From
ARYAN INVASION THEORY : REASSESSING LINGUISTIC EVIDENCES.
One may waste years for trying to find out the basis of the widely publicised dating of the Rgveda ( cir. 1200 BC, ± 200 years). Linguists quote historians and historians quote linguists for this dating. No one bothers to show any proof. For instance, Maxmüller stressed that linguists have discovered irrefutable proofs in favour of the dating of Rgveda, while the most reputed Indo-Europeanist Karl Brugmann plainly quoted a historian A. Kaegi for the dating of Rgveda. A careful examination of the views of Indo Europeanists leads one to believe that the supposedly primitive nature of Rgvedic culture encouraged scholars to put its age at par with those of the primitive Greeks who faught against Troy around 1200 BC. 1200 BC was the earlist date to which European history could be traced in 19th century; before 1200 BC was pure prehistory. But in 1952-3, Michael Ventris,with the help of Chadwick, deciphered the Linear B tablets of Mycenaean Greek, which proved that Mycenaean Greeks ( 1200-1500 BC) enjoyed an urban civilization much before 1200 BC. Hence the pastoral ancestors of these Greeks must be placed at least around 2000 BC . Hence, following the logic of Indo-Europeanists, it seems irrational to put the age of the socalled Vedic culture after 2000 BC. But the pastoral culture of vedic peoples should not have coexisted with the urban culture of Harappans in the same Sindhu-Sarasvati valley. Hence the socalled vedic age cannot be placed after 3000 BC in any case. The proof of Linear B is irrefutable, but Indo-Europeanists do not want to discard their 19th century views. The reason is twofold. Firstly, there is a dearth of experts wishing to devote much time in this field. Secondly, whenever an honest enquiry in conducted in this direction, Vedic language unquestionably proves to be the ancestor of all those languages whose ancient states and linkages are well known . (Unfortunately, IE is the only family with well documented history. Semitic also shows definite proofs of affinity with Vedic or PIE, but the linguistic history of Semitic is not sufficiently documented. Other families are even less documented.) The preponderance of evidences in favour of Vedic repulses biased researchers away from this discipline.
But the second vowel poses some problem. Old English and Gothic show that older form was /o/ or /a/, /e/ being a later development. Oldest form in Slavic is /ru/, which suggests /ur/ < /or/ < /ar/ in prehistoric times. Gaelic and Old Irish show /ai/ and /i/, while Greek shows /o/ in older specimens and /e/ in later ones including classical Koine. On the vowel diagram of Daniel Jones, statistical average of /o/ and /e/ is the central vowel /a/ for Proto-Greek (i.e., etymon of /brother/ must have possessed /ar/ in the end. Seen in this broader perspective, Keltic and Latin forms also suggest a change from /a/ > /ai/ > /i/ or /e/. Karl Brugmann noted that /or/ is older than /er/ in Greek.
In the same way, first consonant is /b/ in Slavo-Germanic and /ph/ in Greek-Latin. Statistically, it would suggest /bh/ in the PIE, which is found in Vedic. Some prejudiced scholars raise doubts over the actual pronunciation of this PIE /bh/, which they imagine to be something like /bah/ with a reduced /a/, instead of like Sanskrit /bh/, which is a full fledged phoneme. Influence of Semitic alphabets upon European scholars is so overwhelming that the same scholar (Winfred P Lehmann, in his Historical Linguistics) writes that the syllabic form of writing used by Mycenaeans was unsuitable for Greek. But truth is just the opposite. Greek was an Indo-European language and Semitic alphabet was quite unsuitable for accurate transcription of Greek (or of any Indo-European language). It is quite probable that the actual pronunciation was /bhrätar/ in ancient Greece , which was written as /phrätor/ or /phräter/ in various dialects due to limitations of the Semitic alphabet.
The picture "VowelsPIE.gif" has three parts. In the top portion, you will find the vowel guide to the Received Pronunciation of standard British Engligs ( e.g., of BBC), as a reference to the vowels of this diagram. Then, the reconstruction of PGmc (Proto Germanic) is illustrated. Indo-Europeanists invariably reconstruct PGmc as /bröther/, whereas this author found it more appropriate to reconstruct it as /bröthar/. Old Norse and Old High German show /e/ in the last syllable, whereas OE and Gothic show /o/ and /a/ respectively. Statistical mean is nearer to /a/ than to /e/( here /a/ has been used for the central vowel in order to avoid International Phonetic Alphabet). Gothic provides the oldest specimen and most archaic features in the Germanic group, which are delibaretaly overlooked by Indo-Europeanists in order to prove their theory.
The last portion of this picture file deals with PIE reconstruction. This author placed the last vowel of Proto-Greek in the central region ( i.e ., /a/ and not /e/.), because even Karl Brugmann suggested that /phrator/ was more archaic in Greek than /phrater/). Europeanists would detest this approach, because Classical Greek and Latin is deeply rooted in their Unconscious minds and they refuse to see that /phrator/ was more archaic form in Greek, in spite of a verbal acceptance by their chief spokesman Karl Brugmann.
In the case of /bhrätar/ , the last vowel was invariably reconstructed as /e/ by all major Indo-Europeanists. But even if all IE groups are allocated equal weightage, the last vowel proves to be nearest to the central vowel /a/ than to any other PIE vowel. Statistically, it is slightly raised ( i.e., tongue raised ) due to the effect of /r/ in the same syllable, and it is also slightly fronted ( i.e., front of tongue used ) due to the weight of Latin /e/ and Keltic /i/ and /ai/. Greek shows a clear proof of a drift from /o/ to /e/ ( i.e., phrätor > phrätēr , statistical mean of /o/ and /ē/ being /a/ ), as noted (but neglected) by Karl Brugmann. Keltic (Gælic) has /brathair/, which suggests a possibility of a drift from /a/ towards /i/.
When Saussure proposed this wrong idea, Europeanists were confounded with a deep crisis. When Indo-Europeanism started its journey, Vedic was widely believed to be the ancestor of classical languages of Europe. At that time, facts dominated over ideas. Later, theories were discovered to explain away this unsavoury fact which was disgusting to a Judaeo-Christian culture. Schleicher was the first theoretician to distort the science of language. He proposed a tree model for IE languages, like the taxonomical model of Darwinists. Schleicher found that North European languages belonged to a common set (Slavo-Germanic = Balto-Slavic plus Teutonic), while the languages of southern Europe belonged to another common set. Both these sets shared more affinities with Sanskrit than with each other. But Sanskrit could not be accepted as the ancestor language by a pupil of Hegel who despised the worthlessness of India. Nobody asked why Central Asia was declared to be the Homeland, in spite of the fact that no ancient or modern language of Central Asia was known to have any affinity with IE family in 19th century(until Tocharian was discoverd much later). Linguistic evidences pointed towards India, but India was a colony and a non-European country. Hence regions adjacent to its borders could be declared to be the Homeland. Central Asian Homeland was more acceptable than an Indian Homeland, and therefore Schleicher's biological model became popular.But linguists of Europe were still perturbed, because they were aware of truth, and wanted a purely European Homeland.
