Rigveda on Conquest of India by Vedic Aryans.

Status
Closed

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,579
USA
Yes, the pattern is your complete ignorance not only of linguistics, but of the underlying principles - such as falsifiability and predictability. Essentially, you're a villager with an internet connection. You're welcome.
On display is your arrogance if anything. I am happy to be a villager than to be a city dweller who is in a bubble of self imposed authority. I would much rather go with traditional root words than with non-existing and incorrect PIE.

And no, I do not consider linguistics to be any science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devdas and Kamayani
Mar 2013
1,040
Breakdancing on the Moon.
On display is your arrogance if anything. I am happy to be a villager than to be a city dweller who is in a bubble of self imposed authority. I would much rather go with traditional root words than with non-existing and incorrect PIE.

And no, I do not consider linguistics to be any science.
Nobody cares what you consider. As I say, there is an obvious level of predictability and falsifiability here. That you don't understand the importance of that is, frankly, blinding.

Are you not a little ashamed? God, I would be. There is nothing arrogant in my position. It is simply sticking to the common sense scientific method that gave us modernity and civilisation.

Your position is arrogant beyond all comprehension.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,985
India
Rishis were also rustic(but without internet connection).:upsidedown:
Colonial era study of Sanskrit text was also marred with fraud, for many it was the matter of name and fame followed by half baked translation and interpretation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kamayani
Oct 2015
1,138
India
Late Ralph T.H. Griffith (1826-1906), an Englishman, translated Rig Ved Samhita in to English in 1896. Then late John Bruno Hare (1955-2010), an American, put it online giving us free access.

The above is what we all have for easy access. Whatever be our problems with quality of the above translations (all translations have problems) but we need to go by them.

There is not gained by calling Griffith as 'colonial' till we make our efforts which are at least 10% of what he did. He translated all four Samhitas and Ramayana as well..
 
  • Like
Reactions: kandal

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,579
USA
Nobody cares what you consider. As I say, there is an obvious level of predictability and falsifiability here. That you don't understand the importance of that is, frankly, blinding.

Are you not a little ashamed? God, I would be. There is nothing arrogant in my position. It is simply sticking to the common sense scientific method that gave us modernity and civilisation.

Your position is arrogant beyond all comprehension.
What should I be ashamed of?

1. Of hijacking other cultures and claiming their roots as one's own?
2. Of trying to teach the very people who constructed the paradigm and culture?
3. Of creating phony root words and telling others that the root words that their ancestors masterfully demonstrated thousands of years as wrong?
4. Of starting with the result as the premise and arguing all the way that their theory is correct?

Since I have not engaged in any of those, I do not see the need of being ashamed of anything.

Mere mention of words such as predictability and falsifiability do not make a subject science. PIE root words do not jive with the Vedic root words, and there ends the story.

There is nothing arrogant in your position? Weren't you the one who called me "villager with an internet connection"? And isn't that arrogance?
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,579
USA
Late Ralph T.H. Griffith (1826-1906), an Englishman, translated Rig Ved Samhita in to English in 1896. Then late John Bruno Hare (1955-2010), an American, put it online giving us free access.

The above is what we all have for easy access. Whatever be our problems with quality of the above translations (all translations have problems) but we need to go by them.

There is not gained by calling Griffith as 'colonial' till we make our efforts which are at least 10% of what he did. He translated all four Samhitas and Ramayana as well..
It is better to not have free access than to have access to a faulty translation. Because of this, we see numerous gullible Indians who do not trust their own capabilities swearing by what they read in these faulty works.

Yes, Ralph Griffith and several others spent a lot of effort in translating the original Sanskrit works. Did they do it without an agenda? Did they not find help from the native scholars?

You have been batting for the cause of these foreign authors a lot. How many original native works have you read?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kamayani
Apr 2019
410
India
It is better to not have free access than to have access to a faulty translation. Because of this, we see numerous gullible Indians who do not trust their own capabilities swearing by what they read in these faulty works.

Yes, Ralph Griffith and several others spent a lot of effort in translating the original Sanskrit works. Did they do it without an agenda? Did they not find help from the native scholars?

