Questions for those who believe that Aryans came out of India

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,484
USA
#51
My objection is based on geographic grounds. My saying "Out-of-India," you give the impression that the entirety of the Indian subcontinent was the Aryan homeland, when in fact even the so-called OIT posits only Sapta-Sindhu as the Aryan homeland (since that is where the early Vedas are situated). This means that you still need to account for how Indo-Aryan cultural and linguistic expansion occurred in the 90% of India that lies outside of Sapta-Sindhu.
What I said is that your objection is applicable to many other terms that are not true in reality. Yes, OIT mainly posits movement from the Saraswati region. Yes, it is also true that one needs to explain how their influence covered 90% of India.

No one claimed that English would be closer to Sanskrit than Kannada (or any other heavily Sanskritized Dravidian language). The point is that even after thousands of years of Sanskritic influence on Kannada and other Dravidian languages, the difference between Kannada and Sanskrit is still far greater than the difference between Sanskrit and ancient Iranian languages. What this demonstrates is that mere cultural and religious influence cannot account for the Indo-Aryan expansion throughout Eurasia, because even if Vedic Hindus had some great cultural and religious influence throughout Eurasia (for which there is absolutely no evidence), the most that we could expect from such influence is a Sanskritized language like Kannada. It cannot explain the wholesale replacement of pre-existing languages and the emergence of Iranic and other Indo-European languages throughout western and central Asia.
From my reading of the Rig Veda, I understand that the geography that the Vedic people were aware of extended from Ganga till Rasa (in Iran). It is perfectly possible that the dialects around these areas were much closer to Vedic than the dialects that were spread to the South of India. How is it possible that some basic words such as "bAla" for tail in Kannada ("vAl" in Tamil) is a direct correlation with vAra of Rig Veda? These words are in no way a later Sanskrit influence. There are so many other words including pronouns that seem to have correlation with Vedic. This cannot be by chance. So it seems to be that there could have been two waves of Sanskrit influence, one the more recent classical Sanskrit influence, and one may be a distant split from Vedic. What you see as closeness of ancient Iranian languages to Vedic is because:

a. They belonged to the same sphere of Vedic civilization, although far from the center, leaving enough scope for change in dialects.
b. The words that they share belong to a superset of words from Vedic that also has words shared by other languages of India.

Do you think the European languages share the same closeness with Vedic as much as ancient Iranian languages do? If not, why? How are they different in being different from Vedic as compared to South Indian languages?

What languages are you talking about? I am not aware of any Dravidian languages existing "in the heartland of Indo-Aryan languages." Dravidian languages in the northern half of the subcontinent only exist in peripheral areas, such as the Brahui in Balochistan (western Pakistan), and they are heavily influenced by their neighbors. It's also likely that they are recent migrants, rather than the remnants of some ancient Dravidian population.
What about Kurukh and Malto?

You are simply shifting the goalposts.
When did I shift goalposts?

1. If the split between the Vedic and Southern languages happened "further back in time," how do you propose that initial expansion took place? How was it qualitatively different from the later Aryan expansion?
My proposal is that there must have been dialects of Vedic spoken in a distant past throughout India. While the center of the development of language of what we now know as Chandas might have happened in Saraswati region, and there must have been reduced contact with other groups. This reduced contact helped those dialects diverge significantly from Vedic. That is not surprising because in a later wave of Sanskritization, most of the Southern languages developed their grammar based on Sanskrit grammar (including Tamil). You may want to find how and why Persian grammar retained it's elements even after Arabian influence. How did a long Islamic rule not change the grammar of Indian languages?

2. If the Aryans had already expanded throughout India in the past, why didn't they demonstrate any basic awareness of the larger Indian subcontinent in the early Vedas? In the Classical Hindu epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana, there is a clear awareness of the Indian subcontinent as a wider entity. Where is the awareness in the early Vedas? Why don't we have mentions of regions like Bengal, Kalinga, or Andhra in the Rig Veda, if the people who wrote Rig Veda had already spread their languages throughout India?
Europe is one of the most fertile continents in the world, and Mediterranean Europe in particular (which received the heaviest migrant flow from Fertile Crescent) has hosted dense agrarian populations since antiquity. In contrast, central Asia and eastern Iran have never been densely-populated by agrarian populations at any point in history, as environmental conditions have not permitted the creation of an enduring agrarian civilization in this area. The peoples who successfully spread their languages throughout the central Asian region, such as the Turkic peoples, could do so because they were highly warlike, nomadic, horse-riding peoples, and they were not looking for farmlands.
People migrate for variety of reasons, some being:

1. Getting ousted in power struggle
2. Population explosion
3. More fertile areas
4. Geographical events
5. Trade contacts

If Fertile Crescent had developed agriculture (and actually the one that introduced agriculture to Europe), and the destination being fertile than the source is the only criteria, there was no need to move. However, as I mentioned above, people move for variety of reasons.

The case of Mitanni is proof against OSST, not proof in favor of it, because the Mitanni expansion was not accompanied by any linguistic shift whatsoever. In fact, it was the Mitanni themselves who adopted the local Hurrian language. Thus, wherever the Mitanni came from and whatever the Mitanni were doing, it was insufficient to explain the kind of transformation that we see throughout Eurasia by Indo-Europeans. The nature of the Indo-European expansion must necessarily be far above and beyond the Mitanni expansion. Moreover, unlike in the Middle East, the steppes of central Asia already had horses and chariots for centuries. Do you propose that it was Indo-Aryans who introduced horses and chariots to the peoples of central Asia?
The only documents available for Mitanni is enough proof that the sacred language was indeed Aryan. The distance between European languages and Vedic is a close indicator of the weaker reach of laws governing language, and that is how new dialects and languages form. Whether Steppes had horses and chariots before or not, the words Ashva and Ratha are definitely Vedic in origin. There is no second thought about it.


If Indo-Aryans had dominated all of central Eurasia and spread their languages throughout this region, we should certainly expect to see religious traditions directly derived from Vedic religions in this area (as opposed to simply sharing a common ancestor with Vedic religion). Where is the evidence of such religious traditions?
Common ancestry is only a parlance of recent scholarship. Dyau + visarga + pati becomes Dyaushpati in a Sandhi. There is no independent word called Dyaush or Dyaus. See how Zeus retains that end 's' sound. Where is the origin of this word? Dyau is the original word, Zeus is the corrupted form. It is not some ancestor language with a third form that gave rise to Dyau and Zeus. The origin of the pagan cultural traditions of Iran and Europe are in India.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,429
India
#52
Indo-European migration to India seems pre-Harappan and pre-Mehrgarh, most likely they came to India through Iranian border regions.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,376
New Delhi, India
#53
Aryans were hovering around Suleiman Mountains for centuries, the mountains which separate Afghanistan and Pakistan. There was a lot of criss-crossing. Area around Merv (Margiana), the tri-junction of Turkemenistan, Iran and Afghanistan was known to Greek historians as 'Ariana' or 'Areia' in Alexander's time. (Afghan Airline is still known as Ariana).The Yaz Depe Culture is dated around 1,500 BCE. Therefore, it is not possible that Aryans came at the time of Mehrgarh or IVC. They came to India later.

livius.jpg Aria.jpg
 
Last edited:

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,113
Australia
#54
You keep posting rubbish, unwanted pictures and meaningless rants, and expect me to feed you with the information you want to read? Go get a basic education of Indian literature and then talk.

I told Avestan and Vedic are in reality not two sibling languages, but Avestan is Vedic language itself in a distorted form. So it makes no sense saying Avestan is close to Vedic, and Tamil is not. A more meaningful comparison would be to take German and Tamil, and compare them to Vedic.

As I said, your posts are not worth the bytes used.
" Avestan is vedic language " ... yet ... " it makes no sense saying Avestan is close to Vedic "

Riiiiight !
 

civfanatic

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
3,308
Des Moines, Iowa
#57
From my reading of the Rig Veda, I understand that the geography that the Vedic people were aware of extended from Ganga till Rasa (in Iran). It is perfectly possible that the dialects around these areas were much closer to Vedic than the dialects that were spread to the South of India. How is it possible that some basic words such as "bAla" for tail in Kannada ("vAl" in Tamil) is a direct correlation with vAra of Rig Veda? These words are in no way a later Sanskrit influence. There are so many other words including pronouns that seem to have correlation with Vedic. This cannot be by chance. So it seems to be that there could have been two waves of Sanskrit influence, one the more recent classical Sanskrit influence, and one may be a distant split from Vedic.
If a word in Dravidian languages bears a similarity to a Sanskrit word, there are two possibilities:

1. It is a loanword of Sanskrit or Old Indo-Aryan origin, and is either a tatsama or tadbhava.
2. Both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian borrowed a similar word from a third language group in India, such as Austro-Asiatic, Para-Munda, or some ancient extinct language.

It would be interesting if you could point out any Indo-European language outside the Indian subcontinent that has a word cognate with "vara" (tail). If no such cognates exist, then #2 would be more likely, especially since you believe that Indo-Aryans were the root of all Indo-European languages.


Do you think the European languages share the same closeness with Vedic as much as ancient Iranian languages do? If not, why? How are they different in being different from Vedic as compared to South Indian languages?
European languages were not part of Hindu/Indic civilization, so they would not have received any direct influence from Sanskrit. On the other hand, Dravidian languages were part of Hindu civilization for thousands of years and were thus heavily influenced by Sanskrit. Yet in spite of being influenced by Sanskrit for thousands of years, modern-day Dravidian languages still do not bear anywhere near the degree of similarity to Vedic as ancient Iranian languages do.

By the way, even modern Persian is still much closer to Sanskrit in its core vocabulary (such as numbers) than Dravidian languages, even though Iranian languages diverged from Indo-Aryan over 4000 years ago and Persians are Muslims (with significant Arabic influence in vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation) rather than Hindus. Here are the numbers 1-10 in Sanskrit, Persian, and Kannada:

Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan):
1 - ekam
2 - dve
3 - treeni
4 - chatvari
5 - pancha
6 - shat
7 - sapta
8 - ashta
9 - nava
10 - dasa

Persian (Iranian):
1 - yek
2 - do
3 - seh
4 - chahar
5 - panj
6 - shesh
7 - haft
8 - hasht
9 - noh
10 - dah

Kannada (Dravidian):
1 - ondu
2 - eradu
3 - muru
4 - nalku
5 - aidu
6 - aru
7 - elu
8 - entu
9 - ombattu
10 - hattu

I would be delighted to hear your learned opinion on this.



What about Kurukh and Malto?
They are fairly small tribal languages located in peripheral regions of the Indo-Aryan linguistic zone. The heartland of Indo-Aryan languages would be the central Indo-Gangetic plains, which includes areas like Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, and this area is devoid of Dravidian languages.



My proposal is that there must have been dialects of Vedic spoken in a distant past throughout India. While the center of the development of language of what we now know as Chandas might have happened in Saraswati region, and there must have been reduced contact with other groups. This reduced contact helped those dialects diverge significantly from Vedic. That is not surprising because in a later wave of Sanskritization, most of the Southern languages developed their grammar based on Sanskrit grammar (including Tamil). You may want to find how and why Persian grammar retained it's elements even after Arabian influence. How did a long Islamic rule not change the grammar of Indian languages?
Grammar can be heavily influenced by foreign languages, depending on the cultural orientation of the elites of a society. English, for example, has heavy French influence in both its vocabulary and grammar due to the Norman French domination after the 11th century. Ottoman Turkish, the elite language of the Ottoman Empire, was heavily influenced by Arabic and Persian vocabulary and grammar because Turkish elites looked to those languages as models. Likewise, in the case of South India, Dravidian languages were heavily influenced by Sanskrit because South Indians looked towards Sanskrit as a model. Islamic rule did not have much impact on the vocabulary and grammar of Indian languages because most Indian elites remained Hindus and remained oriented towards Sanskritic models. Indian Muslims, on the other hand, were culturally oriented towards Arabic and Persian, and so we see a lot of Arabic and Persian influence on the literary Urdu/Hindustani used by Indian Muslim elites (as opposed to literary Hindi, which remained Sanskritic in orientation).

You also did not respond to the following question:

If the Aryans had already expanded throughout India in the past, why didn't they demonstrate any basic awareness of the larger Indian subcontinent in the early Vedas? In the Classical Hindu epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana, there is a clear awareness of the Indian subcontinent as a wider entity. Where is the awareness in the early Vedas? Why don't we have mentions of regions like Bengal, Kalinga, or Andhra in the Rig Veda, if the people who wrote Rig Veda had already spread their languages throughout India?


People migrate for variety of reasons, some being:

1. Getting ousted in power struggle
2. Population explosion
3. More fertile areas
4. Geographical events
5. Trade contacts
Sure, there are numerous reasons why people would migrate away from a particular region, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about motivations for migrating to a particular region. It doesn't make any sense for a civilized, sedentary people based in the Indus Valley region to migrate into the barren steppes of central Asia or the deserts of eastern Iran. Why didn't Indians in the entirety of recorded history migrate to central Asia or Iran? There were no shortages of power struggles and population explosions in Indian history.


The only documents available for Mitanni is enough proof that the sacred language was indeed Aryan. The distance between European languages and Vedic is a close indicator of the weaker reach of laws governing language, and that is how new dialects and languages form. Whether Steppes had horses and chariots before or not, the words Ashva and Ratha are definitely Vedic in origin. There is no second thought about it.
I am not denying that the Mitanni's native or sacred language was Aryan. The point is that no one adopted their language. It was the Hurrian language, not the Mitanni Aryan language, which dominated in that region. The Mitanni expansion or migration was not accompanied by any linguistic shift or expansion, unlike the cases of Anglo-Saxons in Britain, Arabs in Egypt, and Turks in Anatolia. Do you understand what I am saying?


Common ancestry is only a parlance of recent scholarship. Dyau + visarga + pati becomes Dyaushpati in a Sandhi. There is no independent word called Dyaush or Dyaus. See how Zeus retains that end 's' sound. Where is the origin of this word? Dyau is the original word, Zeus is the corrupted form. It is not some ancestor language with a third form that gave rise to Dyau and Zeus. The origin of the pagan cultural traditions of Iran and Europe are in India.
The PIE form was probably something like "Dyēus Pətḗr." The Greek form was Zeu Pater (cf. Latin Jupiter), with Zeus being the nominative form.

In your view, what are the salient features of the Vedic religion?
 
Likes: specul8

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,484
USA
#58
If a word in Dravidian languages bears a similarity to a Sanskrit word, there are two possibilities:

1. It is a loanword of Sanskrit or Old Indo-Aryan origin, and is either a tatsama or tadbhava.
2. Both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian borrowed a similar word from a third language group in India, such as Austro-Asiatic, Para-Munda, or some ancient extinct language.

It would be interesting if you could point out any Indo-European language outside the Indian subcontinent that has a word cognate with "vara" (tail). If no such cognates exist, then #2 would be more likely, especially since you believe that Indo-Aryans were the root of all Indo-European languages.
Fair points. The word for tail in Greek is
ourá

You must have already seen a word called Varuna which becomes Ouranos in Greek. Do you see a similarity in transformation? Varuna is derived from the root "vr" , and you must now know that the Vedic word is the original word. On similar lines, the Greek word for tail is a transformation of Vedic "vAra" as much as Kannada "bAla" is. So both your points 1 and 2 go out the window. Tatsama is a word that directly comes from Sanskrit to South Indian languages, while Tadbhava is if the word is derived from Prakrit. These terms typically apply to words borrowed in the second wave of Sanskritization (supposedly the first according to current opinion, and that is wrong).

European languages were not part of Hindu/Indic civilization, so they would not have received any direct influence from Sanskrit. On the other hand, Dravidian languages were part of Hindu civilization for thousands of years and were thus heavily influenced by Sanskrit. Yet in spite of being influenced by Sanskrit for thousands of years, modern-day Dravidian languages still do not bear anywhere near the degree of similarity to Vedic as ancient Iranian languages do.
That is not the way I look at it. People speaking Iranian languages were the ones to the far West of India, and at the point of their departure would have taken a certain subset of characteristics of the Vedic language, and that included the grammar, the words used in sacred hymns, etc.. On the other hand, the words that are from Vedic in South Indian languages are probably at even more ancient times. The isolation of these areas from the core area where the grammar and poetry further developed was long enough for these languages to diverge. But the second wave of Sanskritization brought in the words, grammar and other aspects that were more from Classical Sanskrit.

By the way, even modern Persian is still much closer to Sanskrit in its core vocabulary (such as numbers) than Dravidian languages, even though Iranian languages diverged from Indo-Aryan over 4000 years ago and Persians are Muslims (with significant Arabic influence in vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation) rather than Hindus. Here are the numbers 1-10 in Sanskrit, Persian, and Kannada:

Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan):
1 - exam
2 - dve
3 - treeni
4 - chatvari
5 - pancha
6 - shat
7 - sapta
8 - ashta
9 - nava
10 - dasa

Persian (Iranian):
1 - yek
2 - do
3 - seh
4 - chair
5 - panj
6 - shesh
7 - haft
8 - hasht
9 - noh
10 - dah

Kannada (Dravidian):
1 - ondu
2 - eradu
3 - muru
4 - nalku
5 - aidu
6 - aru
7 - elu
8 - entu
9 - ombattu
10 - hattu

I would be delighted to hear your learned opinion on this.
[\QUOTE]

With the background I have explained before, the numbers are a major departure. I have not been able to find out the exact correlation between the numbers in Vedic and Kannada. However, I believe Kannada "Entu" has its origin in Vedic "Ashta", and there is an Avestan word "Oyum" that means one. I need to see if it has relation to Kannada "Ondu", and what is the Vedic equivalent of that. My conjecture for Kannada Aidu (5) is that is derived from Vedic "Pancha", for the Tamil equivalent is "Anji" (Could be a loss of 'p', and cha changing to ja). But I admit it needs deeper analysis.

But numbers are not everything. What about pronouns, some animals, objects, etc.. that bear such remarkable similarity between Vedic and South Indian languages? And these words are currently classified as pure Dravidian.



They are fairly small tribal languages located in peripheral regions of the Indo-Aryan linguistic zone. The heartland of Indo-Aryan languages would be the central Indo-Gangetic plains, which includes areas like Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, and this area is devoid of Dravidian languages.
Kurukh and Malto are spoken in regions where they speak Aryan languages, in places like Chattisgarh. How is that not Aryan?

Grammar can be heavily influenced by foreign languages, depending on the cultural orientation of the elites of a society. English, for example, has heavy French influence in both its vocabulary and grammar due to the Norman French domination after the 11th century. Ottoman Turkish, the elite language of the Ottoman Empire, was heavily influenced by Arabic and Persian vocabulary and grammar because Turkish elites looked to those languages as models. Likewise, in the case of South India, Dravidian languages were heavily influenced by Sanskrit because South Indians looked towards Sanskrit as a model. Islamic rule did not have much impact on the vocabulary and grammar of Indian languages because most Indian elites remained Hindus and remained oriented towards Sanskritic models. Indian Muslims, on the other hand, were culturally oriented towards Arabic and Persian, and so we see a lot of Arabic and Persian influence on the literary Urdu/Hindustani used by Indian Muslim elites (as opposed to literary Hindi, which remained Sanskritic in orientation).
That is the question you need to answer. Why did the South Indians not use Arabiic or Persian for their grammar, or perhaps even English? The reason is probably that orientation was already there with Sanskrit. And to begin with why were the South Indians inclined to use Sanskrit as their model? Per your own theory, they were sufficiently advanced in everything.

You also did not respond to the following question:

If the Aryans had already expanded throughout India in the past, why didn't they demonstrate any basic awareness of the larger Indian subcontinent in the early Vedas? In the Classical Hindu epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana, there is a clear awareness of the Indian subcontinent as a wider entity. Where is the awareness in the early Vedas? Why don't we have mentions of regions like Bengal, Kalinga, or Andhra in the Rig Veda, if the people who wrote Rig Veda had already spread their languages throughout India?
I'm sorry, I missed out on that. As I explained before, the divergence of South Indians from North Indians must have happened in the hoary past even before the literary works happened by which time there was isolation. Ramayana and Mahabharata were "written" by the time the second wave of Sanskritization had occurred.


Sure, there are numerous reasons why people would migrate away from a particular region, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about motivations for migrating to a particular region. It doesn't make any sense for a civilized, sedentary people based in the Indus Valley region to migrate into the barren steppes of central Asia or the deserts of eastern Iran. Why didn't Indians in the entirety of recorded history migrate to central Asia or Iran? There were no shortages of power struggles and population explosions in Indian history.
Why would civilized, sedentary people not migrate? If the people went out because of trade reasons, some people must have liked to stay. How else would we find Kannada words in Greek play from early CE? While you are claiming that steppes were barren, and Eastern Iran was all about deserts, I hear that agriculture came from Zagros in Iran, and people claim that Steppes were very advanced and what not. Is it like "anything for the sake of pet theories"?

I am not denying that the Mitanni's native or sacred language was Aryan. The point is that no one adopted their language. It was the Hurrian language, not the Mitanni Aryan language, which dominated in that region. The Mitanni expansion or migration was not accompanied by any linguistic shift or expansion, unlike the cases of Anglo-Saxons in Britain, Arabs in Egypt, and Turks in Anatolia. Do you understand what I am saying?
It depends on what state the original population was in.

The PIE form was probably something like "Dyēus Pətḗr." The Greek form was Zeu Pater (cf. Latin Jupiter), with Zeus being the nominative form.

In your view, what are the salient features of the Vedic religion?
No, that PIE form is fake. The true form is "Dyau" + "visarga" + "Pita". There is no 's' ending without the visarga, and that too happens in a sandhi.

The most salient feature of the Vedic religion is "Yajnya" and "Satya". Yajnya came in different forms, and sacrifice in fire is one of the forms and is physical. That is precisely the reason why "deepa" and "Arati" are very fundamental to Hindu worship.

More later. But you brought up very good points.
 

Similar History Discussions