Facts are in-Aryan Invasion Of Indus is a Lie!

[Jainarayan]

From what I understand, Ancient Greek is just nightmarish

You understand correctly. Ancient Greek has moods, tenses, aspects and constructions that can make your head explode. Not to mention changes in sounds. Modern Greek has no native B; beta is pronounced 'veeta'; modern Greek has no D; it is pronounced 'th'. So Leonidas, the Spartan king's name, in modern Greek is Leonithas; I have a friend named Dionysia, pronounced Thee-o-nee-see-a.

Modern Greek has greatly simplified its syntax also. The phrase Leonidas uttered at the Persian king about surrendering the Greeks' weapons, "molon labe' (come take them"), literally "having come take" is a construction that doesn't exist anymore. Modern Greek would say literally "come and take them".

 

[nameless]

The morphology and syntax of Sanskrit and other IE langueages are consistent across the board, reconstructing backwards. The bulk of the vocabulary are cognate, meaning they can be reconstructed backwards to a common root.

Japanese is a language isolate, meaning that it has no known relatives. Chinese is part of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Vietnamese is in the Mon-Khmer language family. None of those are in any way related, or can be proven to be related. IE languages can, and have been proven to be related. Linguistics is a study of mine for years.

ok, thank you ...

 

[Jainarayan]

ok, thank you ...

Most welcome.

 

[Riverwolf]

i have a question
if hinduism was brought to india by invaders, what about all the sacred sites located on the indian subcontinent?

sanskrit , it is said, is the language of the gods
mount kailash has always been the abode of the great god shiva, did he live in europe or elsewhere previously?
the himalayan mountains, the region where yogis, rishis, ascetics have always existed
what can be more sacred to hinduism than the himalayan mountains?
where did ganga mata descend?
this land is obviously sacred!!!
the great rishis have given us the vedas, do not forget that
the root of vedic civilization lies in india, perhaps a long time ago vedic civilization was present all over the globe, but with time that has changed, and only the root survives

the birth place of lord krishna, the birth place of lord rama and countless other sacred sites, why all on the indian sub continent? this is obviously the root!! the place where it started
sanskrit the language of the gods, and the gods descended upon the indian subcontinent

why has hinduism survived in india even after so much onslaught by buffoonish invaders? because the people here are at the root, they have the benefit of being near these sacred mystical sites

how can you say that hinduism was brought to india?
the gods themselves descended upon this holy land
please show some humility!

Relax. Nobody is saying that Hinduism itself was brought to India, because it wasn't. It's very much India's native religion, like Shintoism is to Japan.

The religion of the Proto-Indo-Europeans has been reconstructed, and it's not the Vedic religion. However, the religion of the Avesta is very similar to the Vedic religion in many ways, indicating a common ancestry. For example, Varuna seems to have been the original Supreme God in the early Vedic religion, and he is, believe it or not, the same Ahura Mazda of Zoroastrianism. As a personal observation, I've noticed many similarities between the Vedic Indra and the Germanic/Scandinavian Odin, so I believe they are the same God. EDIT: Both also use Soma, which is called "Haoma" in Avestan.

There are Sacred Places all over the world; I live near a Native American Holy Mountain (who's name, ironically, bears the name of "Devil" these days. Go fig.) I've looked upon Japan's Mt. Fuji and wondered at its beauty, yet trembled at the fact that it's still an active volcano.

I do not believe for one moment that the Gods would be so picky in their lands as to choose one place over another.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

No written record but a preponderance of descendant words referring to the flora and fauna from the region. Many words descended from PIE refer to flora and fauna not found elsewhere. Moreover, horses were an important part of PIE culture. These horses were the wild horses of the central Asian steppes.

Yes, And all Vadic references refer to what was the Land mass called Aryavarta,

I just don't agree to Sanskrit being called part of the Indo-European Language, because i think its not part, but the basis of not just the European languages, but also other languages not considered as Indo-European.

and i don't think Language has anything to do with the race, Hence the Aryan Invasion which was based on the proposition of Language is not correct.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

No discrepancy whatsoever. Languages that are in close geographic proximity borrow vocabulary. Japanese has many English loanwords, but they are not related languages; Japanese has many Chinese loanwords, but they are not related; Vietnamese has many Chinese words, but they are not related. Japanese and English are not in close proximity geographically, but nowadays, languages travel via 747s.

Why should Sanskrit be undermined by the Indo-European "thing"? To what end? The corpus of Sanskrit literature probably outweighs Greek and Latin literature combined. Sanskrit was the model for linking all the other languages that became the Indo-European family. Sanskrit was held up as the gold standard. No credible scholars deny this.

Not undermined, sorry wrong words. Indo-Euro language thing was used as a means to remove Sanskrit from its Native area, and place it out of the control of the natives, then used to divide the north with the south in India, based on the Language and the theory of Aryan Race.

When people refer to Sanskrit as Indo-European, that directly removed the Tamil, talegu and south languages from the hypothesis.

Branding Sanskrit as a invading Aryan Language and South Languages as Aboriginal which the Aryans destroyed.

Hence my dislike of the Indo-European thing.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Honestly, I don't understand why.

As I said before, it makes Sanskrit all the more special, because it represents the oldest and almost the last of the Indo-European languages still widely used as a Sacred Language.

From what I understand, Ancient Greek is just nightmarish, I don't know if the ancient Celtic language survived Rome's conquest, (and speaking of which) Latin is used as a Sacred Language for a religion that's not Roman, and I don't know if the others really survived much at all.

Sorry undermine was wrong word choice,
This was my reply to TBTL.

Indo-Euro language thing was used as a means to remove Sanskrit from its Native area, and place it out of the control of the natives, then used to divide the north with the south in India, based on the Language and the theory of Aryan Race.

When people refer to Sanskrit as Indo-European, that directly removed the Tamil, talegu and south languages from the hypothesis.

Branding Sanskrit as a invading Aryan Language and South Languages as Aboriginal which the Aryans destroyed.

Hence my dislike of the Indo-European thing.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not undermined, sorry wrong words. Indo-Euro language thing was used as a means to remove Sanskrit from its Native area, and place it out of the control of the natives, then used to divide the north with the south in India, based on the Language and the theory of Aryan Race.

When people refer to Sanskrit as Indo-European, that directly removed the Tamil, talegu and south languages from the hypothesis.

Branding Sanskrit as a invading Aryan Language and South Languages as Aboriginal which the Aryans destroyed.

Hence my dislike of the Indo-European thing.

But if that were the ONLY reason to link it with other Indo-European languages when no link truly existed, it would have been discarded very quickly. Modern linguists have no imperialist motives whatsoever, yet they continue to link Sanskrit as part of the Indo-European languages, which indicates such a link still exists.

 

[Jainarayan]

I just don't agree to Sanskrit being called part of the Indo-European Language, because i think its not part, but the basis of not just the European languages, but also other languages not considered as Indo-European.

Well, then you are up against hundreds of Ph.D. linguists, not "translators", but scientists of language structure, development and relationships who disagree with you.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the relationships between Sanskrit and all the other IE languages are as clear as crystal. And it has been proven and known for over 300 years (look up Sir William Jones).

 

[Jainarayan]

Not undermined, sorry wrong words. Indo-Euro language thing was used as a means to remove Sanskrit from its Native area, and place it out of the control of the natives, then used to divide the north with the south in India, based on the Language and the theory of Aryan Race.

That has nothing to do with linguistic science, but rather with racism.

When people refer to Sanskrit as Indo-European, that directly removed the Tamil, talegu and south languages from the hypothesis.

Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam are all Dravidian and cannot be shown to bear any relationship to Indo-European. But they are no less Indian than Sanskrit.

Branding Sanskrit as a invading Aryan Language and South Languages as Aboriginal which the Aryans destroyed.

Hence my dislike of the Indo-European thing.

Let me repeat: That has nothing to do with linguistic science, but rather with racism.

Moreover, Sanskrit did not just pop up out of a hole in the ground fully formed as we know it. All languages descend from an ancestor and go through changes from that ancestor language. Proto-Indo-European -> Proto-Indo-Iranian -> Proto-Sanskrit -> Vedic Sanskrit -> Classical Sanskrit. Panini froze Classical Sanskrit into its current form to keep it from diverging further. Classical Sanskrit still exists, but the local dialects became Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, and more. Now they exist side by side. The only other language group I can think of that has a "frozen" classical and dialectal versions is Arabic. Classical Arabic is the language of the Qur'an, and is very much alive liturgically.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

But if that were the ONLY reason to link it with other Indo-European languages when no link truly existed, it would have been discarded very quickly. Modern linguists have no imperialist motives whatsoever, yet they continue to link Sanskrit as part of the Indo-European languages, which indicates such a link still exists.

There is a Link with Sanskrit and European Languages, But there is links to other Language groups as well, which are overlooked.

What im trying to say is that the whole idea of calling it Indo-European was a stepping stone to divide people based on race and language.

Modern Linguists base their claim on rules and works set-out by old imperialist ideas.

They might not be bias, but they build on information which was intended to be bias in the first place, that is my thought.

Linguistics was and i believe is still the reason for North and South divide in India and outside of India, Linguistics was the reason for a Aryan and Drividian Race, and the whole AIT thing.

 

[Riverwolf]

There is a Link with Sanskrit and European Languages, But there is links to other Language groups as well, which are overlooked.

What im trying to say is that the whole idea of calling it Indo-European was a stepping stone to divide people based on race and language.

Modern Linguists base their claim on rules and works set-out by old imperialist ideas.

They might not be bias, but they build on information which was intended to be bias in the first place, that is my thought.

Linguistics was and i believe is still the reason for North and South divide in India and outside of India, Linguistics was the reason for a Aryan and Drividian Race, and the whole AIT thing.

Linguistics is a type of science, so I would expect that practitioners would not make such an amateur mistake; that's the sort of mistake I, as a person interested in language but not actually studying it actively, would make. As new linguists pop up, they check and re-check old ideas to see if they hold merit. They do not just "build on" information without checking to see if that information is accurate in the first place.

 

[Jainarayan]

But if that were the ONLY reason to link it with other Indo-European languages when no link truly existed, it would have been discarded very quickly. Modern linguists have no imperialist motives whatsoever, yet they continue to link Sanskrit as part of the Indo-European languages, which indicates such a link still exists.

:yes: Moreover, modern linguists are a very conservative lot. Only a small minority accept that Altaic is even a language family; only a tiny minority subscribes to the Nostratic theory; and almost no one accepts the Proto-World or Proto-Human language theory because it cannot be proven.

It does not mean that Nostratic or Proto-World didn't exist; it means they cannot be proven, like any hypothesis that must be proven. Language hypotheses are subjected to the same rigorous tests that any theory or hypothesis undergoes. IE has been proven; Sino-Tibetan has been proven; Afroasiatic has been proven; and so on for most of the other ~ 5,000 extant human languages and their families.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Modern linguists have no imperialist motives whatsoever

Today in the West it is rare for anybody to hold on to those old colonial attitudes. Still the western superiority remains in many ideas we have. Just like sexism and racism. These things are very slow to be weeded out of our consciousness.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Linguistics is a type of science, so I would expect that practitioners would not make such an amateur mistake; that's the sort of mistake I, as a person interested in language but not actually studying it actively, would make. As new linguists pop up, they check and re-check old ideas to see if they hold merit. They do not just "build on" information without checking to see if that information is accurate in the first place.

Yes, they do check, but what im trying to say is the Method of checking was devised during Imperial rule and imperial thought, linguist question other Linguist, they don't question the method developed to become a linguist in the first place.

Just like historians question other historians, they don't question the method developed to understand history.

The modern method of devising and understanding of Language and History were developed in the European world using European methods for understanding European history and culture. This method was used to decipher Asian culture and History and was made to fit into the already existing theories about History, Culture and language and compared to that of ancient European civilizations such as Greece.
Aboriginal methods of recording History, Language, culture ect, were and sometimes still are overlooked, considered as mythology, measurement of time is not considered accurate, historical people are considered myths. So when a Lack of evidence from the native scripts, regarding any movement of people or changes in language variations is looked at, its considered that the people being primitive did not record any history, because they did not make any history.

I do know its not as bad these days, but the foundation needs to be restructured to get 100% accurate information.

 

[Riverwolf]

Today in the West it is rare for anybody to hold on to those old colonial attitudes. Still the western superiority remains in many ideas we have. Just like sexism and racism. These things are very slow to be weeded out of our consciousness.

Indeed.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, they do check, but what im trying to say is the Method of checking was devised during Imperial rule and imperial thought, linguist question other Linguist, they don't question the method developed to become a linguist in the first place.

The methods were not devised for the sake of imperialism, and I'll wager they're far older than that.

Just like historians question other historians, they don't question the method developed to understand history.

Sure, they do. New methods frequently have to be developed with changing technology.

The modern method of devising and understanding of Language and History were developed in the European world using European methods for understanding European history and culture.

You do know that there's still lots we don't know about Ancient Europe, right?

Besides, why would the methods developed in one place for understanding history be any different for other cultures?

I do know its not as bad these days, but the foundation needs to be restructured to get 100% accurate information.

And how would you do it?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Riverwolf;2955199]The methods were not devised for the sake of imperialism, and I'll wager they're far older than that.

The methods of understanding history of the Asians were devised during the imperial rules of the Lands, and as i said the methods were originally used to decipher European history not Asian.

Sure, they do. New methods frequently have to be developed with changing technology.

Then why do many hold to old Imperial ideas about history of Aryavarta?

You do know that there's still lots we don't know about Ancient Europe, right?

Yes, But the history of Asians are looked at from the perspective of European methods.

Besides, why would the methods developed in one place for understanding history be any different for other cultures?

Language, culture and Religion play a role.

And how would you do it?

Ahh, with around 1 billion dollars, few nukes and a Army.

 

[Riverwolf]

The methods of understanding history of the Asians were devised during the imperial rules of the Lands, and as i said the methods were originally used to decipher European history not Asian.

Shouldn't matter. Besides, can you show that?

Then why do many hold to old Imperial ideas about history of Aryavarta?

Probably because they're not aware of more recent studies, or brush off such studies without even looking at them as being "Indian-Nationalist."

Yes, But the history of Asians are looked at from the perspective of European methods.

See above.

Language, culture and Religion play a role.

That's hardly an answer. Can you be more specific as to how these three elements would prevent "European methods" (which, BTW, haven't even been defined, so the term is so vague that it's actually pretty much useless) from accurately recording Asian history?

Ahh, with around 1 billion dollars, few nukes and a Army.

Lol. I sure hope that's not the method used.

But seriously, if you're so dissatisfied with the current view of history, what methods would you use to determine actual history?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Riverwolf;2962783]Shouldn't matter. Besides, can you show that?

For me It does matter. Why the Indian way of keeping history as puranas and Ithihas not used to determine the existence of historical Indian figures, Why not the Indian dating system is used of time of Rajas/Rani ect;

Why don't we hear or see anything about..let say..Prithivi Raj, Veer Shivaji, Rani Laksham Bai, Rani Durgawati, Veer Savakar or any "Indian Nationalist", when it comes to Indian History.

Probably because they're not aware of more recent studies, or brush off such studies without even looking at them as being "Indian-Nationalist."

You are right, Any time a Indian claims to know his/her own history they are branded a nationalist, as if its such a bad thing. While any American can pride himself in the history of his country, even if it was built on the blood of the original inhabitants.

And the assumption that to become civilized, the stronger have to destroy the weak, the light (skinned) has to defeat the dark (skinned)

See above.

see above

That's hardly an answer. Can you be more specific as to how these three elements would prevent "European methods" (which, BTW, haven't even been defined, so the term is so vague that it's actually pretty much useless) from accurately recording Asian history?

Undefined by who...the Europeans?

Well can anyone go to India and understand all the dialects and their link to Sanskrit without knowing a word of it?

How would you know why the Tamil culture is so similar to Northern but the languages are different without being from south and north of India?

Being a Christian in the early 1700, would you even consider Hinduism older and more advanced then Christianity.

Lol. I sure hope that's not the method used.

But seriously, if you're so dissatisfied with the current view of history, what methods would you use to determine actual history?

Well its not a small task, but few things i can think of.

Recognising History as told by the people who know their own history as valid, this will be a good way to start.
Measurement of Time according to traditional methods.
Understanding variation in Language as written in ancient text and as according to tradition.
Understanding texts according to the proper traditional interpretations.