Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Why i am wrong about the Aryan Invasion

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
Author
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why i am wrong about the Aryan Invasion
    Posted: 08-Nov-2007 at 19:17
    The aryan invasion theory of the sub continent is a topic that i have been studying for a long time and have come to the conclusion that it is just an absurd idea and the direction of the movement was the opposite. Most of the people here however do believe in Aryan Invasion Theory more so in its mild form. So i ask those people that please prove me wrong here and prove  that they are right

Edited by bilal_ali_2000 - 08-Nov-2007 at 19:18
Back to Top
SuN. View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 26-Sep-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 156
  Quote SuN. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 02:57
Take heart Dear, all revolutionaries & revolutionary ideas
face a lot of skepticism initially. The law of inertia applies to philosophies too.
Back to Top
SuN. View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 26-Sep-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 156
  Quote SuN. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 03:12
Following are some of the main reasons for people not accepting your theory :
1. People are somehow still to get out of the colonial thought process firmly implanted by the European intelligentsia of colonial period. The movement from West to East was supposed to give credence to the superiority of the colonialists also moving from West to east. So the implied reasoning was if you accepted & worshiped Aryans who came from the West, feel  the same for Europeans too.

2. Nationalistic aspirations, notions of racial purity, & the richness of Aryan culture make everybody claim themselves to be the original aryan race. Everybody wants to be able to claim physical racial superiority Fair complexion, Nordic features etc. etc. for their ancestors, again concepts of White racial superiority forgetting that the oldest civilizations of Egypt, India & China were not white.
3.  The Aryan culture was one of the richest ancient ones, so almost everybody has vested interests in claiming proximity to it, now or in distant past.
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 11:21
Originally posted by SuN.

Following are some of the main reasons for people not accepting your theory :
1. People are somehow still to get out of the colonial thought process firmly implanted by the European intelligentsia of colonial period. The movement from West to East was supposed to give credence to the superiority of the colonialists also moving from West to east. So the implied reasoning was if you accepted & worshiped Aryans who came from the West, feel  the same for Europeans too.

2. Nationalistic aspirations, notions of racial purity, & the richness of Aryan culture make everybody claim themselves to be the original aryan race. Everybody wants to be able to claim physical racial superiority Fair complexion, Nordic features etc. etc. for their ancestors, again concepts of White racial superiority forgetting that the oldest civilizations of Egypt, India & China were not white.
3.  The Aryan culture was one of the richest ancient ones, so almost everybody has vested interests in claiming proximity to it, now or in distant past.

    Sun it is not my theory that the Aryan Invasion Theory is wrong but rather it is the theory of a lot of other historians from whom i have learnt about its demerits.

    And the reasons you say that the Aryan Invasion Theory was accepted initially is spot on however i feel that it continues to be accepted is because of this tendency of academia to hold on to prevalent theories despite very strong indications that they may be not very sound.
  

     However my objective for starting this thread is mainly constructive. So i invite all the people which are interested in this matter to discuss the matter here so that we can all learn something about this very important area of world history. 

Edited by bilal_ali_2000 - 09-Nov-2007 at 11:26
Back to Top
SuN. View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 26-Sep-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 156
  Quote SuN. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 11:59
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000

[QUOTE=SuN.]
    Sun it is not my theory that the Aryan Invasion Theory is wrong but rather it is the theory of a lot of other historians from whom i have learnt about its demerits.

I also support what you said. In the absence of hardcore evidence we can only speculate, but speculation should be based on all circumstantial evidence. This is something the AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) did not do fully.


    And the reasons you say that the Aryan Invasion Theory was accepted initially is spot on however i feel that it continues to be accepted is because of this tendency of academia to hold on to prevalent theories despite very strong indications that they may be not very sound.
  
Yeah, Inertia as I said. Newer ideas find resistance. Maintaining status Quo is rather easy & comfortable & Most people don't want to move away from the majority

     However my objective for starting this thread is mainly constructive. So i invite all the people which are interested in this matter to discuss the matter here so that we can all learn something about this very important area of world history.

True. This is perhaps one od the most intriguing mysteries in history & deserves it's fair share of renewed debate.


