Title
Originally shared by KIRON KRISHNAN
Aryan Invasion Theory series
How can one refute the linguistic arguments of the Aryan
Invasion/Migration Theory?
I love it when I can bash on arguments and prove my stand, than simply writing something and make you people think that am brainwashing.
This answer shall examine the popular linguistic arguments of Aryan Migration Theory, and examine it from the point of Out of India Theory. Some of the arguments have been popularly refuted.
Attention :
This answer may be long for a rash reader, but shall benefit the actual person who needs to know facts.
Argument 1 : The linguistic centre of Gravity theory
By this theory, the linguistic centre of gravity must be in the area where there are maximum number of diversity of language exists. This meant that Central Eastern Europe, the place of maximum branches of Indo European, was to be the homeland.
By the discovery of the Tocharian language, the centre of gravity was shifted eastward to near Turkey, feeding the Kurgan model. As India had only Indo Aryan branch, it was finalised that India cannot be a potential homeland, funding the AMT.
Counters :
Three kinds of limitations are there for this argument, addressed as :
1. Greater linguistic diversity in Europe is due to foreign influences, which means that only those places with least diversity could be actual homeland. This was put forward by Dhar Kella, and was unaddressed in mainstream linguistics.
2. Nichols model suggests a different homeland based on his theory of linguistic diversity, which can be used for a Bactria homeland as per Kazanas, or Indian homeland as per Talageri.
3. Various families of Europe evolved recently, and when at the time of Vedic Sanskrit, both these were of comparable linguistic diversity, thus revising the concept of a European homeland based on this theory.
Argument 2 : Centum-Satem isogloss
By this, the original language closest to Proto Indo European should be centum type,
(in which the *k sound is not palatalised to *s sound, that is, the word for hundred is closer to "kentum" than "satem") rather than the later palataised Satem type language. This proves that Sanskrit, which is a palatalized Satem language, cannot in anyway be mother for many of centum languages like Greek, Latin, Tocharian...
Thus, India cannot be a potential IE homeland.
Counter :
The most popular and the strongest counter, is actually much more than a counter, and is a strong support for OIT, based on these arguments :
1. Vedic Sanskrit in its present palatalised form need not be the ancestor of IE languages, which means India had a kentum language originally which created Sanskrit later out of palatalization.
Evidence : The striking evidence comes from Bangani studies. Bangani language shows an ancient centum substratum. Reading along with the Tocharian, an Indian homeland is no longer a fantasy.
2. Lateral theory : Lateral theory puts that the undeveloped conservatisms are took to the borders, while the actual centre language gets naturally developed, without foreign influences.
This means that no places where considerable centum languages are there is fit to claim a homeland. This swaps the picture to East, putting India or Iran as potential homelands, which have the least kentum.
As Bangani has shown an archaic influence of kentum language, the Indian homeland is arguable with certainty. This would point that :
The earliest of Vedas could have been even composed in a kentum language, which were palatalised in the course of oral transmission, before standardisation. (Even now, the conservative "L" pronunciation for "D" retroflex of Vedic exists only in South, the border region ;)) The centum branch gave birth to the later centum languages, which took the conservatisms to the borders outside India.
Argument 3 : The Dravidian substratum
Vedic Sanskrit or the pre-refined Classical Sanskrit first saw the loss of /z/ phoneme of Iranian languages like Avestan and also saw the introduction of retroflex consonants like ṭ,ḍ, which are not found in other Indo-European languages, that came from Dravidian languages. This could very well be a local substratum influence after a linguistic contact. Further Dravidian languages and Munda languages saw a whole lot of lexical borrowing from only Sanskrit and not any other IE language. This will rule out any possibility of proto-IE itself being native to the region and inter-influencing proximate languages not as a new contact.
Counters :
As we have seen, no legitimate supporter of OIT feels the need to staunchly support Vedic as the first language or Proto Indo European. An earlier centum language in India could be the proposed root, by us. (Refer Argument 2 counter)
So, we can also arrange the chronological order of events.
Possibility A :
1. India had centum language first, at which time, there was less or no contact of the speakers with Mundas or Dravidians. The early migrators took this language, which had little or no "loanwords"or "substratum".