Persons like Saussure, Shröeder and above all Brugmann solved this problem of Homeland permanently, and thereafter no amount of fact or reason could compel Europeanists to change their views about PIE. Quest for a Homeland away from India was the driving force behind Indo-Europeanism. Once it was (wrongly ) solved, European scholars put a full stop to further enquiry.
In the example of /bhrätar/, first consonant is /ph/ in Greek and Latin, but /b/ in Slavo-Germanic. Sanskrit /bh/ appeared to be the common meeting ground of the languages of North and South Europe. In an overwhelming majority of cases, Keltic belonged to the southern groups ( although in the case of initial consonant of /bhrätar/, Keltic and Iranian show /b/, instead of expected /ph/ and /bh/ respectively : these being exceptions). This type of linguistic affinities was summarised in the form of the famous Tree Model of Schleicher, which was linked to the Central Asia Homeland Theory.
Very few persons knew that Central Asia Theory was a figment of imagination, Central Asia actually had no proof to offer in those days. Schröeder discovered one set of similarities between Keltic and Germanic(e.g.,-mis instead of -bhis in Case endings), and on account of this single linguistic correspondence Tree Model was discarded in favour of a Ring Model centred around somewhere in East Europe ( around Slovakia ). Indic group was imagined to belong to a small tribe near the modern borders of Romania-Bulgaria. With the discovery of Hittite language, the hypothetical path of migration of Indo-Aryans towards India was transferred from the north of Caucasus to Asia Minor.
Why Central Asia was declared to be Homeland by the proponents of Tree Model, when the evidences on whose basis this declaration was made pointed towards India being the Homeland of Europeans? Again, was not an overwhelming amount of evidences rejected in favour of a single evidence of Schröeder just in order to pull the Homeland towards the borders of Germany ? If perfect objectivity is observed in reconstructions of PIE, as exemplified in the case of /bhrätar/ above, Vedic itself would prove to be the PIE in almost all cases having an adequate amount of data. Although Hebrew is not a member of IE famoly, it is the most archaic member of the sister Semitic family. Hence Hebrew's evidence must be considered in deciding borderline situations. But it was not done. In mid 19th century, Britain's per capita income was nearly six times of that of India. Now the difference is 40-50 times over. Progress of PIE Homeland towards Europe is directly proportional to the growing difference in per capita income of India and Europe. Modern Indo-Europeanists are even more unscientific than their 19th century predecessors, because no unbiased and serious attempt is made to reassess the logic of 19th century linguists. Now-a-days, PIE is often reconstructed without paying any attention to the Indic branch.
This author reconstructed all those PIE etymons for which adequate materials of historical times were available , and found, to his surprise, that in 100% cases Vedic proved to be PIE itself ! As we go back in time, linguistic diversity in India or Europe decreases at a constant pace. At the start of historical era, descendants of Vedic were Präkrit dialects which were spoken by the majority of Indians and understood as far as Mysore and beyond Indus. There is no proof that Indic languages belonged to a minority in India. Ancient Indian literature does not record a single memory of foreing ancestry of Aryans.Yet Vedic is declared to be the language of a small band of European invaders !
The method of linguistic reconstruction described above is sufficient for reconstruction the PIE, provided data from all major groups are procured and pure objectivity is observed. Eurocentricists may never accept this objective method, but it would open the path of a new fruitful discipline : historical semantics, and throw new light upon hitherto neglected or unknown aspects of bronze age civilisations. Archaeology studies inanimate things. Linguistics, therefore, is more valuable than archaeology, but it requires more honesty as well. Language, being the instrument of consciousness, should be studied with the purity of mathematics.
This author was dumbfounded at the conclusion of his 12 year long research. Nobody would believe his findings, because nobody wanted to waste his or her time over the history of so many languages. But honest research is always rewarding. This author was disillusioned about a lot of things. When he came to a firm conclusion that Vedic itself was the PIE, he decided to pursue his enquiries further, searching for the oldest written records of the march of humanity towards civilization in the Vedic texts,for instance, the origin of family, private property and state. He decided that he would not impose later Laukika (worldly) meanings upon Vedic words ( Laukika means the meanings prevalent in society). He found a total of 33 instances of the word /bhrätar/ including all its forms in the Rgveda, and tried to deduce the original meaning of this word from the text itself. In 32 instances it had no relation with this-worldly meaning of 'brother' , and was used for the Sun-god only ! In 33rd, it was used for the son of Sun, Yama Vaivasvat, during a dialogue with his sister. In this 33rd instance, it could be related to both "Sun" and "brother". That is why the best commentator of Rgveda, Säyanächärya, opined that this word might have been derived from any of the two roots 'bhräsh-' ( to shine ) and 'bhr-' ( to bear ).
In ancient Greece ( ancient by the reckoning of Aristophanes ) Greeks offered oblations (havi) to the gods during sacrifices in the fire. These offerings were transported by fire to the heavens with steam, and gods received their nourishment from these offerings.An old man of Athens instigated the birds to block the path so that the gods could be starved to death. Zeus sent messengers, but the old man put forth insulting conditions for lifting the blockade. One condition was that Zeus should give His daughter/handmaid to the wicked old man. The gods were powerless before this old men and ultimately had to send the daughter/handmaid of Zeus to the old man.
Only 13 years after this play was written Socratēs was poisoned on the charge of instigating the youth against the gods of Greece. But Aristophanes was publicly abusing all Greek gods including the supreme Indo-European god Dyaus-Pitr ( > Zeuspiter > Jupiter in Latin ; in Greek the letter Zeta originally sounded like Dyeta ), and the whole nation enjoyed this play in large open theatres. No one raised a cry against Aristophanes.