 
God is not great.
Back to Top
Azat View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 22-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 110
  Quote Azat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2007 at 04:00
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000

    The aryan invasion theory of the sub continent is a topic that i have been studying for a long time and have come to the conclusion that it is just an absurd idea and the direction of the movement was the opposite. Most of the people here however do believe in Aryan Invasion Theory more so in its mild form. So i ask those people that please prove me wrong here and prove  that they are right
 
Have you find out ,who were Aryans whose inavasion and non inavasion you want to discuss.
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2007 at 15:15
Originally posted by Azat

Have you find out ,who were Aryans whose inavasion and non inavasion you want to discuss.


    Although i can answer that question now, I won't. Because first i will present my case and then i will give my conclusions so that people reading this will be in a better position to judge the merits of that conclusion.

     So please any one if you believe in the Aryan invasion theory there must be some reason that you believe in it.  What are those reasons?


Edited by bilal_ali_2000 - 10-Nov-2007 at 15:33
Back to Top
Azat View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 22-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 110
  Quote Azat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2007 at 15:55
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000

Originally posted by Azat

Have you find out ,who were Aryans whose inavasion and non inavasion you want to discuss.


    Although i can answer that question now, I won't. Because first i will present my case and then i will give my conclusions so that people reading this will be in a better position to judge the merits of that conclusion.

     So please any one if you believe in the Aryan invasion theory there must be some reason that you believe in it.  What are those reasons?
Bilal  There are already over a dozen thread on Aryans on this site and there are innumerable on internet.
Now Do you have some specific people in your mind who were called Aryan  than  you or we can discuss there invasion or non invasion , However If you don't know who were Aryans at all than what is the use of presenting your case ?
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2007 at 22:36
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000

 
 Although i can answer that question now, I won't. Because first i will present my case and then i will give my conclusions so that people reading this will be in a better position to judge the merits of that conclusion.

     So please any one if you believe in the Aryan invasion theory there must be some reason that you believe in it.  What are those reasons?
 
So you want others to talk first  ? Stern%20Smile The title is ' Why I am wrong about the aryan invasion'  Now, we haven't seen any explanation/arguments yet. Instead of that, we are asked to talk.  Would be better if the title was 'Why do you guys believe in the Aryan invasion'.
 
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000

 
The aryan invasion theory of the sub continent is a topic that i have been studying for a long time and have come to the conclusion that it is just an absurd idea and the direction of the movement was the opposite
 
No info here why the AMT is so absurd, or why it should be viceversa. Ok lets help it a bit and see what is coming.
 
First , few ( in mainstream field ) use the term Aryan Invasion  Theory ( AIT) anymore, so it would be best not to use obsolete terms. Since the academic supporters of an Indo-European migration to (what is now) India rather use AMT ( Aryan Migration ), its  better to use the modern term .
 
Also, when discussing AMT  its better to concentrate on the modern views instead of  repeating every old view of the 19 th century scholars ( as some do , hoping to  discredit modern views) . There are differences.
 
The first thing is checking if there is some agreement about certain things :
 
Do you agree there are Indo- Europeam (IE) languages ( together called the IE language family ) ?
 
If so, we can exchange various evidences of whether they were introduced into what is now India  (AMT ),  or they went 'Out of India' ( socalled OIT ) and spread towards Europe  etc , leading to the various language groups etc.


Edited by Sander - 11-Nov-2007 at 00:12
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 04:33
    The format of this thread which i had in mind was that people would present their arguments for the AIT and i would refute them however since people want me to go first therefore i will.
    
    One of the first argument that comes in people minds for the Aryan Invasion Theory is

-There is a sharp division between the Aryan and Dravidian languages in the sub-continent which very strongly points towards an invasion of the sub-continent by the Aryans.

My answer to that is  
-   The subcontinent is a huge place, it is called "sub-continent" for a reason. And human habitation in this region goes quite farther back in time with records of homo-erectus being in this region.
   
    In prehistoric times with very little limited means of communication the differentiaition of languages was much more than what we currently observe. What the improved means of commnication did was that it increasingly brought previously isolated communities in contact with eachother and whichever people in that interaction had the upper hand, for whichever reason, that resulted in their culture along with their language being more represented in their combined culture with some elements from the more passive culture as well as their language being preserved in the amalgam of the cultures. And this phenomena of languages and cultures getting extinct is well preserved in recorded history. For example Sargon of Agade adopted a policy of linguistic assimulation after he had conquered all the Sumerian cities which caused Sumerian, which is not relared to any language which we know of becoming extinct. See my point one of the first expansionist excercises in recorded history directly causing the extinction of a langauge. We also have a similar example in history in the Roman Empire whose expansionism led to a lot of languages including many non indo-europea ones like Eutriscean, Iberian etc. getting extinct. Similarly European expansion after the 16th century caused extinction of many native langauges of Australia and the Americas. Europe even now has a few non-indo European languages like Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish, Sami and Basque. So why if Europe can have this linguistic diversity, then the Sub-Continent is denied one.
  
