Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What Is Sanskreet
Hamara Forums > General > Education World
IDOL
Hi Friends,



My classmate is from Burma.......he showed me his language's writing........the alphabet..........he said that it came from Sanskret.........i used to think that Sanskreet is Hindu Religion's Holy book.........now i wonder if it's a peice of litrature......or?........plz do share ur knowledge.........



thank u





Mandrake
Khobi dear, pls make a visit to India. You'll learn a lot of things here smile1.gif

Sanskrit is the mother language. It is said (don't have to believe this) that it is the first structured language to be spoken on earth. All Indian/subcontinental languages originate from it. Some parts of Greek and Russian are also extremely similar to it. It is the oldest language still spoken, written and taught in India.

The structure of sanskrit is so precise that computer programmers have long accepted that it is the perfect language to use in programming (programmers might explain just how).

Sanskrit is a language. It is written in a script called Devnaagari (meaning - from the city of gods). I believe Burmese write in a script called Braahmi (meaning 'originating from Brahma'). Though I may be wrong. Braahmi and Devnaagari don't resemble each other, though the core is the same.

A bit on Braahmi. It is named after Brahma, the creator god of the hindus. The giant river that flows northeast of India is called Brahmaputraa (meaning - daughter of Brahma). Burma is the modified version of 'Brahma'. Previously, Burma was called Brahmadesh (meaning 'Brahma's country').
A substantial part of the northeast and east Indian languages uses braahmi script.
august
Sanskrit is also called as "girvaan bharati" (language spoken by God).
researchers have found many connections between ancient languages like sanskrit and latin.
also the sanskrit-german relations are well-known.

IDOL
QUOTE(Mandrake @ Apr 27 2006, 07:34 PM) *
Khobi dear, pls make a visit to India. You'll learn a lot of things here smile1.gif

Sanskrit is the mother language. It is said (don't have to believe this) that it is the first structured language to be spoken on earth. All Indian/subcontinental languages originate from it. Some parts of Greek and Russian are also extremely similar to it. It is the oldest language still spoken, written and taught in India.

The structure of sanskrit is so precise that computer programmers have long accepted that it is the perfect language to use in programming (programmers might explain just how).

Sanskrit is a language. It is written in a script called Devnaagari (meaning - from the city of gods). I believe Burmese write in a script called Braahmi (meaning 'originating from Brahma'). Though I may be wrong. Braahmi and Devnaagari don't resemble each other, though the core is the same.

A bit on Braahmi. It is named after Brahma, the creator god of the hindus. The giant river that flows northeast of India is called Brahmaputraa (meaning - daughter of Brahma). Burma is the modified version of 'Brahma'. Previously, Burma was called Brahmadesh (meaning 'Brahma's country').
A substantial part of the northeast and east Indian languages uses braahmi script.




that was so sweet of u mandrake...............u gave me enough information........and i luv it...........now that burmese boy says his language originaged from Saskrit........so as u say the core is one.......then he's right.........thank u so much for such useful information

Mandrake
always happy to be of use, Khobi smile.gif

A small footnote: the word 'sanskrit', generally translated, means 'processed'. Anything that undergoes a series of processes (usually sucessfully) for betterment, is called 'sanskrit'.
Sharad
Mandrake
do you happen to know when the present day hindi was made ?
NATURE
khobi jaan, everything is told by mandrake ji. anyway, mandi ji. brahmaputra is male right ?
so it would be son of brahma, i guess. ( putra is son, in my mother tongue brahmaputra is a male river )

It has a position in culture of South Asia and Southeast Asia similar to that of Latin and Greek in Europe, and
is a central part of Hindu tradition and Philosophy. Its pre-Classical form as the Chandas language (appearing
in the Vedas) is one of the earliest attested members of the Indo-European language family, with the
language of the Rigveda being the oldest and most archaic stage preserved.

Today, Sanskrit is used as a ceremonial language in Hindu religious rituals in the forms of hymns and
mantras. The vast literary tradition of Sanskrit in the form of the Hindu scriptures and the philosophical
writings are also studied. The corpus of Sanskrit literature encompasses a rich tradition of poetry and
literature, as well as scientific, technical, philosophical and religious texts.

