What's new

Urdu is not our language: Mahmood Khan Achakzai in PDM's Karachi gathering.

letsrock

FULL MEMBER
Mar 10, 2019
1,392
-3
1,188
Country
United States
Location
United States
What I have noticed about you is that you're emotional to the point that any uncomfortable truth causes you to run for the hills. Intellectual freedom and performance depends on discussing any idea without the fear of libellous accusations. Actually, the theory isn't 2000 year old so get your facts straight. Incidentally, when I use the word Indo-Iranian and Aryan, I am not using it in the context the National Socialists referred to it. The fact is that the word Aryan descends from the reconstructed PIE word "heryos" meaning kinsman. Its a name with ethnic connotations, the meaning of which evolved over time as new culturo-linguistic groups developed. There is a language hierarchy for mankind, and that holds true even if you were to set aside Pakistan. English is among the most important languages in the world today and we would learn it irrespective of its language grouping. The fact that it is an IE tongue is mere coincidence. Following English, Spanish, French, and Chinese are important tongues, but importance also depends on the cultural context of a people. For instance, learning Spanish would benefit a person in North America more than it would a person living in Egypt unless he plans on migrating to a Spanish speaking country.

As for Pakistan, the minor ethnic languages are underdeveloped and believe it or not offer poorer utility at the moment than even Urdu does. Besides, lots of Pakistani kids speak their ethnic tongues in conjunction with Urdu so that native advantage that ethnic tongues offer in education isn't that apparent. Hell, Urdu teaching in Pakistani government schools probably fails to meet the standards of language learning elsewhere and the results show it. Unfortunately, the messed up education system is the result of a number of aforementioned factors that don't necessarily have a bearing on language. Besides, studying in your native tongue is an advantage when you understand the native tongue better grammatically and syntactically then a 2nd language. Most kids in Pakistan that speak Urdu alongside their ethnic tongue have more or less inherited mimicry and couldn't possible perceive and analyze statements better in one than the other. Just read up on their literacy tests so far. Hence, any language that they are formally taught at the start of their schooling has the potential to function as their primary tongue.

You aren't a "right thinking" or a logical person, when you go around denying that similar languages descend from common ancestors, & that's something visible even today. Maltese descends from Arabic and the Romance languages descend from Latin. The fact that you deny that association makes you come across as a fool. I have said this before and I will say it again, I have no qualms with Pakistanis adopting any tongue, it need not be Urdu, but I hope that its an IE tongue. Besides, I ain't the only human that feels an affinity to languages similar to his own. Note that, if the state of Pakistan were to adopt Punjabi, Kashmiri, Balochi or Sindhi as its sole national tongue, it would remain an Indo-Iranian tongue just like Urdu, so your point is moot. Remember that "fair skin/dark skin" conundrum, which caused your "snowflake" mind to wail in agony? That's at play here, because no ethnicity desires that their language be sidelined for someone else's despite them being equal citizens. Hence, Urdu was brought forward as a neutral party, and is one related to and possesses historicity in this geographical sphere to satiate the egotistical and nationalistic tendencies of the ethnic groups. The existence of phenotypes, which is just a classification based on physically observable traits happens to be racist now? Had they not existed, you wouldn't enjoy the diverse appearances that humans possess.



Morally repugnant? Can you back up that claim and explain how stating that one language is more useful than another explicitly violates the rights of a sound system (language)? Or are you just asserting that because of your failure to counter me so far, and have deployed libel and ad hominems to aid your escape? I will tell you what wiseguy, I want you to invest your time in learning some irrelevant and obscure language at the expense of another lingua franca. Why don't you take up learning Quechua? Should you fail to do that, it would be undoubtedly clear that you're a prejudiced racist that despises the people among whom those languages formed.

Islam is Semitic now is it? Don't you realize that your classification of Islam as an ethno-linguistic religion is a rebuke to it. Surely, the true religion cannot be a product of Semitic or Arabic culture. Had you been even minutely aware of Islam, you would've known that there was absolutely no societal imperative in Arabia that would've resulted in the birth of an ideology like Islam. It is a continuation of the revealed scriptures belonging to the Israelites and yet, from the beginning, marked it self as universal. In fact, Islamic tradition inculcates, rectifies, and sheds light upon questions raised by many ancient philosophers and theologians before it and has been inclusive of the rest of mankind from the beginning. Besides which, you're probably aware that much of the world was pagan before the massive shift towards Abrahamic religions.

Firstly, if you've ever been proud of your ethnicity, language, culture, nationality, et cetera, you would have been proud of something that's mostly beyond your control. That does not imply that you do not have the right to be proud of these aspects of your identity. Funny, that you complain about ethnic pride, but you were previously garrulously praising Achakzai for his pride in his mother tongue. Why did you think that his behaviour was acceptable? Its something entirely beyond his control and had he been born a few centuries earlier or a few centuries later he may have been speaking an unintelligible precursor or successor to his current tongue. Hence, based on your logic, your praise of his behavior is unacceptable and he should simply accept Urdu for what it is or possibly English and move on with his life. Don't be a hypocrite and repress your hypocritical morality.

I have already made it clear that the Indo-European connection isn't a disputed one. The fact remains that the IR tribes share a patrilineal lineage with the Yamna and Corded Ware culture. There is archaeological evidence of chariots, which happen to be the hallmark of the old IE tribes and are part and parcel of their mythology. The referenced pagan deities in their myths are essentially the same as those found in the pagan Hellenic and other post IE pantheons of Europe prior to their assimilation into the Sub-Continent. Besides, the presence of Europid people is quite well documented near the Indo-Iranian speaking basin. The Tocharians should ring a bell assuming that you know your history.

As for accomplishments, I already highlighted in my earlier posts that had anyone of us failed to perform, we would end up being surpassed by those that exhibit greater productivity. Ethnic, racial, cultural, national pride does not imply that we look down on other nations or peoples, neither does it imply that others are incapable of overcoming us. It is a fact that we have underperformed and underachieved in the modern world, but that blame lies solely on the people, who are just as capable, except that they are burdened by a host of other problems that stifles their productivity. The world is based on the survival of the fittest and for good measure considering that this paradigm aids the human species. Besides, since I have already alluded to performance being the key to success, I would suggest that you rescind the condescending attitude given your complete failure & hypocrisy so far. Incidentally, languages do not outperform each other, people do. The Indo-Iranian languages are just as capable in regards to scientific and technological development. Persian for instance was used alongside Arabic by plenty of people in the east for literary works, which inculcates mathematics and chronicling.



Firstly, I am not imagining a connection. The Indo-European language family is as well established as the Semitic language family and the macro grouping Afroasiatic. In fact, the Indo-European language family is the best studied out there and the links between the classics exist not merely because of lexical similarity, which by the way is eerily similar, but also due to a similar grammar and syntax, which is indicative of a
genetic relationship. Evidence for it cannot be forged. Scripts used to write Sanskrit remain in use today, as do the languages that inherit its lexical base. The problem with intellectually retarded and morally perverse people like yourself is your inability to accept uncomfortable truths and the insurmountable arrogance, which causes you to believe that academia around the world consisting of diverse nationalities have conspired to deceive you. I can't decide whether its racism, arrogance, or a severe case of solipsism, which has led you to believe that unprovable allegations of forgery recorded in some unknown book constitutes better evidence than all the peer reviewed academic work out there. There is no student of the Indo-European classics that could possibly study these tongues without having his jaw drop open from amazement.

Once again, your irrationality, prejudice, racist demeanor or an inferiority complex emerges from within your inscription. You do realize that it was a British polyglot named Sir William Jones, who happened to be amongst the first among Europeans in the colonial era to study Sanskrit. I will provide you with a quote from him that's pretty well known among people who have a basic interest in this field.

