Questions for those who believe that Aryans came out of India

Jul 2012
3,111
Dhaka
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.
No, it does not follow at all. You seem to be stuck at the idea that all languages have the same grammatical rules as Sanskrit.

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.
How did that commonality come about?
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,464
USA
No, it does not follow at all. You seem to be stuck at the idea that all languages have the same grammatical rules as Sanskrit.



How did that commonality come about?
Dude, I am trying to show you the root word that leads to a word, which is then spread among languages. If you are still stuck with that PIE fad, more power to you.

I have another example for you, perhaps this is even more impressive and drives home the point (unless you are adamant to come out of that PIE fantasy):

PIE English Gothic Latin Ancient Greek Sanskrit Iranian Slavic Baltic Celtic Armenian Albanian Tocharian Hittite

PIE: *dn̥ĝʰuH₂-, *dn̥ĝʰwéH₂
English: "tongue"tongue(< OEtunge)
Gothic: tuggō"tongue
Latin: "lingua"tongue" (archaic dingua)
Ancient Greek:
Sanskrit: jihvā́"tongue" < *ĝiĝʰwā
Iranian: Av hizvā < *ĝiĝʰwā, OPershizān, Parthezβān"tongue"[11]
Slavic: OCS języ-kŭ "tongue" < *n̥ĝʰū-k-
Baltic: OPrusinzuws"tongue", Lithliežuvis"tongue
Celtic: "teng"tongue"; Wtafod"tongue, language
Armenian:
Albanian: "lezu"tongue" (influenced by lizem, "I lick")
Tocharian: A käntu, B kantwo"tongue" (*kantwa< *tankwa)
Hittite:

See those reconstructed PIE words. And here is the real deal:

The Vedic word Jihwa is derived from the root "lih" meaning to taste or to lick. The transformation of the 'l' sound to 'j' sound is already a process that has happened while the word jihwa is formed. It has not derived from either *ĝiĝʰwā or any other root.

To give you an interesting point, the same root lih is the root behind the word lick, and is the same root behind some other Sanskrit words such as lEDi, liDE, etc.., which all mean "lick". It is very important for you to know that the Kannada (supposedly a Dravidian word) word for lick is "nekku", see the l->n transformation.
 
Jul 2012
3,111
Dhaka
Dude, I am trying to show you the root word that leads to a word, which is then spread among languages. If you are still stuck with that PIE fad, more power to you.
I have no inclination either way. I was simply trying to make judgements based on merit, and your argument fails on many counts.

I have another example for you....
No, thank you. If you had a case, you could have made it using your first example.

I am still curious to know your explanation for the commonality among IE languages.
 
Likes: Aupmanyav
Feb 2019
62
Ariaca
PIE is a fraud lol. Sanskrit is mostly related to Persian, Latin, Greek and some east Slavic languagelike Russian and Ukrainian.

I don't see any similarities with North, west and central supposed relationship with those languages seems quite forced to me.
 
i do agree on persian since even the numerals are the same, it may be due to heavy borrowing from the avestan which i think is just a dialect of sanskrit so avestan may be an indo aryan language rather than iranian, i also dont see linguists relating avestan with the present iranian languages, one linguist tried relating avestan with pashto but even that was rejected given pashto's proximity with the indo aryan speaking lands, the linguists seem to be mixing dialects with the separate languages for instance, in urdu we replace the Hindi J with Z which is very similar deviation of indo aryan with iranian, we also replace hindi F with P but urdu is never classified as an iranian language based on iranian influenced dialects?, this doesnt really mean a separate language, my arguments are based on a comment by an indian who knows sanskrit and told me that he can understand avestan completely and avestan seems merely a different sanskrit dialect, if this is true that avestan clearly is an indo aryan language which got its dialect modified as it travelled westwards into iranian plateau.

i dont consider BS like proto indo iranian as well, it seems like a complete BS, either the vedic religion got influenced by the iranian religions, or the vice versa, but both sharing a proto ancestory seems concocted, because there seems to be zero proof, only hypothesis, the avestan geography also matches with the region of indus valley, hilmand, bactria etc, and even during historic periods we know that indian religions ruled that region for a long time in the form of buddhism, hinduism etc, and zoroasterianism is also thought to have originated in the same region. One comment made by shrikant talageri really struck me, he said that avestan geography talks about seven rivers/sapta sindhu as one of the parts of ariana along with parts of afghanistan and bactria, this clearly indicates a common ground and not some proto religion to be honest, since vedic texts have more ancient background and thought to be much older with more antiquity compared with avestan, i think that vedic religion gave birth to iranian religions which gave birth to zoroasterianism later.

