Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} The co llapse of the Aryan Invasion Theory: Nicholas Kazanas (Feb. 2011)

[gira...@juno.com]

March 2, 2011

Respected Scholars, Namaskar!

 

 

 

 Dear Dr. Kalyanraman, Thanks for posting notice about Prof. Kazanas lecture.

I read his papers.

 

My question to you-What is meant by

 

" The significance of the emerging 'indigene' paradigm, from ca. 4th millennium BCE, is that further researches are needed on the Indus language, on the Sanskritization of Saptasindhu and on the formation and evolution of Indian languages."

 

I did not understand what do you mean by "sanskritization of Saptasindhu" Could you kindly explain please.

 

My second question-Collapse of Aryan invasion theory does not nullify existence of family of languages called Indo-European. This family includes the ancient Greek language. What is the opinion of Prof Kazanas about his own language? Does he think the ancient Greek words were born from the ancient Sanskrit words or both the ancient Greek and the ancient Sanskrit came from a third language. Please ask this question to him.

 

 Self-glorification of Sanskrit as Deva-bhaaashaa or mother of all languages (of IE family) is going on for a long time. I would like to have concrete answers.

In my opinin Aryan invasion is more related to the ancient history of India. However linguistics is different.

 

My third question-Last week I raised question here-anybody from India have decisively proved that Greek or Latin originated from Sanskrit. I gave the reference of Burrow's book. Nobody replied excpet Dr. D. Bhattacharya and his reply was about Aryan migration etc not on linguistics.

 

 

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "S. Kalyanaraman" <kaly...@gmail.com>
To: Undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} The collapse of the Aryan Invasion Theory: Nicholas Kazanas (Feb. 2011)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 05:52:30 +0530

https://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/collapseofait

Prof. Nicholas Kazanas, Director, Omilos Meleton Cultural Institute, Greece, delivering a lecture on 'The Collapse of Aryan Invasion Theory and the prevalence of Indigenism' at IIT-Madras on 26th February 2011.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsqMWj0WFKc (Video)

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/72587146/slides-for-AIR

 (23 slides): All inclusiveness of Rigveda

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/72461396/collapseofaryaninvasiontheory

 (25 slides)

In a series of six lectures, in Chennai, between February 26 to March 2, 2011, Prof. Nicholas Kazanas presented perspectives on Vedic civilization, indigenous evolution of vedic language and culture, spread of vedic culture in interaction areas and the all-inclusiveness of Vedic thought and language. 

With the collapse of the Aryan Theory so effectively marshalled by the linguist, Prof. Nicholas Kazanas, the 'linguistic doctrine' of Indo-European (IE) linguistics articulated by the late Prof. MB Emeneau also collapses. Together with this twin collapse, the corollary 'Dravidian' theories will also have to be revised.

The significance of the emerging 'indigene' paradigm, from ca. 4th millennium BCE, is that further researches are needed on the Indus language, on the Sanskritization of Saptasindhu and on the formation and evolution of Indian languages.

The axis of Vedic culture: ‘divinization’ or self-realisation :

ahaṃ brahma-asmi (Bṛh Up 1.4.10) &
yas tu sarvāṇi bhūtāny-ātmany-eva-anupaśyati /
sarvabhūteṣu ca-ātmānam (Īśā Up 6).

ino viśvasya bhúvanasya gopā́ḥ
sá mā dhī́rah pā́kam atrā́ viveśa (RV 1.164.25)

Rshi Dirghatama Auchattya: The mighty Guardian of this entire 

world, He, the wise One has settled in me, the simpleton.

ahám íd dhí pitús pári medhā́m
rtasya jagrábha 

aham sū́rya iva-ajani (RV 8.6.10)

Rshi Kaṇva says: ‘Having received 

from my father/teacher the 

essential knowledge (medhā́) of 

the Cosmic Order (rta) I was 

(re)born like the Sungod Sūrya!’

It is very difficult to derive “the Vedic ritual application of the theorem [of Pythagoras] from Babylonia. (The reverse process is easy.)… The application involves geometric algebra and there is no evidence of geometric algebra from Babylonia. And the geometry of Babylonia is already secondary whereas in India it is primary. Hence we do not hesitate to place the Vedic altar rituals, or, more exactly, rituals exactly like them, far back of 1700 BCE. … The elements of ancient
geometry found in Egypt and Babylonia stem from a ritual system of the kind observed in the Sulvasutras” (Seidenberg 1962: 515).