"The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists."

You realize that you just slandered that man's character? Moving on, other ethnic groups may find solace in whatever they want and are free to detest the idea of someone else speaking a language springing from the same source. Their alleged resentment has no bearing on reality. Urdu, Persian, Russian, et cetera remain related to French, English, and German. Of course, that relation is more distant than those of the archaic classics. You seem to require foreign validation for your views in order to be content. Learning Mandarin isn't exactly a bad choice. You seem to imply that learning Mandarin is a waste of time. Are you subconsciously accepting that there is a hierarchy or caste system of languages, which mankind adheres to when undertaking educational decisions? Weren't you vociferously exclaiming that you found that repulsive? I find your illogicality repulsive. Guess what? People are free to learn whatever they want considering that all knowledge stems from the Creator and as His creation, they have the inviolable right to acquire it as per their whims and discretions. Languages gain importance through the efforts of the people. Is Pakistan as influential, rich, or industrialized as China? Nope, therefore, it is only natural that people would tilt towards the more useful tongue.

Now getting to your remark about finding solace, there are a few things you need to understand. Humans are naturally tribalistic. Tribalism is the reason a diverse variety of sounds, appearances, architectural heritage, et cetera exist on earth. Humanity has evolved to compete and that is an advantage because it averts the placement of all eggs in one basket. As they have competed, they have ended up being displaced, assimilated, and vanquished into and out of geographical and cultural spectrums. Think of modern diaspora populations for instance that have no choice but to labour and bear the rebuke of foreigners merely because their compatriots back home failed to provide adequate economic opportunities or equitable living standards. What is happening today, happened in the past. Your precious Achakzai is a Pashtun. Do you realize that Pasthuns are a hybrid group that absorbed other Iranic speakers? The Bactrians for instance have been assimilated among them and consequently, Bactrian no longer exists. Bactrian is an Iranic language & Achakzai may have some of their blood. That casts doubt on your claim of him celebrating his true roots by honoring Pashto as his sole mother tongue. Where was your intellectual integrity then? Remember when you referred to lesser ancestors? Why are you so discriminatory, racist, and prejudiced towards the Pasthuns of Bactrian descent? Isn't their language due credence, what does it matter if their culture is dead? I am going by your logical conundrums here.

Here is the thing, any single human being is made up of diverse ancestries. Naturally, some happen to be more dominant than others. Hell, even within a successive chain of ancestors unperturbed by outsiders, languages evolve to be mutually unintelligible. Consequently, a modern human is almost never speaking the language of all his forefathers, he is instead speaking a modern variety of a branch of his ancestors more archaic speech. Should he be upset that he doesn't speak them all? How many defunct and extinct languages is he to learn to celebrate his roots? Learning languages is great, but if you learn too many extinct ones, you are simply reinventing the wheel, learn too few contemporary ones and you remain functionally illiterate. Ergo, he may find solace or remain content in the knowledge that his tongue is similar to the speech of his ancestors. What about the Bactrians that assimilated in to the Dari speaking populace? Should their self-esteem be crushed by the fact that they speak a variety of Persian? Or should they be happy to know that Persian is just an alternatively evolved form of their Bactrian, both of which descend from the language of their more archaic ancestors that spoke Proto-Indo-Iranian. In fact, they are similar enough that any novice learner would immediately observe cognates, grammatic, and syntactic similarities between them.

Languages change as people experience the brunt of reality and that desire for cultural and societal preservation can only be maintained so far. Hence, the term compromise. The ethnic groups of Pakistan find themselves as a single federation and couldn't possibly survive otherwise, which necessitates the need for a lingua franca. Urdu, stems from a similar source and happens to be representative enough of the diversity that we find here. In the event that a middle class Punjabi kid, for instance, never bothered to learn his "ethnic" tongue, should he bemoan his circumstances or should he be cognizant of the fact that Urdu is a variety of a similar and not too far removed ancestral tongue to the extent that both languages retain some mutual intelligibility. Consequently, it makes no difference and his vernacular tongue does not modify any other aspect of his identity. The same logic applies to the "Urdu speakers", & the Bactrians in my previous example have undergone a similar transition. For the most part, IE languages retain core similarities and make no mistake, were you to find yourself speaking Polish, it would retain and share core elements with your former IE tongue, which includes a similarity within cognates. A better example would be a comparison between Lithuanian and the IE classics like Sanskrit and Latin. A simple cognate comparison chart may be found here. Why on earth would I cry over having to speak any of these tongues? Stop being xenophobic and learn to be more inclusive. There is much more to it than that and we haven't even begun to look at more complex equations that examine the impact of assimilating in to foreign races, speaking unrelated languages, etc. I could carry on the elucidation, but it's better to leave it here for now. To summarize, speaking another IE tongue is a fair compromise between the need for pragmatism and the desire to conserve existing differences.



Actually, there are millions of dark people in the US as well. I am not a racist so stop with your retarded libellous accusations. All I did was use dark skin and fair skin as a euphemism for ethnic groups and you ridiculously wield that to distract readers from your incineration. When you claimed that Sanskrit was reconstructed, you were proven wrong. When you mocked me for not caring about the forgotten languages of our forefathers, you foolishly ended up doing the same thing by contentiously declaring that Pashto is the only linguistic heritage of the Pashtun people. When you claimed to be repulsed by a "caste system of languages", you conveniently forgot that you exhibited and exuded similar tendencies by your derogatory comments against Sanskrit, the vulgar form of which is an ancestor to our modern tongues. Ergo, you ended up insulting our modern day languages for better or for worse.

Coincidentally, Sanskrit has many cognates with English. The word for daughter is "duhitar", which as per your intellect implies that a bit of Sanskrit's diabolicalness rubs off on English. Do you feel that English speakers are evil malignant twerps too? After all, they utter and deploy the same words as the virulent old Sanskrit speakers. You alluded to yourself as being "right thinking", but then you went on to associate anyone being fond of Sanskrit as an oppressor that favours the caste system. How intelligent could you possibly be to believe that having a fondness for a language necessarily equates to admiring the morals and values of the people that once spoke it? I am fond of Latin too, does that mean that I intend to commit a genocide against Gauls? Again, you hypocritically exude the same attributes that you falsely accuse others of, & are outright oblivious to your own "moral repulsiveness".

I am being more inclusive of others by highlighting the similarities between our tongues, whereas you desire lesser inclusiveness. Following which, you dare to speak of racism. What's next, if you feel that your national language doesn't represent your culture or identity, why not jump a step further and claim that your country, which is a conglomerate of ethnic groups doesn't represent your true heritage either? After all, a Pakistani could be anyone ranging from a villager in Sindh to a Turkic person from the Hazara community. I am reasonably certain that people like yourself harbor such thoughts, but I could be wrong, you might just be too imprudent to perceive the consequences of your inclinations. I am not racist against my current compatriots, that would be foolish given that our forefathers have relatively peacefully co-existed and have evolved a culture inclusive of the concerns of others in their neighborhoods. What racism are you referring to in any case? I haven't violated anyone's God given rights or abused anyone because I consider him or her permanently incapacitated. You on the other hand exhibit intellectual and moral bias. Just refer to your earlier examples. Actually, the plight of Pakistan's "dark skinned" communities is the same as the others. In fact, some of the worst impacted communities of the country aren't even dark skinned. Nevertheless, the poor of the country aren't any more apparent to you either considering that you feel Pakistani kids should learn multiple ethnic languages like Switzerland. Are you serious? You do realize that learning minor languages is a waste of time, resources, and equates to a reinvention of the wheel? They would be better off allocating that time to mathematics, science, and information technology. So many poorer kids are unable to make it to school because of the need to labour with their families and adding irrelevant content to their educational burden further exacerbates their plight.

To conclude, languages aren't your area of expertise. I wouldn't say they are mine either, but you sorely lack the knowledge to discuss them. My initial post on this thread was to highlight how petty the dislike towards other IR tongues like Urdu was given that it branches off from the same source. Unless you've something meaningful to add, go waste someone else's time because you clearly aren't in the mood to learn. Put an end to the slanderous remarks that you frequently deploy as a weapon to avoid productive discourse.
Dude - i neither supported your theory nor condemned. I said it doesn't matter. No matter how many times i say it you keep coming back defending it more and more. Is there a single instance of a nation which voluntarily gave up mother tongue to foreign language and justified it as similar grouping so doesnt matter ? Nobody does it.

Not sure why you cannot see what an oddball you are. And yes i do have contempt for those who get their heads stuck in Aryan theory, sing praises of sanskrit. I know the people who do - almost all of them racist scumbags ranging from colonials to nazis to brahmins including your Sir William Jones who is another weirdo. I am not going to cut a special cookie for you because of your claims of innocence. You need to get over it. Examine the company you are in and accept the consequence.

No - dislike of Urdu among pusthuns or sindhis is not petty. As I said again no one really likes a foreign tongue over their others based on theories. Its you who are weird and just not getting it. maybe if you get your head out of those theories you will see the reality for what it is.
 

Imad.Khan

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 24, 2015
6,224
9
8,971
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Dont we also share Punjabi & English with the Indians? What about the Sindhi migrants who left for India and retain the Devanagari variety of Sindhi?
Apart from English, the other languages are limited, I personally can't speak Punjabi or Sindhi or those don't affect me as much
Majority of Muslims in Northern india can communicate with each other in Urdu and that’s why urdu was selected as the language for Pakistan. Quaid Azam’s Mother tongue was not Urdu, it was Gujrati.
i know why it was selected, i am just wish it wasn't the case.
 
Last edited:

ThunderCat

FULL MEMBER
Jul 29, 2009
440
0
211
Apart from English, the other languages are limited, I personally can't speak Punjabi or Sindhi or those don't affect me as much


i know why it was selected, i am just wish it wasn't the case.
Yes but as a first language, Punjabi is the most widely spoken in Pakistan and it's a shared language with India.
 

ThunderCat

FULL MEMBER
Jul 29, 2009
440
0
211
Narendra Luther:
Those who ascribe the origin of Urdu to Delhi and its environs ignore the considerable chunk of 177 of earlier history of uninterrupted interaction of Persian and Punjabi. Their theory also fails to explain the existence of Urdu in the South in the form of Dakhani of a large number of Punjabi words and grammatical constructions. In view of this background, it seems that the late professor Mahmood Sherwani and Professor Zore were right in holding that urdu was born in Punjab. There is ample historical and literary evidence to support this view.
 

Indus Pakistan

ELITE MEMBER
May 7, 2012
17,847
179
51,132
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
On a more serious note, does it really make a difference what is the national language of Pakistan?
I think it should be English. In fact as thing stand English is used by military, courts, science etc. Urdu only opens a window to Utter Pradesh or Bollywood. English opens the window to the WORLD. Even with our friends Chinese we will use English. English is the global lingua franca. Chinese are right now busy learning English. If you can speak English you can get a job as English teacher as soon as you land in China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam etc

Look at PDF. It's surviving on English. It is the medium of members from across the world. If PDF was Urdu all you would have is some Paks and Indians.
 

Indus Pakistan

ELITE MEMBER
May 7, 2012
17,847
179
51,132
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Kills my eyes reading urdu/arabic on a PC.
Honestly, looked at from purely functional reasons English made the best choice. In fact English was by all accounts was made the official. Only nobody had the balls to openly declare it and be done with it because loonatics think languages have religions. They don't. Urdu is NOT a Muslim language. Languages don't convert or born as reverts.