it maybe possible that avestan was heavily influenced by sanskrit as we see in leguna copper plate inscriptions, if you follow a certain religion your language is bound to be influenced by the language which is providing those scriptures, so either avestan was heavily influenced by saskritic vocabulary, just like old malay, or avestan was a mere dialect of sanskrit which got corrupted after travelling west. i also fail to understand if avestan and vedic sanskrit have dialectical differences then why are they not declared as proto indo iranian languages?, in some portions of wikipedia i read that vedic sanskrit itself is very close to proto indo aryan language which seems odd since proto indo aryan would be an earlier version of vedic sanskrit and not the proto language itself, then avestan must be proto iranian language itself but its not the case, all this dichotomy doesnt make any sense to me, honestly.

regards
 
Last edited:
even if you count in malay two is dua, in hindi/urdu is do, three is tiga, in hindi/urdu is teen, so these are pretty random things being declared as ''cognates'' why malay tiga is not a cognate of teen when teen can be a cognate of three, tri which is latin etc?

i think that except cognates there is not much supporting evidence of indo european thingy, now blowing this cognate thingy into aryan migration thingy is just making a fantasy. the out of india theory makes more sense due to population and the historically attested migration of the indian people, not to mention, if you are an indian and marry and produce children with the most ''caucasian'' looking european, the baby is still more likely to have dominant indian features than european, so even genetically indian genes have dominance over european genes.

the indo european thingy is mostly because of european interest in european languages, but same has not been done for instance on indian/indo aryan and middle eastern semitic languages, same thing not done with indo aryan and dravidian.

making proto indo european into ancestral south asian is just pushing the patience of a normal human being, as if proto thingy was not enough in linguistics, you need proto thingy in the genetic studies as well, and even ancestoral is not enough, you need ancestor of an ancestor genes, this is nothing but confirmation bias? even archaeology doesnt accept this BS any more.

regards
 
Last edited:

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,380
India
even if you count in malay two is dua, in hindi/urdu is do, three is tiga, in hindi/urdu is teen, so these are pretty random things being declared as ''cognates'' why malay tiga is not a cognate of teen when teen can be a cognate of three, tri which is latin etc?

i think that except cognates there is not much supporting evidence of indo european thingy, now blowing this cognate thingy into aryan migration thingy is just making a fantasy. the out of india theory makes more sense due to population and the historically attested migration of the indian people, not to mention, if you are an indian and marry and produce children with the most ''caucasian'' looking european, the baby is still more likely to have dominant indian features than european, so even genetically indian genes have dominance over european genes.

the indo european thingy is mostly because of european interest in european languages, but same has not been done for instance on indian/indo aryan and middle eastern semitic languages, same thing not done with indo aryan and dravidian.

making proto indo european into ancestral south asian is just pushing the patience of a normal human being, as if proto thingy was not enough in linguistics, you need proto thingy in the genetic studies as well, and even ancestoral is not enough, you need ancestor of an ancestor genes, this is nothing but confirmation bias? even archaeology doesnt accept this BS any more.

regards
Lol, the birth of comparative philology came about due to a scholar noting the similarities between Sanskrit and GREEK. The idea that there hasn't been work on indo-aryan languages in the field of linguistics is beyond absurd. The study of Indo-European languages basically gave birth to the entire discipline.

Oh, and if you must know, Archaeology has been confirming linguistic theory, not refuting it. To the point that Linguistic theory has, atleast in one case, been used to translate a language entirely independent of trans-language prior to the archaeological evidence for it (Hittite). More recently, the evidence for the Migration outside the subcontinent has tended to largely come from archaeological data. The simple fact is that the greatest challengers to the Migration theory within the Indian subcontinent are individuals who are usually competent in neither archaeology nor linguistics, let alone both. Most are only generically familiar with Sanskrit, and don't have the slightest clue about the other Ancient Indo-European languages. This allowed great masters of the Indian Origin theory to come up with arguments such as "Hellenes were the Vedic Alina" and "Phrygians are Bhrigus" which, academically speaking, are about as logical as the Tejo Mahalya and "Vatican is Vatika/Christianity is Krishnaneeti" form of argumentation. Indeed many of the Indian origin proponents are barely competent historians. The only exceptions to this are the likes of BB Lal, who despite his enormous original contributions, is nonetheless severely discredited, especially since most of his "conclusions" about the Migration have tended to come long after his move away from active archaeology and its inability to stand up to any sort of peer review (there's a reason most of his arguments come about in news articles and online ppts rather than in journals). @EternalWay has in the past done a fantastic job of covering the archaeological context to much of this (far better than I've done, given my overall lack of expertise in the subject)