The scope of this article is the Classical Sanskrit language as laid out in the grammar of Panini, around 500
BC.

The oldest surviving Sanskrit grammar is Pāṇini's Aṣtādhyāyī ("Eight-Chapter Grammar") dating to ca. the
5th century BC. It is essentially a prescriptive grammar, i.e., an authority that defines (rather than
describes) correct Sanskrit, although it contains descriptive parts, mostly to account for Vedic forms that
had already passed out of use in Panini's time.

other indian languaes like telugu, kannada, malayalam, bengali, assamese, hindi, oriya borrowed so much
from sanskrit while tamil borrowed less than other languages.

yes, it's very close to computer language. what computer scientists say: hindu god and computers speak
sanskrit and it can be easily communicated with the machine language.

here are nemerals of sanskrit:

1 éka
2 dví
3 trí
4 catúr
5 pańca
6 ṣáṣ
7 saptá, sápta
8 aṣṭá, áṣṭa
9 náva
10 dáśa

************************

sharad ji, as far as i know there's no specific time when hindi was evolved.

1,000 AD is commonly accepted. Hindi evolved from Sanskrit, by way of the Middle Indo-Aryan
Prakrit languages and Apabhramsha of the Middle Ages.
when muslim leaders came to india, a thousand years of influence and mixure of persian, hindi and arabic
created another beautiful language called urdu.

Hindi is written in Devanagari and draws its vocabulary with words from Sanskrit, while urdu draws heavily
on Persian and Arabic vocabulary and also borrows dialects from hindi, so linguists consider hindi and
urdu to be the same.
sbfan
very nice discussion.. was sanskrit language of common people at some time as i read that gatam buddha gave his teachings in prakrit saying that its lang of massess.... what i guess in much older times...
when does punjabi(vocal mean) etc and othe local languages develope they appear to be so diff but popular in mass public even those who can't understand hindi.. but root said is same
from where tamil originated and other dravidian languages...
is there anyy hindu literature which not in sanskrit but in local languages only and of importance??
Mandrake
I guess I didn't see this thread for a long time. Sharad's query has been answered by Nature.
Nature, about 'Putra' being son you are right. But note the extra 'a' in my post. In devnagari, it is written as putraa - and is referred to as female. But there is a bit of confusion there.
In old texts, it is often mentioned that all other rivers are 'nadi' (river in sanskrit - female gender) and Brahmaputraa is the only 'nad' (river - male gender) owing to its immense size. In that case, the 'son' fits. But when they refer to it, they keep the reference as female.
Mandrake
QUOTE
is there anyy hindu literature which not in sanskrit but in local languages only and of importance??

Yes sbfan, one of the biggest literatures of all times, the Dnyaneshwari - written by Sant Gyaneshwar, was written in Marathi. It was specifically not written in sanskrit as he wanted the masses to avail of the knowledge that the brahmins so jealously guarded.
august
i thought that word ' putri' was used for daughter. unsure.gif

didn't know about Brahmaputraa being 'nad'.

i remember little bit of
nadi.. nadyo.. nady: prathama
nadim nadyo nadi: dwitiya
nadaya nadabhyam nadibhi: tritiya

am i getting it wrong? the only word i can recall completely is 'Dev'.


Sant Dnyaneshwar also wrote ' amrit-anubhav'. (Sant = Saint)


sbfan
QUOTE(Mandrake @ Jan 8 2007, 04:13 PM) *

QUOTE
is there anyy hindu literature which not in sanskrit but in local languages only and of importance??

Yes sbfan, one of the biggest literatures of all times, the Dnyaneshwari - written by Sant Gyaneshwar, was written in Marathi. It was specifically not written in sanskrit as he wanted the masses to avail of the knowledge that the brahmins so jealously guarded.

can u throw more light on this text..
yes brahmans guarded the scriptures and also limited sanskrit even in punjab too which becam most imp reason4sikh religion..but they mastered them so good that when invasions took place they had vocal memorized all texts
parag_sankla
QUOTE(Mandrake @ Jan 8 2007, 04:13 PM) *

QUOTE
is there anyy hindu literature which not in sanskrit but in local languages only and of importance??

Yes sbfan, one of the biggest literatures of all times, the Dnyaneshwari - written by Sant Gyaneshwar, was written in Marathi. It was specifically not written in sanskrit as he wanted the masses to avail of the knowledge that the brahmins so jealously guarded.


Suhas, I think it is the other way round as far as my knowledge goes.

Since the "Shri Bhagwadgeeta" written in Sanskrit was not accessible to the common man (due to the fact that the knowledge of Sanskrit was limited to a few elites), Sant Dnyaneshwar translated it into Marathi. That is the birth of Dnyaneshwari. It is not exactly word to word translation but "Rasaal Anuwad" ( extended translation or transliteration ?)

sbfan
practiclly the language i think most close to sanskrit is marathi.. not even hindi.. what i feel
Mandrake
Parag, I think we are talking the same thing. smile1.gif
The geeta was in sanskrit. Dnyaneshwari is its translation - in a way. BUT, the Dnyaneshwari WAS written in Marathi.
desai2rn
QUOTE(Mandrake @ Jan 8 2007, 04:13 PM) *

QUOTE
is there anyy hindu literature which not in sanskrit but in local languages only and of importance??

Yes sbfan, one of the biggest literatures of all times, the Dnyaneshwari - written by Sant Gyaneshwar, was written in Marathi. It was specifically not written in sanskrit as he wanted the masses to avail of the knowledge that the brahmins so jealously guarded.



I believe Tulsi Ramayan is written in Hindi by Sant Tulsidas , for similar reasons, so that it was avialable
to the masses.

Ramesh
august
QUOTE(parag_sankla @ Jan 8 2007, 07:49 PM) *

Suhas, I think it is the other way round as far as my knowledge goes.

Since the "Shri Bhagwadgeeta" written in Sanskrit was not accessible to the common man (due to the fact that the knowledge of Sanskrit was limited to a few elites), Sant Dnyaneshwar translated it into Marathi. That is the birth of Dnyaneshwari. It is not exactly word to word translation but "Rasaal Anuwad" ( extended translation or transliteration ?)



could it be termed as 'Vivechan'?

Dnayneshwar explained Geeta to masses.

Waasaansi jeernaani yathaa vihaay navaani grihnaati naroparaani
Tatha shariraani vihaay jeernaanyanyaani sanyaati navaani dehi

{ jaise jeern vastra sandije / mag nutan vedhije /
taise dehaantaraate swikarije / chaitanya naathe //}


sbfan
matlab auggi..
me.marathi mein nill appears to be sanksrit ki choti aur sabse pyari bahen
august
many regional languages were derived from Sanskrit.
in Marathi, most of the words have their origin in Sanskrit.
other than Sanskrit, Marathi borrows many words from Urdu and other languages. smile1.gif
oye_sonu
bow.gif bow.gif Salaam to all members who posted in this thread. thanks to Suhas bhai .

So much to learn from all of you !



Sonu

PS : not to start a Regional conflict in HF but is Tamil not older then Sanskrit??? I think I have read this somewhere ???
unsure.gif
It is said that Tamil is mother of many Dravidian languages as Sanskrit is of all devnagri/norther languages ?? ( plz not pitai if iam wrong sad.gif )


sbfan
wah sonu kya ratio hai!!!!!!!!!!!!! tumhara....... what i learnt TAMIL is too derived from sanskrit

august
for origin of Tamil, please refer to following article.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5180/tamil7.html
visuja
Sigh august... sad1.gif

The very first line in that artricle says .... when the Aryans came into India through the khyber pass.., and I thought there was no aryan invasion ever, which was proved beyond doubt by recent genetic studies of Indians and Central Asians. Where is bibhas' wonderful article / link on the Migration Theory when one needs to find it ? camera.gif doh.gif

As for which came first Tamil or Sanskrit... I quite often find myself sandwiched between the devil and the deep-sea ! cry.gif
bibhas
QUOTE(visuja @ Jan 9 2007, 10:13 PM) *

Sigh august... sad1.gif

The very first line in that artricle says .... when the Aryans came into India through the khyber pass.., and I thought there was no aryan invasion ever, which was proved beyond doubt by recent genetic studies of Indians and Central Asians. Where is bibhas' wonderful article / link on the Migration Theory when one needs to find it ? camera.gif doh.gif

As for which came first Tamil or Sanskrit... I quite often find myself sandwiched between the devil and the deep-sea ! cry.gif

Vivek,
Tumne bulaaya aur.......

here is the link to my post describing that article.
http://www.hamaraforums.com/index.php?s=&a...st&p=225038

Let me know if you want the original PNAS paper.

Bibhas
visuja
Thanks bibhas smile.gif. a pdf file of the original PNAS article (or the complete article reference) would also be just fine biggrin.gif
USRafian's detailed article just a few posts below the link is also worth reading and is very informative.
sbfan
Hi Friends

what are the recent developments for the question of Aryan Invasion. Plz answer in detail

regards
sbfan
NATURE
QUOTE(Mandrake @ Jan 8 2007, 05:11 PM) *

But note the extra 'a' in my post.

sorry, it's all my fault. i didn't notice that a. and thanks for the info. bow.gif

QUOTE(oye_sonu @ Jan 10 2007, 01:32 AM) *

PS : not to start a Regional conflict in HF but is Tamil not older then Sanskrit??? I think I have read this
somewhere ???
unsure.gif
It is said that Tamil is mother of many Dravidian languages as Sanskrit is of all devnagri/norther
languages ?? ( plz not pitai if iam wrong sad.gif )

good question. but what have you read ? tamil is not older or is older ? biggrin.gif
don't worry. no pitaai and regional conflict here. hahaha !!! laugh.gif

QUOTE(sbfan @ Jan 10 2007, 01:53 AM) *

wah sonu kya ratio hai!!!!!!!!!!!!! tumhara....... what i learnt TAMIL is too derived from sanskrit

i think you are right. but it's controversial

now coming to the topic,

there are total 73 dravidian languages. tamil, telugu, malayalam, kannada, tulu, bellari, konda, koya ...
as far as i believe all indian languages have one and only parent and that's sanskrit.
indo-aryan languages are surely daughters of sanskrit, even though dravidian languages sound quite
different, the linguistics say: there are thirty to seventy per cent Sanskrit words in south Indian languages
like telugu, malayalam and tamil, which can be attributed to the heavy borrowing of vocabulary from the
elite indo-aryan languages.

kan, tel and mal have the highest incidence of loans from sanskrit while tam has the lowest.
now why tamil has the lowest ? the reason i heard is: during the medieval period and also in 20th
century(by parithimaar kalaignar and maraimalai adigal), a large number of sanskrit loan words were
washed away to make tamil a pure and independent language.
( this movement is called thanith thamizh iyakkam (meaning pure Tamil movement) )

is there any such movement amongst indo-aryan languages ? i guess not.

tamil literature and language can be categorized into three periods: ancient (500 BCE to 700 CE),
medieval (700 CE to 1500 CE) and modern (1500 CE to the present)

and the oldest tamil literature contains: vishnu and other religious stories which again i believe came from
sanskrit language. now when did sanskrit come into existance ? no precise time, let alone the
pre-classical form of sanskrit, the classical and standard sanskrit dates back to 1500 BCE.

still i have doubt. i request wise persons like bibhas and mandi to pour some light.
i look forward to them. camera.gif

p.s. the oldest form of tamil is called centamil

p.s.1: which culture is older ? dravid or kaling ?
bibhas
QUOTE(sbfan @ Jan 9 2007, 11:38 PM) *

Hi Friends

what are the recent developments for the question of Aryan Invasion. Plz answer in detail

regards
sbfan

sbfan,
Please refer to posts 48-58 on this thread and you'll be pretty much up to date. The final word is that there was never an Aryan invasion- we have archealogical, geographical and genetic evidence in support of this conclusion. The river Saraswathi, which was a major source of water apart from Sindhu (or Indus) nadi for the people of the Indus Valley Civilization (now referred to as the Saraswathi-Sindhu Valley Civilization), dried up over the course of time and this forced our ancestors to move further east in search of more fertile rivers.

QUOTE(visuja @ Jan 9 2007, 11:24 PM) *

Thanks bibhas smile.gif. a pdf file of the original PNAS article (or the complete article reference) would also be just fine biggrin.gif
USRafian's detailed article just a few posts below the link is also worth reading and is very informative.

Here you go Vivek: I am uploading the original PNAS article.
oye_sonu
bow.gif Thanks every one for the information. I was bit doubtful thts wh wanted to know from knowldgble members.

This topic is of immense interest for me.......
But I hardly able to get good time to post any good stuff on this. !


Keep posting !


Sonu

oye_sonu
QUOTE
there are total 73 dravidian languages. tamil, telugu, malayalam, kannada, tulu, bellari, konda, koya ...
as far as i believe all indian languages have one and only parent and that's sanskrit.
indo-aryan languages are surely daughters of sanskrit, even though dravidian languages sound quite
different, the linguistics say: there are thirty to seventy per cent Sanskrit words in south Indian languages
like telugu, malayalam and tamil, which can be attributed to the heavy borrowing of vocabulary from the
elite indo-aryan languages.


Nature bhai Didnt knew That There are 73 Dravidain languages. I used to think they are around few dozens...30-40 max !


Thanks for information !


Regards

Sonu
sbfan
QUOTE(bibhas @ Jan 10 2007, 08:02 PM) *

QUOTE(sbfan @ Jan 9 2007, 11:38 PM) *

Hi Friends

what are the recent developments for the question of Aryan Invasion. Plz answer in detail

regards
sbfan

sbfan,
Please refer to posts 48-58 on this thread and you'll be pretty much up to date. The final word is that there was never an Aryan invasion- we have archealogical, geographical and genetic evidence in support of this conclusion. The river Saraswathi, which was a major source of water apart from Sindhu (or Indus) nadi for the people of the Indus Valley Civilization (now referred to as the Saraswathi-Sindhu Valley Civilization), dried up over the course of time and this forced our ancestors to move further east in search of more fertile rivers.

QUOTE(visuja @ Jan 9 2007, 11:24 PM) *

Thanks bibhas smile.gif. a pdf file of the original PNAS article (or the complete article reference) would also be just fine biggrin.gif
USRafian's detailed article just a few posts below the link is also worth reading and is very informative.

Here you go Vivek: I am uploading the original PNAS article.



hI I JUST NOW READ THAT A LANGUAGE OF DRAVIDIAN FAMILY named Brahui is till spoken in baluchistan kalat aea . it is like tamil and shares the language. it proves that if aryan invasion not took place then how affinit between too south dravidian and remote pakistani language..??
please give ur views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_people
http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/Profile.aspx?LangID=207&menu=004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_language

Mandrake
lol...you guys are reading the story completely backwards tongue1.gif
It has been the biggest secret mis-propaganda campaign that's succeeded beyond belief!! tongue1.gif
Guys, think!! So the Aryans came from the back of the beyond, traversing different countries, winning everything in the way, swept through north India and....stopped short of conquering south India?? why?? Because they were unable? Or weakened? Or lost interest??

NO!! Because the story is read backwards!! It was the Dravidian invasion that happened!! tongue1.gif
The Dravidian race attacked the country from the south, and drove the ethnic Indians so far back that they fled to the back of the beyond! tongue1.gif
That will explain the whole story. Because the Dravidians were so war-smart, they always had escape routes ready. So they decided to stop at the level where the seas stopped, i.e. they did not move beyond south India.
However, the south being extremely fertile (as it is even today), it housed a very large population. When these people began crowding the north, there was an exodus beyond the boundaries of the then India (which included today's Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgizstan, Turkmenistan, etc) tongue1.gif
Thus you can see similarities in languages, scripts, customs, traditions etc across all of north India, but there is a clear difference (no resemblence or even the opposite in the same things) in South India. tongue1.gif

Wake up guys, it is time to discuss the Dravidian Invasion! tongue1.gif
Mandrake
Just debating, Ummer, ok? smile1.gif Nothing more to my post than that, so everybody please forgive me if I appear to tread on somebody's toes inadvertantly. That is not the intention...
There is no valid scientific proof of the Aryan invasion too. There are just theories. And all this has been discussed on HF earlier too.
Just think, if the so called Aryans came from modern day Iran and wherever, isn't it logical that Iran and those other places should have a long and ancient tradition of our kind of rituals (I won't say Hindu, just Indian), and have a strong sanskrit base to everything?
Or is someone implying that they all came here, and got wiped out in their homelands?
That seems logically impossible.
And again, why did they not complete the conquer of the entire Indian subcontinent? Why stop halfway down?
Just debating, please...
NATURE
QUOTE(Mandrake @ Apr 30 2007, 08:23 AM) *

Wake up guys, it is time to discuss the Dravidian Invasion! tongue1.gif

hohoho !!! mandy, that's rocking man. laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif i loved it.
but u know u have to provide evidence, otherwise u can't convice yrself too.

u know sometimes i don't believe in terms like aryan/dravidian and all. these were created just to
support their supremacy. western people believe in aryan invasion because it supports their supremacy. tongue1.gif
why on earth it is said everyone came from middle east, iran and all ? why not they went from asia ?
why not both came from a common civilization and one part moved to iran and middle east and other
part came here, the central asia, india and all ?

sorry i am not sentimental here but asking why it should be from somewhere near europe, why not asia ?
recently i heard veda was written in europe, sanskreet was created in europe. then they came to india
and it became part and parcel of indian culture. how justified all these are ?
i think it's the supremacy that all matters to the so called researchers. now a days it's rather pseudo science
than science.

now my theory says: ohmy.gif

there are 4 different civilizations who conquered and moved to different locations of earth and hence set
their own culture and community, philosophy, lifestyles, religion, music, costumes, technology, everything.

1. black african (if indian is belived to have come from middle east because there is a similarity then
why not dravidians could have come from africa because there is a similarity between skin colors ? tongue1.gif)

2. chinese/japanese roots (they don't match with middle east, african. neither they match with european)

3. europe/latin america

4. eastern ethnicity (it includes central asia, middle east etc. it may include dravidians
too but because of the place they have got a different skin color. biggrin.gif)

now these are the civilizations different from eachother. moved to saveral locations. other than these, everything
else is due to environment, weather, cultures created in several generations and blah blah.

mandy, who told u there's no similarity between north and south indians ? i think there are so many
similarities except skin color that too not ll south indians. kannada, andhra and north indians look quite alike.
Mandrake
Nature!!! You are a man/woman/boy/girl after my own heart!! thumbs-up.gif
That's exactly what I feel. The researchers are always trying to paint everything in one colour. Even here, the 'proof' comes from American Journal and Stanford. The usual suspects laugh.gif
I too agree that India exported sanskrit, vedas and Aryans to the western world tongue1.gif
(Preet, where are you? I need more icons for 'tongue-in-cheek' biggrin.gif)
Aryans and Dravidians were co-existing peacefully in India till circa 10,500 BC. When they decided to expand territories, they initially tried to attack each other.
But they quickly realized how much they loved each other, and hence decided to go opposite ways for this task. For that, they did a combined Ashwamedh Yagna.
In an Ashwamedh Yagna, a horse in anointed with the holy things and let footloose. Wherever he goes, the warriors follow him. If any king tries to stop the horse from entering his kingdom, the warriors fight with him and conquer his kingdom. If he doesn't want to fight, he agrees to become their vassal.
The Aryan horse went northwest, while the Dravidian horse went Southeast. (Refer map in post #32).
Hey, this is getting interesting now biggrin.gif
Ummer
lol! I have deleted my posts. The debate has turned more into taunts and sarcasms than any useful discussion. The topic is closed from my side... laugh.gif

Oh by the way Mandrake, I didn't realize that you were just joking about Dravidian invasion theory tongue1.gif... (duh! on my part).
NATURE
mandy, i don't say these theories are wrong or just because they want to prove their supremacy.
i have no hard feeling against them but see the asian people or indian subcontinent or middle east,
they just take it granted that all those scientific discoveries are the truth and nothing but the truth.
why so ? many of them don't even analyse or read them properly.

no mandy, not every western people is like that. there are many who don't believe in aryan invasion
theory. in 1808 german scholar friedrich schlegel postulated that india is the source of the orginal language,
i think he meant "indo-european" languages which include "indo-iranian" languages too.

french scholar françois-marie arouet(voiltaire) said "It does not behove us, who were only savages
and barbarians when these Indian and Chinese peoples were civilized and learned, to dispute their
antiquity."
in 1790, linguistic william jones accepted the kinship of sanskrit with other european languages. to which
he says "both sanskrit and european languages have a common source which no longer exists".
i doubt on him here. he doesn't want to accept that sanskrit may be the source of all the languages,
but he can't prove that other european languages are the source of sanskrit because it may not be
logical. so he proposed his own theory just to deny the supremacy of sanskrit.
otherwise why should i accept that there is a common souce of these languages ? in fact it can be proved
that sanskrit is much older. i think voiltaire was not satisfied by jones' theory, that's why he said that line.
don't think i am adamant but i don't see enough logic to believe in what william jones said.

in some old iranian sacred texts, the battles in rig-veda are described. so scholars feel aryan came
from europe and middle east. why can't it happen that there were transportations of many kinds say
langauge, culture, science. so at that time they all knew about neighbouring countries ???
ofcourse it is a true fact that in centuries bc and also in medeval ages, arabian and people from middle
east came to indian subcontinent, stayed here. during that time, there was a tranfer of all kinds of skills
that's how a part of scientific knowledge and other technology tranfered to middle east and from them to
europe. (if u know the concept of zero(0) was tranfered from india to arab first and then to europe, may
be this is the reason why many european still believe zero was discovered by arabian scholars) ...

but there's no proof that whethere this was happened in thousands of years ago or not.
main problem is in civilizations like sumerian they have found written informations date back to 3100 bc,
whereas vedic knowledge was believed to have been transfered from generations to generations hence
no written info, so no one can support if there was no aryan invasion.

QUOTE(Ummer @ May 1 2007, 10:34 AM) *

lol! I have deleted my posts. The debate has turned more into taunts and sarcasms than any useful
discussion. The topic is closed from my side... laugh.gif

Oh by the way Mandrake, I didn't realize that you were just joking about Dravidian invasion theory tongue1.gif...
(duh! on my part).

taunts and sarcasms ? no man, i don't see. if you are talking about jokes by mandy then i guess this is
because he feels people just believe in such theories without even analysing the facts. and western
people don't want accept if india is the souce of there langauges. so they propose theories like that.
if you are talking about my posts, then it is just because i don't want to be so conventional ...

recent archeological discoveries has allowed scepticism at these theories: "harappa, mahenjo-daro,
mehrgarh" are just few examples. only problem is no text document is found. so all those we have
been reading from school days like aryan invasion, veda/sanskrit is not pure indian ...
or whatsoever are still believed and read. so let's analyse and increase our domain of knowledge,
the conclusion can be anything. let's stop taunts and sarcasms. smile.gif smile.gif
Mandrake
Ummer, deepest apologies if I hurt you. I don't see any sarcasm or taunts in any of the posts here. And if you are referring to my posts, I admit they were completely tongue-in-cheek, but definitely not sarcastic or taunting.
We haven't interacted before, though you have come here a good month before I joined (unless you had a different id before). But if you refer to any of my posts anywhere on HF, you'll see that I am a big fan of history and discussions on that.
To tell you the truth, this so-called 'Dravidian Invasion' theory struck me just moments after I read your post.
I am a big one for taking diametrically opposite views, as I've always felt that such brain-storming often leads to surprising insights.
However, if I am becoming an unwitting bother, let me apologize sincerely and stop taking part in this discussion from here on.
I sincerely request you to continue the discussion with Nature (who's extremely well read) and others...
Sorry boss...mellow.gif
Ummer
Mandrake,

I think I shouldn't have used the word "Aryan invasion", the correct word would be "Aryan migration".

You were joking about Dravidian invasion, but do you know there is a theory on Dravidian invasion too. lol.

Yeah there is no evidence to support the theory either way, but I had something else in mind.

I was talking about different foreign empires which ruled India and neighboring countries... and the mixing of native indians with these people. There is more than enough evidence that it happened. Like the Makranis (African) of Balochistan - Pakistan do carry African genetic markers as they were bought to the area during African slave trade to the east.

Also the pictures of Kalasha people (which live in North Western Pakistan) which I have posted do have Greek ancestry (as the popular theory goes). It is said that after Alexander the great conquered Present day Pakistan, he got injured near Multan, and was never able to conquer present Day India. His army was already in mutinous state, therefore many of his soldiers decided to stay in that valley. Kalasha population is only around 6000 I think. So yeah, I was talking about different populations mixing with each other when they were part of different empires.
Ummer
QUOTE(Mandrake @ May 1 2007, 04:23 AM) *

Ummer, deepest apologies if I hurt you. I don't see any sarcasm or taunts in any of the posts here. And if you are referring to my posts, I admit they were completely tongue-in-cheek, but definitely not sarcastic or taunting.
We haven't interacted before, though you have come here a good month before I joined (unless you had a different id before). But if you refer to any of my posts anywhere on HF, you'll see that I am a big fan of history and discussions on that.
To tell you the truth, this so-called 'Dravidian Invasion' theory struck me just moments after I read your post.
I am a big one for taking diametrically opposite views, as I've always felt that such brain-storming often leads to surprising insights.
However, if I am becoming an unwitting bother, let me apologize sincerely and stop taking part in this discussion from here on.
I sincerely request you to continue the discussion with Nature (who's extremely well read) and others...
Sorry boss...mellow.gif


No no Mandrake, please dont apologize. lol! I think I misread you and nature. That is why I said in my previous post that I didn't even realize that you were joking about Dravidian invasion. tongue1.gif So no hard feelings on my side.

No, I never had a different id be4, I joined HF with the same id. Although I have read your thought provoking Blogs long time ago. smile.gif, the reason we never interacted before is that I mostly take part in Music/Film forums and that too ocassionally.
Ummer
QUOTE(NATURE @ May 1 2007, 02:12 AM) *

mandy, i don't say these theories are wrong or just because they want to prove their supremacy.
i have no hard feeling against them but see the asian people or indian subcontinent or middle east,
they just take it granted that all those scientific discoveries are the truth and nothing but the truth.
why so ? many of them don't even analyse or read them properly.


Nature,

The results which I posted were not about Aryan Invasion, sorry if I gave that impression. It is about the mixing of populations and people moving or migrating from one place to another (recent to distant past). It included the genetic tests on smaller ethnic groups like Makranis, Parsis, Hunzas, Kalashas and many others.
sani_thakur
Wow -- awesome discussion. Mandrake is absolutely right.

The Aryan invasion theory is completely wrong, and has been proven wrong. I had a fight with my History teacher here when he insisted that the theory is correct -- mad man - i got only a B for his course. mad.gif

By the way, talking about Sanskrit, even English owes its origin back to Sanskrit.

And another interesting thing -- the word "Vatican" comes from Sanskrit word "Vatika" -- which means school or teaching ground or perhaps garden ?? Something like that biggrin.gif

QUOTE(Mandrake @ Apr 29 2007, 09:53 PM) *

lol...you guys are reading the story completely backwards tongue1.gif
It has been the biggest secret mis-propaganda campaign that's succeeded beyond belief!! tongue1.gif
Guys, think!! So the Aryans came from the back of the beyond, traversing different countries, winning everything in the way, swept through north India and....stopped short of conquering south India?? why?? Because they were unable? Or weakened? Or lost interest??

NO!! Because the story is read backwards!! It was the Dravidian invasion that happened!! tongue1.gif
The Dravidian race attacked the country from the south, and drove the ethnic Indians so far back that they fled to the back of the beyond! tongue1.gif
That will explain the whole story. Because the Dravidians were so war-smart, they always had escape routes ready. So they decided to stop at the level where the seas stopped, i.e. they did not move beyond south India.
However, the south being extremely fertile (as it is even today), it housed a very large population. When these people began crowding the north, there was an exodus beyond the boundaries of the then India (which included today's Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgizstan, Turkmenistan, etc) tongue1.gif
Thus you can see similarities in languages, scripts, customs, traditions etc across all of north India, but there is a clear difference (no resemblence or even the opposite in the same things) in South India. tongue1.gif

Wake up guys, it is time to discuss the Dravidian Invasion! tongue1.gif

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.