzas sounds so poetic - with each stanza ending with "Indra uttarah" that i would like to hear it recited. It looks like typical Vedic passage with the rhythm and meter that one learns to expect
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Post by Murugan »

Translation of Vedas in Hindi

http://www.aryasamajjamnagar.org/rigvedabook.htm

Ramgovind Trivedi's Translation in Hindi - pdf

http://archive.org/details/RigVedaInHindi
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

Well, back to languages.

Here is a classic AIT passage that explains how languages evolve and change
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/langevol.html
Around 5000 bc, between the Danube river valley and the steppes of what is now the Ukraine, there lived small tribes of primitive farmers who all spoke the same language. They cultivated rye and oats, and kept pigs, geese, and cows. They would soon become the first people on earth to tame the local wild horses -- an accomplishment that would make them a significant part of history for thousands of years to come. And their proximity to the culturally more advance people of Asia Minor -- what is now Turkey -- would allow them to learn the metal working invented there, beginning with copper.

Beginning around 3000 bc, these people would spread into Europe and the Russian steppes. Around 1500 bc, they would continue into Persia and India, even as far as western China. Later still (in the last 500 years), they would spread to the Americas, Australia, the Pacific islands, and parts of Africa. They would take their language with them, although it would gradually change into hundreds of mutually unintelligible languages, including English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Persian, Hindi and many more.

By examining the oldest examples of modern and classical languages such as Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, linguists have been able to reconstruct an educated guess as to what the language of these ancient people was like. They call the language Proto-Indo-European. The work that went into reconstructing Proto-Indo-European has led to efforts to reconstruct other prehistorical language ancestors as well.
Now check the timeline. The steppe language started spreading around 3000 BC and was in Persia by 1500 BC.

Now let us take two languages from the 1500 to 1200 BC era that are known to exist, namely Ancient (Macedonian) Greek and the Mitanni texts. Ancient Greek can be understood today (3500 years later) from decipherments of the Linear B alphabet. It has not changed so much in 3500 years to make it totally unintelligible. The Mitanni texts are pure Sanskrit and can easily be understood and that again is a language that has hardly changed in 3500 years.

So here's the problem.

The steppe language started spreading in 3000 BC. By 1500 BC it had created two very very different languages that do not sound anything at all like each other. One was ancient Greek and the other was the Sanskrit from Mitanni. But after that those two languages hardly changed. Both ancient Greek and the Mitanni language can be understood today, 3500 years later.

What can explain this anomaly. How come PIE changed so much in just 1500 years while attested languages did not change for 3500 years? The answer is quite simple actually. PIE is an assumed language and its dates too are assumed. I am amazed that linguists cannot see the anomaly in their dating and theories. Using the dating methds accepted by linguists themselves you find that the Mitanni language of 1500 Bc, Avestan and sanskrit of 1200 BC, and Old Persian of 500 BC (Behistun) are so similar that they could be mistaken for dialects of one language. Hardly any change has occurred in these languages in 1000 years from 1500 BC to 500 BC.

But the linguists say that in the short period from 3000 BC to 1500 BC languages as different as Greek and Indo-Aryan languages were created "from PIE" "due to language change" . Then not a lot seems to have changed for 3500 years.

The dating of PIE is likely wrong. It has been dated simply to fit it in with a horse timeline. The horse timeline is almost certainly a bogey. It is far more likely that PIE itself goes back to 10,000 BC or earlier. And I am sure all those earlier horse dates we discussed here are not wrong. The inclusion of the Rig Veda in this dating is utter bullshit. Indo European itself is likely far far older than it is made out to be by linguistic arguments.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Again to get an insight of the working of their minds read the Tower of Babel story. It has similar dichotomies.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13749
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Post by Vayutuvan »

peter wrote: a) Suppose you have two linguists L1 and L2.
Both believe PIE is true.
L1 believes PIE is true and it arose in area x.
L2 believes PIE is true and it arose in area y.
Further constraint is x = !y : this means x and y cannot be true at the same time.

