Post 30:
<b>Dialects and Languages</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The thracian latin go and mixed whit etruscians and other native languages and formed the amaizing 1500 !! dialects of italian(more then all dialects of India).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->1500 dialects of Italian are indeed impressive. So after the fall of the highly literate Roman Empire with its official language of Latin which kept things standardised, the rampant illiteracy under the darkness of Christianity gave rise to 1500 dialects of Latin's late child Italian?
But dialects are after all variations on the same language - they are not different languages. Dialects appear to indicate loss of standardisation in countries that have had large-scale civilisations.
Let's look at the number of actual different languages in India. India has official languages (compulsory to use in government offices and places in each state), state languages (official language of a state, which is taught in schools as well as being used in the state's government places) and of course actual languages:
<b>Number of <i>languages</i> in India</b>
- http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_04/uk/doss24.htm<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It has two official languages (Hindi and English), 18 major languages Scheduled in the Indian Constitution, and 418 âlistedâ languages, each spoken by 10,000 people or more.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=India
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The number of languages listed for India is 428. Of those, 415 are living languages and 13 are extinct.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- Your preferred source has not been ignored http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_languages says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The number of mother tongues in India is as high as 1,652. There are 24 languages which are spoken by a million or more people, in addition to thousands of smaller languages.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- Just to be PC, I will include an entry from the <b>Islamic & pseudo-secular site</b> http://www.culturopedia.com/ says on the page http://www.culturopedia.com/Languages/la...intro.html that "there are 408 living languages and 11 extinct ones in India".
In the usual Islamic propagandist manner, they continue to attempt to sell the Aryan invasion/migration/influx theory well past its expiry date - saying that [the indo-aryan language family]<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->came to India with the Aryans.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, books from the late 80s:
- From the Jiri Kalousek's knowledge book for children 'Rund um die Erde in Wort und Bild' (German for 'Around the world in words and pictures') - published in German, translated originally from Czech (late 80s):
In the page on India it says, in translation, that besides the country's officially-used languages of Hindi and English, <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->'the law recognises 14 languages (the states + Samskritam)'; in total there are about 900 languages and dialects that are spoken'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->- 'Giant book of facts' (children's knowledge book) - 1987, London, published by Octopus books:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Which country has the most languages?</b>
The leading contender is probably India. Where the people speak 15 major languages 857 other languages and dialects! .... A smaller country with a similar language problem [insert: not a 'problem'] is Papua New Guinea, whose population of just over 3 million speak more than 700 different languages.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->On these grounds, I'd say you've picked the wrong country to impress with dialects. We've got the most <i>languages</i>.
<b>Rumanian and Latin</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->About rumanian i disagree that latin came from Italy to Romania<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You may. But every known scholar in that field agrees that the Romanian language came from Latin.
(There are also Italic-speaking people in southern Switzerland, by the way. Their languages developed the same way Italian dialects did from Latin. Latin was brought there during the times of the Roman Empire.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They say that the romanian word "apa"-water is from the italian "aqua",but more similar word we find in sanskrit "ap,apas", and persian "ab".Or the romanain word for sun-"soare" came from the italian "sol" ,while more similar word you find in sanskrit "surya" or persian"saura".The same ca be said about other 4000 words. In fact we can say that romanian vocabulary is equaly close to persian or sanskrit as to latin.
<i>This laundry just show how many tings was develop out-side India</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I have to say the opposite: it does not show anything about how these things were supposedly 'developed' outside of India. It does not show <i>where</i> they were developed at all. It merely shows there appears to be some connection without throwing any light on how that connection came to be or what it was. Even the very young language English (about 1500 yrs old) shares many words that appear similar to Samskritam. Not all those similar-looking English words are from Latin, some are Germanic in origin, others Celtic. But this is why the Indologists believe in the IE family of languages. It doesn't mean that they think that Romanian gave rise to Samskritam.
But I have a different kind of example for you:
- The German word <i>Kaiser</i> is pronounced close enough to Latin '<i>Caesar</i>' (not the English mispronunciation of it, they always mispronounce Latin) and has the same meaning! What a mystery, what a coincidence (never mind that Kaiser came from the Latin word Caesar and was imported during the Roman Empire).
- The Russian word <i>Czar</i> has the same meaning (emperor) as Caesar and it looks similar! Again: what a mystery, what a coincidence. And yet again, ot is known that the Russian ruling family adopted the term at some point.
These are facts of history that we know, because they've been properly recorded. Other things are still real mysteries and just by saying that certain Romanian words sound like Samskritam and like Latin doesn't mean that Romanian gave rise to either or both. Tamil also shares many words with Samskritam - did Samskritam give rise to Tamil? By your logic it did. But no, the fact is that a number of Samskritam words were eventually adopted into Tamil (and a few words went the other way).
For all I know, Indian people went to Anatolia and then Romania say between 10,000 and 7,000 years ago and then from there went to Rome. Alternatively, Indian traders went some places and then some of their words were borrowed into European languages and changed slightly over time. Where's the counter-evidence to contradict this? I can randomly pick any date (like the Indologists do with their AIT and its modified versions) and leave you to work on disproving it.
The Indologists are more interested in linguistics, perhaps you can convince them that Romania is the PIE homeland they've been looking for. I personally don't care about the mythical PIE one bit. I don't believe in Aryans. I know that Samskritam is an Indian language of Indian origin. As much as I respect Latin and Romanian, it wouldn't affect me in the least if tomorrow they find that Samskritam bears no relation at all to those languages. It might matter to you, but not to me.
<b>Dialects and Languages</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The thracian latin go and mixed whit etruscians and other native languages and formed the amaizing 1500 !! dialects of italian(more then all dialects of India).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->1500 dialects of Italian are indeed impressive. So after the fall of the highly literate Roman Empire with its official language of Latin which kept things standardised, the rampant illiteracy under the darkness of Christianity gave rise to 1500 dialects of Latin's late child Italian?
But dialects are after all variations on the same language - they are not different languages. Dialects appear to indicate loss of standardisation in countries that have had large-scale civilisations.
Let's look at the number of actual different languages in India. India has official languages (compulsory to use in government offices and places in each state), state languages (official language of a state, which is taught in schools as well as being used in the state's government places) and of course actual languages:
<b>Number of <i>languages</i> in India</b>
- http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_04/uk/doss24.htm<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It has two official languages (Hindi and English), 18 major languages Scheduled in the Indian Constitution, and 418 âlistedâ languages, each spoken by 10,000 people or more.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=India
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The number of languages listed for India is 428. Of those, 415 are living languages and 13 are extinct.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- Your preferred source has not been ignored http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_languages says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The number of mother tongues in India is as high as 1,652. There are 24 languages which are spoken by a million or more people, in addition to thousands of smaller languages.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- Just to be PC, I will include an entry from the <b>Islamic & pseudo-secular site</b> http://www.culturopedia.com/ says on the page http://www.culturopedia.com/Languages/la...intro.html that "there are 408 living languages and 11 extinct ones in India".
In the usual Islamic propagandist manner, they continue to attempt to sell the Aryan invasion/migration/influx theory well past its expiry date - saying that [the indo-aryan language family]<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->came to India with the Aryans.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, books from the late 80s:
- From the Jiri Kalousek's knowledge book for children 'Rund um die Erde in Wort und Bild' (German for 'Around the world in words and pictures') - published in German, translated originally from Czech (late 80s):
In the page on India it says, in translation, that besides the country's officially-used languages of Hindi and English, <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->'the law recognises 14 languages (the states + Samskritam)'; in total there are about 900 languages and dialects that are spoken'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->- 'Giant book of facts' (children's knowledge book) - 1987, London, published by Octopus books:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Which country has the most languages?</b>
The leading contender is probably India. Where the people speak 15 major languages 857 other languages and dialects! .... A smaller country with a similar language problem [insert: not a 'problem'] is Papua New Guinea, whose population of just over 3 million speak more than 700 different languages.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->On these grounds, I'd say you've picked the wrong country to impress with dialects. We've got the most <i>languages</i>.
<b>Rumanian and Latin</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->About rumanian i disagree that latin came from Italy to Romania<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You may. But every known scholar in that field agrees that the Romanian language came from Latin.
(There are also Italic-speaking people in southern Switzerland, by the way. Their languages developed the same way Italian dialects did from Latin. Latin was brought there during the times of the Roman Empire.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They say that the romanian word "apa"-water is from the italian "aqua",but more similar word we find in sanskrit "ap,apas", and persian "ab".Or the romanain word for sun-"soare" came from the italian "sol" ,while more similar word you find in sanskrit "surya" or persian"saura".The same ca be said about other 4000 words. In fact we can say that romanian vocabulary is equaly close to persian or sanskrit as to latin.
<i>This laundry just show how many tings was develop out-side India</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I have to say the opposite: it does not show anything about how these things were supposedly 'developed' outside of India. It does not show <i>where</i> they were developed at all. It merely shows there appears to be some connection without throwing any light on how that connection came to be or what it was. Even the very young language English (about 1500 yrs old) shares many words that appear similar to Samskritam. Not all those similar-looking English words are from Latin, some are Germanic in origin, others Celtic. But this is why the Indologists believe in the IE family of languages. It doesn't mean that they think that Romanian gave rise to Samskritam.
But I have a different kind of example for you:
- The German word <i>Kaiser</i> is pronounced close enough to Latin '<i>Caesar</i>' (not the English mispronunciation of it, they always mispronounce Latin) and has the same meaning! What a mystery, what a coincidence (never mind that Kaiser came from the Latin word Caesar and was imported during the Roman Empire).
- The Russian word <i>Czar</i> has the same meaning (emperor) as Caesar and it looks similar! Again: what a mystery, what a coincidence. And yet again, ot is known that the Russian ruling family adopted the term at some point.
These are facts of history that we know, because they've been properly recorded. Other things are still real mysteries and just by saying that certain Romanian words sound like Samskritam and like Latin doesn't mean that Romanian gave rise to either or both. Tamil also shares many words with Samskritam - did Samskritam give rise to Tamil? By your logic it did. But no, the fact is that a number of Samskritam words were eventually adopted into Tamil (and a few words went the other way).
For all I know, Indian people went to Anatolia and then Romania say between 10,000 and 7,000 years ago and then from there went to Rome. Alternatively, Indian traders went some places and then some of their words were borrowed into European languages and changed slightly over time. Where's the counter-evidence to contradict this? I can randomly pick any date (like the Indologists do with their AIT and its modified versions) and leave you to work on disproving it.
The Indologists are more interested in linguistics, perhaps you can convince them that Romania is the PIE homeland they've been looking for. I personally don't care about the mythical PIE one bit. I don't believe in Aryans. I know that Samskritam is an Indian language of Indian origin. As much as I respect Latin and Romanian, it wouldn't affect me in the least if tomorrow they find that Samskritam bears no relation at all to those languages. It might matter to you, but not to me.