SV [Y-Indology] indology and nazism

[Guest guest]

<<<

I have suffered much from

fanatical Hindus who have attacked my work because I reject BOTH the

AIT and the OIT. In my opinion, both theories are fundamentally

flawed, because they both ignore African and Levantine evidence

regarding the Aryans. 'Aryans' were also found outside of ancient

India and Europe as well. Instead of arguing about the homeland of

the Aryans, the European and Indian Indologists should be looking at

Nostratic Linguistic Macro-family evidence for a better understanding

of what the term actually meant. The term has not been understood in

the larger context of evidence linking the African, Semitic and Indo-

European Languages. Both the Native and European Indologists have

blinders on , narrowing their field of vision. This either-or

argument will dissapear if the broader evidence is ever allowed to

speak for itself. In my opinion, they are both asking the wrong

questions.

 

humbly and respectfully submitted (without a bit of bombast)

your aspiring servant, Bhakti Ananda Goswami

>>>

 

Respected Goswamiji, Please consider also the fact that, for

centuries, earliest Tamil literature speaks of Aryans as ethnic folks

living in the North. BTW, the Bhagavatham celebrated in the North

India was written by tamil Srivaishnavas.

 

<<<

I am afraid you will have serious problems with professional scholars

if you work on the basis of the Nostratic theory. It has very little

support in Academia, and will probably not "make it" into the realm of

standard academic linguistic opinions. This is precisely due to the

nature of the evidence. You should at least be familiar with Dixon's

critique of Nostraticism. If you haven't read him, here is the

reference:

 

Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

>>>

 

Because of the Aryan-Dravidian language politics, there was a book

written asserting that Tulu is mother of English. Keerthikumar wrote

in Indology about his website that IE and Kannada/Tulu (Dravidian) are

the same family. I think Prof. Witzel mentioned once that he will

comment upon P. K. Manansala's theories about Austroasiatic languages

and their link with India available on the net, and on Keethi Kumar's

webpage. My guess is MW didn't get time to do it.

 

Also, Nostratics is popular among Tamil scholars. Many like myself

knowing only Tamil try our hands. You can read them in like

tamil.net, agathiyar , etc. With the advent of the net,

computer and engineering professionals from the South try to show that

English comes from Tulu, Tamil etc. For an earlier attempt using

Tamil, see:

Tevaneya_n, Na. (Nanamutta_n), 1902-1981.

The primary classical language of the world, by G. Devaneyan.

[1st ed.] Ka[t]padi Estension, North Arcot Dt., Nesamani Pub.

House; [copies can be had of Paari Nilayam, Madras, 1966]

 

Once George Hart (UC, Berkeley) who has studied Tamil and Sanskrit

all his life told me that a retired govt. official, Tiru.

Gnanagiri Nadar's booklet of comparisons was produced by taking a

look at Greek and Tamil dictionaries. For years in the net and on

Indology list, there are claims that tamil vizhi (eye) and

video, veda, ... are some of sort of nostratic cognates.

While coining neologisms for words from computer jargon or western

technology, sometimes nostratics is used so that tamil words

sound quite similar to english originals. In certain occasions,

tamil equivalents employed earlier in texts or inscriptions are not

taken into account.

 

Prof. Bh. Krishnamurti, an authority in Dravidian linguistics,

does not think favorably about Nostratics.

From

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE?A2=ind9806&L=indology&P=R1761

8

(the editor breaks the line, have it full in URL indicator

for reading.)

> I am not a Nostraticist. I looked at some basic vocabulary, like

>numerals, personal pronouns and kinship terms and did not find much

>support for a long range genetic relationship. I believe that the

>time tested comparative method will fail in establishing long range

>genetic relaionships, because aspects of diffusion from other

>families in contact cannot be accounted for, as different from gentic

>phenomena. I have just started reading Bob Dixn's new book The rise

>and fall of languages. He has some interesting insights on this

>question. Bh.K.

> Bh.Krishnamurti

 

 

Have you read Subhash Kak's paper in the prestigious jl., ABORI

claiming that Dravidian and IA families are kind of same (Experts of

historical linguistics aren't convinced, tho'):

 

Subhash C. Kak, On the classification of Indic languages,

Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 75, 1994,

p. 185-195 (Most OIT gurus do not know tamil, ancient or modern).

 

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan