Is Sanskrit really an “Indo-European” language?

[scionoftheindus]

The author was trying to prove all the Indian languages fall under one language group simply because they have a flexible word order.He also says all Indian languages have SOV word order unlike other indo European languages(that is not true actually..Persian has SOV pattern)...apart from sentence structure Dravidian and north Indian languages don't share much.
North indian languages like Hindi have either masculine gender or feminine gender assigned to all non living things...they don't have neuter gender like Dravidian languages.
Let us take two words kitaab and bulb and compare how the usage of those words differ in Tamil from Hindi
kitaab giri
Bulb gira
Even though both kitaab and bulb are non living things they were assigned feminine and masculine genders(giri and gira)
If you translate those sentences into Tamil they would be
Putthagam vizhundhadhu
Bulb vizhundhadhu
Here both the nouns were assigned neuter gender unlike Hindi hence no change in the verbs.
One more difference is adjective should agree with noun in Hindi and other north Indian languages
Acchi kitaab but acchaa bulb
This is not the case in Dravidian....the adjective won't change according to the gender or number of the noun(just like English)
Nalla paiya(good boy)
Nalla ponnu(good girl).
I can go on and on..all I am saying is Sanskrit is in no way related to Dravidian languages.
PS:The reason why sanskrit sentence structure is a bit like Dravidian is because sanskrit speakers lived among dravidians for hundreds or maybe thousands of years..it is natural for Sanskrit to adopt some Dravidian language patterns and undergo some grammatical changes.

 

[Bang Galore]

That was the case as the Aryan migrated from their native lands and headed towards India (references in Rig Veda).

No such references are available in the Rig veda. No mention of any movement from elsewhere, no knowledge of foreign lands....nothing.

 

[scionoftheindus]

What is your conclusion then?

There are some commonalities between Sanskrit and Malayalam(Dravidian Language) and then there is commonality in structure in between Russia and Sanskrit.

Todays Dravidian languages also went through many changes like Sanskrit ! So this argument is not valid considering India went through some glorious ages in which many changes occurred.

In the my previous post I have posted a video, in which the author argues that It is India that is the birth place of Vedic Sanskrit and it spread towards west , He also gave many proofs and logical conclusions!

If India is the birth place of Sanskrit why are south Indians speaking a different language?There are some excellent unbiased linguists all over the world who agree that sanskrit is not an indigenous language of India...there was a great linguist in andhra Pradesh as well..he was world famous and he was Dravidian.. Even he didn't agree that sanskrit is a native language of India.If Sanskrit is not an indo European language there wouldnt have been a great consensus among linguists.The people who question that theory have to come up with a valid proof.

 

[Srinivas]

If India is the birth place of Sanskrit why are south Indians speaking a different language?There are some excellent unbiased linguists all over the world who agree that sanskrit is not an indigenous language of India...there was a great linguist in andhra Pradesh as well..he was world famous and he was Dravidian.. Even he didn't agree that sanskrit is a native language of India.If Sanskrit is not an indo European language their wouldnt have been a great consensus among linguists.The people who question that theory have to come up with a valid proof.

If Sanskrit came from another place ?

From where it originated?

Who are the people who brought saskrit to India, why is some imaginary birth place of sanskrit do not have any literatures or inscriptions?

What is the mother language of sanskrit from which all other languages emerged?

There is no answer to these questions and so the theory that linguists whether they are excellent or not is false !

Fact is Vedic sanskrit underwent many changes like any other languages , showing the differences between Vedic saskrit and todays sanskrit and proposing that this language came from outside is not correct.

The same thing happened to many languages that do not mean those languages came from foreign places into those respective native places.

 

[scionoftheindus]

No such references are available in the Rig veda. No mention of any movement from elsewhere, no knowledge of foreign lands....nothing.

Rigveda was written thousands of years after Aryans set foot in India;naturally there won't be any foreign references.If we read history and observe our surroundings impartially we will realise that there were a group of people who were called Aryans who came to India from the west of our country and there was a language called sanskrit which came with them.

 

[scionoftheindus]

If Sanskrit came from another place ?

From where it originated?

Who are the people who brought saskrit to India, why is some imaginary birth place of sanskrit do not have any literatures or inscriptions?

What is the mother language of saskrit from which all other languages emerged?

There is no answer to these questions and so the theory that linguists whether they are excellent or not is false !

Fact is Vedic sanskrit underwent many changes like any other languages , showing the differences between Vedic saskrit and todays sanskrit and proposing that this language came from outside is not correct.

The same thing happened to many languages that do not mean those languages came from foreign places into thohse respective native places.

Just because we can't ascertain the origins of sanskrit doesn't mean we can come to the conclusion that sanskrit is indigenous. The simple fact that all the languages which share some similarities with sanskrit lie In the west of India is proof enough to show sanskrit is not Indian...if Indians had indeed carried the language to west why don't we find any Indian looking people there...we can find many central Asian looking people in India(even after thousands of years of mixing of races).the facts weigh against out of India theory.
Can you tell me the origins of proto Dravidian? Does the inability to discover the origins of proto Dravidian mean that there wasn't any proto Dravidian at any point on time in history?does it mean all the Dravidian languages are in the present form from time immemorial?
Just quote one renowned linguist who says Sanskrit is Indian or Sanskrit is not indo european

 

[Srinivas]

Just because we can't ascertain the origins of sanskrit doesn't mean we can't come to the conclusion that sanskrit is indigenous. The simple fact that all the languages which share some similarities with sanskrit lie In the west of India is proof enough to show sanskrit is not India...if Indians had indeed carried the language to west why don't we find any Indian looking people there...we can find many central Asian looking people in India(even after thousands of years of mixing of races).the facts weigh against out of India theory.
Can you tell me the origins of proto Dravidian? Does the inability to discover the origins of proto Dravidian mean that there wasn't any proto Dravidian at any point on time in history?does it mean all the Dravidian languages are in the present form from time immemorial?

Languages and people are completely different, If a fact has to be established then it must have concrete evidence. With out facts and evidences the theory remains just a theory.

The Literature, works on Sanskrit and the culture that is unique to India points to the fact that Sanskrit and the culture associated with it is indigenous. (blind denial based on a theory is not correct I think)

There used to be Hindu kings in C.Asia, there are Buddhist monks who migrated from India to far regions, there are many things that got out of India. So Out of India theory is not a farce but it certainly have some backing.

Ancient Vishnu idol found in Russian town - The Times of India

Please go through the above link.

 

[Bang Galore]

Rigveda was written thousands of years after Aryans set foot in India;naturally there won't be any foreign references.

You may well be right, there is no way of proving it one way or the other except the realisation that a linguistic connection exists. My point was in reply to a sentence where it was suggested that such movement was referred to in the Rig veda.

If we read history and observe our surroundings impartially we will realise that there were a group of people who were called Aryans who came to India from the west of our country and there was a language called sanskrit which came with them.

I will leave the observing to people better at it, I will however nitpick over one point that you made, i.e. about those who were known as Aryans. Are you aware who it is who called themselves that? Or is it your argument that all the people of the Rig veda were "Aryan"...?

 

[Hindustani78]

Is Sanskrit really an “Indo-European” language?

If the commonality between Indian and European langauages extends only to a small pastoral-era oral lexicon, the Indo-European theory of langauges could hardly be called in to justify the “Aryan Invasion” theory let alone infer that the Vedas were written by “Indo-European Aryan” migrants.

Vedas were not written by Indo-European Aryans migrants because i think it was only after the invasions of King Alexander , Europeans tribes came till towards the Indian Sub Continent. King Alexander arrived in India in 326 B.C. and before him were 154 Indian kings who ruled back to 6777 B.C.

I think it was mainly because of the Seleucid Empire that the words of Sanskrit were started to be used by the European tribes,so basically its the European tribes who have adopted sanskrit words and it was during the period of British era that the term of Indo European langauge came into existence.

Vedas were written way before the Seleucid Empire. Bhagvat Gita according to calculation is around 5,153 years old and Seleucid Empire use to have borders with Maurya Empire.

 

[scionoftheindus]

Languages and people are completely different, If a fact has to be established then it must have concrete evidence. With out facts and evidences the theory remains just a theory.

The Literature, works on Sanskrit and the culture that is unique to India points to the fact that Sanskrit and the culture associated with it is indigenous. (blind denial based on a theory is not correct I think)

There used to be Hindu kings in C.Asia, there are Buddhist monks who migrated from India to far regions, there are many things that got out of India. So Out of India theory is not a farce but it certainly have some backing.

Ancient Vishnu idol found in Russian town - The Times of India

Please go through the above link.

You can't convince the world and scientific community with such arguments...solid proofs are necessary.. This is a very complex topic which requires specialisation in various fields..the whole world is not fool to believe some made up theories..a lot of work has been going into it..I asked you to quote at least one linguist,leave it ..atleast one Indian linguist who approves of your theory.You know one thing until just 3500-4000 years ago the land east of Indus(present day India) is full of forests with no civilisation..it is only with the advent of iron that people started coming in and started making settlements here by clearinf forests(of course there were some tribal communities which were residing in those forests itself)..then how could it be possible for people to move out of India when the whole India itself doesn't have any civilised people?

 

[ghoul]

Other than getting raucous on my thread you've not been able to prove me wrong.
Did you read the article??
can you counter the points??? Heard of SVO order???
do you know who is Mr. thadani???
If you are planning to troll on my thread then............ buzz off.

Do you have even slight knowledge about linguistics? How can one prove a pseudo-historian wrong? It's just like proving a firm believer in bigfoot wrong. Weren't you the one who said IVC started around Gaggar Hakra river, which dried in year 10,000 bc? Apologies I'm not trying to troll, but I just can't take a person who believes pseudo-nationalistic history seriously. And who's Mr Thadani? When it comes to history, I don't trust any Indian or Pakistani authors because both are notorious for being extremely biased and impartial. Sometimes Indian authors and "historians" have down right fabricated historical references and artifacts.

As I said, the first thing for linguistic classification is looking at the numbering system, then grammar and then ancient words. Indo-Aryan languages have all the characteristics of Indo-European family; i'e almost same words for numbers, masculine and feminine words, etc etc. Do Tamil, Telugu etc have all these features? Do you know Avestan and Sanskrit are like what Kurdish and Balochi are, i.e sister languages. Keep your weird sense of nationalism separate from historical topics.

Also, speaking an indo-aryan language doesn't mean a descent from Proto-Indo-Europeans. Most modern day Indians except for Brahmins do not have an Indo-Aryan ancestry, despite the fact that they speak an Indo-European language.

Why would you do that when the world numbering system comes from Sanskrit? It's clearly going to be very similar.

Yeah sure, and ancient Indians traveled all the way till Rome and also built the Roman empire right? Man you guys are hilarious.

 

[Hindustani78]

I will leave the observing to people better at it, I will however nitpick over one point that you made, i.e. about those who were known as Aryans. Are you aware who it is who called themselves that? Or is it your argument that all the people of the Rig veda were "Aryan"...?

Aryans were people of Indian tribes.

 

[ghoul]

Sanskrit came into sub continent from where ?

No where in the world we see Sanskrit type of structuring except in Indian Langiages, Avestan has some common words, structure is different.

It is the structure of the language that should be the basis for classification, not the commonality of words. Words move from place to place because of migration of people, influences etc..etc..

As if you're some sort of linguistics expert on Sanskrit and Avestan.

 

[Srinivas]

You can't convince the world and scientific community with such arguments...solid proofs are necessary.. This is a very complex topic which requires specialisation in various fields..the whole world is not fool to believe some made up theories..a lot of work has been going into it..I asked you to quote at least one linguist,leave it ..atleast one Indian linguist who approves of your theory.You know one thing until just 3500-4000 years ago the land east of Indus(present day India) is full of forests with no civilisation..it is only with the advent of iron that people started coming in and started making settlements here by clearinf forests(of course there were some tribal communities which were residing in those forests itself)..then how could it be possible for people to move out of India when the whole India itself doesn't have any civilised people?

Civilizations flourish in River Banks, India has many rivers and the land very much supports cities and can sustain large amount of populations.

Intellectuality/intelligence is not the property of certain tribes, ANI gene arrived in India 45000 years ago ASI gene some 65000 years ago. To claim that some races arrived and developed the culture of India is not correct. They existed many thousands of years ago.

India has many ports through which cultural exchanges have taken place through out history. Even Monks travelled to China crossing Himalayas. To say India is isolated is not true.

Regarding Vedic sanskrit and Rig Veda, The Rishis claimed that the slokas/knowledge came to them when they sat in the seat of meditation.

Show me a place where this technique is developed out side India?

I think Colonials tried to deny India its culture and other aspects !

Most of the linguists, historians and intellectuals are based in West. No need to completely believe them either.

 

[scionoftheindus]

You may well be right, there is no way of proving it one way or the other except the realisation that a linguistic connection exists. My point was in reply to a sentence where it was suggested that such movement was referred to in the Rig veda.



I will leave the observing to people better at it, I will however nitpick over one point that you made, i.e. about those who were known as Aryans. Are you aware who it is who called themselves that? Or is it your argument that all the people of the Rig veda were "Aryan"...?

OK I will rephrase it...a group of fair skinned tribes with a language from which the present day Sanskrit evolved.(which may just be a migration in different waves over a period of hundreds of years)