07-24-2006, 02:44 PM
Post 273:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->not a fool<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am moving up in the world!!! <!--emo&:clapping--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clap.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='clap.gif' /><!--endemo--> (That's one thing ticked off my list. I can now finally move on to my next step: world domination.... <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Regarding the following statement in post 275:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->insane to describe a tamilian as an indo-aryan or a gujrati as a dravidian. neither by ethnicity, and even less by languistic category<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This argument is useful for illustrative purposes.
When Indians are faced with such an argument they must note that it rests on the <i>assumption</i> of the IE worldview. It is from the IE worldview that the terms Indo-Aryan and Dravidian arose, and they apply only within the IE worldview.
But the matter as it stands is moot for those that do not subscribe to the IE view and the argument itself becomes a non-argument since the base assumption (the existence of IE and hence the acceptance of the IA-D dichotomy) is not shared.
I don't describe gujaratis or tamils or any other Indians with either of the terms Indo-Aryan or Dravidian; and I don't speak of languages as IA or D outside of the IE-related conversations on this forum (where the topic forces me to use them) - precisely because the basic premise doesn't take with me.
The cleverest and perhaps most dangerous thing that the IE worldview has done is this: they've made it a choice between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian; they've sneakily excised a third tickbox for 'Indian'. IE has essentially forced its base assumption on people and is now succeeding in making the unthinking choose one or other of their two constructs.
<b>This is language control</b> and it's being imposed on us here.
Other examples of language control that is being exercised on Indians today include the imposition of terms such as caste, South Asia, Dalit.
I am boycotting all of this now. The whole thing is that the west is forcing us to play the game. But just don't play it.
IE is nothing more than an assumption and a blind belief in it (although indologists question other parts of their framework, they never question their basic premise). It's built on (as mentioned by others in this thread) the idea that Europeans initially believed that as per the Bible, they and their language descended from the Jews. They were fervently convinced of this for a long time. But since they hated the Jews (because of the usual Christian nonsense), they desperately sought their origins elsewhere. They imagined up a whole different origin for themselves (and involved the poor ancient Greeks and Romans in everything, including unrelated matters), then found India and Samskritam - and realised they liked it better than their old worldview. So they dumped their whole biblical baggage to create a new one where they come up on top, and then forced it on us.
They <i>invented</i> the Aryans whom no one had heard of and of whom there is no evidence. (There is no historical marker anywhere in the world that states "here lie the Aryans"; there's only records of items and cultures that they find flattering enough to consider as 'Aryan'.)
The AIT was where their ancestors got to be some super-people who brought civilisation everywhere.
Then they thought that these Aryans probably would have had an original homeland, and hence was born the Aryan urheimat idea. And so they started frantically looking for the homeland which they assumed that the supposed Aryans (whom they'd invented) would have had. Thereafter they were also looking to rebuild the 'PIE' supposedly spoken by the supposed Aryans in their supposed Urheimat. If only the Fates (in the Greek sense) would have let them keep on wasting their time this way and stop bothering others. But no, their fetish has affected the view of world history and the histories, societies and politics of many countries.
Their AIT hinged on their methods of classifying languages. Their linguistics rules appear to be non-deterministic and I have serious suspicions that these rules are influenced by their biases in favour of their belief in Aryans. And since no one had a time machine to go back in time and check on the facts, they felt secure in their imperialistic position from where they got to dictate matters.
Coming to today, this new breed of believers got a bit more sophisticated: along with a new name (IE) and whole 'sciences' established to research into the Oryans, PIE and PIE Urheimat, they've also managed to get some Indians and others to swallow their whole premise, hook, line and sinker.
The present-day findings in genetics and Indian archaeology and that of the Tarim Basin did put a damper on things, but still - they still have their central linguistic model which by its very nature of non-determinism cannot be disproved (or proved). Because it's not very scientific, it does not lend itself to scientific scrutiny. That's probably the only reason why the AIT theory, which today survives partially as the IE framework, still holds (which in turn is trying to revive a mutated form of the AIT).
- No invasion, no migration, no influx of Oryans into India. No significant C Asian genetic input (such as it is could merely be from Shaka time, or it could be counter-indicative: what if a few small tribes of Indians settled all of W Asia and C Asia - this is also supported by the fact that the Tarim Basin dwellers were specifically <i>not</i> European but are the same as IVC instead).
- Therefore the method by which they'd imagined Indo-Aryan (and so Samskritam) was introduced into India has fallen through.
- Therefore the very nature of the <i>link</i> of Samskritam and European languages has to be re-investigated (but indologists don't do that). Possibilities for the link, as stated by others elsewhere on this forum, include a much earlier Indian contact with Europe, as opposed to the late 'first contact' Greece made with India.
The nature of the relation between Samskritam and ancient Avestan is not a mystery, of course, as our religious scriptures already clearly show how it came about.
Logically speaking, the rejection of the scenario (related to the AIT/AMT) where Caucasian IE-speakers came to India, should have made indologists take another look at their basic premise and the nature of the linguistic connections. But do the Indologists question their linguistic model, their central assumptions of Oryans, PIE and Urheimat? Oh no. Because their linguistic rules (which were themselves created by a belief in the AIT) says that PIE exists.