The Birds is a proof of the fact that the original religion of Greeks was Vedic. Indo-Europeanists preach that many PIE gods were same as the gods described in the Vedas, but they deny the possibility of Yäjñika-Karmakända (Sacrificial rituals) in PIE period. Yäjñika-Karmakända is declared to be non-Äryan in origin, and India's Brähmanas are said to be of non-Äryan stock. But The Birds describes Yäjñika-Karmakända among prehistoric predecessors of the Greeks. Students of History are taught that originally Äryan religion consisted of simple prayers and rituals of a priestly class was absent among them. Rgveda is said to be a simple book of hymns preceding other Vedas, esp. the ritualistic Yajurveda. This author also believed in these false surmises before he made a first-hand study of the Vedas, trying to decipher the original meanings of the text from the text itself, taking help critically from ancient commentators. All the Vedas profusely refer to each other, and linguistically it is impossible to put the Rgveda before or after the Yajurveda.
Many excavations were carried out at a great site in North Bihar , Baliräjgarh, and after investigations the Archaeological Department of India (ASI) reported that this site flourished during BC 150 to AD 600. This author visited this site thrice and concluded that ASI report was incorrect. After repeated questins by a member of Indian parliament, the ASI at last revealed that further excavations could not be carried on due to groundwater. Groundwater is the biggest obstacle in not only the Gangetic Valley but also at sites like Mohen-o-daro in Sind or Heliopolis (=Sun-city in Egypt). In the case of Gangetic Valley, archaeologists deliberately hide this fact and declare that there is nothing below to dig out. ASI is not interested in developing skills for groundwater archaeology.
The key to resolve this issue in the ancient world is scientific linguistics. Socratēs (ē denoted various sounds in different dialects during different ages in archaic Greece) is etymologically related to the Sanskrit word Sukratu, which literally means one who performs the Vedic-yajña well ). Any action which pleases the God or gods is a yajña. Hence, Socratēs performed in accordance to his name. On the other hand, detractors of Socratēs had demonic names. Ari-sto-phanē s (in Sanskrit, Ari-stu-bhan-) means "one who speaks in the praise of the Enemy". No one can be a praiser of his own enemy . Here, Enemy here implies the enemy of God or gods, i.e., the Satan/Devil or Asura. Aristophanes was a Devil-worshipper, and therefore Aristophanes himself was an enemy of the ancient deities of Greece .
Conclusive evidence of the archaicness of the Veda is mathematical. A book on occult Vedic Astronomy has recently been published in Hindi. All major astronomical constants and many unsolved problems of modern science have been deduced from previously unpublished Vedic theorems. Vedic differential equations of moon are shown to be more precise than that possessed by modern scientists. Moreover, the Puränic Mt Meru has been mathematically proven to be same as Mt Kenya on which a city named Meru still exists. European anthropologists show amazement at Sanskrit place names like Meru in Kenya or Kinyangiri in Tanzania, but indologists ignore such anomalies, which cannot be fitted into prevalent racist theories. The connection of ancient Zamboo-dvipa with modern Zambezi (Zambunadi > *Zambudi > *Zambuzi), Zambia, Gambia, Zimbabwe, Mu-Zambique,etc is simply ignored. Surya Siddaanta clearly states that Mt Meru was situated at the equator, but no indologist searched it in Africa. Surya Siddaanta also speaks of Zambunadi in the region of Meru.
http://vedicastrology.wikidot.com/vedic-linguistics
Ever since MISRA, Satya Swarup, 1992: The Aryan Problem. A Linguistic Approach, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, there has been a lack of effective counter to the claims of mainstream IE linguists about the relationship between Sanskrit and PIE. (See some discussions at http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/aid/keaitlin2.html)
See:
https://sites.google.com/site/angelamarcantonio/
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/indology_en.asp
ARYAN INVASION THEORY : REASSESSING LINGUISTIC EVIDENCES.
Vinay Jha
Historical Linguistics has developed sufficient tools for proper reconstruction of prehistoric states of Indo-European languages. These methods have been brilliantly used by European scholars for reconstruction of Proto Germanic, for instance. But in the case of Proto-Indo-European language (PIE), deliberately biased and unscientific methods were used, which Leonard Bloomfield had found to be unsatisfactory, but instead of refining the methodology he tried to divert his followers away from this field.
One may waste years for trying to find out the basis of the widely publicised dating of the Rgveda ( cir. 1200 BC, ± 200 years). Linguists quote historians and historians quote linguists for this dating. No one bothers to show any proof. For instance, Maxmüller stressed that linguists have discovered irrefutable proofs in favour of the dating of Rgveda, while the most reputed Indo-Europeanist Karl Brugmann plainly quoted a historian A. Kaegi for the dating of Rgveda. A careful examination of the views of Indo Europeanists leads one to believe that the supposedly primitive nature of Rgvedic culture encouraged scholars to put its age at par with those of the primitive Greeks who faught against Troy around 1200 BC. 1200 BC was the earlist date to which European history could be traced in 19th century; before 1200 BC was pure prehistory. But in 1952-3, Michael Ventris,with the help of Chadwick, deciphered the Linear B tablets of Mycenaean Greek, which proved that Mycenaean Greeks ( 1200-1500 BC) enjoyed an urban civilization much before 1200 BC. Hence the pastoral ancestors of these Greeks must be placed at least around 2000 BC . Hence, following the logic of Indo-Europeanists, it seems irrational to put the age of the socalled Vedic culture after 2000 BC. But the pastoral culture of vedic peoples should not have coexisted with the urban culture of Harappans in the same Sindhu-Sarasvati valley. Hence the socalled vedic age cannot be placed after 3000 BC in any case. The proof of Linear B is irrefutable, but Indo-Europeanists do not want to discard their 19th century views. The reason is twofold. Firstly, there is a dearth of experts wishing to devote much time in this field. Secondly, whenever an honest enquiry in conducted in this direction, Vedic language unquestionably proves to be the ancestor of all those languages whose ancient states and linkages are well known . (Unfortunately, IE is the only family with well documented history. Semitic also shows definite proofs of affinity with Vedic or PIE, but the linguistic history of Semitic is not sufficiently documented. Other families are even less documented.) The preponderance of evidences in favour of Vedic repulses biased researchers away from this discipline.
Here is one summarised example, about cognates of one Sanskrit word and its PIE etymon. Method is very simple : take the statistical average of various cognates on a vowel diagram as well as among consonants, assuming you know nothing about pre-historic languages, with one exception : try to reconstruct etymons of known branches like Proto-Germanic (PGmc) before reaching out to PIE, as shown in the picture below.