Since English did not belong to any ethnic group it would have been impartial. Learning English would open your window to the entire globe and vast corpus of human knowledge is written in English. It would make literacy easier. And if everybody was taught English the oft repeated "elite charge" would be erased.

Again we can look at PDF. Would this platform be as functional as it is? The admins chose English knowing that if it was restricted to Urdu the only members you would get is some Pakistani's and Indians. It might as well be alled "Desi Defence Forum".

Instead look we have members from across the entire globe ....
 

Enigma SIG

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 20, 2009
3,037
1
3,459
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Honestly, looked at from purely functional reasons English made the best choice. In fact English was by all accounts was made the official. Only nobody had the balls to openly declare it and be done with it because loonatics think languages have religions. They don't. Urdu is NOT a Muslim language. Languages don't convert or born as reverts.

Since English did not belong to any ethnic group it would have been impartial. Learning English would open your window to the entire globe and vast corpus of human knowledge is written in English. It would make literacy easier. And if everybody was taught English the oft repeated "elite charge" would be erased.

Again we can look at PDF. Would this platform be as functional as it is? The admins chose English knowing that if it was restricted to Urdu the only members you would get is some Pakistani's and Indians. It might as well be alled "Desi Defence Forum".

Instead look we have members from across the entire globe ....
Honestly the debates about language is very illogical. You can keep your language at home, speak it or read books if you want to keep it "alive". In this day and age when literally everything you encounter has English attached to it, common sense dictates that you should have at least a modicum of understanding to be able to navigate today's waters.

Achakzai's speech might've garnered him some followership back in the day but now it is just useless rhetoric.
 

El Sidd

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 5, 2017
55,654
9
45,970
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Xenophobic culturally conservative dissident chose Karachi to disrespect Urdu.

The favor will be returned to them in most respectful manner.

Stay tuned
 

Kabira

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 12, 2014
14,123
-16
13,184
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Its too late. Should have been done 70 years ago by dividing provinces along linguistic lines as current setup hardly make sense. What will be language of Balochistan? Balochi? Try pashto, brahui and even Sindhi/seraiki.

Same is the case in KP and Punjab. Even now if they really want to do it then more provinces is only way.
 

ThunderCat

FULL MEMBER
Jul 29, 2009
440
0
211
I think it should be English. In fact as thing stand English is used by military, courts, science etc. Urdu only opens a window to Utter Pradesh or Bollywood. English opens the window to the WORLD. Even with our friends Chinese we will use English. English is the global lingua franca. Chinese are right now busy learning English. If you can speak English you can get a job as English teacher as soon as you land in China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam etc

Look at PDF. It's surviving on English. It is the medium of members from across the world. If PDF was Urdu all you would have is some Paks and Indians.
It's our heritage and national lingua franca that has given an inter-window. So what if Indians picked it up during the Delhi Sultanate? Already we have allowed them to steal so much of our history and heritage.

What else should we allow them to steal? Why do we speak any language besides English at all????
Honestly the debates about language is very illogical. You can keep your language at home, speak it or read books if you want to keep it "alive". In this day and age when literally everything you encounter has English attached to it, common sense dictates that you should have at least a modicum of understanding to be able to navigate today's waters.

Achakzai's speech might've garnered him some followership back in the day but now it is just useless rhetoric.
Why is it people from other countries have self-respect for their language but not us? They are not as keen on learning English as much as we are. Why the hell should we?
 

p(-)0ENiX

FULL MEMBER
Mar 23, 2012
1,582
2
2,947
Country
Pakistan
Location
Saudi Arabia
The video below is a comparison between 70 common Indo-European cognates, and it successfully highlights the similarities in speech found between the various denominations of mankind irrespective of their line of descent. Remember that IE tongues are collectively spoken natively by approximately 45% of the world's population. As such, people with an interest in etymology will almost certainly enjoy this video.


As per the video description; the languages featured include Hittite, Baltic (Old Prussian & Lithuanian), Slavic (Old Church Slavonic), Avestan, Vedic Sanskrit, Armenian, Latin, Tocharian, Germanic (Old Norse & Gothic), Hellenic, Albanian, & Celtic (Old Irish & Welsh).

@peagle You might find this interesting bro.

It provides a reference to the reconstructed PIE word. Reconstructions should generally be taken as a peripheral model of what a word sounded like given the incomplete records of minor IE tongues and the fact that there are no written records of archaic proto tongues.
 
Last edited:

p(-)0ENiX

FULL MEMBER
Mar 23, 2012
1,582
2
2,947
Country
Pakistan
Location
Saudi Arabia
Dude - i neither supported your theory nor condemned. I said it doesn't matter. No matter how many times i say it you keep coming back defending it more and more. Is there a single instance of a nation which voluntarily gave up mother tongue to foreign language and justified it as similar grouping so doesnt matter ? Nobody does it.
No - dislike of Urdu among pusthuns or sindhis is not petty. As I said again no one really likes a foreign tongue over their others based on theories. Its you who are weird and just not getting it. maybe if you get your head out of those theories you will see the reality for what it is.
If you do not want me to respond, you are free to ignore this response. As I said earlier, plenty of nations have given up their languages in the past, even for tongues that belong to different language families. The expansion of Arabic into North Africa should ring a bell. Arabic belongs to the same macro-group as Coptic or Amazigh, but its primary branch is Semitic, whereas Coptic is an Egyptian isolate and Amazigh is Berber. Their pre-historic common ancestor's extensive antiquity implies that the old Egyptian and Berber speakers wouldn't have found any similarities between their adopted mother tongue and local languages besides a few stable colloquialisms. Yet, the change took place and these regions consider Arabic their mother tongue. The Yemenis were another group speaking a southern Semitic dialect, but ended up adopting Arabic. The previous example of Bactrians assimilating in to the Pasthun population remains valid, and another example may be found in the Frankish adoption of the various Gallo-Romance dialects during the Merovingian era, which laid the foundation for modern French. The fact is that most Pakistanis are unconcerned with Urdu as their mother tongue. Urdu has a ton of issues, but the populace generally remains amicable towards it. It need not be Urdu either & there is another thread in which Persian's adoption as an alternative lingua franca is being discussed. Besides, the upper middle & upper classes tilt towards English as their primary communicative medium.

I notice that you keep tossing around the word theory without a complete understanding of what it entails. Linguistic evolution isn't necessarily a theory, in so much as it is a clearly observable fact capable of being cognized by a minute reference to the archaic forms of existing languages. Vulgar Latin's evolution in to the Romance languages should suffice here. However, you may read up on English's evolution as an alternative. What you're pertaining to is the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European language, for which, we have sufficient evidence as an indication to its existence. Not only do we have a plethora of cognates between tongues like Sanskrit, Avestan, Greek, and Latin, but there are a ton of similar inflections comprising the declension of nouns & the conjugation of verbs that diminutize the probability of chance similarity. When that is coupled with common pagan deities, myths, engineering practices revolving around the chariot, and a common patrilineal lineage, the product tends to be a cogent theory relying on the scientific method and encompasses a variety of fields ranging from archaeogenetics to linguistics. Besides, the presence of Europid people in and around the Iranic and Indic plateau isn't disputed, the Tocharians should ring a bell. Furthermore, evidence of migratory features among Indo-Iranians may be noted through the old Assyrian records or the presence of the Mitanni in the Levant. Regardless, your denial of cause and effect serves no purpose other than getting you to come across as an irrational conspiracist. Note that a theory may be defined as a contemplation based on a combination of rational and logical constructs coupled with precedence, observation, and experimentation to explain a phenomena. The germ theory of disease is currently accepted by the scientific community as a cause for infectious diseases. Notice that the word "theory" has no implication on the factuality of this phenomena. Although, I surmise that you probably feel that demons are responsible for diseases.

Not sure why you cannot see what an oddball you are. And yes i do have contempt for those who get their heads stuck in Aryan theory, sing praises of sanskrit. I know the people who do - almost all of them racist scumbags ranging from colonials to nazis to brahmins including your Sir William Jones who is another weirdo. I am not going to cut a special cookie for you because of your claims of innocence. You need to get over it. Examine the company you are in and accept the consequence.
Firstly, I wasn't singing praises to Sanskrit. It is just one language to have evolved from the old Indo-Aryan dialects and if that is too controversial for you, I could easily replace it with Avestan. Sanskrit just happens to preserved well, and its relation to the bulk of older European classics is easily observable. Regardless of what you feel, the fact that these languages are eerily similar remains undisputed, so your personal inclinations are meaningless. What consequences are you talking about? No one cares about your personal feelings of contempt for those that accept a clearly observable and verifiable hypothesis based on peer reviewed findings grounded in the scientific method as facts. There is nothing intuitively wrong with the Indo-European expansion or the Indo-Iranian migration or potential invasion. Some people's inclinations to utilize these historical events for ulterior motives has no bearing on their factuality and does not constitute grounds for their rejection. It's blatantly obvious that you have no respect for scientific integrity and are willing to reject rationality for the sake of your sentiments and alleged nobility. The truth remains constant no matter how displeasing it may be to you, your sensibilities or agenda. You might feel that accepting the IE expansion divides the population of the Sub-Continent. So what if it does, when even a layman knows that the Sub-Continent is a culmination of varying races and ethnic groups? Besides, nationhood and unity encapsulate a variety of factors, and if mere racial differences perturb your unity, then you need to revise your definition of nationhood into one that's far more accommodating and representative of the binding factors.

In any case, no racial superiority is presumed by the scientific community when accepting this phenomena, & it currently happens to be taken as mere fact without an absolute agreement on the specificities. I don't know anything about Sir William Jones except his prowess and familiarity to a multitude of languages, which includes non-Indo-European ones like Arabic. In any case, he isn't the first person to notice the obvious links between Sanskrit to the remaining Indo-European language family and he certainly isn't the last. Besides which, your attempts at sullying a person's character has no bearing on the argument he has brought forward through study and rational inquiry. The Indo-Iranian languages are related to the other IE languages and you may as well get over it. You have no evidence to the contrary and plenty of your responses are hypocritical libellous accusations, which shall inadvertently defame none besides you. As aforementioned, a bunch of geographically dispersed people exist with similar tongues, deities, myths, cultures, techniques for warfare, patrilineal lineage, and racial phenotypes, which leads to only one logical conclusion and that is that they sprang from the same source lest you deny cause and effect. The Indo-European creation myth or cosmogony is similar and that too has been reconstructed, but of course, you are free to delude yourself from reality and describe these phenomena as "magic".

Anyway, I will leave this citation for anyone that's interested in the subject without delving into excessive detail which derides the topic of this thread.

Mysterious Indo-European homeland may have been in the steppes of Ukraine and Russia

What do you call a male sibling? If you speak English, he is your “brother.” Greek? Call him “phrater.” Sanskrit, Latin, Old Irish? “Bhrater,” “frater,” or “brathir,” respectively. Ever since the mid-17th century, scholars have noted such similarities among the so-called Indo-European languages, which span the world and number more than 400 if dialects are included. Researchers agree that they can probably all be traced back to one ancestral language, called Proto-Indo-European (PIE). But for nearly 20 years, scholars have debated vehemently when and where PIE arose.

Two long-awaited studies, one described online this week in a preprint and another scheduled for publication later this month, have now used different methods to support one leading hypothesis: that PIE was first spoken by pastoral herders who lived in the vast steppe lands north of the Black Sea beginning about 6000 years ago. One study points out that these steppe land herders have left their genetic mark on most Europeans living today.

The studies’ conclusions emerge from state-of-the-art ancient DNA and linguistic analyses, but the debate over PIE’s origins is likely to continue.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom