Husky, I shall follow your scheme then - your comments in blue.
There's no need to attempt to speak for me, particularly when your predictions are wrong. Lincoln, Trubetskoy and whoever .... Going by their summary of the (non)'evidence' for any historical validation of the classification, I find I merely concur.
Husky, this position is not far from what I had anticipated from you. so I was not off the mark. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But once again, this too I see as symptomic of the tendency of the native scholars of lingustics. They see the whole thing always from the prism of either the AIT or OIT, but never independent of this debate. The debate itself (and trust me, I am not referring to your assertions here, but basis a large number of others i have seen online on DLs), always laced with passion and lacking altogether any evidence or even solid theories; no attempt to learn our classical languages - leave aside prAkR^ita-s and apabhraMsha and pAlI and cHandas, even the plain and simple laukika saMskR^ita too, even the native mother languages of today too. And the folks enter the linguistics-based debates, and of course because they have no language study to themselves, they find it easy to bash the linguistics/philology altogether, or best they would do it drop some obscure names.
Why did you assume IE/IR refers to HISTORICAL connection? Forget history, I am asking how should these current languages that are derived from Latin, Greek, pehlavI and saMskR^ita be referred as? I only hope (against my belief, and in order not to "attempt to speak for you") that you are not going to say that there is no organic connection between them. I was referring of PRESENT, not HISTORY, while the authors you sited speak of past, that too I think in reference to the migration theories or against it.
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").
<b>If the need arose, then Indo is an Indian-derived word. It may be found to suffice.</b>
But you did not explain why Indics should not use words of their own for this domain, when discussing the subject amongst themselves. Basically, you insist not to translate the foreign words in this domain, in fact you actually insist not to move the medium of this research from being English. And you also presume that native research only means natives joining mlechCha indologuists in doing what they have been doing.
This can be called IE/linguistics-fobia. yes I concede there is ample and justified cause over a sustained period for having resulted in this fobia among Hindus; but as of today, the fobia has set in. (other symptoms of which being: judging the commitment of scholars to Hindu causes on the benchmark of where they stand on AIT/OIT debate - e.g. Dr. K Elst flogging on DLs by hyperactive but hollow "Hindu scholars".)
I have not seen it absolutely proven that the word 'Hindu' is in fact of foreign origin. And I have seen the case made for it being of indigenous origin. Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu' by Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja
1. But by the evidence sited in this paper itself, The oldest inscriptional evidence of the usage of the term outside India is from 6th century BCE of Iran, and the same inside India is from Asokan inscriptions 3 centuries later. Likewise the literary use of word Hindu is first seen from avestan and greek literature, where none of the indigenous scriptures of BCE use this term to describe ourselves. The reversal of this evidence and suggesting a saurAShTran origin for 'Hindu' without any evidence, falls in the category of 'pleading'.
2. And the point this paper did not make, but is evident, that all the while 'Hindu' described a nationality and not a religious affiliation or bent. Precisely in line with what I said before. This definition of religion might have been added to differenciate the pagans from alien systems/civilizations of christians and mohammedans, and is justified.
So, I am fine with this word Hindu to describe all people of Indic origin and nationality that are not subscribers of the 'alien' religions that imperialistically demand a holy place and prophet and philosophy of non-Indian origin. But I am not fine to then subvert this definition by stating there is some sort of "religion" that goes by the name of Hinduism or even Hindu Dharma or even Sanatana Dharma. Pls. show the pre-colonial evidence for this description/definition.
In fact, this is what is much more important, and is PRECISELY the very accurate definition of Hinduism/Dharma etc:
I tend to use Hindu (or Sanatana) Dharma for my religion.
"I", the individual Indic, using traditions of my forefathers, define what is my religion, and refer to it as Hindu Dharma, which may be different from someone else defining his own religion and referring by the same name. That may be a more precise "Hindu Dharma".
By the way this statement by writer is very interesting:
In the Avestan Gatha 'Shatir', 163rd Verse speaks of the visit of Veda Vyas to
the court of Gustashp and in the presence of Zorashtra, Veda Vyas introduces
himself saying 'man marde am Hind jijad' 8 - I am man born in 'Hind'. Veda Vyas
was an elder contemporary of Shri Krishna (3100 B.C.).
First of all, 'veda vyAsa' is not a name but a title, and there are many who are called vyAsa-s. If he is referring to the great savant kR^iShNa dwaipAyana, then that means jaruthaShTra was contemporary of mahAbhArata evenets? Interesting!
And who did you mean were "Jains" and who "Hindus" in an earlier newspaper translation you made here. Was this your definition or that of the newspaper or that of the Jains of Jammu making the statement? The next question then: how far do you concur with the implications of that translation/the original?
of course translation. "Jaina" is indeed a particular religion and philosophy, Hindu is a "civilization" where that religion too arose. So I see the same problem here too.
Bharatvarsh:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->dEsam is usually used to mean a separate country in Telugu, naadu would be the more appropriate term and is used for both a separate country and a certain region as in palnaadu. So Telugunaadu would have been the most appropriate term.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I agree, and I think this was one of the proposals, Telugunadu.