English : brother
Old Eng : brödor
German : Brüder
OHG : bruoder
Gothic : bröthar
OldNorse :bröther ('th' pronounced as in modern English 'brother')
PGmc : bröthar
(L.Bloomfield) :bröther ('th' pronounced as 'th' in Hindi/Sanskrit)
Old Eng : brödor
German : Brüder
OHG : bruoder
Gothic : bröthar
OldNorse :bröther ('th' pronounced as in modern English 'brother')
PGmc : bröthar
(L.Bloomfield) :bröther ('th' pronounced as 'th' in Hindi/Sanskrit)
O.Bulgar : brätru < *brätur
Russian : brät
Lithuanian : bröter
Proto Slav : brätar
Russian : brät
Lithuanian : bröter
Proto Slav : brätar
(P.SlavoGerm : brätar)
O.Irish : bräthir
Gaelic : bräthair
P.Kelt : brätha ir
Gaelic : bräthair
P.Kelt : brätha ir
Greek : phrätor, phräter (no symbol for Sanskrit 'bh', hence 'phi' was used for 'bh' but initially pronunciation must have been 'bh')
P.Gk phrätar
Latin : fräter
P.Gk.Lat.Kelt : bhrätar or bhrätaer
P.Gk phrätar
Latin : fräter
P.Gk.Lat.Kelt : bhrätar or bhrätaer
TocharianB : procer ( perhaps from *broter ) ( inadequacy of script )
Zend : brätar
Vedic : bhrätar, root : /bhrätr/
P.IndoIranian : bhrätar
Vedic : bhrätar, root : /bhrätr/
P.IndoIranian : bhrätar
( PIE) : bhrätar
Modern English, Old English, modern German, Old High German (OHG),Gothic, Old Norse and a lot of other living and extinct languages have descended from the common prehistoric ancestor Proto-Germanic (PGmc). Hence PGmc is reconstructed with the help of its descendants, giving due weightage to older forms of words. In Germanic group, we see that the last syllable of 'brother' tended to be /-ar/, /-or/ in many older languages, while the trend towards /-er/ is more pronounced in newer languages. Forming a conclusion on the basis of so little data is not commendable. But this author has examined most words of the entire Indo-European family and found that /-ar/ or /-or/ in a vast majority of cases tend towards /-er/ with the passage of time. A C Gimson found that front vowels like /e/ exhibit highest frequency of occurrence in running texts in English language ( An Introduction to the Pronunciation of Engligh Language, ELBS). Other European and Indian languages also show this tendency. Back vowels like /u/ or /o/ are not as frequent as front vowels like /e/ or /i/.
The cause is that back of the tongue requires more effort for lifting, while the front of tongue is free to move. In the present case, Karl Brugmann in his monumental work "Grundriss der Verleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprächen" (Comparative Grammar of Indo-European Languages, translated by Wright) wrote in the footnote that phrätor was older than phräter in Greek. It is another matter that he did not abide by his own opinion and neglected the older form phrätor in his reconstruction of PIE, using only phräter ,in order to be in harmony with his fellows.This type of approach is a rule rather than an exception in mainstream Indo-Europeanism. Indo-Europeanists behaved as if they were the final law givers of linguistics and the only proof they cared for was quoting each other.
This author wasted 12 years upon this discipline which led him to search for some objective and unbiased method of reconstruction of etymons. At last he decided that all linguistic groups ought to be given equal weightage, because the relative weights of various groups in pre-historic times are unknown. Besides, this author used the cardinal vowel diagram of Daniel Jones and deduced statistical mean of a particular vowel in various cognates, instead of following the subjective (impressionistic) method of Indo-Europeanists. For instance,the first vowel in the following example must be either /ä/ or /ö/ , but a careful comparison of various groups suggest that only the Proto-Germanic could possess /ö/, all other groups show /ä/ . Even oldest specimen of Slavic show /ä/. Hence it is safe to conclude that the first vowel in PIE etymon was /ä/.
But the second vowel poses some problem. Old English and Gothic show that older form was /o/ or /a/, /e/ being a later development. Oldest form in Slavic is /ru/, which suggests /ur/ < /or/ < /ar/ in prehistoric times. Gaelic and Old Irish show /ai/ and /i/, while Greek shows /o/ in older specimens and /e/ in later ones including classical Koine. On the vowel diagram of Daniel Jones, statistical average of /o/ and /e/ is the central vowel /a/ for Proto-Greek (i.e., etymon of /brother/ must have possessed /ar/ in the end. Seen in this broader perspective, Keltic and Latin forms also suggest a change from /a/ > /ai/ > /i/ or /e/. Karl Brugmann noted that /or/ is older than /er/ in Greek.
In the same way, first consonant is /b/ in Slavo-Germanic and /ph/ in Greek-Latin. Statistically, it would suggest /bh/ in the PIE, which is found in Vedic. Some prejudiced scholars raise doubts over the actual pronunciation of this PIE /bh/, which they imagine to be something like /bah/ with a reduced /a/, instead of like Sanskrit /bh/, which is a full fledged phoneme. Influence of Semitic alphabets upon European scholars is so overwhelming that the same scholar (Winfred P Lehmann, in his Historical Linguistics) writes that the syllabic form of writing used by Mycenaeans was unsuitable for Greek. But truth is just the opposite. Greek was an Indo-European language and Semitic alphabet was quite unsuitable for accurate transcription of Greek (or of any Indo-European language). It is quite probable that the actual pronunciation was /bhrätar/ in ancient Greece , which was written as /phrätor/ or /phräter/ in various dialects due to limitations of the Semitic alphabet.
A comparison of Sanskrit words with Greek counterparts as found in the Indica of Megasthenes has convinced this author that spoken Greek was much different from the written form, and spoken Greek had much less differences with Sanskrit than the written Greek would suggest. Ancient Greeks have not left adequate hints about the actual pronunciation. On the contrary, Sanskrit was a fully described language. Hence, it is quite advisable that a comparison with Sanskrit may help in discovering the actually spoken forms of ancient Greek. Ancient trancription of Caesar as /kaisar/ suggests that the Latin word Caesar was initially pronounced as Kaisar and not as Saisar or Seezar. In post Hellenic ages, Romans and others started pronouncing Greek words according to the written form. This malpractice has continued down to the modern times .
Let us see how PIE etymons ought to be reconstructed from available derivatives. A self-explanatory picture "VowelsPIE.gif illustrates the simplified version of the statistical method used here in the case of /bhrätar/.
Let us see how PIE etymons ought to be reconstructed from available derivatives. A self-explanatory picture "VowelsPIE.gif illustrates the simplified version of the statistical method used here in the case of /bhrätar/.
