This is a meaningful conversation👍🏼 but maybe folks are debating 2 totally different things here

Linguists:talking about validity/basis of the subject

Others:criticizing use of IE ‘linguistics’ as a specific tool to define/decide culture & group people (Aryan vs Dravidian)
Agree ✅
-Linguistics is valid
-Grouping into ‘families’-reasonable
-Borrowing words between languages quite common
-Genes don’t code for language. Genetics show movement of people, not necessarily languages
-‘Dravidian’ languages have large % root words different from संस्कृतम्
Issues ❌

PIE linguistics deployed to claim

-Aryans invaded/migrated to India, defeated Dravidians, brought संस्कृतम्/Vedas here

-Aryan & Dravidian fundamentally 2 different people & culture based on language

If linguists believe the above, then should debate the reasons
If PIE evidence is deployed by Witzel, Anthony etc, then the claims are fair debate points

Rarely see any meaningful response from professional linguists re: problems with these Indological claims

Debate gets fouled up in extraneous factors 😎(validity of linguistic theories)
In conclusion

Does fundamental validity of linguistics as a science, automatically validate PIE theory & by extension, Aryan Invasion/Migration theory?

Is it ONLY possible that संस्कृतम् came unidirectionally INTO India?

There is no other directional possibility at all?
Are Aryans & Dravidians fundamentally different people/cultures / nations based on linguistics & cultural differences?

If the answers are YES, we need to talk 😀
Now re: comments by @aryaman2020

“apply sound rules & get Hindi” potentially a circular claim

We get Hindi since we know WHAT Hindi sounds like! Can’t get Hindi2.0 using same rules

PIE reconstruction ‘rules’ seem pretty much descriptive, post-facto curve-fitting operations
If genetics is not connected to language, then on what basis is PIE/Aryan/संस्कृत movement to India proven by genetic studies?

Absent primary evidence of lang. use in ‘urheimat’, what role for genetics in PIE-AIT case?

How then do we claim/prove language movement & direction?
“they never read anything”- strawman here😀

@meghkalyan collation of data/comments are quite damning re: linguistic basis of PIE/AIT hypothesis

Response to substantive linguistics issues highlighted would be the basis of a honest & meaningful वादः

Red herrings best avoided!
For reference

🙏🏼

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with प्वालः । pvaal

प्वालः । pvaal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @pvaal2

21 Dec
Given this half-joking tweet, lets actually do honest work 😀& check out claimed provenance of PIE *ḱorkeh₂ as origin of शर्करा [Samskritam] which then spread globally as sugar,azucar, zucker etc

Claim:शर्करा is from PIE ḱorkeh₂ {gravel}

Note: PIE actually claims *k̑orkā😎
The PIE entry in IEW (Pokorny)

*k̑orkā? OR *k̑rokā? OR *k̑orkₑlā ->gravel/pebble/grit

Sanskrit-sárkarā
Pali-sakkharā
Greek-σάκχαρ σάκχαρον σακχαρίς (sakchar/on/is)
Greek-κρόκη κροκάλη (krókē/krokálē)

However, why is the PIE word determined as Korka/Kroka?

What is the basis?
Lets look at ancient Greek words (attic) mentioned as the ‘basis’ of the PIE word k̑orkā

κρόκη & κροκάλη have ONE of the meanings being pebble- other meaning being thread/woof

But its κρέκω NOT κρόκη

Whats the logic for chosing k̑orkā here & NOT k̑rokā

Whats the validity?
Read 12 tweets
21 Sep
@jhakjhorvaa महोदयेन मार्जितं कूजनम्।

Think its important to review the complaint in detail

१ भारतीयाः wallow in the past

२ All useless talk. No action

३ Feelgoodism

Basically, we need a new avatar to help us with research, show us the way & lead us ‘out of the wilderness’ Image
This is the tweet topic

Hortus Malabaricus was 40 years ahead of Linnean classification & was basically compiled by vaidyas/botanists in S. India

The cognitive dissonance & embarrassment many भारतीयाः feel when reading a perfectly valid statement is an interesting phenomenon!
To answer @jhakjhorvaa महोदयः let us actually look at Hortus and what it says - and see whether the embarrassment is appropriate!

See the notes section

Please note the INDICI for the region and the year 1673

Post Modern historians - ‘India was never a cohesive unit’ 😂🤣 ImageImage
Read 18 tweets
16 Sep
Hunters । शापाः । Itihasa
 
A recent tweet mentioned how Western critics ignorantly claim ‘tragedy’ is absent in भारतीय इतिहासकाव्यानि

Let us see if the Western claim is true

Our Itihasas are replete with examples of tragedies-innocuous events spiraling wildly out of control Image
Take hunters & curses

Numerous episodes involve wayward hunters, hurled imprecations & unleashed chains of Karma that changed the course of events in uncontrollable ways

Also sparking off brilliant & beautiful Kavyas, Itihasas & Puranas
 
Let us explore 5 interesting episodes!
#1 आदिकाव्यम् & आदिकविः।
 
Starting from the very beginning, the AdiKavya, Ramayana
 
Maharshi Valmiki, while taking a dip in the Tamasa river sees a krauncha couple shot-down by a wayward hunter
 
At the close of this scene, he hurls the famous imprecation मा निषाद ! Image
Read 22 tweets
21 Jun
सूत्रसूत्रम्। Thread of Threads 😁

संस्कृतपठनार्थं कानिचन सूत्राणि अत्र स्थापयामि।

Creating a master thread to help सहृदयाः find relevant Samskrita threads

जयतु संस्कृतम्। जयतु भारतम्।

Starts with the most important thread:

HOW TO START LEARNING SAMSKRITAM ?
#१ How do I start learning Samskritam?
#२ How do I learn Samskritam in my mother tongue? Pradeshika Bhasha options!
Read 23 tweets
7 Jun
Most of the Indological dictionaries are copied heavily from ShabdaKalpadruma by राजा राधाकान्तदेवः।

Initial ‘Indologists’ deployed an army of “pundits” to do the ‘grunt work’ & taking credit without any referencing

Would be pretty much plagiarism under modern standards
The origin of Sanskrit dictionaries in the west is quite interesting

HH Wilson published the first one in 1838

Pretty much ‘copied’ the entire ShabdaKalpadrumah

Petersburger Worterbuch also relied heavily on शब्दकल्पद्रुमः & sources referenced in this magnum opus Image
HH Wilson has been explicitly acknowledged to fully ‘incorporate’ शब्दकल्पद्रुमः।

The initial review in the Asiatic Journal is useful

‘has, of course been carefully reproduced by the learned lexicographer, who was in possession of 3 volumes’

Mr Davis ‘uses’ it in his ‘essays’ ImageImage
Read 6 tweets
4 Jun
संस्कृत-नाटकानि। Samskrita Stage Production

Samskritam has one of the largest repositories of Drama & stage productions. Right from भरतमुनिः who wrote नाट्यशास्त्रम्, the treasures within संस्कृतम् is amazing

Here is a collation of traditional & modern नाटकानि in संस्कृतम्।
कर्णभारम्। Karnabharam

भासः । Bhasa

अभिज्ञान-शाकुन्तलम्। Abhijnana Sakuntalam

कालिदासः। Kalidasa

Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(