Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Big Bad Voodoo

Out of India theory

85 posts in this topic

Jaylemurph

what about Tocharian language?

That you kindly ignored. :tu:

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a back to front way of looking at it................But if we know of the language similarities with Avesta , and we know there were large numbers of people from Iran/Persian area moving into India........ But we cant find DNA traces of a large movement of people coming in..............Then a likely reason for this could be that it is the same DNA that is returning to it's origin , so it is not going to show up as an influx ??

I wonder what genetics say about Iranians and Indians connection. I like your way of thinking. Just in OIT people move from India. As ancient texts say. And none come in India.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do understand there is no such thing as a single Indo-Aryan language, right? It's a description for a whole language /family/. And all the languges you mention are well-documented to daughter languages of the Indic pre-cursor.

How do you know they are daughter and not syster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaylemurph

what about Tocharian language?

That you kindly ignored. :tu:

Linguistics is not one of my specialties and would certainly not personally wish to speak for Jaylemurph. His expertise in these matters is well documented. However, you may find the following to be of interest.

So where does Tocharian fit into the IE language family? We might begin by attempting to reconstruct the origin of the Tocharians. Scholars who studied the documents in the early part of this century attempted to link the language with a number of other IE branches, pointing out similarities, some actual and some supposed, with Armenian, Thracian, Phrygian, Celtic, and Hittite. 56From this initial analysis of the material, we have been able to get a rough idea of where the Tocharians came from and how they got where they are today. In the opinion of Lane, the original home of the Proto-Tocharians was somewhere on the steppes of southern Russia. "They were thus bordered on the west and south by the Thraco-Phrygians, the Armenians and the Greeks; on the west and north by the Germans and the Balto-Slavs, in close proximity to the Finno-Ugrians on the east and north." 57Based on the similarities between Tocharian and the Italic and Celtic branches, especially the mediopassive in -r and the subjunctive in -a, he postulates "rather a long period of close contact [between these different IE branches] after the separation of Tocharian from the nearest of kin, Thraco-Phrygian (and perhaps Armenian)." 58However, this does not mean that Tocharian may not have had contact with other IE languages at this time also. Douglas Adams, noting the similar role of PIE n-stems in nouns and adjectives in both Proto-Germanic and Proto-Tocharian, concludes that "both Germanic and Tocharian belonged to a group of Indo-European dialects, including also Latin and Greek, where n-stems came to be productive as 'singulatives' of definites, often with affective meaning, in opposition to other nominal types." 59

As the Tocharians began to move east, the last contacts that they had with other Indo-Europeans (before their much later interaction with the Indians and Iranians) was with the Slavs, resulting in some Slavic influence in the lexicon, but no impact on the essential structure of the language. 60However, an alternative analysis by a Slavic linguist, who cites phonological, morphological, and lexical similarities between Tocharian and Balto-Slavic, is that "at some very remote time, the ancestors of the Germanic tribes, the Balto-Slavs, and the Tocharians formed a Northern IE dialect group which split from the common IE at a very early stage and later (probably during the 4th milleium B.C.) dissolved into Germanic-Balto-Slavic and Tocharian." 61 (Emphasis added).

http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swede I witness myself that Jaylemurph knew about languages but there are people who think differently then he. He might have outdated stance. Hint-Read my next post.

Your site support Kurgan hypothesis, nevertheless Tocharians are connected with Thracian, Armenian, Hittite and Phrygan. Same as some others language in India and Srilanka.

So they might go otherway around.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/doc/106660818/Pali-a-Grammar-of-the-Language-of-the-Theravada-Tipitaka-Th-oberlies-Berlin-2001-600dpi-Lossy

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=A6ZRShEIFwMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&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.com/doc/44093404/Linguistic-Evidence-Indo-European-Origins-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.com/doc/22267172/The-Rig-Veda-Historical-Analysis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 B) 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

4.Here is also one link

http://www.scribd.co...rigins-in-India

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1zfmzat.jpg

Were Harrapans Indo european people?

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kushanmap.jpg

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????

n5k0mr.jpg

Buddha lived in Egypt in previous life.

Edited by the L
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Influence or same people.

Harrapans

2uzt4k4.jpg

Mesopotamia

e0fpk5.jpg

Notice fish bone dress in both pictures.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four faced God.

1.Indus valley civilization stamp

2.Mesopotamia

3.Slavic God Perun

2qiskg3.jpg

vrudm8.jpg

2qtb9g8.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 B) 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1zfmzat.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might like this L. A very comprehensive coverage of OIT.

http://www.voiceofdh...s/ait/index.htm

Just so you know, who you are actually talking about.

Koenraad Elst, may be a writer and orientalist, he is however also a right wing nationalist, very close to the Vlaams Belang (very right wing party in the Flanders, known for their xenophobia and ethnocentrism.) Seems he has a special hatred of Islam, as his views on Islam are markedly in line with the neoconservative think-tank "Middle East Forum", to which he has contributed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Harsh on links. Im short on time I just scan files, is there something you picked up from those links you want to share?

I read conclusions. :innocent:

Searcher,

Okay lets forget about language isolate and IE.

What about Tocharians? ( Somehow I know that conversation after this post will cooled)

Whata about this conclusion:

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.

http://www.scribd.co...rigins-in-India

What about this

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

What about this

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

If IE home was Anatolia,where they dwelled?

If IE home was south Russia, where did they live?

I can tell you where IE live in OIT.

Edited by the L
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking at a lot of the stuff posted in this thread, including the archaeological evidence in India that apparently doesn't show signs for an invasive culture, but rather continuity of general Harappan culture from early to late periods. But what about the other way? Is there archaeological evidence for the migration of the Harappans into the areas that later attested IE cultures?

The two most popular theories, the Kurgan and Anatolian, are largely established on finding archaeologically-evidenced migrations that coincide with IE areas. For example, the Kurgan hypothesis is based on expansions of culture evidenced through material remains like pottery types, weaponry, and of course the use of Kurgans for burial; the Anatolian hypothesis meanwhile is linked with the migration of farmers and associated agricultural objects and plants into Europe through the Balkans.

So is there anything like these migrations attested for Harappans? perhaps distinctive Harappan pottery types in Iran or Mesopotamia, or evidence for rice cultivation in Central Asia?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.