The easy bit:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Later, many desha-s ("Countries", which too is harmless, so don't get alarmed)[right][snapback]91966[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, I know what desha means. And am not alarmed at all. It is an entirely inoffensive, indeed neutral, word.
But <i>Desi</i> has connotations and therefore does not merely mean someone from "Bharatadesha" as it should have. You will allow that desha and desi are not the same, even if one was originally intended as no more than a mere derivative of the other.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Later, many desha-s [...] of jambUdvIpa where a particular tribe was dominant, the country acquired its name from that dominant tribe. "Andhra" was one such tribe that gave name to the Andhra country. likewise are the names gujarAta, kamboja, kerala, karNATaka and so on. Of course the best understood example can be the most recent of such event - Assam gets its name from Ahoms who migrated as late as last 500 years back or so from east.[right][snapback]91966[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sure, that is what I meant with reference to the many tribes giving their names to various southern regions of Bharatam. And it is what I thought was the case when it came to Andhra Pradesh, but was not entirely sure. Thanks for the confirmation.
The messy bit:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky,
A few things need to be understood:
1. Irrespective all the debate on direction of migration, what is clear is this: Arya (Anglicized as "Aryan", just like very harmless "Mongolian", and "Tibetean") -- was indeed the name of an ethnicity ("tribe") during vedic and near post-vedic period. Evidence is in the older parts of the R^igveda samhitA itself. Above tag was in exclusive use of one particular "tribe", and only later acquired the other meaning of "Noble".[right][snapback]91966[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I know the present meaning of Arya and also what it meant in earlier and later Vedic literature.
But this line is factually wrong:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Arya (Anglicized as "Aryan", just like very harmless "Mongolian", and "Tibetean")<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Aryan in <i>English/European languages</i> does *not* mean the same as the old Vedic Hindu tribe's self-designation.
- <i>Aryan</i> (arisch in German) means <i>Indo-European</i> and nothing less. It presupposes PIE, European genes, Urheimat and everything else. So No, it does not mean the same as "the name of an ethnicity ("tribe") during vedic and near post-vedic period".
- <i>Arya</i> is what the Indian tribe used and what you mean with "the name of an ethnicity ("tribe") during vedic and near post-vedic period".
You must see the difference: one is a recent and alien theoretical construct ('Indo-European'), the other was its actual meaning in ancient Hindu literature - the Vedas. The two are not the same: Arya, as the ancient Hindus of the Vedic period of the designated part of Bharatam defined it, <i>does not and never referred to the same thing as</i> the Aryan/Indo-European of recent western envisioning.
This is also why the following post didn't make sense to me:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indo-European ==> bhAropIya
Proto-IE ==> prAk-bhAropIya
Indo-Iranian ==> bhAratpArasIya
[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->For the first line, the western argument is: "Indo-European ==> Aryan"
Do you not see that there is no need for you to coin an equivalent phrase for this, when the western argument implies that the term is supposedly already there in our literature (in the meaning they read it as).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->4. all of the above in far ancient history only. So dont use the terms that don't apply to that period, e.g. 'Hindu'. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Vedas and pre-Vedic period (as far as is covered <i>or referred to</i> by the Puranas <i>at the least</i>, there are also folk traditions that cover these periods) are all Hindu. And the Mahabharatam era, which comes after, is too.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides Bharata, who, as will be hereafter seen, was the son of Dushyanta, the <b>Váyu, Matsya, Agni, and Bráhma PuránÌas</b> enumerate several descendants in this line, for the purpose evidently of introducing, as the posterity of Turvasu, the nations of the south of India: the series is Varuttha, (Karutthama, Bráhma), ÃndÃra (ÃkrÃra, Bráhma); whose sons are PánÌdÌya, KarnÌátÌa, Chola, Kerala; the Hari V. adds Kola, and the Agni very incorrectly Gandhára.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh dear, why do I feel a debate on the 'definition of Hinduism' (alien dialogue) is coming up. (Possibly with Hindus repeating the recent western and christian argument for how the "Vedic religion" is separate and how Hinduism is ...<familiar old sermons>.... ) If it's okay with you, I'll nod in stupid acquiescence in advance if this will let me off. I've heard it and all its variants before - not from Hindus I confess, but nothing surprises me anymore.
Still on the "So dont use the terms that don't apply to that period, e.g. 'Hindu'" statement.
In any case, can't use 'Bharatam' related stuff in the following, since it most particularly does not apply to the pre-Indo-Aryan (and pre-Bharata) period - as Indo-European studies would have this.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indo-European ==> <b>bhAr</b>opIya[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not the case, because when the Indo-Europeans were in their Urheimat - as per IE theory - there was no Bharata and therefore no Bharatavarsha yet.<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Proto-IE ==> prAk-<b>bhAr</b>opIya[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Again, most certainly no Bharata and therefore no Bharatam in the even earlier "Proto-IE" period, as per IE theory.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indo-Iranian ==> bhAratpArasIya[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In IE Studies' theory, Indo-Iranian does not mean the time the Bharatas were in argument with certain related Vedic tribes who eventually went off to Iran, but refers to a hypothetical time of a single "Indo-Iranian" population poised to people both Iran and India by eventually splitting either from Iran into Afghanistan and then to India, or from Afghanistan into Iran and India, or from outside into these three regions/countries.
Also, wish Hindus would give complete thought to what exactly they are legitimising through terminology (language).
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Later, many desha-s ("Countries", which too is harmless, so don't get alarmed)[right][snapback]91966[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, I know what desha means. And am not alarmed at all. It is an entirely inoffensive, indeed neutral, word.
But <i>Desi</i> has connotations and therefore does not merely mean someone from "Bharatadesha" as it should have. You will allow that desha and desi are not the same, even if one was originally intended as no more than a mere derivative of the other.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Later, many desha-s [...] of jambUdvIpa where a particular tribe was dominant, the country acquired its name from that dominant tribe. "Andhra" was one such tribe that gave name to the Andhra country. likewise are the names gujarAta, kamboja, kerala, karNATaka and so on. Of course the best understood example can be the most recent of such event - Assam gets its name from Ahoms who migrated as late as last 500 years back or so from east.[right][snapback]91966[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sure, that is what I meant with reference to the many tribes giving their names to various southern regions of Bharatam. And it is what I thought was the case when it came to Andhra Pradesh, but was not entirely sure. Thanks for the confirmation.
The messy bit:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky,
A few things need to be understood:
1. Irrespective all the debate on direction of migration, what is clear is this: Arya (Anglicized as "Aryan", just like very harmless "Mongolian", and "Tibetean") -- was indeed the name of an ethnicity ("tribe") during vedic and near post-vedic period. Evidence is in the older parts of the R^igveda samhitA itself. Above tag was in exclusive use of one particular "tribe", and only later acquired the other meaning of "Noble".[right][snapback]91966[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I know the present meaning of Arya and also what it meant in earlier and later Vedic literature.
But this line is factually wrong:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Arya (Anglicized as "Aryan", just like very harmless "Mongolian", and "Tibetean")<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Aryan in <i>English/European languages</i> does *not* mean the same as the old Vedic Hindu tribe's self-designation.
- <i>Aryan</i> (arisch in German) means <i>Indo-European</i> and nothing less. It presupposes PIE, European genes, Urheimat and everything else. So No, it does not mean the same as "the name of an ethnicity ("tribe") during vedic and near post-vedic period".
- <i>Arya</i> is what the Indian tribe used and what you mean with "the name of an ethnicity ("tribe") during vedic and near post-vedic period".
You must see the difference: one is a recent and alien theoretical construct ('Indo-European'), the other was its actual meaning in ancient Hindu literature - the Vedas. The two are not the same: Arya, as the ancient Hindus of the Vedic period of the designated part of Bharatam defined it, <i>does not and never referred to the same thing as</i> the Aryan/Indo-European of recent western envisioning.
This is also why the following post didn't make sense to me:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indo-European ==> bhAropIya
Proto-IE ==> prAk-bhAropIya
Indo-Iranian ==> bhAratpArasIya
[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->For the first line, the western argument is: "Indo-European ==> Aryan"
Do you not see that there is no need for you to coin an equivalent phrase for this, when the western argument implies that the term is supposedly already there in our literature (in the meaning they read it as).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->4. all of the above in far ancient history only. So dont use the terms that don't apply to that period, e.g. 'Hindu'. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Vedas and pre-Vedic period (as far as is covered <i>or referred to</i> by the Puranas <i>at the least</i>, there are also folk traditions that cover these periods) are all Hindu. And the Mahabharatam era, which comes after, is too.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides Bharata, who, as will be hereafter seen, was the son of Dushyanta, the <b>Váyu, Matsya, Agni, and Bráhma PuránÌas</b> enumerate several descendants in this line, for the purpose evidently of introducing, as the posterity of Turvasu, the nations of the south of India: the series is Varuttha, (Karutthama, Bráhma), ÃndÃra (ÃkrÃra, Bráhma); whose sons are PánÌdÌya, KarnÌátÌa, Chola, Kerala; the Hari V. adds Kola, and the Agni very incorrectly Gandhára.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh dear, why do I feel a debate on the 'definition of Hinduism' (alien dialogue) is coming up. (Possibly with Hindus repeating the recent western and christian argument for how the "Vedic religion" is separate and how Hinduism is ...<familiar old sermons>.... ) If it's okay with you, I'll nod in stupid acquiescence in advance if this will let me off. I've heard it and all its variants before - not from Hindus I confess, but nothing surprises me anymore.
Still on the "So dont use the terms that don't apply to that period, e.g. 'Hindu'" statement.
In any case, can't use 'Bharatam' related stuff in the following, since it most particularly does not apply to the pre-Indo-Aryan (and pre-Bharata) period - as Indo-European studies would have this.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indo-European ==> <b>bhAr</b>opIya[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not the case, because when the Indo-Europeans were in their Urheimat - as per IE theory - there was no Bharata and therefore no Bharatavarsha yet.<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Proto-IE ==> prAk-<b>bhAr</b>opIya[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Again, most certainly no Bharata and therefore no Bharatam in the even earlier "Proto-IE" period, as per IE theory.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indo-Iranian ==> bhAratpArasIya[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In IE Studies' theory, Indo-Iranian does not mean the time the Bharatas were in argument with certain related Vedic tribes who eventually went off to Iran, but refers to a hypothetical time of a single "Indo-Iranian" population poised to people both Iran and India by eventually splitting either from Iran into Afghanistan and then to India, or from Afghanistan into Iran and India, or from outside into these three regions/countries.
Also, wish Hindus would give complete thought to what exactly they are legitimising through terminology (language).
Death to traitors.