Confusion over Indo-European

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, Narayan R Joshi <giravani@J...> wrote:

No informed person on this list any more argues in favor of an `Aryan

Invasion' of India or of a `European homeland' for Vedic tribes. Let

us not tar Prof. Witzel with those views, unless he specifically

endorses them.

 

 

Now, is it really the position of Prof. Witzel that the Aryan

migration started near Afghanistan and spread East to India and West

to Iran and then Europe? If that is so, why would he use such strong

language in his responses here? There are only differences in

terminology between this and the `out of India' theory that he so

vehemently denounces. Afghanistan (even Iran) and ancient Indus valley

are so close-present political boundaries not withstanding.

 

Prof. Witzel will clarify his view (succintly, and without

obfuscating jargon, let us hope!) here. For, without a clarification,

his continued use of the word `Indo-European' would amount to a

concession that the roots of European languages lie in India- not

somewhere in between.

 

Even if the Aryan homeland where in Iran or Central Asia, the phrase

`Indo-European' would be as outdated ( and confusing) as `Indo-German'

for a group of languages. As a theory changes, its terminology has to

be updated as well to avoid confusion. Linguists especially, must be

conscious of the changing meaning of the words they use.

 

 

 

 

> In my opinion, there is confusion on the adjective "Indo-European". To

> the best of my knowledge the AIT or AMT theory does not profess the

> invasion of (migration to)the ancient India by people from the ancient

> Europe. It is trying to show us some groups of the ancient

> people(accidently named Aryans ) spread from the area somewhere north of

> the present Afghanistan in both directions in the west to Europe and in

> the east to India.So there was prehistoric invasion (or migration to) of

> Europe just like the northwest India .It is proved that the word "Aryan"

> has no relationship to the original population of Europe before this

> spread took place. If we would like to know more about the prehistory of

> India, we need to know the proper tribal names of the ancient (around

> 1000 BCE-King Soloman's time) people living in the east of Khyber pass.

> "Arya" is not a tribal name. Since Prof Witzel refers to the Kuru

(proper

> name) supertribe in the east of Khyber pass, I politely raised the

> question about the clan names of people west of Khyber pass. He was kind

> enough to offer the information(Indology-June2). To the best of my

> knowledge, the names cited by him are the names of areas, satrapies,

> mountains and not the proper names of the tribes or clans except "maada

> (medes)" and Paarsa(persians). To the best of my knowledge, the name

> "maada" is not a clan name but the name of the place Medes belonged

to in

> the distant past. Persians have multiple clan names, not a single name

> "Persian". Please correct me kindly if I am wrong. At the end I would

> like to add that the adjective Indo-European could be safely used to

> suggest the landscape from India to East Europe. Thanks. N.R.Joshi.

> ______________

> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!

> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!

> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:

> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

[Guest guest]

Please check this statement of kanchi paramAchArya.

 

http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2001/05/18/stories/13180903.htm

 

paramAchArya, like all vedic Rsis, is well known for His wild

speculations. It is well known that vedic literature is all but a

master piece of speculations. One thing is sure, like children who

are not afraid of speaking blunders (and that is the reason they

learn any language faster than adults). The Rsis are not shy of

speculations even if they may be proved wrong. Worst case it will

become a scripture for faithful followers.

 

An Aryan homeland in central asia is well acceptable to the Hindus if

that turns out to be true, despite voi.org. I still think voi should

have freedom of speech and are not harmful.

 

Regards

Bhadraiah

[Guest guest]

> speculations. It is well known that vedic literature is all but a

> master piece of speculations. One thing is sure, like children who

 

There is much more than speculation in the Vedas, I should think.

If it were all mere speculation, there wouldn't be much lasting

value in them.

 

There were (and are) those who do not speculate at all, and others

who may speculate, but not very wildly. Why some of these others

are not considered equivalent to Vedic Rishis is a mystery to me.

Are people today looking for speculations of the wildest range,

in order to feel good about themselves? I hope otherwise.

 

Regards,

Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

Sri Sundaresan

 

I am sorry I did not convey my message correctly. I am promoting

speculation as a virtue these days. The more the better. Hopefully it

will help the dry branch to shoot leaves and generate enough material

for brain storming. I agree that from vyAvahArika viewpoint vedic

literature may not be speculation, but how else can variety be born

of the boring non-duality other than from speculaton of the wildest

possible kind?

 

A Rsi needs no recognition, because every Rsi's opinion (whether

recognized or not, or acclaimed or not) is a mile stone a sAdhaka has

no choice but to pass by.

 

Best regards

Bhadraiah

 

INDOLOGY, vsundaresan@h... wrote:

> > speculations. It is well known that vedic literature is all but a

> > master piece of speculations. One thing is sure, like children

who

>

> There is much more than speculation in the Vedas, I should think.

> If it were all mere speculation, there wouldn't be much lasting

> value in them.

>

> There were (and are) those who do not speculate at all, and others

> who may speculate, but not very wildly. Why some of these others

> are not considered equivalent to Vedic Rishis is a mystery to me.

> Are people today looking for speculations of the wildest range,

> in order to feel good about themselves? I hope otherwise.

>

> Regards,

> Vidyasankar