Therefore, they're either too conceited ('how can we possibly be wrong?') or too lazy ('200 yrs of 'scholarship' down the drain!') to bother. Or they're motivated by something else entirely - just like they were during the British Empire.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> )Regarding the following statement in post 275:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->insane to describe a tamilian as an indo-aryan or a gujrati as a dravidian. neither by ethnicity, and even less by languistic category<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This argument is useful for illustrative purposes.
When Indians are faced with such an argument they must note that it rests on the <i>assumption</i> of the IE worldview. It is from the IE worldview that the terms Indo-Aryan and Dravidian arose, and they apply only within the IE worldview.
But the matter as it stands is moot for those that do not subscribe to the IE view and the argument itself becomes a non-argument since the base assumption (the existence of IE and hence the acceptance of the IA-D dichotomy) is not shared.
I don't describe gujaratis or tamils or any other Indians with either of the terms Indo-Aryan or Dravidian; and I don't speak of languages as IA or D outside of the IE-related conversations on this forum (where the topic forces me to use them) - precisely because the basic premise doesn't take with me.
The cleverest and perhaps most dangerous thing that the IE worldview has done is this: they've made it a choice between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian; they've sneakily excised a third tickbox for 'Indian'. IE has essentially forced its base assumption on people and is now succeeding in making the unthinking choose one or other of their two constructs.
<b>This is language control</b> and it's being imposed on us here.
Other examples of language control that is being exercised on Indians today include the imposition of terms such as caste, South Asia, Dalit.
I am boycotting all of this now. The whole thing is that the west is forcing us to play the game. But just don't play it.
IE is nothing more than an assumption and a blind belief in it (although indologists question other parts of their framework, they never question their basic premise). It's built on (as mentioned by others in this thread) the idea that Europeans initially believed that as per the Bible, they and their language descended from the Jews. They were fervently convinced of this for a long time. But since they hated the Jews (because of the usual Christian nonsense), they desperately sought their origins elsewhere. They imagined up a whole different origin for themselves (and involved the poor ancient Greeks and Romans in everything, including unrelated matters), then found India and Samskritam - and realised they liked it better than their old worldview. So they dumped their whole biblical baggage to create a new one where they come up on top, and then forced it on us.
They <i>invented</i> the Aryans whom no one had heard of and of whom there is no evidence. (There is no historical marker anywhere in the world that states "here lie the Aryans"; there's only records of items and cultures that they find flattering enough to consider as 'Aryan'.)
The AIT was where their ancestors got to be some super-people who brought civilisation everywhere.
Then they thought that these Aryans probably would have had an original homeland, and hence was born the Aryan urheimat idea. And so they started frantically looking for the homeland which they assumed that the supposed Aryans (whom they'd invented) would have had. Thereafter they were also looking to rebuild the 'PIE' supposedly spoken by the supposed Aryans in their supposed Urheimat. If only the Fates (in the Greek sense) would have let them keep on wasting their time this way and stop bothering others. But no, their fetish has affected the view of world history and the histories, societies and politics of many countries.
Their AIT hinged on their methods of classifying languages. Their linguistics rules appear to be non-deterministic and I have serious suspicions that these rules are influenced by their biases in favour of their belief in Aryans. And since no one had a time machine to go back in time and check on the facts, they felt secure in their imperialistic position from where they got to dictate matters.
Coming to today, this new breed of believers got a bit more sophisticated: along with a new name (IE) and whole 'sciences' established to research into the Oryans, PIE and PIE Urheimat, they've also managed to get some Indians and others to swallow their whole premise, hook, line and sinker.
The present-day findings in genetics and Indian archaeology and that of the Tarim Basin did put a damper on things, but still - they still have their central linguistic model which by its very nature of non-determinism cannot be disproved (or proved). Because it's not very scientific, it does not lend itself to scientific scrutiny. That's probably the only reason why the AIT theory, which today survives partially as the IE framework, still holds (which in turn is trying to revive a mutated form of the AIT).
- No invasion, no migration, no influx of Oryans into India. No significant C Asian genetic input (such as it is could merely be from Shaka time, or it could be counter-indicative: what if a few small tribes of Indians settled all of W Asia and C Asia - this is also supported by the fact that the Tarim Basin dwellers were specifically <i>not</i> European but are the same as IVC instead).
- Therefore the method by which they'd imagined Indo-Aryan (and so Samskritam) was introduced into India has fallen through.
- Therefore the very nature of the <i>link</i> of Samskritam and European languages has to be re-investigated (but indologists don't do that). Possibilities for the link, as stated by others elsewhere on this forum, include a much earlier Indian contact with Europe, as opposed to the late 'first contact' Greece made with India.
The nature of the relation between Samskritam and ancient Avestan is not a mystery, of course, as our religious scriptures already clearly show how it came about.
Logically speaking, the rejection of the scenario (related to the AIT/AMT) where Caucasian IE-speakers came to India, should have made indologists take another look at their basic premise and the nature of the linguistic connections. But do the Indologists question their linguistic model, their central assumptions of Oryans, PIE and Urheimat? Oh no. Because their linguistic rules (which were themselves created by a belief in the AIT) says that PIE exists.
Therefore, they're either too conceited ('how can we possibly be wrong?') or too lazy ('200 yrs of 'scholarship' down the drain!') to bother. Or they're motivated by something else entirely - just like they were during the British Empire.