08-23-2006, 10:15 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Aug 3 2006, 09:15 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Aug 3 2006, 09:15 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Post 78: <!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AIT is all BS and their theory assigns 1500 BCE for it.
Microsoft Encarta seems to claim that the Hittite had cuneiform records written down in about 1600 BC.
Should we worry about this as the Vedas were never written down and were only orally transmitted !
Little should we care what these Indologists claim.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm with you on this. (I'll enlarge my warning at the top of the first Encarta-post larger and copy them to the top of the other posts). I don't believe in the AIT, in Aryans and Dravidians, nor in Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages - yes, from what I've read, I have decide that IE really is a matter of faith than anything else.
I just posted the articles and excerpts that I thought others might not generally have access to/might not have looked at. They reveal many underlying things that are not necessarily related to the IE view.
For instance:
- The fact that the Hittite records are 1600bce is probably used as proof that it is older than Vedas whose date was randomly assigned;
The fact that the dating for the Hittite-Mitanni treaty is found to be older than the date randomly accorded the AI of India is supposedly an additional proof that IE language was introduced into India. (The linguistic gymnastics to prove that the Mitanni treaty was written in an 'older' form of 'Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian' can be ignored. This is based on the IE assumption and they merely want to prove it with their linguistic exercise using their biased rules). Some indologists thought that it has been proven that AI of India was in 1500bce and so call upon the Mitanni treaty as proof that an Indian-like language existed external to India before the AI. (Elst also mentioned an example case of where indologists assume the 1500bce automatically when trying to defend the AIT/AMT)
- That indologists have grouped Kashmiri separately from the other Indian languages, and that it is 'Dardic' (?) and that this might be an Indo-Iranian subbranch separate of 'Indo-Aryan' and Iranian.
- About the Encarta statement: "By 1800 the close relationship between Sanskrit, ancient Greek, and Latin had been <i>demonstrated</i>." Nothing had been demonstrated. It had only been argued informally; then this gave rise to the IE linguistic rules which then 'proved' that the informal arguments were true. See the cyclical proof:
informal proposition that they are genetically related languages (belong to family) <-> biased with that assumption, rules are created to prove these languages are part of the same family <-> family tree once created obeys all these linguistic rules, hence 'proving' initial informal argument. "Q.E.D."
- Telling statement from Encarta: "The early Indo-European studies established many principles basic to comparative linguistics."
So, these rules and principles were created (and influenced) when they had first decided that the languages must be related. Linguistics is not Quantum Physics - even if it has to still be content to carry out its work in theoretical space, it bases itself on maths and works with mathematical proofs. Linguistics <i>insists</i> on working in theory only - even though it doesn't have to, because the other fields like archaeology, genetics, anthropology can track down populations and their movements and can confirm or contradict the large-scale models generated by linguistics. (Each language in the old times needed speakers to transmit them, unless all societies had the same alphabet and were literate.)
- Encarta statement: "Hindu grammarians had systematically classified the formative elements of their ancient language. To their studies were added extensive grammatical and phonetic comparisons of European languages."
Europe wasn't objective in this at all, because it became a matter of their own identity (IE is very much connected with European identity)
[right][snapback]55012[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Husky,
Is the forum aware of the motivations which led to the development of IE? Sir William Jones's main motivation was to prove the biblical origin of the world. He propunded the "Common origin of Languages" to prove the biblical Tower of Babel. Then he goes on to say that Ham (called Ram in India) fathered the Indian race whose brother was Japhet.
So my question has any one proven ( I have not seen a proof) that Iranian of Avesta is the precursor to Sanskrit? I have read Jones, we know his motivations. Even modern linguists that I have read accept Jones as gospel. But has anyone seen a carefully constructed proof?
-Digvijay
Microsoft Encarta seems to claim that the Hittite had cuneiform records written down in about 1600 BC.
Should we worry about this as the Vedas were never written down and were only orally transmitted !
Little should we care what these Indologists claim.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm with you on this. (I'll enlarge my warning at the top of the first Encarta-post larger and copy them to the top of the other posts). I don't believe in the AIT, in Aryans and Dravidians, nor in Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages - yes, from what I've read, I have decide that IE really is a matter of faith than anything else.
I just posted the articles and excerpts that I thought others might not generally have access to/might not have looked at. They reveal many underlying things that are not necessarily related to the IE view.
For instance:
- The fact that the Hittite records are 1600bce is probably used as proof that it is older than Vedas whose date was randomly assigned;
The fact that the dating for the Hittite-Mitanni treaty is found to be older than the date randomly accorded the AI of India is supposedly an additional proof that IE language was introduced into India. (The linguistic gymnastics to prove that the Mitanni treaty was written in an 'older' form of 'Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian' can be ignored. This is based on the IE assumption and they merely want to prove it with their linguistic exercise using their biased rules). Some indologists thought that it has been proven that AI of India was in 1500bce and so call upon the Mitanni treaty as proof that an Indian-like language existed external to India before the AI. (Elst also mentioned an example case of where indologists assume the 1500bce automatically when trying to defend the AIT/AMT)
- That indologists have grouped Kashmiri separately from the other Indian languages, and that it is 'Dardic' (?) and that this might be an Indo-Iranian subbranch separate of 'Indo-Aryan' and Iranian.
- About the Encarta statement: "By 1800 the close relationship between Sanskrit, ancient Greek, and Latin had been <i>demonstrated</i>." Nothing had been demonstrated. It had only been argued informally; then this gave rise to the IE linguistic rules which then 'proved' that the informal arguments were true. See the cyclical proof:
informal proposition that they are genetically related languages (belong to family) <-> biased with that assumption, rules are created to prove these languages are part of the same family <-> family tree once created obeys all these linguistic rules, hence 'proving' initial informal argument. "Q.E.D."
- Telling statement from Encarta: "The early Indo-European studies established many principles basic to comparative linguistics."
So, these rules and principles were created (and influenced) when they had first decided that the languages must be related. Linguistics is not Quantum Physics - even if it has to still be content to carry out its work in theoretical space, it bases itself on maths and works with mathematical proofs. Linguistics <i>insists</i> on working in theory only - even though it doesn't have to, because the other fields like archaeology, genetics, anthropology can track down populations and their movements and can confirm or contradict the large-scale models generated by linguistics. (Each language in the old times needed speakers to transmit them, unless all societies had the same alphabet and were literate.)
- Encarta statement: "Hindu grammarians had systematically classified the formative elements of their ancient language. To their studies were added extensive grammatical and phonetic comparisons of European languages."
Europe wasn't objective in this at all, because it became a matter of their own identity (IE is very much connected with European identity)
[right][snapback]55012[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Husky,
Is the forum aware of the motivations which led to the development of IE? Sir William Jones's main motivation was to prove the biblical origin of the world. He propunded the "Common origin of Languages" to prove the biblical Tower of Babel. Then he goes on to say that Ham (called Ram in India) fathered the Indian race whose brother was Japhet.
So my question has any one proven ( I have not seen a proof) that Iranian of Avesta is the precursor to Sanskrit? I have read Jones, we know his motivations. Even modern linguists that I have read accept Jones as gospel. But has anyone seen a carefully constructed proof?
-Digvijay