78 replies to this topic

[the L]

Jaylemurph,
Im not philologist but…
1.Is there any chance that in past others Indo European languages extinct in India due domination of Sanskirt? Same as Illyrian. Or Etruscan. We suggest Etruscan that is IE language. With no evidence at all. I think yes.
2.Prakrit languages show some similarites with Iranian and other Indo European languages which CAN NOT be found in Rigvedic scipts.
Here is people who claim that, Thomas Oberlies and Kenneth Roy Norman  who is a leading scholar of Middle Indo-Aryan or Prakrit, particularly of Pali. He spent most of his career teaching Prakrit at Cambridge University. (I didnt read those books just read that they claim it.)
Read here:
http://www.scribd.co...01-600dpi-Lossy
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false
3.Sinhalese people in Sri Lanka speak Sinhalese language which has allegedly many similariteis with some other IE languages. English Water, Hittite Watar in Sinhalese is Vatura.As I said I try to gather eveidence that OIT might be true. And since Im not philologist this might be wrong.

4.Here is also one link
http://www.scribd.co...rigins-in-India

5.Scholar Shrikant Talageri said that India isnt home of only one branch of IE languages, Indo Aryan. He claim that Prakrit languages dont have root from Rigvedic script. Prakrit languages  have similarities with other IE languages that also dont have roots in Sanskirt.
http://www.scribd.co...orical-Analysis

[jaylemurph]

the L, on 20 January 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

How do you know they are daughter and not syster?

The question isn't so much what /I/ know; it's what people who actually know what they're talking about know*. And I don't place you in that category, unfortunately. And let me be clear: I don't place myself in that category, either. Indic langauges are well out of my noosphere and make no pretense of any in-depth knowledge of them. (I can discuss linguistics, particularly hist/comp linguistics, to a greater -- but by no means authoritative -- degree. To the extent I can point out major flaws and out-and-out mis-representations of the field, like when you suggest/imply/explicitly state the OIT is a consensus agreement amongst professionals.)

I encourage you to pick up a historical/comparative linguistics textbook -- Principles of Historical Linguistics by Hans Heinrick Hoch is commonly used in graduate level intro classes, and I can personally recommend it as an introductory text. Once you understand the general practice used to evaluate the relationships between languages, you can look at a text specifically dealing with Indic langauge (like, say The Indo-Aryan Controversy by Bryant and Patton) and how it's categorized and studied. It also discussed the issues with current classification, although I do not believe the OIT is seriously discussed in it.

--Jaylemurph


*An argument I have made roughly 1,000,000 times here. The cold, hard fact of the matter (and it is a deeply anti-populist one, alas) is that people who have spent time rigorously and toilsomely studying a subject a) do, in fact, *know* more about a subject and their opinion about that subject is more valuable than someone who studies it for 20 mins on the internet, using out-of-date sources and fringe lunacy.

[the L]

Also

http://www.sci-news....ticle00403.html

Prof Casule said that the language is most probably ancient Phrygian.


Suddenly Burushaski isnt language isolate. And its Indo European.
So center slowly shifts to the east.

[the L]

Still Tocharians, post 31 and post 33.

Thanks in advance.

This is interesting

Conclusion: We note a large number of words from Austro-Asiatic(Munda family) and Dravidian families in the Indo-European languageslocated as far away as West Europe. This is a big list. Some of them havebeen mentioned above. This could be only possible if the Indo-European journey started in India, having evolved over ages in neighborhood of these languages. Hence we can conclude, on the basis of linguisticanalysis that the Indo-European languages evolved in India from wherethey migrated out to various regions of the world.



from

the L, on 20 January 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

4.Here is also one link
http://www.scribd.co...rigins-in-India

Edited by the L, 20 January 2013 - 07:03 PM.

[jaylemurph]

the L, on 20 January 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

Jaylemurph,
Im not philologist but…
1.Is there any chance that in past others Indo European languages extinct in India due domination of Sanskirt? Same as Illyrian. Or Etruscan. We suggest Etruscan that is IE language. With no evidence at all. I think yes.

Is Doctor Who like to come and take me on a tour of the galaxy? I think yes.

But with no evidence to support it, it's a risible conclusion to arrive at and more so to try to convince others of. Absence of evidence is not, as they say, evidence of absence. If new evidence is found, we can re-evaluate our current system, but it's unproductive to anticipate something that is like never to arrive. And if you think it is, we're all wasting time from the crucial, evidenceless debate of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Quote

2.Prakrit languages show some similarites with Iranian and other Indo European languages which CAN NOT be found in Rigvedic scipts.
Here is people who claim that, Thomas Oberlies and Kenneth Roy Norman  who is a leading scholar of Middle Indo-Aryan or Prakrit, particularly of Pali. He spent most of his career teaching Prakrit at Cambridge University. (I didnt read those books just read that they claim it.)

I've never read those books, either, but *I* think they agree with me 100%. So there. I'm curious why if you can't be arsed to read them, you think I will. (The worst you could do is /read the books yourself/; then you might have a leg to stand on when using them in a discussion.)

Quote

3.Sinhalese people in Sri Lanka speak Sinhalese language which has allegedly many similariteis with some other IE languages. English Water, Hittite Watar in Sinhalese is Vatura.As I said I try to gather eveidence that OIT might be true. And since Im not philologist this might be wrong.

Well, there is only a limited amount of sounds humans can make. There's a word in Persian pronounced roughly "bad" and meaning something close to it. That in no way suggests a close relationship between English and Persian. And this is generally more true the shorter the word. The fact that two-syllable words sound a bit a like and mean something similar is not convincing.

--Jaylemurph

[questionmark]

jaylemurph, on 20 January 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

Is Doctor Who like to come and take me on a tour of the galaxy? I think yes.

But with no evidence to support it, it's a risible conclusion to arrive at and more so to try to convince others of. Absence of evidence is not, as they say, evidence of absence. If new evidence is found, we can re-evaluate our current system, but it's unproductive to anticipate something that is like never to arrive. And if you think it is, we're all wasting time from the crucial, evidenceless debate of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.



I've never read those books, either, but *I* think they agree with me 100%. So there. I'm curious why if you can't be arsed to read them, you think I will. (The worst you could do is /read the books yourself/; then you might have a leg to stand on when using them in a discussion.)



Well, there is only a limited amount of sounds humans can make. There's a word in Persian pronounced roughly "bad" and meaning something close to it. That in no way suggests a close relationship between English and Persian. And this is generally more true the shorter the word. The fact that two-syllable words sound a bit a like and mean something similar is not convincing.

--Jaylemurph

Hey Jay! Good to have you back!

[the L]

jaylemurph, on 20 January 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

I've never read those books, either, but *I* think they agree with me 100%. So there. I'm curious why if you can't be arsed to read them, you think I will. (The worst you could do is /read the books yourself/; then you might have a leg to stand on when using them in a discussion.)

No they are not. According to people who read them they support OIT. Those two people support OIT.

Still Im waiting for Tocharians, half of the post 31 and post 33 plus post 34.

Suddenly conversation cooled.

Edited by the L, 20 January 2013 - 08:04 PM.

[the L]

Also Jay (if you ever come back in this thread) what theory you support if not OIT? Kurgan? Anatolia? Else?

I always thought that Kurgan hypothesis is most likely but thats before I stumble upon OIT. Now I dont know what to think.

Is this tower of Babel? Mohenjo Daro.




Were Harrapans Indo european people?

Edited by the L, 20 January 2013 - 07:39 PM.

[the L]

The Kushan Empire 30–375 AD



Kushans have diplomatic contacts with Romans, Han empire, Sassanids and Egypt?.
They fell from Sassanids and Gupta empire. (It isnt shame to fall from two great empires)
They were part of five brench Yuezhi confederation.Indo European peoples?

Maybe they didnt came from Tarim Basin.

Also interestingly I they traded with Egypt. Baltic amber is found in Afghanistan and Egyptians have used Baltic amber.
And....

http://en.wikipedia..../Begram_ivories



Egyptians????





Buddha lived in Egypt in previous life.

Edited by the L, 20 January 2013 - 08:34 PM.

[the L]

Influence or same people.

Harrapans





Mesopotamia




Notice fish bone dress in both pictures.

[the L]

Four faced God.

1.Indus valley civilization stamp
2.Mesopotamia
3.Slavic God Perun

[Harsh86_Patel]

jaylemurph, on 16 January 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

In your first post, you say (or at least imply) that the linguistic community is solidly behind the Kurgan hypothesis. I pretty solidly support the hypothesis, but it's a gross misrepresentation to say that's the current linguistic consensus. There are several competing theories, of which the Kurgan is only one. And the out of India one is the one with the least critical acceptance.

--Jaylemurph

Linguists should restrict themselves to grammar and not dabble in actual history. The archaeological consensus supports the OIT, and the only real objection that historians have against OIT is that for 'OIT to be the actual scenario many successive migrations out of India over a large period of time have to accepted',i don't find this objection to hold any weight since successive migrations are not a impossibility.

[Harsh86_Patel]

jaylemurph, on 20 January 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

The question isn't so much what /I/ know; it's what people who actually know what they're talking about know*. And I don't place you in that category, unfortunately. And let me be clear: I don't place myself in that category, either. Indic langauges are well out of my noosphere and make no pretense of any in-depth knowledge of them. (I can discuss linguistics, particularly hist/comp linguistics, to a greater -- but by no means authoritative -- degree. To the extent I can point out major flaws and out-and-out mis-representations of the field, like when you suggest/imply/explicitly state the OIT is a consensus agreement amongst professionals.)

I encourage you to pick up a historical/comparative linguistics textbook -- Principles of Historical Linguistics by Hans Heinrick Hoch is commonly used in graduate level intro classes, and I can personally recommend it as an introductory text. Once you understand the general practice used to evaluate the relationships between languages, you can look at a text specifically dealing with Indic langauge (like, say The Indo-Aryan Controversy by Bryant and Patton) and how it's categorized and studied. It also discussed the issues with current classification, although I do not believe the OIT is seriously discussed in it.

--Jaylemurph


*An argument I have made roughly 1,000,000 times here. The cold, hard fact of the matter (and it is a deeply anti-populist one, alas) is that people who have spent time rigorously and toilsomely studying a subject a) do, in fact, *know* more about a subject and their opinion about that subject is more valuable than someone who studies it for 20 mins on the internet, using out-of-date sources and fringe lunacy.

Linguists dabbling in historical population migrations have zero credibility in my books. Whatever language relationships that linguists have promoted or preach are all unproven scenarios and based on personal interpretations.I would rather focus on archaeological evidence,mythological evidence,cultural evidence and at times genetic evidence only in collaboration with the first three. Linguistic suggestions regarding historical population migration should not be even considered as 'evidence' for anything and best can be mentioned as a foot note in collaboration with the other 4 criterias. A linguist saying that since a language belonging to Area A also started being spoken in Area B means that there was a significant population migration from A to B is ridiculous, the spread of the language could be due to various factors like trade,close cultural/social contact between two populations etc....(i have dumbed down the linguist example).

Though you feel that linguists know more about their subject you should also consider the possibility that even if they know their rants the best and have put quite a lot of hard-work into their subject that still doesn't make them 'Right' by default.

[Harsh86_Patel]

the L, on 20 January 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Also Jay (if you ever come back in this thread) what theory you support if not OIT? Kurgan? Anatolia? Else?

I always thought that Kurgan hypothesis is most likely but thats before I stumble upon OIT. Now I dont know what to think.

Is this tower of Babel? Mohenjo Daro.




Were Harrapans Indo european people?

I don't think Jay will answer this. Since he does not subscribe to fringe and currently all these theories are fringe. Lol....fringe lunacy is very systemic in the mainstream i guess.Or probably mainstream opinions before getting the mainstream badge were also fringe.

[TheSearcher]

the L, on 20 January 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

Also

http://www.sci-news....ticle00403.html

Prof Casule said that the language is most probably ancient Phrygian.


Suddenly Burushaski isnt language isolate. And its Indo European.
So center slowly shifts to the east.

However L, you really should start checking your sources better, mate.

Casule's claims, are extremely flawed and quite often nonsensical.The above article claims : "Prof Ilija Casule’s discovery, which has now been verified by a number of the world’s top linguists, has excited linguistics experts around the world." Well, in reality, there is not a single serious linguist who verified that, or who got excited. He has produced a little media hype, that’s all.

His theory is not new at all and has been disproved by several linguists with good arguments (most of which don’t even include Phrygian, btw). Yet he ignores all contrary evidence and goes on spreading his "theory".  I've even seen his theories rejected by linguists, that actually are native Burushaski speakers, in other articles.