How ? Is it written on its preface ?
Yes sir, I have gone through all those consensus, all are assuming with out any shred of evidence. And they are accepting that they are assuming.
Well, if you are hell bent on assumptions then why to put it in 6th BCE, put it in the15th BCE.
If the evidence says it is likely to be 7th to 6th century BC, why should anyone put it in the 15th century BC, unless he or she has an addled brain?
Yes sir, as you said I will use current version of English with all its acquired vocabulary.
And that's my point. That is how languages evolve, like English, from pidgin to classic.
It is a misguided point. I suggest that we resume this discussion after you have looked into linguistics a little seriously. Nothing personal, but this is not a history seminar; your self-study will simply not replace a formal course in the subject.
Infact you can conclude for sure from several posters of different eras that how a language might have made its journey to its current form.
This progress of different languages from earlier stems to their present forms has been traced in great detail, almost overwhelming detail, in a number of places.
Sanskrit, Indo-Aryan, Avestan, PIE, all have received a great deal of attention, and the results have been published frequently and prolifically. There is no shortage of information.
Please don't give me any additional work. I have already left some of my office work unattended and considering to go on guest mode again.
I sincerely regret any pressure. Unfortunately, it was also sometime around the 5th century BC that Euclid said to Ptolemy I Soter,"There is no royal road to geometry."
No comments on the matter except that I never pushed my belief. I am dead against beliefs with out any reasoning or proof.
Sure.
It did change. I have shown you pic of inscription and explained. If you want to insist then please put your pic and explain your narative.
I don't have to. For someone who brings a new narrative to consideration, it is for him, or her, to make his point. Your point of view will not be proven or disproved here; it will be done in proper form, through peer-reviewed articles and discussion thereon.
That is why I am loth to put any effort into this futile endeavour.
Who are your historians and researchers ?
Those who said after volumes upon volumes of research that Buddha gave his first sermon to five BRAHMAN pupils ???
For a record please note that Fa Hien was the first person who told us exact location of "Sarnath" including direction and distance. And he never stated the cast of those pupils. We don't have any record of Sarnath before Fa Hien. But these so called scholars and historians researched their cast and it is still being taught to us from class four to post graduation.
I suggest that we either join them or avoid them. Second-guessing them is not very useful. You may or may not be aware that this is the approach used by the revisionist historians; some of their extraordinary conclusions are:
- Indian, meaning Hindu Civilisation, preceded the Indus Valley Civilisation;
- The Indus Valley Civilisation was part of the Aryan civilisation;
- The Sanskrit language was developed entirely within India and spread outside India to serve as the roots of other Indo-European languages;
- Iranian, Greek, Latin, Celtic, Germani and Slavic, not to mention others, such as Albanian, Armenian, Tokharian were all descended from Sanskrit;
- The Mauryas were many years earlier than the Persian Empire;
and so on.
What you have attempted is not new; a wide range of quasi-historians have attempted it, and their results are there for all to see.
As I said,I am an avid reader and ready to accept any point of view; given with proof or reasoning. But you have not given any so far.....
The only advice I can give you is to follow the authorities, and to understand them and grasp their theories thoroughly well before striking out on your own. There is sufficient proof and reasoning in each of these texts; if you find something anomalous, the place to air your views is in peer-reviewed articles in academic journals, not in a Pakistani on-line defence journal.
This is not discouragement; this is, at worst, re-orientation. You are at the wrong place, and addressing the wrong audience.
Regarding the damage; I have always shown you respect, but if you will try to mock or insult me then I will have to respond in a polite manner.
I have great respect for your searching, probing approach, and your unwillingness to take anything for granted. The response to seeing something that seems anomalous is not to break away immediately but to delve deeper. I suggest that you have not done sufficient research into these various subjects to be able to put up a plausible alternative narrative. What you have put up so far is, I am very sorry to say, risible.
Problem is my poor English and straight forward attitude. I don't know how to hide it into a flowery language.
Nothing wrong with your English, nothing wrong with your attitude, except that you lack humility. If you had a formal grounding in history, it is unlikely that this approach would have been formulated. If you do have a formal grounding in history, and still went ahead to formulate and promote these theories, then a return to the books and to deeper study is recommended; there is no other solution.
Sorry for your bruised ego.
What do you mean? I am highly amused, and highly entertained; unfortunately, during the last ten years on this admittedly amateur journal, there have been dozens of disputations. I have invariably taken great pains to set their misgivings and their misreading of history right, so that they work from the same fact-base as others do.
In this case, in your case, I find that there is a huge amount of linguistics knowledge that has to be conveyed in refutation; quite honestly, what I could face with equanimity when I was 58 is no longer an attractive proposition at 68. You will have to fend for yourself; I can only inform you from time to time when you go off the beaten track and head towards intellectual disaster.
Checked and found they are all assuming, contrary to the available indications.
You have already quoted your alternative source of information as a famous Hindi travel writer. Are you serious? And then you are hurt and offended when people laugh at you?
Checked and found myself not in agreement.
All I can do is smile and let it be. This is too funny for words. What are your credentials to decide on this?
I know, it is Aramaic written in Kharoshthi script. But what is your take ??
That you cannot compare orthography in Aramaic with orthography in Prakrit; not even the particular brand of Prakrit that was used in that region.
I am ready to accept the view of any author, but at least discuss them here. What they say, what is there source, what is the view of others that matter, and what is their source ??
Don't you think that you should put yourself on somewhat better informed ground before we enter into a detailed discussion? If I have to cite the authorities, and their works, and the entire body of work for and against them and their views, that amounts to a learned paper. Do you seriously believe that this is worthwhile to answer the doubts of a professed amateur?
Some time those huge volumes are created to paddle a particular narative, other wise, we would not have found such a contrast in the research of Indian and Pakistani historians.
Could you give me an example of this contrast? I hope you are not taking the amateur views of members of this forum as being representative of Pakistani history writing. To be honest, other than Dr. A. H. Dani, who was a giant among historians, and the deeply respected Ayesha Jalal, I do not know of any serious academically recognised historians. I am discounting Aitzaz Ahsan as the very intelligent writer of a trade book; he was not an academically recognised authority. We may read him, have involved discussions, and enjoy an afternoon or two of argument and debate but it will make no difference to the writing of Indian history - or, as a fellow-member of this forum ingeniously called it, the history of co-terminous Pakistan.
Anyway, it was a very telling day, took heavy toll on my daily work. I was better here as guest. Taking part in debates is addictive, vicious and keep me glued to the phone.
Thanks for your time sir,
Regards.
I am sorry that seems to be less than a pleasure for you. Perhaps if we leave this thread as it is, I might, over the next week or so, put together the authorities that you might like to refer to, and put together the information about linguistics that has a bearing on these issues. Perhaps.
