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.