Seidenberg reiterated his finds in another paper in 1978. Note that the Mesopotamian ziggurats (=temples with steps) and the Egyptian mastamba-tombs and the step pyramid of Djoser, all in the 3rd millennium BCE, are based on trapezoid figures which are found in the Śulbasūtras and those figures are at the basis of Vedic altar brick-constructions like the śmaśana-cit.

River Sarasvati pre-3600 BCE

a) Sharma et al in Purātattva 2006 present photographs of the Sarasvati(-Hakra) down to the sea. Francfort (1992), Possehl (1998), Lal (2002) give 3600 and before!

b) sáras-vatī ‘she who has swirls’/ponds, currents’. √sṛ gatau : flowing, leaping, rushing. (cf L sal, Gk hial-, Toch sal ‘leap’): > sará, sáras, sara-ṇyū́, sarít, sā́ra etc.

Av Haraxvaiti a river in S.E.Iran. harax- only occurrence : isolated.

vairi- ‘lake’. 

Vedic and Avestan

In Avestan -a > ǝ/e/i/o (nar-ǝm against V nar-am); voiced aspirates like dh > d, (dā against V dhā); original *s > h (haoma against soma);

ṛ > ar/ǝr (as in ar̆sti- against ṛṣṭi ‘spear’); Periphrastic perfect: acc. fem. ptcpl + ah- (‘to be’) V acc. fem. + kṛ, (AV); then in Brāhmaṇas as- and bhū-. Germanic has only anaugmented aorist. Vedic has both – Greek has generally augmented aorist. ádhāt and dhā́t ! Isoglosses are better accommodated by Out of India Movements.

Foundations of linguistic studies: –

Yāska ( Nighaṇṭu & Nirukta);

Pāṇini ( Aṣṭādhyāyī ).

Bhartṛhari : Vākyapadīya

Concepts (of Vibhakti and) kāraka in West only in 19th cent – i.e. surface and deep structure grammar and meaning.

Vedic Tradition in Near East

a) c 3000 possible influence on Egypt: Affinities in religion : creation through Speech; Sungod’s boat; Cow of plenty; Lotus-born one; Creator’s eye running off and being brought back; etc, etc. (Kazanas 2009, ch8.) 

Also, the Śulbasūtra geometry and trapezoids for mastaba tombs and step-pyramid, etc. (Rajaram and Frawley 1997)

b) c2600 on Mesopotamia : Actual trade links. Affinities in religion: Seven ṛṣis; flood legend; horse sacrifice; magical rituals; etc, etc. (Kazanas 2009, ch7)

Also the Śulbasūtra geometry and ziggurats. (Rajaram and Frawley 1997)

c) Perhaps Judaic culture with monotheism. (Kazanas 2009, ch7)

Dr S. Levitt (New York) a) Comparison of Indic and Mesopotamian religions. By this “RV would date back to the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC with some of the earliest hymns perhaps dating to the end of the 4th millennium” (2002:356). b) And in 2005: He agrees with Kazanas that “the early Vedic tradition is dated earlier than is generally done by Western scholars” (p25: square brackets added).

See also, http://www.vifindia.org/sites/default/files/Abstract_22_11_10.pdf Abstracts of presentations in an International Seminar on “How Deep are the Roots of Indian Civilization? An Archaeological and Historical Perspective” -- Vivekananda Intl. Foundation, Nov. 25 - 27, 2010

Dr. B. B. Lal 2

Dr. J.R. Sharma, CAZRI  2 - 3

Prof. Shiva Bajpai 4 - 5 

Dr. R.S. Bisht 5 

Dr. Michel Danino 5 - 6

Prof. Maurizio Tosi  6

Dr. Jitendra Nath  7

Prof. N. Kazanas 7 - 9

 Prof. Jim G. Shaffer  9 - 10

Dr. Bhagwan Singh 10 - 11

Prof. Nilofar Shaikh 11

Pro. V.H. Sonawane 12 

Dr. A.K. Sharma  12 - 13

Dr. Nandini Sahu 13

Dr. K.N. Dikshit 13 - 14 

Dr. B.R. Mani  14 - 15

Prof. Purushottam Singh  15 - 19

Dr. D.K. Chakraborty 20 - 21

Prof. Nayanjot Lahiri 21

Dr. S Kalyanraman 21

Maj. Gen. G.D. Bakshi 22

Dr. Veena Datta 22 - 23 

Dr. Bhuwan Vikram 23 - 29 2

These insights of Prof. Kazanas and the discovery of Indus-Sarasvati civilization should result in scrapping of all historical reconstructions which should start again from scratch. (E. Leach, 1990). 

kalyanaraman 

 The collapse of the Aryan Invasion Theory

N. Kazanas, 26 Feb. 2011, IIT, Chennai

The Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) started in late 18th and early 19th centuries as an explanation of the caste system. Thus various European scholars postulated an invasion from non-Indic people (Egyptian or Mesopotamian) who conquered the natives: the invaders (with a strong priestly class) became the two upper castes and the natives the two lower ones (vaishyas and shûdras). This was refined and turned into a linguistic matter after Jones made his speech about the relation between Sanskrit, Greek, Latin etc. The invaders became IE and so was formed a general theory of Aryan or IE invasions to account for the Greek, Italic, Germanic people and so on, in their historical habitats.

