<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->it is what I thought was the case when it came to <b>Andhra Pradesh</b>, but was not entirely sure. Thanks for the confirmation.
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you are referring to the modern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, I must submit that this was not very precise name for the state. Historical and famous "Andhra" is only one part of this modern state of "Andhra Pradesh". A better name could have been "telugu-desham" for this state. The regions north of godAvarI, although telugu-speakers, are not Andhrites of history. In fact if you review the events of 1956, these folks of Telangana had protested against the name of "Andhra" being applied to the whole state - an event which just went into the footnotes of course, since Andhra was anyways the most dominant region in the "telugu-desham".
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->But this line is factually wrong:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>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. ...
You must see the difference... the two are not the same...
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reference of "Aryan" in the original post of that writer had nothing to do with Indo-European etc. It was about the southward expansion of these people calling themselves Arya-s.
Now, if an Indian speaking in english has to refer to those people, how do you propose should he refer to them? "Arya"/"Arya-s" etc? (Then to make it consistent, people should also not call the tamil-speaking people in English as "Tamilian"?)
I have no issues with it, if it is acceptable and gains currency. In fact I like the proposal.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is also why the following post didn't make sense to me:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM--><div class='quotetop'>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).
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When someone speaks in Indic languages, say Hindi, and wants to refer to the so-called IE/IR group of languages, I think it is better to use an Indic term. (like we should use word "Arya" and not "Aryan"). Now I know next you would probably say there is no such thing as IE/IR etc group of languages and the language families is a con job.
And by the way I did not coin these words. These words were coined by early Indian linguists such as P D Gune etc. I only reproduced those here.
In fact this point you raised is symptomic of what we are missing. We are missing our own, native scholoarship in the history of our own languages, both current and classical, as well as foreign. So we dont even care to have technical words in currency as we are much engaged in 'responding the wily Indologist'.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have a point there. But still "Bharat" is only as valid or invalid as "India" or "Europe" or "Iran" when used in referring to a group of languages - both currently spoken as well classical. Please suggest if you have a better term to describe these.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand your frustration, but not its cause.
As long as one says that "Hindu is one who follows Hindusim" and "Hinduism is a religion that is followed by a Hindu", due to the circular logic the confusion would remain.
While "Hindu" is a rather accurate term, even though also of foreign origin, but I just don't know what should be called "Hinduism" (by the way, this word is also an equally recent gift by the very same people who invented the Aryan Invasion etc.)
On this, I can only remind the same good advise of yours:
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->wish Hindus would give complete thought to what exactly they are legitimising through terminology (language).
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just curious, those who are "Jains" are not "Hindus" in your definition of the term, yes?
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you are referring to the modern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, I must submit that this was not very precise name for the state. Historical and famous "Andhra" is only one part of this modern state of "Andhra Pradesh". A better name could have been "telugu-desham" for this state. The regions north of godAvarI, although telugu-speakers, are not Andhrites of history. In fact if you review the events of 1956, these folks of Telangana had protested against the name of "Andhra" being applied to the whole state - an event which just went into the footnotes of course, since Andhra was anyways the most dominant region in the "telugu-desham".
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->But this line is factually wrong:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>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. ...
You must see the difference... the two are not the same...
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reference of "Aryan" in the original post of that writer had nothing to do with Indo-European etc. It was about the southward expansion of these people calling themselves Arya-s.
Now, if an Indian speaking in english has to refer to those people, how do you propose should he refer to them? "Arya"/"Arya-s" etc? (Then to make it consistent, people should also not call the tamil-speaking people in English as "Tamilian"?)
I have no issues with it, if it is acceptable and gains currency. In fact I like the proposal.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is also why the following post didn't make sense to me:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM--><div class='quotetop'>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).
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When someone speaks in Indic languages, say Hindi, and wants to refer to the so-called IE/IR group of languages, I think it is better to use an Indic term. (like we should use word "Arya" and not "Aryan"). Now I know next you would probably say there is no such thing as IE/IR etc group of languages and the language families is a con job.
And by the way I did not coin these words. These words were coined by early Indian linguists such as P D Gune etc. I only reproduced those here.
In fact this point you raised is symptomic of what we are missing. We are missing our own, native scholoarship in the history of our own languages, both current and classical, as well as foreign. So we dont even care to have technical words in currency as we are much engaged in 'responding the wily Indologist'.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have a point there. But still "Bharat" is only as valid or invalid as "India" or "Europe" or "Iran" when used in referring to a group of languages - both currently spoken as well classical. Please suggest if you have a better term to describe these.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand your frustration, but not its cause.
As long as one says that "Hindu is one who follows Hindusim" and "Hinduism is a religion that is followed by a Hindu", due to the circular logic the confusion would remain.
While "Hindu" is a rather accurate term, even though also of foreign origin, but I just don't know what should be called "Hinduism" (by the way, this word is also an equally recent gift by the very same people who invented the Aryan Invasion etc.)
On this, I can only remind the same good advise of yours:
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->wish Hindus would give complete thought to what exactly they are legitimising through terminology (language).
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just curious, those who are "Jains" are not "Hindus" in your definition of the term, yes?