Which? Who? Would these also happen to be the guys who think the Vatican is a Hindu temple?
The ones with common sense.
Good thing I didn't say the language didn't develop elsewhere LMAO. I just said it's origins weren't in India
Then show me evidence of Sanskrit origins outside India. It is a simple question. Anything other than cognates?
No, this is not "by my logic" because we both know Semitic languages didn't originate in Israel. Try again
Try what again? I don't think I can explain anything simpler than that. The levant region is where Hebrew originated, Arabian Peninsula is where Arabic originated. Both share the same Cognates, and both were developed in different regions.
No, try again. Greek and Latin both do share a common ancestor so they do share an origin, but I would never say Greek comes from Latin. You need to mangle my arguments to make a point LMAO.
I never said that either, you make up an argument and prove it wrong. I said the Greek language didn't come from Italy. So Greek originated in Greece and Latin originated in Italy. It is that simple, now try this without short-circuiting your brain, Sanskrit originated in India
. 😆 Kapiché?
And? He was a Baman. He studied Hindu texts. That was his occupation. It's cute how you try to use the word sage as if that would hide the fact that he's a Baman. Anyway, instead of sidestepping my question, maybe you can explain why this vile Baman decided Punjabis and Bengalis are barbarians in the text he authored?
You lack elementary knowledge on the subject. Baman? It is Brahman. Now, how interesting you proved caste is not by birth but by profession
your entire argument fell flat there, so you are saying his supposed lower caste birth doesn't matter, the profession is what defines your caste? Apply the same logic there, people born in Panchanada are not mlecchas by birth it's their actions that define it, and not all people are called mlecchas Prince Arjuna lived there under the protection of a panchanada King while in exile. Mahabharata never makes such sweeping statements to define people.
An important fact to consider is, there is no mention of Punjab in Mahabharata, the Punjab that is today is not the Panchanada in Mahabharata and Panchanada extended to what is today's Afghanistan from UP, Haryana, towards the west of India to what is today's Pakistan. You apply a skewed logic with modern geographical locations to something that happened 2000 years ago. You try to find a historic semblance to your identity from the texts we use without even understanding what it is fully.
I will make it simple for you, ancient Pakistan does not exist. You are wasting your time over historic revisionism, there is not much support for your argument or consensus.