In mid-nineteenth cent. Max Müller turned the Theory into an entirely linguistic affair. He postulated certain dates for the composition of Indic literature and these became fixed in the minds of indologists. Thereafter, all linguistic refinements for the IE tongues  (Hittite, Greek, Baltic, Slavic etc) were worked out on this model, namely that there was a PIE language  which  mainly  through  migrations  and  invasions  spread  from  an  unspecified  centre  (but  not  India)  and developed into the present different IE language including Old Indic (=Vedic Sanskrit) and Iranian (=Avestan and Old Persian). 

At the turn of the 19th to the 20th centuries this view was turned by Europeans  (later the Nazis) into a thoroughly racial affair ascribing to themselves superiority. This racial doctrine has now been abandoned and we have only the linguistic one. 

In the 1920s were made the first important discoveries of the ancient Indus Valley or Harappan civilisation. This should have alerted indologists to the possibility that a large part of the Vedic literature was composed by this civilisation which I shall call hereafter the Indus-Sarasvati Civilisation or ISC in short, since most settlements were unearthed on or  along the old Sarasvati river. This did not happen. Instead, indologists (mainly sanskritists) found in the ruins of this  civilisation evidence that Indo-Aryans invaded and destroyed these cities just as the Rgveda says, according to their  own interpretation, that Indra, the chief god of the conquerors destroyed the enemy purs ‘towns, forts’. So a big paradox remained: on the one hand, there was Vedic Literature (a vast corpus) without any other cultural (=archaeological) remains  to  support  it;  on  the  other,  a  large  culture  unearthed  by  archaeologists  but  without  literature  despite  its knowledge of writing! 

However, in the 1960’s it was established by archaeologists that there had been no invasion , no wars, no violence, and that those towns had fallen into ruination because of natural causes, such as earthquakes which diverted the waters of some rivers and thus caused desiccation on a large scale. But the linguists persisted in their doctrine and the invasion became now “immigration”. But this produced now a second big paradox, i.e. the aryanisation of this vast area where toponymics (=names of rivers, mountains etc) are Aryan (=Sanskritic), not Dravidian or names from another language: small waves of immigrants, according to linguists, produced the SJ & IA C 2 aryanisation of a country which only invasion, conquest and coercion could have effected! 

Any impartial study of the facts, archaeological and linguistic, shows that there is no evidence of any kind to support the so called “waves of immigrations”. 

On  their  side,  all  archaeologists,  Western  and  Indian,  say  emphatically  that  there  is  unbroken  continuity  in  the development of the ISC from the seventh millennium to the sixth cent. BCE when the Persian incursions occur. There is no trace at all of any other culture intruding into the ISC. 

(a) Anthropological evidence (cranial and skeletal) shows that there was no demographic disruption down to c 600, except perhaps for the period 6000-4500. 

(b) Genetical studies now show that there was no inflow of genes into the Indian subcontinent prior to c 600. On the contrary there was flow of genes out of India and into the north-western regions. 

Max Müller’s dating of the Vedic Literature is based on fictions and has no basis whatever in reality. 

The  so-called  linguistic  evidence  (i.e.  isoglosses,  loan-words  etc)  can  be,  and  have  been,  shown  to  require  no immigration. One eminent linguist at least demonstrated that the original homeland is Bactria which is adjacent to Saptasindhu, the Land of the Seven Rivers (=N-W India and Pakistan). 

Positing Saptasindhu as the original homeland not only does not create problems but, on the contrary, dissolves all difficulties. For instance: (a) Vedic alone has dhâtus and on the whole invariable principles in generating verbs and their conjugations and nouns and their declensions etc. (b) Vedic has both augmented Aorist (=past tense) like á-dhât and anaugmented dhât from √dhâ put’. Germanic has only anaugmented and Greek only augmented. 

(c) Vedic poetry has both  strict  metre  and  alliteration  whereas  Greek  and  Latin  have  only  metrical  verses  and  Germanic  poetry  has alliterative lines only without strict metre. (d) No two IE cultures ( e.g. Baltic, Celtic, Germanic etc) have any IE theonyms (=names of deities) to the exclusion of Vedic. On the other hand, Vedic has 20 theonyms of which Greek has , Germanic 8, Italic (=Latin) and Celtic 6 and the others even less. 

It is agreed by all, including Western invasionists like Witzel, that the ? gveda hymns were  composed around the Sarasvati area. But while they give a date of composition c 1200-1000, the available literary, anthropological and archaeological evidences indicate a date before 3500. Here I summarise broadly the most important points.

1. The Brhadâranyaka Upanisad has a list of 60 teachers. If we allow 15 years for each one, we obtain a period of 900 years. If the BU is of 600 BC, as the AIT scenario wants, the list takes as back to 1500. But none of the 60 teachers nor the doctrine ‘Atman is Brahman’ or ‘I am Brahman’ appear in the RV; the doctrine appears in the Atharva Veda in an approximate form. Given that the RV is linguistically many centuries earlier than the BU, the RV must be put at least 500-600 earlier, i.e. before 2000!

2.  Linguistically  the  RV is  many  centuries  older  than  the  Brâhmanas and  the  Mahâbhârata.  Palaeoastronomy (astrophysicist N. Achar) has shown that astronomical references in the Shatapatha Brâhmana are true for the date 3000-2950. Several astronomical references in the epic are true for 3100-3000! 

Thus the RV must be from about 3500 and before.

3. The Rgveda does not have many features that characterise the ISC and appear only later in post-rigvedic texts. Thus there are NOT – 

(a) istakâ the brick, mostly of raw mud, sometimes baked. This was one of the main construction materials in the Early ISC starting at about 3500. Prior to this houses were fashioned of wood with wattle-and-daub, as described in the RV;

(b) larger urban settlements in the RV as we find them in the ISC;

(c) fixed altars or hearths as described in the Yajur Veda and the Brâhmanas;

(d) ruins or ruined towns;

(e) cotton karpâsa;

(f)silver rajata;(g) rice vrîhi;

(h) literacy ‘lipi, lekha(-na)’;

(i) artistic iconography (sculpture, relief, seals).

Bricks are mentioned first in Yajur Veda and extensively in the Brâhmanas. Silver appears as rajata-hiranya in the Yajur Veda; rice vrîhi in the Atharva Veda; cotton karpâsa, first in Baudhâyana’s Sûtras; and so on. 

4. The river Sarasvatî is praised as a mighty and all nourishing river in all the Books or the RV except the fourth. Even in late hymns such as 8.21 or 10.64 and 10.177 Sarasvatî is said to give wealth and nourishment and the poets invoke her as «great». In 6.52 Sarasvatî is «swollen by other (three or more) rivers»; in 6.61 she is endless, swift-moving, most dear among her sisters and nourishing the five tribes of the Vedic people; in 2.41.16 Sarasvatî is «best river, best mother, best goddess»; in 7.95.2 this mighty river «flows pure from the mountains to the ocean». 

The river dried up around 1900 BCE. So the RV is referring to a condition long before the end of the river. Archaeologists and palaeohydrologists say that Sarasvatî flowed from the Himalayas to the ocean (in the Rann of Kutch) before 3800 BCE. Satellite photos and other analyses confirm now the route of the river from the mountain to the ocean. After this period some of the rivers feeding the Sarasvatî were, due to tectonic shifts, captured by other rivers (eg the Indus and the Ganges) and so this once mighty river weakened and began to dry up reaching its final desiccation c 1900 BCE. 

Consequently the RV, or at least all those hymns that praise Sarasvatî were composed before 3600 possibly before 4000. This date agrees with the building materials and techniques (the pre-brick phase) of the very early Harappan culture, as established by archaeologists and as described in RV. 

Conclusion: If the bulk of  several hymns of the RV were  composed  c 4000-3600 the Indoaryans using the Vedic language were  settled in Saptasindhu  at that  period.Whatever  else might  have  happened  before that  period, the Indoaryans were by 1700 BCE thoroughly indigenous.

About  Prof. Nicholas Kazanas

Nicholas Kazanas was born in Greece in 1939. He studied English Literature at University College, Economics and Philosophy at the School of Economic Science and Sanskrit at theSchool of Oriental and African studies – all in London; also post-graduate at SOAS and at Deccan College in Pune. Prof. Kazanas taught in London and Athens and since 1980 has been Director of Omilos Meleton Cultural Institute. In Greece he has published treatises of social, economic and philosophical interest. He has many publications in Western and Indian Journals and some books. He is on the Editorial Board of Adyar Library Bulettin (Chennai). He has participated in international Conferences in London, in the USAand in India. From 1997 he has turned towards the Vedic Tradition and its place in the wider Indo-European culture. This research comprises thorough examination of Indo-European cultures, comparing their philosophical ideas and values, their languages, mythological issues and religions

See also:

'Indo-Aryan indigenism and the Aryan Invasion Theory arguments' (refuted)
by N. Kazanas
This paper examines the general IndoEuropean issue and argues in favour of Indoaryan indigenism against the AIT (Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory) which has been mainstream doctrine for more than a century. The extreme positions that there was no ProtoIndoEuropean (PIE) language or that this language is as currently reconstructed are refuted: the evidence suggests there was a PIE language but this cannot be reconstructed and all efforts and confidence in this reconstruction are misplaced. Indeed, all reconstructions of Proto-languages seem futile and, since they are in no way verifiable, should not be used as evidence for historical events. Indeed all the data used as evidence by the AIT are wholly conjectural and arbitrary and often consist of misrepresentations and distortions, as will be clearly demonstrated in detail. All the arguments used for the AIT have been analytically presented by E. Bryant (2001) and summed up in his concluding chapter. These will be examined one by one and shown to be fallacious. We shall also refer to some material not in Bryant - e.g. genetic studies after 2001CE and mythological motifs never examined in this connection. 
 (Download the PDF file - 291kB)

'Indigenous Indoaryans and the Rigveda', by N. Kazanas
In this paper I argue that the IndoAryans (IA hereafter) are indigenous from at least 4500 (all dates are BCE except when otherwise stated) and possibly 7000. In this effort are utilized the latest archaeological finds and data from Archaeoastronomy, Anthropology and Palaeontology. I use in addition neglected cultural and linguistic evidence. I find no evidence at all for an invasion. The new term "migration" is a misnomer since a migration could not have produced the results found in that area. The Rigveda (=RV) is neither post-Harappan nor contemporaneous with the ISC but much earlier, ie from the 4th millennium (with minor exceptions) and perhaps before.
The bibliography of this study is available as a separate pdf file.
This paper was published in the Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 2002.
 (Download the PDF file - 300kB)

'The RV Date - a Postscript', by N. Kazanas  This examines some of Prof M Witzel's (erroneous) notions which perpetuate the AIT (=Aryan Invasion Theory) and which had not been discussed in 'The RV and IndoEuropeans'. It presents some new evidence and new ideas for a pre-3100 BC date of the RV and the indigenous origin of the IndoAryans and criticizes Prof Witzel's vicious attacks on some Indian and non-Indian scholars, who promote the indigenist point of view.  (Download the PDF file - 78kB)

'AIT and Scholarship', by N. Kazanas  N Kazanas wrote 'AIT and Scholarship' in May-June 2001. This was first posted here. It deals with some additional (erroneous) notions of Prof M Witzel and the major (but not all) aspects of his 'Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts' (EJVS 7-3, pp 1-93, 2001). Apart from the AIT, this study examines other cases of corruption in academic disciplines like Egyptology, Anthropology etc, where evidence against maistream views is discarded, as well as the etymology of the terms 'academia' and 'academic' and the development from Plato's Academy in Athens to modern notions.  (Download the PDF file - 233kB)

'Reply to prof. Witzel', by N. Kazanas  Prof Witzel wrote a very superficial critique of 'AIT and Scholarship' ignoring the title, lampooning the presentation of the development of modern academia and making all kinds of irrelevant remarks (5/7/01). So N Kazanas wrote a reply selecting some of the mosts salient points in 'Addendum to "AIT and Scholarship"': reply to Prof Witzel and incorporating some (lengthy) remarks of V Agarwal. All this was completed and posted in sept 2001 here. The most significant point, apart from Prof Witzel's irrelevances, is N Achar's firm discovery that some astronomical dates in the Mahabharata indicate the date of 3067 BC for the Great War.  (Download the PDF file - 138kB)

'Final Reply', by N. Kazanas. Reply to nine critics in the debate on Indoaryan Οrigins initiated by and published in theJournal of Indo-european Studies, 2002-2003.  (Download the PDF file - 170kB)

'A Reply to Michael Witzel's 'Ein Fremdling im Rgveda'' by Vishal Agarwal,  11 August 2003. (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. 31, No.1-2: pp.107-185, 2003). The " A Reply to Michael Witzel's 'Ein Fremdling im Rgveda' " was sent to us by V.Agarwal (Minesotta, USA). It was written in July 2003 as a reply to Prof M. Witzel's 'Ein Fremdling im Rgveda', 2003, Journal of Indo-European Studies, and was posted on the Journal's website. It provides supplementary material to N. Kazanas' 'Final Reply' covering various aspects not dealt with by, or unknown to the latter. One should note that when Kazanas mentions "black copper" (kRshNa-/karshaNa-ayas or Syama- 'swarthy metal') he nowhere means bronze as Witzel takes it (p 175) and Agarwal need not have elaborated the bronze-aspect.  (Download the PDF file - 596kB)

 (Bibliography - Download the PDF file - 118kB)

'Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European' by N. Kazanas
This essay is published in 2004 Indian Linguistics. It challenges many generally accepted notions in IndoEuropean linguistics like the 5-grade ablaut, labio-velar sounds, roots etc. At the same time it discloses the great antiquity of Sanskrit (or Vedic) and argues that the Sanskrit retroflex sounds are ProtoIndoEuropean, but lost in the other IE stocks. 
 (Download the PDF file - 159kB)

'Coherence and Preservation in Sanskrit' 
Published in VVRI 2006
This paper examines more than 400 lexical items that have cognations in 3 or more IE branches (Vedic, Greek, Italic etc) and denote as far as possible invariable things, qualities and activities (bodily parts, relations and actions like breathing, dressing, rising etc). Sanskrit appears to have lost far fewer items and preserves much greater inner organic coherence than the other branches. This supports the general idea that Sanskrit is much closer to Proto-Indo-European and that, since this could happen only in sedentary conditions, the Indoaryan speakers of Sanskrit did not move (much) from the original homeland. Moreover, the criticism that this conclusion does not take into account the large literature in Sanskrit is shown to be fallacious. This collection of words is a good treasury for any comparisons.
 (Download the PDF file - 415kB)

 

 

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

3 3 11 Dear Dr. Joshi, Without taking side in the ongoing debate one may point to the following fact. Greek, Latin and also Old Slavic retain some common features that are lacking in the Aryan languages, both Indian and Iranian. One such feature is the assumed three full-grade vowels e,o and a all of which have turned into -a- in the  Aryan languages. Their one time existence in the Aryan languages can be proved by the k>c, g>j, gh>h phenomenon that has been termed Second Palatalization by Burrow. When followed by the lost -e- (a in Sanskrit) the velar changes into palatal. This points to the previous existence of a feature lost in Sanskrit and retained by others. How does one explain this if all the IE languages derived from Sanskrit? Those who speak for Sanskrit as the mother European language may claim that this phenomenon took place when there had been no division. One may counter that too. The debate will go on. There are various other such features mentioned by Brugmann (Vergleichende Grammatik ), Burrow and others. The two latest theories are those of the inerconsonantal nasal shaping as -a- (unknown to Whitney who explained them in the Pāṇinian way) and the lost laryngeals. The laryngeal theory leaves many points unanswered. This is usual with any scientific theory. The early inductions date back to the early part of the nineteenth century and credit for them goes to Grimm, Grassmann, Franz Bopp among others. Brugmann too contributed a bit. Wackernagel corrected or improved many of them. It will be clear that many points remain unanswered with the Sanskrit origin theory. Of course its adherents too can claim that this is usual with any scientific theory. One has to see with dismay that the debate will indeed go on like the one on the existence of God. Many distorted notions exist in the West too. One is that Sanskrit was never a spoken language. Another is that it is a priestly language (so believed by many Indians too). Supersitions galore! The task is not easy. Best DB --- On Wed, 2/3/11, gira...@juno.com <gira...@juno.com> wrote:

[hnbhat B.R.]

Dear Bhattacharya,

Thanks for summing up the two sides arguments.

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/rig/

I am not sure whether the above book had already been viewed by the members and sheds any light on the issues raised by Dr.NR Joshi. I would like to know the opinion from the esteemed members. 

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY

[navaratna rajaramnavaratna]

 

   I am surprised that Hindu scholars are still so deferential towards advocates of the AIT to give them a 'fair hearing' which they are not prepared to do. AIT no more deserves a fair hearing than the Flat Earth Theory.

 

   Indians take it more seriously than Western academics themselves. I have given talks denouncing it as racism in linguistic garb even at Cambridge, Mass where Witzel was present.

 

   Let us move on to something more substantial.

 

N.S. Rajaram

2011/3/3 hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>

--

[Ganesh R]

Dear Rajaram Sir,

It is beautiful!! You said it! That exactly what the AIT deserves.

regards

ganesh

2011/3/3 navaratna rajaramnavaratna <rajaramn...@gmail.com>

[gira...@juno.com]

March 5, 2011

 

 Dear Dr, H.N.Bhat. Thanks for giving reference of Shri Talgeri's book. I have his book on "The Rigveda and Avesta". In that book there is one whole chapter (The evidence of Isoglosses) on Linguistics. His arguments I think worth discussing on this list.

 

 I would like to thank Dr, D. Bhattacharya by offering details of sound changes in Sanskrit. According to Dr. Kazanas Sanskrit has organic coherence and hence it is closer to the PIE (my addition of this bracket if ever existed). He adds that it is European languages who dropped retroflexes over the period of time.  I think Dr, Kazanas do think there might be PIE but very close to Sanskrit.

 

Late Dr. S.S. Misra wrote paper,"The Date of Rigveda and the Aryan Migration-Fresh linguistic evidence"(The Indo-Aryan controversy-by Edwin Bryant)  In that paper he says, " Indo-Aryan a remains a in Asiatic Gypsy but becomes a. e. o   in European Gypsies. This confirms that original IE a was the same as Sanskrit a and remained a in the Indo-Iranian languages but changed to a,e,o in their sister languages. My question-Dr. Bhattacharya what do you think about this view ---who is correct Burrow or Misra? I read about laryngeals from the book you suggested, "Indo-European Linguistics" by Dr. S.N. Banerjee. But we will discuss that later on.

 

One more thing makes me uneasy-.According to Burrow (Phonology chapter p. 82) Sanskrit "laghu" (light)was Vedic "raghu, Sanskrit "plu-" (to float) was Vedic "pru-". There are other sound changes described from Vedic to classical Sanskrit. But we may discuss later on.

 

I asked question last year-If accent can change outcome of Mantras, then phoneme change will produce even bigger change in outcome. Thanks. N.R.Joshi

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "hnbhat B.R." <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} The co llapse of the Aryan Invasion Theory: Nicholas Kazanas (Feb. 2011)

Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 13:21:09 +0530

Dear Bhattacharya,

Thanks for summing up the two sides arguments.

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/rig/

I am not sure whether the above book had already been viewed by the members and sheds any light on the issues raised by Dr.NR Joshi. I would like to know the opinion from the esteemed members. 

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY

 

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
Groupon.com

[navaratna rajaramnavaratna]

 

    I have problems with the linguistic approach: the same data and supposedly the same methodology can be used to draw opposite conclusions. Out of India according to Talageri but into India according to some others. Which one you accept is mainly matter of personal choice.

 

    Both cannot be true but both can be false.

 

    So why mess with it when we have DNA evidence that demolishes the whole thing?

 

N.S. Rajaram

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Mishra's theory does not explain the palatalization of the reduplicated syllables in say, jagaama, cakaara. In the PIE theory this is explained by an original e-o-a vowel system.. But I do not know whether this is a theological debate or a scientific one. If it is theological, banning any free expression of views as has been demanded, as far as my submissions are concerned, I call it a day. Best wishes for all DB

--- On Sat, 5/3/11, gira...@juno.com <gira...@juno.com> wrote:

Groupon™ Official Site

1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!

Groupon.com --

[S P Narang]

Dear Prof. Bhattacharya, Please explain your stand in more details including examples. Does accent also work for it? Regards, spnarang

---

From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 6:08:16 PM

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

It is not my stand. But I have very clearly stated the stand : According to Bopp and his followers (Brugmann, Uhlenbeck and every Western historical linguists)the g>j, k>c, phenomenon in the reduplicative syllable can be explained only by the existence of the palatal vowel ie e,i or the palatal semivowel ie y after the velar. Thus gegoomo>jagaama. The existence of three vowels is inferred from their existence in all non-Aryan languages ie all related languages excepting Sanskrit, Avestan, Old Persian, Mitanni Aryan and the Central Asian Aryan languages like ;Saka where the three vowels coalesce into a. The palatalization, according to the said linguists, proves the one-time existence of the three vowels in Aryan too. The existence of the syllable e in the reduplicative syllable is found in Greek, Latin etc. So what we get as sanskrit had already gone thru some changes which are wanting in non-Aryan languages. This does not go well the the Sanskrit origin theory. As I said the inductions had been made before 1860 by Bopp. His works may be consulted for fuller details. Best DB --- On Thu, 10/3/11, S P Narang <spna...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[S P Narang]

Dear Prof. Bhattacharya, I thought you had some additional information or a theory with a change. have you come across a reference to shift of accent : a reason for the change? Regards, spnarang

---

From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thu, March 10, 2011 9:54:28 PM

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

I do not know what you exactly mean by shift of accent as a cause for change. Change of what and of what type? Intra-language change? Yes, and obviously so. Historical from one language to another? I do not know that language itself changes into a new language because of accent shift. Accent shift occurs, rather occurred hypothetically, in a primitive stage between stem and ending/suffix. One finds a continuation in Sanskrit too. Thus kṛṇóti but kṛṇutás (in dependent clause). The accent was on the full-grade vowel, it shifts (=ablaut), so the accent too shifts. That has continued in Sanskrit, from PIE according to Western linguists. This shift between stem and ending/suffix is a very well discussed matter. Please see Kuiper Notes on noun-inflexion for a more detailed treatment. Even Macdonell records this in some detail. More in Wackernagel. It occurs also between the prefix and the verb (enclitics; noted by Pāṇini). That is limited to Vedic. (or, may be, extended to Classical Sanskrit).  But who relates it to language change through history ie to the birth of a new language?  Accent change should have theoretically occurred also with schwebeablaut (Kurylowicz 1935; draṣṭṛ vs.dārṣṭāntika,darśana etc;‘protero-dynamism’ Kuiper;) but Anttila (University of California Press 1969) rejects the ‘undue’ importance given to schwebeablaut by his predecessors. Sentence accent change occurs with the vocative, a matter very well noted by Pāṇini (āṣṭamikanighāta and ṣāṣṭhikādyudātta). But, again, how all these have been related to language change, as you have claimed, is not known to me? Obviously, I have not understood your question. It is your repeated questions that forced me to go into such a tedious matter here that colleagues here might not like. I ask for forgiveness. But I am not responsible.

Best wishes for all DB

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Dear Professor Narang, It just came to me that you mean that since different languages have different accent systems, the descendant differs from the source. Am I correct? Yes, that is possible. The Eastern languages, particularly Bengali has an antodātta system. So also French. There is no extensive study, known to me, on how the new system made the broad differences between, say, Bengali and Sanskrit.  The antodātta character was emphsized by Suniti Kumar Chatterji. This, of course, gives Bengali words their characteristic features. This has been studied. So also with French it is a noted and discussed matter. I remember having read something of that in Precis historique de phonétique française par Édouard Bourciez Paris 1950. You are likely to find a discussion in any good historical discussion on French phonemics.   But, the point is, linguistic change is far greater than mere accent shift of words. The sentence, the text with its style(s) are all parts of linguistic change. To relate that change on a gigantic scale to mere accent shift in words, which is important no doubt,  is not reasonable. Best DB

--- On Fri, 11/3/11, S P Narang <spna...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: S P Narang <spna...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} The co llapse of the Aryan Invasion Theory: Nicholas Kazanas (Feb. 2011) To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Date: Friday, 11 March, 2011, 2:29 PM

[Bhagwan Singh]

Dear scholars, I have benefited enormously by the discussion indulged by you. I want some clarifications from all those who support and discuss things within the parameters determined at the very infancy of  comparative linguistics. It was assumed that a dialect-free language, i.e.the mother language of the family, PIE although non existent, may be traced to its salient features. Researched guided by this ambitious aim, landed in a more complex territory of NOSTRATIC, ridiculing the basic premise of linguistic families. Once the basic tenet of a scientific theory is terminated, the entire edifice built on it collapses. It invites another explanation, another foundation. Languages are not biological entities, but social institutions. Even the changes termed as phonetic change presented as scientific law need reexamination in the light of sociological factors. An author is writing a serialised article in Hindi on Vedic legacy challenging most of the old notions in a Hindi Monthly of enviable repute, Naya Gyanodaya. Those of us who know Hindi may criticise him to avert damage as he questions even the scientific basis of DHATUs and many other foot holds. The Magazine is accessible thought Internet as well but with a months backlog. BS

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Dear Colleague, You have said <It was assumed that a dialect-free language, i.e.the mother language of the family, PIE although non existent, may be traced to its salient features.> I did not follow what you meant. I do not know of any one having spoken of a dialect free PIE.No specimen of the language has been found. How can we determine if it was a 'dialect-free' language? Only artificially contrived languages like Esparanto can be dialect free. A living language ie a language within its living history cannot be dialect-free. May be I did not follow your intention. Best wishes DB --- On Fri, 18/3/11, Bhagwan Singh <bhagw...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: