Languages

SluttyShemaleAnna · #1 08-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by sesame

If a word is used in different languages, implying the same meaning, then, it must come from the most ancient language.

Is that a logical fallacy I see there....

You assume that the oldest recorded language is the oldest there is. Do you think people were just silent before 2000BC?

ila · #2 08-30-2008

Previously I had posted that European languages derived from Sanskrit. I based this comment on what I remembered from English classes during my high school years. I have recently gone back through some of my reference books to do some research on the origin of English.

European languages did not have Sanskrit as a common source. Rather Sanskrit and the European languages have a common source known as "Indo-European". There is some controversy over where the original speakers of "Indo-European" lived. Some have argued that the original speakers were the Kurgan culture of the Russian steppes. Others have suggested the origin is from a farming culture of the Danube valley. The currently accepted theory is that the language comes from a people who lived in a cold, northern climate. The dates of origin vary from 6000 BC to 4500 BC. Words for snow, beech, bee, and wolf had an important role in this language. Also the prehistoric "Indo-European" language didn't have a word for sea. For these reasons scholars have placed the origin of the "Indo-Europeans" in northern Central Europe.

Source
The Story of English
Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil
Viking Penguin Incorporated
First American edition published 1986
Pages 51 - 53

sesame · #3 08-30-2008

Yeah Ila, all these Indo-European Ethnic groups making epic journeys across Continents... ... is based on the Aryan Invasion theory and the scholarly fascination for Mesopotemia. Perhaps there was an ancient group, but as science is cleaning up the colonial mist, another scenario is coming to view. There was no Aryan Invasion ever. The British colonials spread the lie to rule and subjugate. The German Nazis spread the rumours to tickle it's citizens and motivate them under one banner by awakening German Pride and the dream of a superior race. This was the tendency of european scholars to show the civilization of Mesopotemia as the point of origin of the Indo-Aryans, Persian-Aryans or Indus Valley civilization. Everything begins in Mesopotemia and ends up in far-off places around the world! Fancy wishful reverse calculators! Is that research to ascertain truth or bending truth to one's prejudice?

Recent satellite images show that the early Vedic people were inhabitants of the now extinct Saraswati basin. You will note that the Vedic civilization shifted from the banks of Saraswati to Sindhu to Ganges. This whole process took thousands of years to unfold. No foreign rivers or steppes or animals have ever been mentioned in all the four vedas. The whole migration theory through Ural and Siberian landscape was just guesswork of idle scholars. And the fixing of Vedic age to 1200 BC by the Germans was the stupidest guesswork of the century.
Prof. Max Muller divided the Vedic literature into four periods Chhanda (rhythm), Mantra, Brahmana and Sutra. Since Vedas came before Buddhism ( which starts at 400 BC), the learned scholar just imagines using his tiny brain. And he then ascribes 200 years to each of those 4 imaginery periods and declares the earliest Vedic date as 400+(200x4)=1200BC!! Isn't that funny?
Then a Chinese scholar Dr. Haug comes along and calculates by assigning each period to be 500 years, because Chinese literature changed in that pace. So he fixed the earliest Veda (Rigveda) at 400+(500x4)= 2400 BC. But Tilak ended all this fancy guessing game by providing astronomical data and pinpointing the Vedic age by science. Through thousands of years, constellations in the sky change position as they rise and set. The stars mentioned in the vedic rituals provide ample proof of that. He fixed the first vedic hymns to be created before 4000 BC.

GRH · #4 08-30-2008

My friends, I assure you, I cannot compete on grounds intellect in this subject. I know next to NOTHING about linguistic development, and won't pretend to be an expert in the subject. But of what I have read, Sanskrit seems to be one of the oldest of languages, and a variety of sources cite that these tales/language date back to around 4,000 BCE. Whether it is in fact the OLDEST or not, I don't know, but I suspect the origins of recorded language probably originated not TOO far from the Middle East region/India.

As an aside that is completely irrelevant to this discussion...Is Sanskrit difficult to learn? It is a language that I feel that I should learn, but I am SO not motivated when it comes to foreign languages (particularly ones of antiquity), that I don't even know when to start. There is no such thing as "a class" about Sanskrit where I am from, so where would an initiate start?

GRH · #5 08-31-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by GRH

As an aside that is completely irrelevant to this discussion...Is Sanskrit difficult to learn? It is a language that I feel that I should learn, but I am SO not motivated when it comes to foreign languages (particularly ones of antiquity), that I don't even know where to start. There is no such thing as "a class" about Sanskrit where I am from, so where would an initiate start?

Goddamit, I want answers!!!