This author allocated equal weights to all IE groups in deducing averages. If older languages are given more weightage, the verdict would tilt in favour of Indic. The oldest specimen of Lithuanian date back to 16th century AD, yet same weight was given to Lithuanian as to Indic, the most archaic branch spoken by almost same number of people as all other IE languages combined together. But if differential weightage is used ( which ought to be used ), chauvinists masquerading as experts will run away with this science. Statistical method is not always correct, because it is tantamount to gambling, but it is the most preferred method when there is no theory. And if the statistical method yields some theory which explains all or almost all of the facts, together with giving plausible reasons for the exceptions,then it is quite scientific. Indo-Europeanists used this very method, but were propelled by subjective considerations of dubious nature, which we should now scrutinize.
The picture "VowelsPIE.gif" has three parts. In the top portion, you will find the vowel guide to the Received Pronunciation of standard British Engligs ( e.g., of BBC), as a reference to the vowels of this diagram. Then, the reconstruction of PGmc (Proto Germanic) is illustrated. Indo-Europeanists invariably reconstruct PGmc as /bröther/, whereas this author found it more appropriate to reconstruct it as /bröthar/. Old Norse and Old High German show /e/ in the last syllable, whereas OE and Gothic show /o/ and /a/ respectively. Statistical mean is nearer to /a/ than to /e/( here /a/ has been used for the central vowel in order to avoid International Phonetic Alphabet). Gothic provides the oldest specimen and most archaic features in the Germanic group, which are delibaretaly overlooked by Indo-Europeanists in order to prove their theory.
The statistical mean of OE and OHG is /a/ , which is same as that of Gothic. The case for /e/ in the last syllable is not supported by facts. But the tendency in classical Latin and Greek as well as in modern European ( and Indian) languages is towards /e/ in a large number of words with the forward passage of time, hence there is an unconscious bias for /e/ in the mind of a careless researcher. This bias reverses the direction of linguistic change and /e/ is imagined in previous stages instead of in the later ones. Since the sole aim is to find out the etymon, here a simple statistical method has been presented, giving equal weightage to all groups. For instance, OE was nearer to OHG than to Gothic, but it was easier to get means in pairs. The result would be the same, whater course one adopts for getting the average.
The last portion of this picture file deals with PIE reconstruction. This author placed the last vowel of Proto-Greek in the central region ( i.e ., /a/ and not /e/.), because even Karl Brugmann suggested that /phrator/ was more archaic in Greek than /phrater/). Europeanists would detest this approach, because Classical Greek and Latin is deeply rooted in their Unconscious minds and they refuse to see that /phrator/ was more archaic form in Greek, in spite of a verbal acceptance by their chief spokesman Karl Brugmann.
In the case of /bhrätar/ , the last vowel was invariably reconstructed as /e/ by all major Indo-Europeanists. But even if all IE groups are allocated equal weightage, the last vowel proves to be nearest to the central vowel /a/ than to any other PIE vowel. Statistically, it is slightly raised ( i.e., tongue raised ) due to the effect of /r/ in the same syllable, and it is also slightly fronted ( i.e., front of tongue used ) due to the weight of Latin /e/ and Keltic /i/ and /ai/. Greek shows a clear proof of a drift from /o/ to /e/ ( i.e., phrätor > phrätēr , statistical mean of /o/ and /ē/ being /a/ ), as noted (but neglected) by Karl Brugmann. Keltic (Gælic) has /brathair/, which suggests a possibility of a drift from /a/ towards /i/.
Latin had stylised the use of /e/ in more frequent nouns and all vowel endings. Such a classicist standardisation by Roman grammarians not only destroyed older linguistic evidences, but created a bias for /e/ among 19th century linguists who had to graduate through universities where Greek and Latin were compulsory subjects and scholars were brainwashed about the cultural superiority of Graeco-Roman civilisation. First major theorist of PIE was August Schleicher,who was a pupil of Hegel and shared the evolutionism of Darwin. Hegel was convinced about the incapacity of India to produce anything worth mentioning in the field of culture. India was a slave of Britain. Hence linguists like Schleicher or Brugmann felt free to put Indic at par with Lithuanian or Irish.
A C Gimson informs that front vowels have highest frequency of occurrence in running texts in modern English. European and Indian languages including Präkrits also show a drift towards front vowels, mostly towards /e/.It is because of least effort required for uttering /e/. Unfortunately, Indo-Europeanists inverted the direction of evolution and imagined that /e/ was the most frequent PIE vowel. Saussure went to the absurd logical conclusion of this line of reasoning and proposed that all PIE roots ( verbs ) had the form C-e-C ( C for consonant ); e.g., PIE /bher/ for Indic /bhr/ or /bhar/. Almost all (Indo-) Europeanists unquestioningly accepted this inverted logic . No one asked a simple question : if vowels are changing into /e/ from something else, why /e/ should be imposed upon previous state of language ?
When Saussure proposed this wrong idea, Europeanists were confounded with a deep crisis. When Indo-Europeanism started its journey, Vedic was widely believed to be the ancestor of classical languages of Europe. At that time, facts dominated over ideas. Later, theories were discovered to explain away this unsavoury fact which was disgusting to a Judaeo-Christian culture. Schleicher was the first theoretician to distort the science of language. He proposed a tree model for IE languages, like the taxonomical model of Darwinists. Schleicher found that North European languages belonged to a common set (Slavo-Germanic = Balto-Slavic plus Teutonic), while the languages of southern Europe belonged to another common set. Both these sets shared more affinities with Sanskrit than with each other. But Sanskrit could not be accepted as the ancestor language by a pupil of Hegel who despised the worthlessness of India. Nobody asked why Central Asia was declared to be the Homeland, in spite of the fact that no ancient or modern language of Central Asia was known to have any affinity with IE family in 19th century(until Tocharian was discoverd much later). Linguistic evidences pointed towards India, but India was a colony and a non-European country. Hence regions adjacent to its borders could be declared to be the Homeland. Central Asian Homeland was more acceptable than an Indian Homeland, and therefore Schleicher's biological model became popular.But linguists of Europe were still perturbed, because they were aware of truth, and wanted a purely European Homeland.
Persons like Saussure, Shröeder and above all Brugmann solved this problem of Homeland permanently, and thereafter no amount of fact or reason could compel Europeanists to change their views about PIE. Quest for a Homeland away from India was the driving force behind Indo-Europeanism. Once it was (wrongly ) solved, European scholars put a full stop to further enquiry.
In the example of /bhrätar/, first consonant is /ph/ in Greek and Latin, but /b/ in Slavo-Germanic. Sanskrit /bh/ appeared to be the common meeting ground of the languages of North and South Europe. In an overwhelming majority of cases, Keltic belonged to the southern groups ( although in the case of initial consonant of /bhrätar/, Keltic and Iranian show /b/, instead of expected /ph/ and /bh/ respectively : these being exceptions). This type of linguistic affinities was summarised in the form of the famous Tree Model of Schleicher, which was linked to the Central Asia Homeland Theory.
Very few persons knew that Central Asia Theory was a figment of imagination, Central Asia actually had no proof to offer in those days. Schröeder discovered one set of similarities between Keltic and Germanic(e.g.,-mis instead of -bhis in Case endings), and on account of this single linguistic correspondence Tree Model was discarded in favour of a Ring Model centred around somewhere in East Europe ( around Slovakia ). Indic group was imagined to belong to a small tribe near the modern borders of Romania-Bulgaria. With the discovery of Hittite language, the hypothetical path of migration of Indo-Aryans towards India was transferred from the north of Caucasus to Asia Minor.
Why Central Asia was declared to be Homeland by the proponents of Tree Model, when the evidences on whose basis this declaration was made pointed towards India being the Homeland of Europeans? Again, was not an overwhelming amount of evidences rejected in favour of a single evidence of Schröeder just in order to pull the Homeland towards the borders of Germany ? If perfect objectivity is observed in reconstructions of PIE, as exemplified in the case of /bhrätar/ above, Vedic itself would prove to be the PIE in almost all cases having an adequate amount of data. Although Hebrew is not a member of IE famoly, it is the most archaic member of the sister Semitic family. Hence Hebrew's evidence must be considered in deciding borderline situations. But it was not done. In mid 19th century, Britain's per capita income was nearly six times of that of India. Now the difference is 40-50 times over. Progress of PIE Homeland towards Europe is directly proportional to the growing difference in per capita income of India and Europe. Modern Indo-Europeanists are even more unscientific than their 19th century predecessors, because no unbiased and serious attempt is made to reassess the logic of 19th century linguists. Now-a-days, PIE is often reconstructed without paying any attention to the Indic branch.
This author reconstructed all those PIE etymons for which adequate materials of historical times were available , and found, to his surprise, that in 100% cases Vedic proved to be PIE itself ! As we go back in time, linguistic diversity in India or Europe decreases at a constant pace. At the start of historical era, descendants of Vedic were Präkrit dialects which were spoken by the majority of Indians and understood as far as Mysore and beyond Indus. There is no proof that Indic languages belonged to a minority in India. Ancient Indian literature does not record a single memory of foreing ancestry of Aryans.Yet Vedic is declared to be the language of a small band of European invaders !
The method of linguistic reconstruction described above is sufficient for reconstruction the PIE, provided data from all major groups are procured and pure objectivity is observed. Eurocentricists may never accept this objective method, but it would open the path of a new fruitful discipline : historical semantics, and throw new light upon hitherto neglected or unknown aspects of bronze age civilisations. Archaeology studies inanimate things. Linguistics, therefore, is more valuable than archaeology, but it requires more honesty as well. Language, being the instrument of consciousness, should be studied with the purity of mathematics.
This author was dumbfounded at the conclusion of his 12 year long research. Nobody would believe his findings, because nobody wanted to waste his or her time over the history of so many languages. But honest research is always rewarding. This author was disillusioned about a lot of things. When he came to a firm conclusion that Vedic itself was the PIE, he decided to pursue his enquiries further, searching for the oldest written records of the march of humanity towards civilization in the Vedic texts,for instance, the origin of family, private property and state. He decided that he would not impose later Laukika (worldly) meanings upon Vedic words ( Laukika means the meanings prevalent in society). He found a total of 33 instances of the word /bhrätar/ including all its forms in the Rgveda, and tried to deduce the original meaning of this word from the text itself. In 32 instances it had no relation with this-worldly meaning of 'brother' , and was used for the Sun-god only ! In 33rd, it was used for the son of Sun, Yama Vaivasvat, during a dialogue with his sister. In this 33rd instance, it could be related to both "Sun" and "brother". That is why the best commentator of Rgveda, Säyanächärya, opined that this word might have been derived from any of the two roots 'bhräsh-' ( to shine ) and 'bhr-' ( to bear ).
A brother does not shine, but the Sun shines. A brother does not bear his sister, it is the duty of father and later of husband. The worldly meaning of /bhrätar/ clearly appeared to be a later one. Vedic meaning of the word /bhrätar/ seemed to be religious rather than secular. Laukika Sanskrit seems to be a human adaptation of a divine language which was given to sages in a fully developed form. Man did not make language; the opposite seemed to be true. It was the divine language given to sages which converted bipod animal-like creatures into human beings. Even Maxmüller held that language was the unsurmountable barrier between man and animal.
Even if an ape evolves into a human-like creature, whereform would it get language ? This author started to see some intelligent design witin these things. He was an atheist upto that juncture. But an honest investigation of the Veda turned him towards self enquiry. After years of reasoning, he concluded that Vedic Age does not belong to any mundane period. There was no Vedic Age as such. Veda is divine, not man-made. All atheists would be repelled by this notion. But linguistic analysis of the Vedic texts, objectively done, cannot point otherwise.
Now further proofs are being provided about how much Indo-Europeanists cared for truth.
Aristophanes was a famous Greek comedian of 5th century BC. One of his plays was named 'The Birds'. Its story can be summarised as follows :
Aristophanes was a famous Greek comedian of 5th century BC. One of his plays was named 'The Birds'. Its story can be summarised as follows :
In ancient Greece ( ancient by the reckoning of Aristophanes ) Greeks offered oblations (havi) to the gods during sacrifices in the fire. These offerings were transported by fire to the heavens with steam, and gods received their nourishment from these offerings.An old man of Athens instigated the birds to block the path so that the gods could be starved to death. Zeus sent messengers, but the old man put forth insulting conditions for lifting the blockade. One condition was that Zeus should give His daughter/handmaid to the wicked old man. The gods were powerless before this old men and ultimately had to send the daughter/handmaid of Zeus to the old man.
Only 13 years after this play was written Socratēs was poisoned on the charge of instigating the youth against the gods of Greece. But Aristophanes was publicly abusing all Greek gods including the supreme Indo-European god Dyaus-Pitr ( > Zeuspiter > Jupiter in Latin ; in Greek the letter Zeta originally sounded like Dyeta ), and the whole nation enjoyed this play in large open theatres. No one raised a cry against Aristophanes.
The APOLOGY of Socratēs is a clear proof of the fact that Socratēs was deliberately poisoned by a majority vote of the jury ( 210 : 150 ) on false charges, and many of his detracrors were guilty of those very charges which had been levelled against Socratēs. Socratēs stated that Aristophanes wrote about a Socratēs flying in the air. Meletus had charged Socratēs of being a evil-doer and an opponent of gods. In other words, Socratēs was suspected of being something like a sorcerer. There are also references to oracles about Socratēs, which he did not deny. Socratēs indeed possessed some supernatural power of divining things and prophesying ( labelled as "wisdom" in those days) which rendered the Sophists powerless against him. But the real cause of anger against Socratēs was something else.
The Birds is a proof of the fact that the original religion of Greeks was Vedic. Indo-Europeanists preach that many PIE gods were same as the gods described in the Vedas, but they deny the possibility of Yäjñika-Karmakända (Sacrificial rituals) in PIE period. Yäjñika-Karmakända is declared to be non-Äryan in origin, and India's Brähmanas are said to be of non-Äryan stock. But The Birds describes Yäjñika-Karmakända among prehistoric predecessors of the Greeks. Students of History are taught that originally Äryan religion consisted of simple prayers and rituals of a priestly class was absent among them. Rgveda is said to be a simple book of hymns preceding other Vedas, esp. the ritualistic Yajurveda. This author also believed in these false surmises before he made a first-hand study of the Vedas, trying to decipher the original meanings of the text from the text itself, taking help critically from ancient commentators. All the Vedas profusely refer to each other, and linguistically it is impossible to put the Rgveda before or after the Yajurveda.
Moreover, there is no proof of Äryan migration from west or east in the Rgveda. The first Äryan State is called as Svaräjya (in First Mandala), and its chief priest was Gautam Rähugana, who is later described in the Shatapatha Brähmana to be the priest of Videha, the easternmost Aryans in those days. In the RV, the term Svaräjya was used instead of Videha or any other descriptive term, possibly because there was no other state initially (although there is reference to the king of Käshi named Pratardana in the tenth mandala, but Käshi also belongs to the East, almost bordering Videha). No state or city of West India is named in any of the Vedas. The term Saptasindhu is said to denote Punjab, although Punjab means a land of five rivers and not of seven rivers. There is no ancient evidence of Saptasindhu being used for Punjab.
It is a colonialist theory which needs concocted proofs of Äryan invasion of India from the west. But there is irrefutable proof of Saptasindhu being used for Gangetic Valley (Cf. Mahäbhärata, "Saptasindhu flowing towards the East"). Moreover, there are seven major rivers in the Gangetic Valley : Gangä, Yamunä, Gomati, Sarayu, Gandaka, Koshi and the seventh being either the Sona (less likely) coming from the south or most probably the Sarasvati which later vanished from Prayäg and changed its course towards the Thär. Veda Vyäsa called these rivers as Saptasindhu. The reason is clear : during the rainy season, this Saptasindhu becomes almost like a ocean nearly 200 miles wide ! The Indus is a mighty river, but it lacks six other mighty companions.
Archaeologists,however, do not find ancient remains in the Gangetic Valley , and therefore rule out any ancient civilisation there. Let me show you why.
Archaeologists,however, do not find ancient remains in the Gangetic Valley , and therefore rule out any ancient civilisation there. Let me show you why.
Many excavations were carried out at a great site in North Bihar , Baliräjgarh, and after investigations the Archaeological Department of India (ASI) reported that this site flourished during BC 150 to AD 600. This author visited this site thrice and concluded that ASI report was incorrect. After repeated questins by a member of Indian parliament, the ASI at last revealed that further excavations could not be carried on due to groundwater. Groundwater is the biggest obstacle in not only the Gangetic Valley but also at sites like Mohen-o-daro in Sind or Heliopolis (=Sun-city in Egypt). In the case of Gangetic Valley, archaeologists deliberately hide this fact and declare that there is nothing below to dig out. ASI is not interested in developing skills for groundwater archaeology.
At Baliräjgarh, NBPW was found in the bottom layer just above groundwater. NBPW ( Northern Black Polished Ware) is genarally believed to belong to BC 600-150. This author found NBPW from the top layer at two adjacent sites( Rahika-Sauräth,Neuri), implying that deeper layers may yield more archaic remains. At two nearby sites Asuragarh and Devräm, he found punched marked coins at the top layer. A large hoard of such coins was recovered from Asuragarh by the District Collector nearly one century ago, and no one knows what happened to those coins. Nearly half a century ago, R C Majumdar wrote in his munumental History of Bengal that Asuragarh must belong to some hypothetical muslem chieftain Asurshäh because no Hindu can have a name Asura. This same historian wrote in another book ( An Illustated History of India) that the grandfather of the founder of Gupta dynasty was Ghatotkacha, which was the name of a demon in Mahabhärata (who sided with Pandavas but was deliberately led towards death by Lord Krishna) .
R C Majumdar did not mention that Ghatotkacha could not be a Hindu name and therefore the ancestors of the Guptas could have come from Arabia. Asura and Asuragarh are Sanskrit words. Baliräjgarh also belonged to the Asuras, Bali being a great Asura king in Puranic mythology. Just a few miles from Asuragarh, there was another ancient site named Chänurgarh, both sites joined by an ancient road, extant till the mighty Kosi wiped it away five decades ago. Chänur was the name of the chief warrior of Kamsa, whom Lord Krishna had to kill. Kamsa and Lord Krishna were mutually related. Hence Asura cannot be defined in anthropolgical or linguistic terms.
Asura denotes only an anti-Vedic and hence irreligious way of life, although asuras had devised their own pseudo-religions, from which some heinous Tantric cults have survived to date. Kulärnava-Tantra is one of the principal Tantric text, and it contains passages which show that its author was not atheist but anti-theist. There is a passage in Bhagvad Gitä which says that salvation can be attained by means of devotion to the Lord. Kulärnava-Tantra makes a parody of this shloka of Gitä and states that salvation can be attained if a person has the stamina to get drunk till he or she falls down, then getting up and drinking and falling again, repeating the process thrice. The last words were shamelessly plagiarised from the Gitä : "punar-janma na vidyate" (rebirth does not take place, i.e., salvation is attained).
Megha-näda, the son of Rävana, was killed by Lakshamana while Meghanäda was conducting a ritual for Nikumblä-Devi for attaining some supernatural power. A person should not be disturbed during Poojä, but Meghanäda was killed during a Poojä by the brother of Lord Räma, which shows that the religion of Rävana comprised of something forbidden in the Vedic religion. Eating meat, fried rice, fish, drinking wine, and then sexual intercourse with a virgin after invoking a goddess in her body : this is the original meaning of pañca-makära of Äsuri Täntricism.
Vedic yajña is called as Adhvara in the Yajurveda many a times, which literally means "non-violent". The priest in charge of performing sacrifices was known as Adhvaryu. But asuras perverted the meanings of terms, and started bloody sacrifices in the yajña. Mäns (now meaning 'meat') etymologically means "delicious for the mind". Demons liked meat, while vegetarians such as Yäjñavalkya ( the mantra-perceiver of that branch of Yajurveda which is observed in entire North India) defined Mäns as anything made from milk, because it is Mänsal (i.e., soft for digestion). Kukkuta etymologically meant 'hard to crack',i.e., coconut, but later it came to mean a cock. During Kaliyuga, demonic cults gained currency. Balirajgarh and Asuragarh of Madhubani, Asura-garh of Kishanganj, Chänurgarh of Supaul district of Bihar, or Asura-kota ( a Harappan site in Sind), Ahura-Mazda (Asura Mahat) of Zend Avesta, Asura of Assyria ( Assyria is a mistake of ancient Romans in transcribing Greek upsilon as "y"; in ancient Assyrian language the chief deity was called Asura, the original capital was Asura, and kings also added asura in their names),etc formed part of those anti-Vedic cults which are known in Indian Puränas as Asura , Räkshasa, Dänava , Daitya,etc. The murderers of Socratēs belonged to this anti-Vedic group which ruled over most of the Old World during a major portion of the prehistoric period after the onset of Kaliyuga. Asuras had empires before the Kaliyuga too, but the dominant powers over a greater part of the Old World were adherents of the Vedic religion.
The key to resolve this issue in the ancient world is scientific linguistics. Socratēs (ē denoted various sounds in different dialects during different ages in archaic Greece) is etymologically related to the Sanskrit word Sukratu, which literally means one who performs the Vedic-yajña well ). Any action which pleases the God or gods is a yajña. Hence, Socratēs performed in accordance to his name. On the other hand, detractors of Socratēs had demonic names. Ari-sto-phanē s (in Sanskrit, Ari-stu-bhan-) means "one who speaks in the praise of the Enemy". No one can be a praiser of his own enemy . Here, Enemy here implies the enemy of God or gods, i.e., the Satan/Devil or Asura. Aristophanes was a Devil-worshipper, and therefore Aristophanes himself was an enemy of the ancient deities of Greece .
The Birds is a clear proof of this fact. All Devil-worshippers like Aristophanes, therefore, were enemies of those pure hearted saints who spread true religion among their followers (like Socratēs or later Jesus) . The Buddha also lived among Asuras, as the names of certain aforementioned sites and dynasties show. But the Buddha employed a covert method of preaching. He never said anythig in public which could prove whether he was a supporter or opponent of the real Vedic religion. He did not denounce the Vedas, he denounced violence (which Vedic sages had also denounced). The Buddha preached to his true disciples like Änanda only by means of telepathy, and said common things among the general public. There are many instances when he refused to answer questions. He, therefore, escaped the fate of Socratēs or Jesus. Kumärila Bhatta and Ädi Shankarächärya uprooted the main bastions of demonic cults in India. The Buddha or Shankarächärya could not be killed because India always had had a strong liking for non-violent (Sanätana) Dharma, which many Brähmanas themselves had abandoned.
Conclusive evidence of the archaicness of the Veda is mathematical. A book on occult Vedic Astronomy has recently been published in Hindi. All major astronomical constants and many unsolved problems of modern science have been deduced from previously unpublished Vedic theorems. Vedic differential equations of moon are shown to be more precise than that possessed by modern scientists. Moreover, the Puränic Mt Meru has been mathematically proven to be same as Mt Kenya on which a city named Meru still exists. European anthropologists show amazement at Sanskrit place names like Meru in Kenya or Kinyangiri in Tanzania, but indologists ignore such anomalies, which cannot be fitted into prevalent racist theories. The connection of ancient Zamboo-dvipa with modern Zambezi (Zambunadi > *Zambudi > *Zambuzi), Zambia, Gambia, Zimbabwe, Mu-Zambique,etc is simply ignored. Surya Siddaanta clearly states that Mt Meru was situated at the equator, but no indologist searched it in Africa. Surya Siddaanta also speaks of Zambunadi in the region of Meru.
These forgotten aspects of human history can not be traced in the present article, but one thing may be asserted here : Aryans did not migrate either from Europe to India or from India to Europe ( DNA evidences also support this view), although minor exceptions like the Gypsies may be found. The common homeland of all humans lies near Mt Meru, where Creation was accomplished by Lord Brahmä according to ancient Indian texts, and wherefrom present homo family is believed to have started its journey some 4 million years ago ( beginning of current Mähayuga). Let us not bury the archaic Puranic history as a mere imagination of ancient Indians. The book on Vedic Astronomy provides ample mathematical proofs of archaicness of the Vedic vision.
Ever since MISRA, Satya Swarup, 1992: The Aryan Problem. A Linguistic Approach, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, there has been a lack of effective counter to the claims of mainstream IE linguists about the relationship between Sanskrit and PIE. (See some discussions at http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/aid/keaitlin2.html)
See:
https://sites.google.com/site/angelamarcantonio/
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/indology_en.asp
Also, it is necessary to make the academe correct the false theories being taught about Sanskrit, Prakrits, and Aryan Invasion. I have no clue on how this effort should be initiated and sustained to achieve a positive outcome.
Meanwhile, there will be motivated attempts to promote and embrace (as with the Vedic workshop slated for January 2014) western stereotyping of Vedic studies, further eroding the possibilities of any counter effort to undo the distortions in historical studies in the roots and evolution of Indian languages and culture.
Indian tradition provides a number of ancient texts providing sharp insights to promote the study of semantics, and philosophy of language. Let us hope that the tradition exemplified by
Yāska, Pāṇini, Prākṛt lexicons, Patañjali, Bhartṛhari, Sāyaṇa will be revived with the challenge posed by Vinay Jha. Kalyanaraman