Now let us form a function f(PIE,x,y) = PIE . x + PIE . y
This is same as PIE.x + PIE.(!x)
This is same as PIE.
Why do you need such a long derivation?

One doesn't have to go out of even propositional logic. Given the statement PIE, the statement "PIE iff PIE" is a tautology, i.e. it is has truth value of T irrespective of the truth value of PIE. In other words, what you have done doesn't prove anything.

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the relation between a mathematical theory and the falsifiability criteria of Popper.

A mathematical theory is a set of axioms along with all the theorems which can be derived from these axioms. A requirement for a mathematical theory is consistency, which is defined as 'there is no derivation of the statement "A and !A"'. The the linguists constructed PIE as a mathematical theory, but are claiming that it is a physical (scientific) theory. For it's status to be changed thus, they have to come up with criteria that falsify the theory. They have not done that and I strongly believe that they would not be able to because of the way the theory has been formulated. This remains so even if they satisfy all the questions raised by Prem Kumar ji regarding consistency, repeatability etc. All that is going to do is to confirm it as a mathematical theory.

Another point - refuting PIE is not refuting AIT.

The argument is that "If PIE then AIT". If they need to prove AIT, then they have to show that PIE is TRUE which has not been done. As claimed by Peter ji, !PIE doesn't prove !AIT. But if somebody can prove !AIT, modus tollens (which is same as modus ponens on the contrapositive statement), we get !PIE as a bonus. Not only that we get a whole lot of other refutations. For example, one argument is

horse remains not found in India -> AIT

Firstly the implication itself is not proved. But if !AIT then the implication itself stands disproved.

Here is what I proposed before. The claim is that "PIE is a made up language" which is a true statement and it is a also scientific theory because, firstly there is wide-spread documented evidence of how it is created, and secondly, it has an easy falsifiablity criterion - Find a proto-language from which all the languages of the so called IE family are derived. That said, given that "if PIE then AIT", we won't make any progress in the direction of refuting AIT. On the other hand, if the statement is falsified, the linguists get proof of AIT as a bonus.
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 26 Sep 2012 06:24, edited 1 time in total.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

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

Post by vishvak »

^^^ Shiv ji's post is striking for throwing light on how Western assumptions that are passed of as axioms. For example age of languages and how languages are assumed to change over time. Such assumptions could easily be falsifiable, though that would be just give others some kind of negative credibility which a few western scholars would utilize for usual mud slinging and other time pass.

An example is how Witzel has argued in case of Indus script link where he says that "that Rao et al. did not actually compare the Indus signs with "real-world non-linguistic systems" but rather with "two wholly artificial systems invented by the authors", or link more word play "two wholly artificial systems invented by the authors, one consisting of 200,000 randomly ordered signs and another of 200,000 fully ordered signs". However such liberties are taken by western scholars since hundreds of years even without being answerable.

It is almost funny how some western scholar may say PIE==Sanskrit is not true, thereby meaning that PIE exists, Sanskrit is not as credible as PIE and PIE has more credibility than the beautiful Sanskrit language. It is even more funny that Indians would buy such, thereby dumbing down Indians to the level of mud throwing western scholarship.

Indologists of past could be rejected completely, what with Genetics having calibrated measurements of thousands of years way vast and huge in numbers than artificial limits set during times of European Empires. If I am not mistaken, blood cells have enough DNA info. to reject such limits positively.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

vishvak wrote:^^^ Shiv ji's post is striking for throwing light on how Western assumptions that are passed of as axioms. For example age of languages and how languages are assumed to change over time. Such assumptions could easily be falsifiable, though that would be just give others some kind of negative credibility which a few western scholars would utilize for usual mud slinging and other time pass.

An example is how Witzel has argued in case of Indus script link where he says that "that Rao et al. did not actually compare the Indus signs with "real-world non-linguistic systems" but rather with "two wholly artificial systems invented by the authors", or link more word play "two wholly artificial systems invented by the authors, one consisting of 200,000 randomly ordered signs and another of 200,000 fully ordered signs". However such liberties are taken by western scholars since hundreds of years even without being answerable.

It is almost funny how some western scholar may say PIE==Sanskrit is not true, thereby meaning that PIE exists, Sanskrit is not as credible as PIE and PIE has more credibility than the beautiful Sanskrit language. It is even more funny that Indians would buy such, thereby dumbing down Indians to the level of mud throwing western scholarship.
The biggest problem with theories that linguists have come up with is the idea that "Languages do change, but they may not change much". This statement means that if a language can be shown to have changed (like olde English and modern English), then it is taken as an illustration of the fact that languages change. However, if a language has not changed, like Japanese, this is accepted as an illustration of the fact that languages may not change. So both possibilities exist - namely that language may change, or it may not change. In other words the rate of change of language is unpredictable and the idea that a language has changed or not changed over time is a post facto observation and NOT a prediction.

But what linguists have done is to go right ahead and cook up/create/"reconstruct" a language called PIE and they have also decreed that it did change and they further decree that they know the rate of change because it changed from PIE to Ancient Greek and to the Indo-Iranian of Mitanni in 1000 to 1500 years.

In the case of PIE you have
  • 1. The language itself is imaginary/hypothetical
    2. Its geography is assumed
    3. Its date of origin is assumed.
    4. The idea that it changed and became Sanskrit/Greek is assumed
    5. The rate of change is assumed and fixed by fixing the date of origin and the identity of known languages derived from it.
    6. It's phonology is assumed
In other words everything about PIE is known by simply conjuring up every little detail about PIE.

In contrast you find known languages like Greek and Sanskrit hardly underwent such massive changes in phonology in 3500 years to make them unintelligible. And their dates of origin are unknown. The rate of change in Sanskrit is known to be nearly zero. The rate of change or Greek is not very big for 3500 years. The geography of Vedic Sanskrit is known. The exact geography of Ancient Greek before it came to Crete is unknown, but it gets a place in Greece. The phonology of Sanskrit is perfectly well known. The phonology of ancient Greek is still disputed.

Yet, with all these uncertainties of known and attested languages like Ancient Greek and Vedic Sanskrit you find that the community of linguists who like to describe themselves as scholars have assumed that Greek phonology is perfectly accurate when it is needed for the cooking up of PIE. They assume dates for Ancient Greek and Sanskrit origins when those dates are unknown simply to fit their theories. And they reject the geography of Vedic Sanskrit even when that is well known because it does not fit in with their theories.

Historical linguistics is a massive fraud that is insidiously being passed off as science. It is a modern example of the Piltdown man.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

vishvak wrote:
An example is how Witzel has argued in case of Indus script link where he says that "that Rao et al. did not actually compare the Indus signs with "real-world non-linguistic systems" but rather with "two wholly artificial systems invented by the authors", or link more word play "two wholly artificial systems invented by the authors, one consisting of 200,000 randomly ordered signs and another of 200,000 fully ordered signs". However such liberties are taken by western scholars since hundreds of years even without being answerable.
Witzel is an incredible imbecile

Just watch Rao's TED talk from where I have linked it below and it shows how he has arrived at the conclusion that IVC signs are a script. Witzel's insufferable billion word rhetoric has never reached the scholarly levels that Rao manages to reach in two minutes of his talk. Rao even got hate mail for this. Bloody losers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... aao#t=581s

In fact watch that whole 15 minute TED talk
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

vishvak wrote:
It is almost funny how some western scholar may say PIE==Sanskrit is not true, thereby meaning that PIE exists, Sanskrit is not as credible as PIE and PIE has more credibility than the beautiful Sanskrit language. It is even more funny that Indians would buy such, thereby dumbing down Indians to the level of mud throwing western scholarship.
Vishvak, it is important to remember that PIE was specifically invented as a concept specifically to prove that sanskrit was not anything like the original language. I think most people have missed the significance of this fact.

Here is a repeat of a post I made earlier:

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).
Locked