In contrast, the scholarship of the Migration studies spans a massive geographic panorama. The "notable Indian" academics among them, such as Romila Thapar, are infact among the least qualified among the vast discipline of Indo-Europeanists, given their specialization in pure history which gives them credentials when dealing with ancient literature, but almost none in the fields of archaeology or linguistics. How do I know this? Because the training of an Indian historian simply does not, and never has covered these topics even in passing. Indian historians tend to be experts of reading languages, but their understanding of basic archaeological practice and linguistic theory is null. Only rare exceptions such as Nayanjot Lahiri exist, and most of these are self taught.

The ASI does have a degree of competency, but it is in basic archaeological practice. The sad fact is that many Indian archaeologists do not receive comprehensive scientific training, and this is because the number of students who first do science and then migrate to fields such as Archaeology are negligible. The absence of large or well funded departments of archaeology in Indian Universities, and the overwhelming administrative burden on the ASI also contributes to the relatively poor training of Indian Archaeologists in trans-regional and multispectrum subjects. They are more than competent at uncovering, preserving and doing basic analyses of Indus Valley, Janpada or any other Ancient site. But after that, their ability to properly analyse and disseminate research is deeply suspect. Beyond their ability to make fancy statements to clueless journalists, they often can't progress. The ASI has often been unable to have their findings stand up to Peer Scrutiny. For example, consider the studies of Pre-Literary Ancient Iron cultures in East India. These are a major find, arguably even more significant than most present day IVC finds. Why? Because they suggest industrial grade Iron production (ie mass production, not meteoric iron, but mined. Industrial does NOT mean Modern Industrial Age levels) centuries before Iron becomes widespread in Central Asia. This would suggest that the cradle of Ironworking was NOT infact the ME, but arguably the Subcontinent.

You know how many papers have come of this in the last decade or so? Less than 3 so far as I know. Not more than 5. Our ability to validate, explore and properly contextualize these ridiculously important finds is crippled by shortages of training, expertise and funds. Beyond the occasional self taught or internationally trained scholar and the energetic individual at a place like Deccan College, our Archaeologists are in dire straits, much worse off than our historians. And that's saying something, since the social sciences in India in general are in a serious crisis. So far as I can tell, ASI spends more money maintaining the Taj and Red Fort than the entirety of its exploration and academic budget.

There is a reason the "Indian debate" is given absolutely zero attention outside our country. Not only is too enmeshed in politics, but is driven by fundamentally uneducated and contextually illiterate people on both sides. When a Hindu Journalist and Aakar Patel are the leading voices on the Migration Debate at present, it speaks to the lack of academic depth on the issue. One of the tragedies I have come across over the course of my training in history, is how poorly equipped and trained we as historians are. And our poor training leads to even poorer training among lay people. The simple fact is, and I feel terrible for saying it since I have been such an Active Participant myself, almost the entirety of Indian discourse on the Migration theory is fundamentally idiotic. It is driven by people (on BOTH sides) without even a generally passing understanding of non-Indian archaeology or languages and of specializations such as Linguistics. There's a reason that increasingly most academics don't even bother with it. For the moment, there's simply nothing new to be said, and the cutting edge of new data is being driven by people who are very poorly equipped to study the data they unearth, which has slowed to a near crawl the study of the subject as a whole. It doesn't help that despite all these flaws, India is actually the leader as far as archaeology goes in this part of the world! Atleast some research is happening here, in contrast to places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan where its practically against the law to study the Harappans, and excavating pre-Islamic sites (and sometimes even Islamic ones) carries with it the potential of you going boom instead of rocks.
 
Last edited:

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,380
India
In continuation due to Word Limits:

The shorthand to my position is simply this. We can rage and complain about American and European domination of our thought processes as much as we want. But have we ever considered by there are over a hundred American and European Universities which not only look at their own history but also Indian history. We in contrast, don't have more than 2/3 departments of "African Studies" or European or American studies, and even those are tiny institutions. Our Departments of History, Sociology, Economics - they simply don't bother with Non-Indian and related subjects for the most part. In contrast, even non-top tier American Universities (so not Ivy league, but places such as the numerous campuses of the University of California, which are excellent universities but don't have the name recognition of Princeton or Harvard or Yale) will have relatively large and competent faculties dedicated to Indian History. And not JUST Indian History, but histories of Africa, the Middle East, The Far East, Latin America... the world as a whole. You know how many historians specializing in non-Indian History we have in the Universities of Delhi, JNU, AMU, Jamia Milia Islamia, BHU, Ashoka and Jindal (These are literally the cream of the crop in our subject) we have? Less than in a single faculty of any major American University you can think off. Doesn't even have to be Princeton. Pick up UC Davis. Or UTexas at Austin. Or UMichigan at Ann Arbor!

