Questions for those who believe that Aryans came out of India

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,464
USA
Aryan didn't come in india, they didn't go outside india, but if there was a more realistic fantasy, it would definitely be aryans going outside india, since india is more populated and more dense, so indians are expected to migrate to areas of lesser population, the migration of northern people into india just doesnt make any sense, even if they migrate, they will just dissolve into a mighty population and wont make any impact on the indian gene pool, on the other hand, if indians migrate, they are more likely to dent the gene pool of europe because of their bigger numbers, the historic migrations of indian people to europe has also been well attested, for instance migration of the roma people, the roma people still preserve their language even after more than thousand years, they didn't convert the europeans into speaking indian language, neither did they convert christian europe into hindu europe, infact they themselves embraced christianity, to expect that a few european barbarians migrated to india and converted such a large population to speak their language and believe in their vedic religion who were far superior in civilization and culture which is likely to convert then be converted is just a fantasy worse than out of india theory which is historically attested. To add icing on the cake, the change is due to migrations and not even invasions, on one hand we have kushans, mughals, turkic invaders invading india and failing to change indian language into turkic and on the other hand we have few migrants who drastically change dravidian speak indians into indo europeans, and suddenly coming to india and giving birth to the vedas. the theory has run its course andhas become a stinking pile of crap and needs to be discarded as there is no colonialism any more. Aryans migrated to India and started composing vedas, Aryans migrated to west asia and started writing manuals on how to train horses, went to persia and started composing avesta while their european cousins didn't get civilized for more than three thousand years until romans intervened, it seems like either aryans were super humans or their cousins in present day europe were so inferior and low quality race.

regards
Good post, and nice points. But it is evident that some languages share a lot of common words, grammar and such. Should we assume that there was a single point of origination or should we assume that the whole geographical area had people using the language?
 
Likes: prashanth
Good post, and nice points. But it is evident that some languages share a lot of common words, grammar and such. Should we assume that there was a single point of origination or should we assume that the whole geographical area had people using the language?
same arguments can be made every where, if the two words share the sounds and meaning, doesnt mean that they are derived from a same root, for instance in english its oil, in tamil the word for semase oil is illu, the semitic/arabic word for table is tabla, same is the case with indo aryan, tabal, tabal word for the drum instrument is first attested in an indian document from assam so tabla word didn't derive from the semitic word tabal. the same case can be made for magan which is the word which was used for present day makran, magan is attested in sumerian documents and then also in persian documents much after supposed ''aryan migration'' and then a thousand years later, varahamihira mentions the word ''makara'' for makran, so this linguistic case can be made that magan, makan, makara are the same words and hence proving indo aryan language since sumerian times. Michael witzel compares the satta word in the indo aryan inscription of mittani with senti which is hurrian and a language isolate just because satta is a prakrit word and not sanskrit which doesnt make sense comparing two seemingly totally different languages, a lot of parallels can be made between sanskrit and dravidian as well and has been made by a hungarian linguist Harmatta, but this was rejected by european scholars which in my opinion solely because it negated their indo european thingy, i think that all languages have a common origin, since common sense says that humans came from a single pair of human beings. there are also a lot of similarity between the art works from the stone age from lets say bhimbhetka caves and the ones in mesoamerica, so i think that humanity was connected long time ago and hence the linguistic similarities.

regards
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,036
Australia
Aryan didn't come in india .... the change is due to migrations and not even invasions,
You seem confused ... didnt go there , ... did go there ?

.... a stinking pile of crap and needs to be discarded a .... their cousins in present day europe were so inferior and low quality race.

regards
Makes rude racial insults then .... signs off with " Regards" .

:smirk:
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,036
Australia
Good post, and nice points. ....
So you see a post that says Aryans never went to India, then says they did migrate there and also says that present day Eropeans are a low quality race and an inferior race is a good post ... with " nice points "

Well , that certainly 'let the cat out of the bag' !
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,464
USA
So you see a post that says Aryans never went to India, then says they did migrate there and also says that present day Eropeans are a low quality race and an inferior race is a good post ... with " nice points "

Well , that certainly 'let the cat out of the bag' !
Well, the gist of his post as I understood was that we need not assume migration/invasion for explaining language similarities. Perhaps the connection was more ancient and that the language was spread across a wider area.

Please hold the cat lest it disappears!
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,464
USA
You expect PIE to follow grammatical rules of Sanskrit? Roots don't need to be a verb (or even a word) in most languages.
May be, but in Vedic most words have a verb root. And we are after all talking about the IE languages, of which Vedic is one of the oldest (in my books the oldest). The reconstructed PIE is a joke.
 
Likes: prashanth

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,464
USA
But it's predecessor language didn't need to have verbs as root.


Explain what you understand to be IE languages.
hana is the root of hima. Obviously some other mumbo jumbo can't be its root. So it follows that the predecessor language you theorize is wrong.

IE languages are languages of Eurasia that share:

1. A large basic vocabulary
2. Many aspects of grammar
3. Some elements of religious vocabulary at least in the ancient forms.
 

Similar History Discussions