You have been batting for the cause of these foreign authors a lot. How many original native works have you read?
I agree with you.
We have an age-old Vedik education system in India where the 'brahmcharis' have to dedicate many years of life to get knowledge of the Vedas. Even this formal education is not considered enough to understand Vedas. 'Practical experience' is necessary to be expert of Vedas. We always had the tradition of contemplating over experiential reality. So a person need to put personal effort in the direction of spirituality.
I can't even fathom how eminent 'Indologists' in reputed universities claim to have monopoly over understanding of the Indian spiritual texts. Oftentimes these Indologists have connections with Evangelists and NGOs so I don't think scholarship is even their priority. Sometimes they can be seen as meddling with internal matters of India and sometime endorsing low-key Hinduphobia.
I'll only trust an English translation if it's by a person who has lived and learned according to Brahmanical tradition and who has good grasp over spiritual tradition of India and as well as of world.
Otherwise Marxist, Freudian, etc interpretation can rest in my trash bean. :nerd:

"Living is knowing"

Revamp this corny education system......

Thank you Sir, you made my day!
Not a 'sir' though....:smirk:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ksk
Mar 2013
1,040
Breakdancing on the Moon.
What should I be ashamed of?

1. Of hijacking other cultures and claiming their roots as one's own?
What are you talking about? Hijacking? claiming as one's own? Literally nobody is doing that, ever. What a monumental misreading. Pointing out that reality doesn't agree with your religious scruples is hardly hijacking. And, no, Western scholars certainly aren't claiming anything Indian as their own. I don't understand how you guys can think we look at you and see envy? How many of you are literally shitting in the streets? Jesus Christ.

That Sanskrit arose out PIE, and that PIE is not native to India, is simply factual. Sorry.

2. Of trying to teach the very people who constructed the paradigm and culture?
What? The very people who constructed the very culture....are long dead. You could count ethnic Punjabis, Sindhis etc as their direct descendants, but being a descendant of someone isn't the same as being them. But here we get to the root of the problem. You're not interested in, or capable of being interested in, history. You're nation building. You're trying to make yourself feel better. For you, "history" is a tool of appropriation and self-soothing. I'm sorry you feel you have to do that.

Nobody is trying to teach anyone anything, you're welcome to your religious beliefs. But it is hypocritical to avail yourself of all the modernity the West has built, to come here and complain we won't bow to your unlearned, superstitious, scruples. This isn't an ashram.

3. Of creating phony root words and telling others that the root words that their ancestors masterfully demonstrated thousands of years as wrong?
Literally not what happened. This is entirely ignorant of method and science. Also how could 'your ancestors' demonstrate something as wrong thousands of years ago, before these things were posited?

Again, you don't understand why someone like Panini was considered good, do you? You're incapable of understanding what sets his method apart and made it usable for millennia. For you, its enough that he's an 'ancestor', a received authority. You can't see how many flaws in traditional Indian linguistics have been rectified by modern methodology. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Panini was brought back to life, he'd want to sit down with Ferdinand de Saussure and find out how laryngeal theory allows us to finally properly classify the verbal system and not simply bask in your unlearned hero worship. But you'd need to grasp the academic and scientific mindset to understand that.

As for all those roots, yes we discard folk etymologies. We do it for the brilliant Greek and Roman grammarians. We do it for early grammarians in English. We do it for the Arabs and the Jewish Rabbis. You clearly seem to think Sanskrit is some magic language not subject to human laws.

4. Of starting with the result as the premise and arguing all the way that their theory is correct?
Again, this is such a deliberate misreading it says more about the rectitude of your character and the poverty of your understanding than anything I could type in response.

Since I have not engaged in any of those, I do not see the need of being ashamed of anything.

Mere mention of words such as predictability and falsifiability do not make a subject science. PIE root words do not jive with the Vedic root words, and there ends the story.

There is nothing arrogant in your position? Weren't you the one who called me "villager with an internet connection"? And isn't that arrogance?
So you don't understand the fundamentals of the scientific method. I'm not surprised.

I'm going to self report this, because I suspect poor Naomasa or someone is going to step in regardless. But, yes, you should be ashamed. This is a history forum, where people come out of a genuine interest in the past. Yet whenever the subject of India comes up, we are plagued with the equivalent of flat earthers, fundamental Christians arguing for a 6000 year old Earth, and antivaxxers. You have guys have managed to drive off almost every actual learned and interested poster like some malignant, growing, tumour.

You are essentially a parasite. Unable to even understand the philosophical principles which have allowed the West to build the world, down to the internet and this very forum, you sit there spreading cancer to try and make yourself feel better.

I hope this post stays up. As for everybody else, I have provided enough citations throughout my post to create a usable reading list for the principles of historical and comparative linguistics, as well as Indo-Aryan in general.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EternalWay
Status
Closed