The fact is, we aren't nearly as good as we'd like to think we are. And this isn't about blind subservience to the west. There are cogent reasons and explanations for our flaws and shortcomings, though only some of them are outside our control. The rampant anti-intellectualism that runs through our country is as much to blame as our political apathy and academic corruption. This thread is an amazing example of how poorly informed we all are. I am not standing outside of this community as I blame it. I'm part of this! But everytime I see someone post on this thread about how the "theories" of non-indians are "nonsense" all I feel is a deep well of pity. In our determination to throw out our colonial vestiges, we appear to have adopted the blind centrism and insular outlook that lay at the core of colonialist and imperialist thinking! So determined are we to toss out our "Western Masters" who we absolutely know are clueless about the facts we hold forth on (while we ourselves don't have a single person who could speak Latin or Greek, while we challenge Europeans and Americans who speak Sanskrit as fluently as any of us) that we don't consider that we're simply chaining ourselves to new masters, rather than emancipating ourselves.

I have zero expectations that my rant here will change any opinions on this thread. Heck I realized long ago that opinions aren't altered on this forum (and honestly, I haven't seen mine alter except in a single instance where I was initially convinced that some posters were on the money when they argued that Indian Historical chronology has been foreshortened, but later realized they were batshit). Its just something I've wanted to articulate, especially after reading EternalWay's excellent questions, which as far as I can tell still haven't been answered. And won't be, as they will be drowned in a continuous exchange of inanities and barbs, as has been the case of literally EVERY OTHER thread on this subject as well. And there have been so many now that it really is beyond pointless to even list them. Between this, and the seemingly endless "Who does the IVC belong too" nationalism, I can't decide which debate is more fruitless.
 
Lol, the birth of comparative philology came about due to a scholar noting the similarities between Sanskrit and GREEK. The idea that there hasn't been work on indo-aryan languages in the field of linguistics is beyond absurd. The study of Indo-European languages basically gave birth to the entire discipline.

Oh, and if you must know, Archaeology has been confirming linguistic theory, not refuting it.
and what archaeological evidence has been presented to back up the aryan migration theory? im not talking about other linguistic theories, but specifically aryan migration theories, if aryan migration theory is indeed true then what makes european linguistic scholars not able to decipher the indus script based on dravidian language. Aryan migration theory is a joke, and a lot of crap was concocted during colonial times as well, i dont really see the point of indo european theories as well, as i have already mentioned why the dua of malay cannot be cognate with do of hindi/ urdu while two can be a cognate, this is nothing but pick and choose method where you pick and choose and declare it cognate where ever you want, why is indian lipi not declared cognate with persian dipi, why it is declared a ''borrowing'' you see entire linguistics depends on a pre defined assumption and the assumption that there was no writing system in india before ashoka and hence panini borrowing the word dipi and converting into lipi since he was an achaemenid subject, it is also declared that panini was a persian citizen, based on this assumption even though none of his texts minutely talk about the persians or their presence. i recommend you read the analysis by SS Misra, and his comments of mittani script, the study of mitanni text alone debunks the aryan scenrio in the first place, where evidences of prakrit innovations has been found already, which means that prakrit was already spoken at the period of the mitannis, archaeological evidence of mitannis doesnt agree with the dating of indo aryan migration, the archaeology/geological studies of saraswati river also doesnt agree with aryan migration as well, kamarupa sanskrit inscriptions in assam has also revealed prakrit presence revealing prakrit was spoken in assam at a period when there are nothing but sanskrit inscription based on the analysis, which really backs up prakrit presence in india based on the analysis of sanskrit inscriptions of the mitannis. regarding hittites, again you should read SS Misra comments on that as well which will explain everything. I do agree that there is a certain ''hindu nationalist'' factor when it comes to linguistic studies in india, but it is also true that arguments by indian scholars have been rejected merely based on ''hindu nationalism'', for instance the discovery of bhit dwarka script has not been accepted, the discovery of tamil brahmi from sixth century BC is also not accepted and ''rejected'', similarities between indo aryan and dravidian proposed by Harmatta is also rejected, one sees a particular trend where populist linguistic research goes, in a particular direction where majority of linguists want it to go, imposing a particular narrative and rejecting which doesnt suit their agendas.

regards
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions