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

[Riverwolf]

And there are no hard facts about the spread Indo-European languages. We do not know if they came in, out, or developed all over for some reason. All we know is that there is an archaeological continuity in the subcontinent from the Neolithic period. Hinduism is indigenous to India.

THAT is definitely certain.

 

[Riverwolf]

You know you made up your story about an Aryan Kingdom in India. Thats how Sanskrit spread. I made up a story about the importation of hot blue eyed blonds for marriage and to get married to one of these hotties. People learned the indo european languages so they could get a hot spouse. How both made up stories are equally valid.

Except mine actually has a parallel in in real history: Britain. In addition, mine is far more plausible.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

THAT is definitely certain.

I will leave my ridiculous argument here, when we agree.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Riverwolf;2950682]There's no Greek literature anywhere else in the world, either; nor Norse, Finnish, German, Irish, Welsh... yet these are all Indo-European languages.

Because these are Native to their Lands.

There's no indication that Sanskrit is native to the Indian subcontinent.

There is no indication that Sanskrit is NOT native to the Indian subcontinent.

there is no historical evidence from North or South of India to coroborate the Invasion or migration of any people called Aryans, there is no scientific evidence of Any Race as Aryans and their Homeland. Arya in Sanskrit and old Iranian means noble, nothing to do with Race. The whole hypothesis of Aryan meaning Race has no basis in any Vedic Sanskrit.

Sanskrit is native to India if we take it in reality, but is the Language of No race if we take it as per Vedic view.

Want more Info.

Aryan Invasion Theory, Vedas and Dravidians

Aryan Invasion Theories - Myth, Fact or Theory

WESTERN INDOLOGISTS: A STUDY IN MOTIVES

Aryan Invasion of India

http://ancientindians.wordpress.com...gy-with-dora-to-explain-the-vedic-connection/

 

[nameless]

No, I say probably, due to far too many similarities in words from in Persian and Sanskrit, plus contemporary aspects like the ones mentioned above. I stand by probably.

why it is not probable that sanskrit from indian sub-continent influenced persian language? pardon my ignorance ..

 

[Riverwolf]

Because these are Native to their Lands.

No, they're not, not really. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were NOT native to Europe. It's thought they lived somewhere around the Black Sea, which is in Asia Minor.

They're just called "Indo-European". Admittedly, it is a bit of an inaccurate term. But it doesn't speak to any sort of European-supremacy that I can see.

Heck, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that Hinduism, while itself native to India, has elements from other Indo-European religions, makes it all the more special and important.

There is no indication that Sanskrit is NOT native to the Indian subcontinent.

That's not how this works. There's more indication that it's not native there than that it is.

there is no historical evidence from North or South of India to coroborate the Invasion or migration of any people called Aryans, there is no scientific evidence of Any Race as Aryans and their Homeland. Arya in Sanskrit and old Iranian means noble, nothing to do with Race. The whole hypothesis of Aryan meaning Race has no basis in any Vedic Sanskrit.

Nor do historians claim that.

"Aryans" is really just a shorthand (read: lazy) way of referring to "speakers of Aryan languages," i.e., whoever spoke them, regardless of "race." Unfortunately, this bit of scholarly laziness has led to one of the biggest popular historical misconceptions in recent history.

Sanskrit is native to India if we take it in reality, but is the Language of No race if we take it as per Vedic view.

Want more Info.

Aryan Invasion Theory, Vedas and Dravidians

You know, when a website has a tagline like "Unleash the Legend Within", that just screams "Give us your money!" to me. Not very trustworthy.

Aryan Invasion Theories - Myth, Fact or Theory

Already consider the original Aryan Invasion Theory to be false.

WESTERN INDOLOGISTS: A STUDY IN MOTIVES

Honestly, I question the motives of a website that claims to have "True Knowledge." Again, it screams "Give us your money!"

[/quote]
Aryan Invasion of India[/quote]

See above.