There's no need to attempt to speak for me, particularly when your predictions are wrong. Lincoln, Trubetskoy and whoever .... Going by their summary of the (non)'evidence' for any historical validation of the classification, I find I merely concur.
Husky, this position is not far from what I had anticipated from you. so I was not off the mark. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> But once again, this too I see as symptomic of the tendency of the native scholars of lingustics. They see the whole thing always from the prism of either the AIT or OIT, but never independent of this debate. The debate itself (and trust me, I am not referring to your assertions here, but basis a large number of others i have seen online on DLs), always laced with passion and lacking altogether any evidence or even solid theories; no attempt to learn our classical languages - leave aside prAkR^ita-s and apabhraMsha and pAlI and cHandas, even the plain and simple laukika saMskR^ita too, even the native mother languages of today too. And the folks enter the linguistics-based debates, and of course because they have no language study to themselves, they find it easy to bash the linguistics/philology altogether, or best they would do it drop some obscure names.
Why did you assume IE/IR refers to HISTORICAL connection? Forget history, I am asking how should these current languages that are derived from Latin, Greek, pehlavI and saMskR^ita be referred as? I only hope (against my belief, and in order not to "attempt to speak for you") that you are not going to say that there is no organic connection between them. I was referring of PRESENT, not HISTORY, while the authors you sited speak of past, that too I think in reference to the migration theories or against it.
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").
<b>If the need arose, then Indo is an Indian-derived word. It may be found to suffice.</b>
But you did not explain why Indics should not use words of their own for this domain, when discussing the subject amongst themselves. Basically, you insist not to translate the foreign words in this domain, in fact you actually insist not to move the medium of this research from being English. And you also presume that native research only means natives joining mlechCha indologuists in doing what they have been doing.
This can be called IE/linguistics-fobia. yes I concede there is ample and justified cause over a sustained period for having resulted in this fobia among Hindus; but as of today, the fobia has set in. (other symptoms of which being: judging the commitment of scholars to Hindu causes on the benchmark of where they stand on AIT/OIT debate - e.g. Dr. K Elst flogging on DLs by hyperactive but hollow "Hindu scholars".)
I have not seen it absolutely proven that the word 'Hindu' is in fact of foreign origin. And I have seen the case made for it being of indigenous origin. Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu' by Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja
1. But by the evidence sited in this paper itself, The oldest inscriptional evidence of the usage of the term outside India is from 6th century BCE of Iran, and the same inside India is from Asokan inscriptions 3 centuries later. Likewise the literary use of word Hindu is first seen from avestan and greek literature, where none of the indigenous scriptures of BCE use this term to describe ourselves. The reversal of this evidence and suggesting a saurAShTran origin for 'Hindu' without any evidence, falls in the category of 'pleading'.
2. And the point this paper did not make, but is evident, that all the while 'Hindu' described a nationality and not a religious affiliation or bent. Precisely in line with what I said before. This definition of religion might have been added to differenciate the pagans from alien systems/civilizations of christians and mohammedans, and is justified.
So, I am fine with this word Hindu to describe all people of Indic origin and nationality that are not subscribers of the 'alien' religions that imperialistically demand a holy place and prophet and philosophy of non-Indian origin. But I am not fine to then subvert this definition by stating there is some sort of "religion" that goes by the name of Hinduism or even Hindu Dharma or even Sanatana Dharma. Pls. show the pre-colonial evidence for this description/definition.
In fact, this is what is much more important, and is PRECISELY the very accurate definition of Hinduism/Dharma etc:
I tend to use Hindu (or Sanatana) Dharma for my religion.
"I", the individual Indic, using traditions of my forefathers, define what is my religion, and refer to it as Hindu Dharma, which may be different from someone else defining his own religion and referring by the same name. That may be a more precise "Hindu Dharma".
By the way this statement by writer is very interesting:
In the Avestan Gatha 'Shatir', 163rd Verse speaks of the visit of Veda Vyas to
the court of Gustashp and in the presence of Zorashtra, Veda Vyas introduces
himself saying 'man marde am Hind jijad' 8 - I am man born in 'Hind'. Veda Vyas
was an elder contemporary of Shri Krishna (3100 B.C.).
First of all, 'veda vyAsa' is not a name but a title, and there are many who are called vyAsa-s. If he is referring to the great savant kR^iShNa dwaipAyana, then that means jaruthaShTra was contemporary of mahAbhArata evenets? Interesting!
And who did you mean were "Jains" and who "Hindus" in an earlier newspaper translation you made here. Was this your definition or that of the newspaper or that of the Jains of Jammu making the statement? The next question then: how far do you concur with the implications of that translation/the original?
of course translation. "Jaina" is indeed a particular religion and philosophy, Hindu is a "civilization" where that religion too arose. So I see the same problem here too.
Bharatvarsh:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->dEsam is usually used to mean a separate country in Telugu, naadu would be the more appropriate term and is used for both a separate country and a certain region as in palnaadu. So Telugunaadu would have been the most appropriate term.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I agree, and I think this was one of the proposals, Telugunadu.