GRH · #6 08-31-2008

Anna, the Vedic concept of zero is generally attributed to Indian culture, as the concept is much larger than just fulfilling the role of a place holder, and here is perhaps why India is historically given credit for the development as opposed to other cultures. "Zero" functions as an obvious place-holder in our own base-ten numerical system of mathematics, but if we used a different base of numerology, the concept would lose significance. In fact, the idea of a place-holder is entirely theoretical, as a system of numerology could in fact have a hypothetical infinite number of symbols to represent each place of standing within said numerology.

As the Vedic conception stands, "zero" functions as MUCH more than just a place-holder, but a concept for the idea of "nothing" as can result from mathematical computations. At the broadest interpretation, zero is akin to the mythical conception of "Om," or a certain understanding of unity with the divine. More importantly, it puts the entire concept of numerology in a linear fashion whereby which numerology can be expressed as both positive and negative functions of values, whereby "zero" functions as a balancing point at the pendulum of this scale. This is a RADICAL way of thinking about numbers, if you can step outside of our current conception and look at the historical development of mathematics.

SluttyShemaleAnna · #7 09-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by GRH

Anna, the Vedic concept of zero is generally attributed to Indian culture, as the concept is much larger than just fulfilling the role of a place holder, and here is perhaps why India is historically given credit for the development as opposed to other cultures. "Zero" functions as an obvious place-holder in our own base-ten numerical system of mathematics, but if we used a different base of numerology, the concept would lose significance. In fact, the idea of a place-holder is entirely theoretical, as a system of numerology could in fact have a hypothetical infinite number of symbols to represent each place of standing within said numerology.

As the Vedic conception stands, "zero" functions as MUCH more than just a place-holder, but a concept for the idea of "nothing" as can result from mathematical computations. At the broadest interpretation, zero is akin to the mythical conception of "Om," or a certain understanding of unity with the divine. More importantly, it puts the entire concept of numerology in a linear fashion whereby which numerology can be expressed as both positive and negative functions of values, whereby "zero" functions as a balancing point at the pendulum of this scale. This is a RADICAL way of thinking about numbers, if you can step outside of our current conception and look at the historical development of mathematics.

Your two main points:

Vedic zero was the first concept of nothing invented. WRONG!
Zero only has meaning in base ten. WRONG!

Also, negative numbers were invented in Hellenistic Egypt, so this whole balance of negative and positive around zero didn't exist when it was invented by the Indians.

Sorry, but whats all this about numerology? I thought we were talking abut mathematics here.

sesame · #8 08-31-2008

Mathematics is nothing without zero or the decimal calculating system. Anna is trying her best to undermine this fact. But argument without the courage to admit when a truth is arrived at, is not worth carrying on.

GRH, its easy to learn Sanskrit. Buy a Gita with the meaning analyzed underneath each line, word for word. This way you will see that several words are coming again and again, and some are just parts of speech. I learnt Sanskrit this way. Then you can know for yourself what is being said. Later on, learn some elementary Sanskrit grammer. Its quite easy. But dont expect to understand the Vedic hymns with such knowledge. The early Vedas are not really in Sanskrit. Its an ancient form which is very complex. When I tried to read it the first time, I felt that my teeth will fall off and my tongue will form a knot! Some letters have become extinct, their pronounciation vanished from known memory. Such is also the case with the rhythm, Vedic chhanda. Its extinct too... some obscure himalayan tribes and the South Indian Pundits are aware of a few.

sesame · #9 08-31-2008

Mathematics is nothing without zero or the decimal calculating system. Anna is trying her best to undermine this fact. But argument without the courage to admit when a truth is arrived at, is not worth carrying on.

GRH, its easy to learn Sanskrit. Buy a Gita with the meaning analyzed underneath each line, word for word. This way you will see that several words are coming again and again, and some are just parts of speech. I learnt Sanskrit this way. Then you can know for yourself what is being said. Later on, learn some elementary Sanskrit grammer. Its quite easy. But dont expect to understand the Vedic hymns with such knowledge. The early Vedas are not really in Sanskrit. Its an ancient form which is very complex. When I tried to read it the first time, I felt that my teeth will fall off and my tongue will form a knot! Some letters have become extinct, their pronounciation vanished from known memory. Such is also the case with the rhythm, Vedic chhanda. Its extinct too... some obscure himalayan tribes and the South Indian Pundits are aware of a few.

sesame · #10 09-02-2008

In which Language did Jesus Christ speak to his fellow men?

Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani (Its the real thing

)
Noli me tangere (its only a Latin translation

)

Hebrew
Aramaic
Greek
Latin
French
German
English
Arabic

Below is Titian's painting named "Noli Me Tangere".

ila · #11 08-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by sesame

Yeah Ila, all these Indo-European Ethnic groups making epic journeys across Continents... ...

I rather doubt there were any epic journeys across continents, but rather the slow dispersion of people across continents down through the ages. Humans did not spontaneously spring up all over the planet. There was a gradual migration from one area to another.

Ogryn1313 · #12 08-30-2008

Ila, wasn't this how the Native American's entered this continent, an epic migration from one to the other via land bridge? Or am I mistaken?

ila · #13 08-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Ila, wasn't this how the Native American's entered this continent, an epic migration from one to the other via land bridge? Or am I mistaken?

The theory is that there was a migration from Asia to the Americas across a land bridge where the Bering Sea is now. I don't know whether it could be classified as an epic migration or just a migration of small groups over a long period of time. In my mind an epic migration would be the movement of a large group of people over a long distance in a short space of time. I don't know if the populating of the Americas was done in this fashion or not.

The alternate to the migration theory is from the Natives themselves which say that they were always in the Americas and did not migrate here from anywhere else.

Ogryn1313 · #14 08-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila

The theory is that there was a migration from Asia to the Americas across a land bridge where the Bering Sea is now. I don't know whether it could be classified as an epic migration or just a migration of small groups over a long period of time. In my mind an epic migration would be the movement of a large group of people over a long distance in a short space of time. I don't know if the populating of the Americas was done in this fashion or not.

The alternate to the migration theory is from the Natives themselves which say that they were always in the Americas and did not migrate here from anywhere else.

Thank you. It's been a long time since school so I forgot much. I agree with what you think. A series of small groups over time seems more logical than a mass exodus. A mass exodus would likely need a reason to move yes? So what could that be then? A massive war? Famine, disease, some other thing? No evidence of this. So it's likely small groups over time moved for various reasons. Perhaps a small tribe fled from conflict with another. Or most likely it was just man's natural curiosity.

The alternate theory is also quite likely. They may well have always been here.

Marine_N41_432 · #15 08-31-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila

The theory is that there was a migration from Asia to the Americas across a land bridge where the Bering Sea is now. I don't know whether it could be classified as an epic migration or just a migration of small groups over a long period of time. In my mind an epic migration would be the movement of a large group of people over a long distance in a short space of time. I don't know if the populating of the Americas was done in this fashion or not.

The alternate to the migration theory is from the Natives themselves which say that they were always in the Americas and did not migrate here from anywhere else.

Ther's some recent archaelogical eveidence of neolithic North American settlements which tends to support the second idea, but the first still holds good because of the geological evidence and the fact that North & South American Indians have certain Mongoloid features. It is also said that Tupac indians have a language with many features in common with Chinese, but this might just be fanciful thinking or some pushy academic trying to make a name for himself !

SluttyShemaleAnna · #16 08-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by sesame

Yeah Ila, all these Indo-European Ethnic groups making epic journeys across Continents... .

Wait a second, you are the one expecting us to believe that Sanskit speakers travelled all the way to Europe and persuaded the locals to change their words for boat, two and mind. You are just making fancy wishful reverse calculations where everything starts in India and ends up in different parts of the world.

sesame · #17 08-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSA

Wait a second, you are the one expecting us to believe that Sanskit speakers travelled all the way to Europe and persuaded the locals to change their words for boat

Good ideas travel far and wide. At those times, it was not India as we know it now, not even Bharat, it was just Jambudweep, a centre of civilization. Dont get upset, 6000 years ago, european civilization was in it's infancy. Times come and times go. I didnt say that all good things began in India, but a lot of things attracted Westerers to that land. Why do you think so many expedetions were undertaken to chart a route to India? Why were so many places of the world named after the Indians? The Red Indians, the West Indies, Indonesia... why do they have India in common? Christopher Columbus in 1492 AD upon landing in North America, mistakenly thought that he had discovered India! So he named the locals Indians.

Other Cultures:
The Red-Indians held sway in America. Europeans only came later. The Hanging Garden was created in Babylon and the Great wall in China. Democracy, sculpture, Logical-Debates and a lot of other things began in Greece. Fire and gunpowder was invented in China. The Nalanda University (427-1197AD) in Pala era was one of the oldest centres of learning in the world! The Mayan culture of Mexico, the Aztecs and Incas were most fascinating (except the blood thirst). Ah, and dont forget Yoga and Ayurveda, they are also from India. Buddhism originated in India. The early Brahamanic culture in India was great (but later caste systems were really bad). The European Clergy culture was also magnificent, except the bigotry. Christianity came from Israel, the modern Christians tend to forget that. The Japanese warlike Samurai culture was also a masterpiece. Times change, nothing remains the same. The powerful may become ignorant, the rich can become paupers. Civilizations crumble and become extinct, new ones grow up. So, dont be prejudiced, give due credit, Annie.