    That was what European thinking like was back in the imperial days which can briefly be sumarised as "stereotypical" thinking where they just slaped vast areas and people with one name and then the people within those realms were expected to behave uniformaly and when they didn't behave uniformaly as is to be expected then one of them must have been the indigenous and the rest invaders, why can't they all be indigenous the sub continent is a big place and it is perfeclty able to accomodate ore than one language groups infact in such a big place you should expect to find some language diversity.
   
    Now of course the hunter gatherers had no senese of geography and moved around a lot but tracing these movements so far back in time are impossible and irrelevant to the context. What matters is that with the begining of settled life these people were in their historically recorded habitat.
   
    Now as i said that the sub-continent is a big place and language diversity is to be expected, the caucasus being only a fraction of the size of the sub-continent by virtue of its boken geography has more langauge groups than the sub-continent and aside from the indo-european group we know that all of the other groups are actually native to that region because they exist nowhere but outside that region. There are only three major language groups of the Sub-Continent the Aryan, the Dravidian and the Austro-Asiatic group. Out of these groups we know that the Austro-Asiatic group is not native to this region because it belongs to the souh-east asian language group and most of the migration of their people to the sub-continent is recorded in medievel times and the other more older groups like the Mundas are demonstratably also of south-east asian origin. So that leaves us with only Dravidian and Aryan. Now i believe that in the pre historic days there may have been quite a few other language groups which may have been absorbed by Dravidians in the South and Aryans in the north. Some people think that the tribal people of South India may have spoken a different tongue before they were absorbed by the Dravidians but of course it has never been proved and maybe could never will be. As an example look at the people of the himalayas, some of the languages families which are spoken there don't have any presence in the sub-continent Brushusi the language of the kailash people has no relation to any known language family in the world, the baltistani people speak a language which belongs to the sino-tibetan group a langauge family absent in the sub-continent. The sina of the chitralis people and the kashmiri language belong to seperate langauge family distinct from all the other language families of the aryan languages and are called dardic lanuages obviously surviving only in the himalyas because of its isolation from the rest of the sub-continent. Same applies to the Aryan and Dravidian that they remained separted because of isolation, if not because of geography then certainly because of distance. And besides they both have borrowed much from eachother as can be gauged by the fact that the Maurya king after conquering much of the north actually instituted the creation of prakrit a combination of Sanskrit and Tamil much like Sargon of Agade had attempted a linguistic assimulation many centuries earlier, and it became the linga franca of the Mauryan Empire (even though it was hated by the conservative northern Brahmins)and that is how most of the languages of the North became heavily Dravidized as most of them have been heavily influenced by Prakrit if not being directly descended from it. Even though the Aryans in the north did have the knowledge of the South even Sri Lanka as we can see in "Ramayan" whose composition most place even before Mahabharta however it wasn't until much later that after the Mauryan conquests that the South came under the same umbrella as the North.
   
    Now for the "Brauhi" matter. Most researchers who take the name of Brauhi in this matter do so with much caution because the fact is that they could have come from anywhere and at anytime. They may have arrived there from the south in the Gupta days in the classical age times or in the medievel times. The idea that they may have been the survivors of the Indus Valley Civilization does not hold any ground because then it begs the question that if some Dravidian people were able to survive in the hot spot then why don't we see many such pockets of Dravidian people in the other parts of northern India and central India. These Brauhvi people may have even been living there in the harappan times that still doesn't make their surrounding population any less Aryan. As an analogy consider the presence of the Sinhalese in Srilanka which are an Aryan people and form 72 percent of the population while the other group the tamils form the rest of the population. Now we know that the Sinhalese are not native to that region because we have documented evidence of their migration from the nort western part of the sub continent to Sri Lanka but of course that doesn't mean that they are native to that region or that Tmails are foreigners to Srilanka or least of all that the Aryans actually originated in Srilanka because we know that they migrated to that region same with the Brauhvi people. In the case of Sri Lanka a majority cannot decide the non-indigeousness of a minority let a minority deciding the non-indigousness of the majority as in the case of the Brauhvis.
   
    And if the Brauhvis had been living in that region since the destruction of Harappa then wouldn't you expect the language of those people to borrow much elements from the surrounding languages which would be indo-aryan languages Punjabi and Sindhi. However the Brauhvi shows little borrowing from these languages and actually has much in common with Baluchi. Now the arrival of Baluchis in this region is quite recent historically speaking with them arriving here in 1300 A.D because of the Persian expansion. So the question is that why did the Brauhvi borrwed so little from the Indo-Aryan languages with which it had contact for so long yet borrow so much from  a much recent arrival. I think that you will find that answer in the Rig Vedic verse which clearly chorincled the conflict between the Indo-Aryans and the Iranians where it describes the Battle of Ten Kings with a confederacy of 10 peoples, namely, Pakhta, Bhalana, Alina, Siva, Visanin, Simyu, Bhrgu, Prthu, and Parsu. The names pakhta (pakhtuns), bhalana (bolan/baloch), Prhtu(Parthians) and Parsu (persians) are unmistakenably the names of the Iraniana tribes. What is quite interesting is the name Brghu which is an exact coginate of Brauhvi (try calling them out both to find out how similar they are). Now it might seem that the Brghu were a Dravidian or may be one group of a few groups of Dravidian people living in that area who might have also joined the sect of the Iranians (Zoarastrism) and were expelled from the greater punjab (the battle took place in the punjab) with the other Iranians. The fact that they have a presence in Afghanistanm, Iran and Turkemanistan all traditional adobes of the Iranian people yet have no presence in the other parts of the subcontinent even South India should also hold some weight.
    And lets take the example of China. Before the rise of the han dynasty it is speculated that there may have more than one language families in Chinam, even now the Sino-Tibetean language family is a very lose family grouping much less so than the Aryan language families. And when you look at the geography of China you will find that right to the east most of China is Japan and then a bit further back is Korea. In the north east of Japan is an island inhabitted by the Ainu people. The rest of Japan is inhabitted by the Japanese people and Korea is inhabitted by the Korean people and then China naturally is inhabitted by the Chinese. Now the language of the Ainu people and the Japanese people and the Korean people are langauge isolates i.e they don't fall in any of the other known language family in the world much less China. So what are we to deduce from this. Going by the model which we apply in the sub-continent for the Aryan and  Dravidian languages should we assume that all of China, Korea, Japan was inhabitted by the Ainu people then the Japanese came from... well somehwere and snatched all of China, Korea and Japan from the Ainu people who were pushed back to the small islands in the North East of Japan. Then the Koreans came from... well somewhere, and they then snatched all of China and Korea from the Japanese and pushed the Japanese to the east to the islands of Japan. And then finally the Chinese arrived on the scene from.... well again from somewhere and they snatched China from the Koreans and pushed the Koreans to Korea. Does that all make any sense? Of course not, the presence of language family in a place disitinct from another language does not automatically mean that they were pushed there by that other group. They both could have been there... well since a long time without any one being responsible for large scale movement of any other group. Same is the case with the sub-continent. The Aryan languages existed in the north of the sub-continent while the Dravidian languages existed in the south of the sub-cotinent since ... well since a very long time and no single group pushed any one to a particular area.

    Lets take the example of Europe. Europe in the olden times was technologically much behinde most of the other parts of the world and in addition to that it had a very broken geography. The result of that was that there was a lack of communication between the people of Europe which naturally gave rise to many language groups. If you look at the particular nations of Europe you will find that these nations cover much less geographic space than individual ethnicities of the sub-continent like punjabis, sindhis or Gujratis. The reason is simple the sub-continent had a much more continous geography as well as being one of the more developed regions of the world which meant better communication between the people which resulted in a larger area belonging to a certain cultural entity. However in modern times the situation has reversed. Europe has gained a large technological lead and one of the most immediate effects of this improved technology is better communicaton between people across the globe. Cars, aeroplanes, jets, ships, printing press, telephones, television etc all of these have meant that the people acros the globes are better connected. So now if you look at the area occupied by Europeans which can be said to belong to a certain Ehtnicity the area occupied by them is much larger than areas occupied by a certain ethnicity in the sub-continent. For example the USA, Canada, Russia, Brazil, Argentenia etc are countries with huge areas which dwarf the area occupied by Punjabis, or Sindhis of the sub-continent. However in old Europe still can see the effets of an age where the means of communications were very limited as the area occupied by the ethnicities is usually much smaller than the area occupied by the ethnicities in the sub-continent. In fact at one time it was predicted that English as spoken in Australia, Enlgand, USA and SOth Africa would with time would grow so apart that they would become mutually un-intellgible. That didn't happen because the modern means of communication made sure that the people were well connected which made the need for a standard form of communication much more and that kept their dialects of English from moving apart much aside from some differences in local accents. My point is that in the olden times the means of communication were primitive because of which groups of people were much less connected which resulted in much greater language differentiation. And in as big a place as the sub-continent this resulted in two distinct language families being preserved.
   
    And also The Dravidians had no recollection of having ever been pushed to the south by the Aryans. Infact their tales tells just the opposite, that they came further south of the sub-continent as massive floods pushed them there and the land which they came from to the south of the sub-continent was submerged by the massive floods of which Sri-Lanka is a remaining hill top.     


Edited by bilal_ali_2000 - 11-Nov-2007 at 06:05
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 06:03
Originally posted by Azat


Bilal  There are already over a dozen thread on Aryans on this site and there are innumerable on internet.
Now Do you have some specific people in your mind who were called Aryan  than  you or we can discuss there invasion or non invasion , However If you don't know who were Aryans at all than what is the use of presenting your case ?


    I perfectly know that who were the Aryans. However if i say that right now i feel that this thread will become very confrontational. People will attack the conclusion rather than the arguments as i would not have presented them  yet which i feel would be counter-productive. So my format in this discussion would be that i will give my arguments one by one so that  people will discuss the validity of those individual arguments. And finally when all the arguments have been presented and discussed the logical conclusion of those arguments will be presented. 


Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 06:19
Originally posted by Sander

No info here why the AMT is so absurd, or why it should be viceversa.

As this discussion goes on we will see that why the Aryan Invasion Theory is so absurd.   
Originally posted by Sander

 
First , few ( in mainstream field ) use the term Aryan Invasion  Theory ( AIT) anymore, so it would be best not to use obsolete terms. Since the academic supporters of an Indo-European migration to (what is now) India rather use AMT ( Aryan Migration ), its  better to use the modern term .
 
Also, when discussing AMT  its better to concentrate on the modern views instead of  repeating every old view of the 19 th century scholars ( as some do , hoping to  discredit modern views) . There are differences.

This is also a point which we will discuss thoroughly here.











Edited by bilal_ali_2000 - 11-Nov-2007 at 06:25
Back to Top
Azat View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 22-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 110
  Quote Azat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 11:07
 
 
 
 
First , few ( in mainstream field ) use the term Aryan Invasion  Theory ( AIT) anymore, so it would be best not to use obsolete terms. Since the academic supporters of an Indo-European migration to (what is now) India rather use AMT ( Aryan Migration ), its  better to use the modern term .
 
Also, when discussing AMT  its better to concentrate on the modern views instead of  repeating every old view of the 19 th century scholars ( as some do , hoping to  discredit modern views) . There are differences.
 
The first thing is checking if there is some agreement about certain things :
 
Do you agree there are Indo- Europeam (IE) languages ( together called the IE language family ) ?
 
If so, we can exchange various evidences of whether they were introduced into what is now India  (AMT ),  or they went 'Out of India' ( socalled OIT ) and spread towards Europe  etc , leading to the various language groups etc.
 
 
Good post .
 
let us use proper terms which  is ' AMT v/s OIT 'as you should not debate where non exist .
 
 
 


Edited by Azat - 11-Nov-2007 at 12:02
Back to Top
Azat View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 22-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 110
  Quote Azat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 11:21
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000

         
There is a sharp division between the Aryan and Dravidian languages in the sub-continent which very strongly points towards an invasion of the sub-continent by the Aryans.
 
oK Next...

 
the fact that the Maurya king after conquering much of the north actually instituted the creation of prakrit a combination of Sanskrit and Tamil much like Sargon of Agade had attempted a linguistic assimulation many centuries earlier, and it became the linga franca of the Mauryan Empire (even though it was hated by the conservative northern Brahmins)and that is how most of the languages of the North became heavily Dravidized as most of them have been heavily influenced by Prakrit if not being directly descended from it.
 
 
What are you talking man ???What is the source of  this enlightenment ???
 
 

 
The Aryan languages existed in the north of the sub-continent while the Dravidian languages existed in the south of the sub-cotinent since ... well since a very long time and no single group pushed any one to a particular area.

   
 
So you believe in OIT . 


Edited by Azat - 11-Nov-2007 at 11:25
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 12:23
Originally posted by Azat

 
What are you talking man ???What is the source of  this enlightenment ???


Why don't you learn a bit about Prakrit. Your questions will be answered there.
Back to Top
Azat View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 22-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 110
  Quote Azat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 13:45
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000

Originally posted by Azat

 
What are you talking man ???What is the source of  this enlightenment ???


Why don't you learn a bit about Prakrit. Your questions will be answered there.
 
Who gave this information to you that there was no Prakrit earlier and Moryas were the kings who created Prakrit  from Sanskrit and Tamil language.
 
Bilal you are obviously  new and  perhaps don't know that parkrit is not just a mixture of Tamilian and Sanskrit words .
 
Anyway you can educate us on Prakrit if you know more about it.
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 17:25
Originally posted by Azat

Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000

Originally posted by Azat

 
What are you talking man ???What is the source of  this enlightenment ???


Why don't you learn a bit about Prakrit. Your questions will be answered there.
 
Who gave this information to you that there was no Prakrit earlier and Moryas were the kings who created Prakrit  from Sanskrit and Tamil language.
 
Bilal you are obviously  new and  perhaps don't know that parkrit is not just a mixture of Tamilian and Sanskrit words .
 
Anyway you can educate us on Prakrit if you know more about it.


    Prakrit is not just one language it is actually the name for many languages who share the same structure. The earliest references that which we have of Prakrit are the Ashokan edicts who as you know was a Mauryan king. And check the history of Prakrit you will find out that Prakrit was actively supported by the ruling class of khashtrya in place of Sanskrit around the Mauryan times. And the Brahmins of the north were very unhappy with Prakrit taking the place of Sanskrit. These are historical facts and you can check them for yourself.

    Many people describe Prakrit as a vulgarization  of  Sanskrit with the Dravidian languages which  matches my description of Prakrit very well. Are you disputing the fact that Prakrit has much Dravidian influence while at the same time looking like that it descended from  Sanskrit.

    So please enlighten me that where  i am wrong about Prakrit and how and why.



Edited by bilal_ali_2000 - 11-Nov-2007 at 17:48
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:26
Bilal,

a major weakness with the OIT is linguistic.
Vedic Sanskrit, as well as all Indo-Aryan languages have a Dravidian substratum, including the use of retroflexes which are alien to all other IE languages. Vedic Sanskrit also has a number of non-IE loanwords from Dravidian and Munda languages which are absent from other IE languages.

If all IE people came from India, is it just coincidence they all selectively forgot the use of retroflexes and other Dravidian influences which are present in the earliest forms of Sanskrit?

Also, there are older attested IE languages than Sanskrit, including members of the Anatolian branch.
How can this be explained by OIT?
Back to Top
Azat View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 22-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 110
  Quote Azat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:39

Prakrit stands just for vernacular languages that evolved in to present languages of India,like Punjabi ,Haryanvi ,Rajsthani ,Brij maghadhi etc..etc..

 
Ask any modern linguistic scholar whether any of these languages are a mix of Tamil and Sanskrit .
 
 
Prakrit just evolved in to modern languages ...Sanskrit language comes no where in between .neither in the beginning neither at the end.
 
These vernacular languages were spoken as such before Asoka ,it is just the mention of earliest known inscriptions when you refer to  Asoka inscription.
 
Btw do you know  earliest Sanskrit inscriptions (king Rudradman)are recorded  after appox 500 years of these Prakrit inscriptions.
 
So can we safely conclude that Sanskrit was introduced by him in India.
 
Prakrit just mean original unadulterated ,Sanskrit means refined .


Edited by Azat - 11-Nov-2007 at 18:40
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 04:34
Bilal, its is a long post but there is no evidende of OIT in it. We need something else to work with.
 
As another has pointed out, there are certain obstacles for the OIT. IE languages must come from somewhere, so if they did not come out of  India than they obviously went to it.


Edited by Sander - 12-Nov-2007 at 04:40
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.