The word arya in the Veda, did not refer to “Indo European – Aryans” « Ancient Indians – Satya Samhita

However the tribe of Indo Europeans now known as “Aryans”

Stop right there, and see above comment. The term "Indo-Europeans" does not refer to any one group.

 

[Riverwolf]

why it is not probable that sanskrit from indian sub-continent influenced persian language? pardon my ignorance ..

I can't really say which influenced the other, but if I were to offer a guess based on what little I know, I'd guess that they developed alongside each other, neither coming first.

 

[nameless]

I can't really say which influenced the other, but if I were to offer a guess based on what little I know, I'd guess that they developed alongside each other, neither coming first.

you said

Doesn't change the fact that Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, and probably not native to India.

fact or guesswork?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I can't really say which influenced the other, but if I were to offer a guess based on what little I know, I'd guess that they developed alongside each other, neither coming first.

The common view from my understanding is that they were the same language. Then they diverged from each other and evolved separately. The differences were given random years of development. This is the way the old time Europeans dated the Vedas at 1500 bc. Old Avestan language of the Gathas were seen as newer because it was more monotheistic (thus advanced) and got the date of 700 bc. It now looks like both languages are much older, because... the dates assigned to them were done by Christians who believed the world was only 6000 years old. Who needed to take that early time frame in to account.

 

[sentry]

Death of the Aryan Invasion Theory

 

[Riverwolf]

you said
fact or guesswork?

Sanskrit is an Indo-European language. (The "Indo" in "Indo-European" means "Indian.) The guesswork is the nitty-gritty of its development.

 

[Riverwolf]

The common view from my understanding is that they were the same language. Then they diverged from each other and evolved separately. The differences were given random years of development. This is the way the old time Europeans dated the Vedas at 1500 bc. Old Avestan language of the Gathas were seen as newer because it was more monotheistic (thus advanced) and got the date of 700 bc. It now looks like both languages are much older, because... the dates assigned to them were done by Christians who believed the world was only 6000 years old. Who needed to take that early time frame in to account.

A bit of minor research (...i.e., checking wikipedia, so take it as you will, the page has a trustworthy rating of 3.5 out of 5) seems to indicate that most scientists, or at least geologists and biologists, were very much aware that the earth was FAR older than 6,000 years in the 18th and 19th centuries. I'll definitely need to look more into it, but if it's true, then these estimated dates would not necessarily have been given by Christians who thought the earth is only 6,000 years old, which never sat well with me.

 

[nameless]

Sanskrit is an Indo-European language. (The "Indo" in "Indo-European" means "Indian.)

why necessarily indo-european? why not just indian? this was my question exactly in post # 45 ,assuming it influenced persian language, thus is the similarity in them.

 

[Riverwolf]

why necessarily indo-european? why not just indian? this was my question exactly in post # 45 ,assuming it influenced persian language, thus is the similarity in them.

IOW, a linguistic variation of the Out of India Theory?

TBH, I do not have enough information to say why not, but that is something to look into: how linguistic historians have concluded that Sanskrit did not inherently come first, thus influencing the Persian language.

However, quick research does not seem to indicate one way or the other, which influenced which. Therefore, I would say that the answer might come from actually asking linguistic historians for the nitty-gritty.

 

[Jainarayan]

why necessarily indo-european? why not just indian? this was my question exactly in post # 45 ,assuming it influenced persian language, thus is the similarity in them.

Because believe it or not, Sanskrit is related to Celtic, Russian, Greek, Germanic and most other languages spoken in Eurasia, with the exception of Finnish and Hungarian (Finno-Ugric of the Uralic family), and Turkish (related to Mongolian in the proposed Altaic family). There are definite reconstructed cognates and similarities, coming from regular morphological changes.

The reason I don't subscribe to the OIT is because of the timescale necessary for the "descendants" of Sanskrit to migrate as far west as the Iberian peninsula and British Isles. That would necessitate a massive migration or invasion out of India. And to the best of my knowledge, anthropology and genetics do not bear that out. It's more plausible imo that an ancestor language (let's say PIE, for argument's sake ) branched east and west from a central location. I think there were migrations all over Asia and Europe for milennia. Humans are like **** and are all over the place.

The problem with the AIT is that it says the indigenous Indian civilizations were massively overrun and exterminated by invaders from the north(west). It doesn't even consider the possibility of trickles of migrations both ways. A small group of PIE-speaking wanderers could have settled in the Indus Valley milennia before commonly believed, and built the IVC, their language diverging into Vedic Sanskrit from PIE, while those who migrated north began to speak Proto-Balto-Slavic (the forerunner of Russian and Polish), which diverged from PIE.

I think the whole thing hinges on the timeframe the speakers of PIE existed, and when they migrated. It may be milennia earlier than the commonly believed 4,000 BCE. I say it had to be much earlier by milennia to reconcile the age of Indian civilization and the relationships of IE languages, discounting the OIT.

 

[nameless]

I do not have enough information to say why not, but that is something to look into

that would be better, i think till then its not fair to conclude that sanskrit is an indo-european language.

 

[Jainarayan]

...I would say that the answer might come from actually asking linguistic historians for the nitty-gritty.

Linguist List - Browse Recent Ask A Linguist Questions

 

[Jainarayan]

that would be better, i think till then its not fair to conclude that sanskrit is an indo-european language.

It clearly and indisputably is IE. There are too many cognates and regular sound shifts and regular morphological changes between Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, Russian to be coincidental. Words are borrowed, grammar is not. That is, all the languages classified as IE have pretty much the same verb conjugational and nominal inflection systems. Some, like English, have lost them over the milennia. Anglo-Saxon, the forerunner of modern English, had as rich an inflectional and conjugational system as Sanskrit, and worked the same way. Other language families are often lacking in these morphologies (e.g. Sino-Tibetan).

Regular shifts means for example that between Latin and Greek, Latin /s/ becomes Greek /h/: sex-hex, sept-hept, sub-hypo, super-hyper; Sanskrit /s/ becomes Persian /h/: Sindhu-Hindu, sapta-hapta, saptasindhu-haptahindu (seven rivers), and innumerable more.

It was Ferdinand de Saussure and Sir William Jones who first noticed and began cataloguing the similarities between what are now called the IE languages.

 

[Jainarayan]

Linguistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indo-European languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, this is interesting... Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit attested (proven, i.e. written records, but most likely spoken much earlier) to 3,500 years ago. Proto-Indo-Iranian, the ancestor of Sanskrit and Persian: 5,000 years ago. Yet Anatolian is older than Sanskrit by almost 2,000 years. How then could a language (Anatolian) be older than its parent (Sanskrit)?

1. Anatolian, the earliest attested branch. Isolated terms in Old Assyrian sources from the 19th century BC, Hittite texts from about the 16th century BC; extinct by Late Antiquity.
2. Hellenic, fragmentary records in Mycenaean Greek from between 1350 and 1450 BC have been found.[10] Homeric texts date to the 8th century BC. (See Proto-Greek, History of the Greek.)

Indo-Iranian, descended from Proto-Indo-Iranian (dated to the late 3rd millennium BC).

• Iranian, attested from roughly 1000 BC in the form of Avestan. Epigraphically from 520 BC in the form of Old Persian (Behistun inscription).

Indo-Aryan or Indic languages, attested from the late 15th to the early 14th century BC in Mitanni texts showing traces of Indo-Aryan. Epigraphically from the 3rd century BC in the form of Prakrit (Edicts of Ashoka). The Rigveda is assumed to preserve intact records via oral tradition dating from about the mid-2nd millennium BC in the form of Vedic Sanskrit.

Indo-European languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (describes Proto-Indo-European).

 

[Riverwolf]

Linguist List - Browse Recent Ask A Linguist Questions

Thanks. Interesting stuff.