2. The centum gets palatalised, now too, no significant admixture with Munda or Dravidian languages. The palatalised language is carried by later migrations.
3. The palatalized language gets retroflexes for pronunciation ease. Also, the speakers tend to incorporate some other features into their language. The first contact occurs.
The Vedic language as we hear now may belong to this period.
Still, the reverse retroflex of /L/ to /D/ in later Sanskrit is a notable development, which challenges the point that this was a substratum from Dravidian. (for then "L" could have gained popularity)
Anyway, these developments cannot affect the earlier migrated languages.
Sub Argument :
The most plausible explanation for the presence of Dravidian structural features in Old Indo-Aryan is that the majority of early Old Indo-Aryan speakers had a Dravidian mother tongue which they gradually abandoned.
Counter :
It is a special pleading that people with a language with limited phonemes and
grammar would adopt a complex declension, complex grammar, large no. of phoneme containing Indo European language, and forget their writing system in Indus.
It is a foolish idea, and a purely theoretical exercise, which is not practically possible.
Also, Vedic has no ATTESTED loanwords from Munda or Dravidian languages, and the 20 - 30 prime suspects is too small to assume a people who have adopted a new language. This small no. of suspected loans itself votes for the condition that earlier, there could have been a situation in India, where there could have been a IE language with no interaction with Munda or Dravidian.
It is to be noted that the suspected "loanwords" are not at all for core words, and it is to be noted that we expect only core words to get migrated better. Moreover, many of these "loanwords" have been found as remains of crude "hunt", than legitimate things.
In a developing core language, we would find new words develop, and it could we well supposed that Dravidian borrowed these words from Vedic. This kind of development could have been absent in border languages.
Even 'mIna" (fish) in Vedic has an explainable Indo European etymology. So, the question of substratum into Sanskrit remains a hypothesis.
On the contrary, people like Athi S Sundar have told that there are many connections between Tamil and Greek, which has indirectly become a boon for us now. Let us ignore his conclusions, but note the connections. These Tamil words could, on reverse, have come from Sanskrit too. And this Dravidian "substratum" is then present in other IE languages too.
Gosh, we are saved.. !!!! ;) :D :D
Argument 4 : Indra and Soma came from BMAC
Bactria-Margiana culture could have contributed to some words, which are present only in Indo Aryan, Iranian and Tocharian languages. This includes even words like Indra and soma.
Counter :
This is a baseless statement, for some reason, plagiarised in almost all related articles of Wikipedia. I cannot understand why.
Bactria-Margiana archaeological complex has NO attested language, and the theory itself is a conspiracy, to "explain" certain common words in Indo Iranian, Indo Aryan and Tocharian, which is easily non apologetically explained by OIT.
Anyway, some of the words like Indra, Indu and soma are blatant fantasies.
Ind-ra : Root - "I(n)d" , from Proto Indo European : "*(h)eid" - to swell, to grow,
to promote
Meaning : The promoter, the one who makes grow, or one who grows through praises. (Compare several Rig Vedic poems where Indra's might "grows" with each praise, and Indra "waxes" by praise)
Indu : Root - "I(n)d", same PIE *(h)eid - to wax, swell, grow...
Meaning : The one that waxes, or causes to wax.
Proof : Rig Vedic soma drops are called indu, as soma "waxes" and causes to wax and grow.
Indu is also used for waxing moon, as moon "waxes" or "grows".
Soma : Root "suu-" cognate with English "sow", "savana", cognate with Old High German "savan", even linguistically (not functionally) cognate with "semen".
Soma means the "sown" life, which is shown as virgin life provider, and is symbolised
by plant. This same reason is why soma sows life in us, and is the representation of immortality, and spurt of life in Vedas.
Aftermath :
And, it is to be noted that laws derived from Indo European reconstruction too, can have mistakes and biases. To rely on today's linguistic hypotheses for everything is also unrealistic, and we need to have a sceptic mind. Koenraad Elst is one of a sceptic supporter of OIT.
So, as we have seen :
There is no firm linguistic basis for AMT. All arguments are refutable.
So, my dear AMT supporters, best of luck.
I cannot always special plead that India can never be a homeland. As far in my sceptic research, I have found India to be the natural opinion of a sceptic scholar.
Special request :
If any one of you have more arguments to be addressed, you may put them in comments section. I shall put that here. :)
And thanks, Prithvi Raj Botcha Botcha Prithvi Raj for indirectly providing me with an argument from AMT side, and Athi S Sundar
Sundar A.S for "indirect" help, though I disagree with your points.. ;)
And these people have contributed unknowingly through quora.
Aryan Invasion Theory series
How can one refute the linguistic arguments of the Aryan
Invasion/Migration Theory?
I love it when I can bash on arguments and prove my stand, than simply writing something and make you people think that am brainwashing.
This answer shall examine the popular linguistic arguments of Aryan Migration Theory, and examine it from the point of Out of India Theory. Some of the arguments have been popularly refuted.
Attention :
This answer may be long for a rash reader, but shall benefit the actual person who needs to know facts.
Argument 1 : The linguistic centre of Gravity theory
By this theory, the linguistic centre of gravity must be in the area where there are maximum number of diversity of language exists. This meant that Central Eastern Europe, the place of maximum branches of Indo European, was to be the homeland.
By the discovery of the Tocharian language, the centre of gravity was shifted eastward to near Turkey, feeding the Kurgan model. As India had only Indo Aryan branch, it was finalised that India cannot be a potential homeland, funding the AMT.
Counters :
Three kinds of limitations are there for this argument, addressed as :
1. Greater linguistic diversity in Europe is due to foreign influences, which means that only those places with least diversity could be actual homeland. This was put forward by Dhar Kella, and was unaddressed in mainstream linguistics.
2. Nichols model suggests a different homeland based on his theory of linguistic diversity, which can be used for a Bactria homeland as per Kazanas, or Indian homeland as per Talageri.
3. Various families of Europe evolved recently, and when at the time of Vedic Sanskrit, both these were of comparable linguistic diversity, thus revising the concept of a European homeland based on this theory.
Argument 2 : Centum-Satem isogloss
By this, the original language closest to Proto Indo European should be centum type,
(in which the *k sound is not palatalised to *s sound, that is, the word for hundred is closer to "kentum" than "satem") rather than the later palataised Satem type language. This proves that Sanskrit, which is a palatalized Satem language, cannot in anyway be mother for many of centum languages like Greek, Latin, Tocharian...
Thus, India cannot be a potential IE homeland.
Counter :
The most popular and the strongest counter, is actually much more than a counter, and is a strong support for OIT, based on these arguments :
1. Vedic Sanskrit in its present palatalised form need not be the ancestor of IE languages, which means India had a kentum language originally which created Sanskrit later out of palatalization.
Evidence : The striking evidence comes from Bangani studies. Bangani language shows an ancient centum substratum. Reading along with the Tocharian, an Indian homeland is no longer a fantasy.
2. Lateral theory : Lateral theory puts that the undeveloped conservatisms are took to the borders, while the actual centre language gets naturally developed, without foreign influences.
This means that no places where considerable centum languages are there is fit to claim a homeland. This swaps the picture to East, putting India or Iran as potential homelands, which have the least kentum.
As Bangani has shown an archaic influence of kentum language, the Indian homeland is arguable with certainty. This would point that :
The earliest of Vedas could have been even composed in a kentum language, which were palatalised in the course of oral transmission, before standardisation. (Even now, the conservative "L" pronunciation for "D" retroflex of Vedic exists only in South, the border region ;)) The centum branch gave birth to the later centum languages, which took the conservatisms to the borders outside India.
Argument 3 : The Dravidian substratum
Vedic Sanskrit or the pre-refined Classical Sanskrit first saw the loss of /z/ phoneme of Iranian languages like Avestan and also saw the introduction of retroflex consonants like ṭ,ḍ, which are not found in other Indo-European languages, that came from Dravidian languages. This could very well be a local substratum influence after a linguistic contact. Further Dravidian languages and Munda languages saw a whole lot of lexical borrowing from only Sanskrit and not any other IE language. This will rule out any possibility of proto-IE itself being native to the region and inter-influencing proximate languages not as a new contact.
Counters :
As we have seen, no legitimate supporter of OIT feels the need to staunchly support Vedic as the first language or Proto Indo European. An earlier centum language in India could be the proposed root, by us. (Refer Argument 2 counter)
So, we can also arrange the chronological order of events.
Possibility A :
1. India had centum language first, at which time, there was less or no contact of the speakers with Mundas or Dravidians. The early migrators took this language, which had little or no "loanwords"or "substratum".
2. The centum gets palatalised, now too, no significant admixture with Munda or Dravidian languages. The palatalised language is carried by later migrations.
3. The palatalized language gets retroflexes for pronunciation ease. Also, the speakers tend to incorporate some other features into their language. The first contact occurs.
The Vedic language as we hear now may belong to this period.
Still, the reverse retroflex of /L/ to /D/ in later Sanskrit is a notable development, which challenges the point that this was a substratum from Dravidian. (for then "L" could have gained popularity)
Anyway, these developments cannot affect the earlier migrated languages.
Sub Argument :
The most plausible explanation for the presence of Dravidian structural features in Old Indo-Aryan is that the majority of early Old Indo-Aryan speakers had a Dravidian mother tongue which they gradually abandoned.
Counter :
It is a special pleading that people with a language with limited phonemes and
grammar would adopt a complex declension, complex grammar, large no. of phoneme containing Indo European language, and forget their writing system in Indus.
It is a foolish idea, and a purely theoretical exercise, which is not practically possible.
Also, Vedic has no ATTESTED loanwords from Munda or Dravidian languages, and the 20 - 30 prime suspects is too small to assume a people who have adopted a new language. This small no. of suspected loans itself votes for the condition that earlier, there could have been a situation in India, where there could have been a IE language with no interaction with Munda or Dravidian.
It is to be noted that the suspected "loanwords" are not at all for core words, and it is to be noted that we expect only core words to get migrated better. Moreover, many of these "loanwords" have been found as remains of crude "hunt", than legitimate things.
In a developing core language, we would find new words develop, and it could we well supposed that Dravidian borrowed these words from Vedic. This kind of development could have been absent in border languages.
Even 'mIna" (fish) in Vedic has an explainable Indo European etymology. So, the question of substratum into Sanskrit remains a hypothesis.
On the contrary, people like Athi S Sundar have told that there are many connections between Tamil and Greek, which has indirectly become a boon for us now. Let us ignore his conclusions, but note the connections. These Tamil words could, on reverse, have come from Sanskrit too. And this Dravidian "substratum" is then present in other IE languages too.
Gosh, we are saved.. !!!! ;) :D :D
Argument 4 : Indra and Soma came from BMAC
Bactria-Margiana culture could have contributed to some words, which are present only in Indo Aryan, Iranian and Tocharian languages. This includes even words like Indra and soma.
Counter :
This is a baseless statement, for some reason, plagiarised in almost all related articles of Wikipedia. I cannot understand why.
Bactria-Margiana archaeological complex has NO attested language, and the theory itself is a conspiracy, to "explain" certain common words in Indo Iranian, Indo Aryan and Tocharian, which is easily non apologetically explained by OIT.
Anyway, some of the words like Indra, Indu and soma are blatant fantasies.
Ind-ra : Root - "I(n)d" , from Proto Indo European : "*(h)eid" - to swell, to grow,
to promote
Meaning : The promoter, the one who makes grow, or one who grows through praises. (Compare several Rig Vedic poems where Indra's might "grows" with each praise, and Indra "waxes" by praise)
Indu : Root - "I(n)d", same PIE *(h)eid - to wax, swell, grow...
Meaning : The one that waxes, or causes to wax.
Proof : Rig Vedic soma drops are called indu, as soma "waxes" and causes to wax and grow.
Indu is also used for waxing moon, as moon "waxes" or "grows".
Soma : Root "suu-" cognate with English "sow", "savana", cognate with Old High German "savan", even linguistically (not functionally) cognate with "semen".
Soma means the "sown" life, which is shown as virgin life provider, and is symbolised
by plant. This same reason is why soma sows life in us, and is the representation of immortality, and spurt of life in Vedas.
Aftermath :
And, it is to be noted that laws derived from Indo European reconstruction too, can have mistakes and biases. To rely on today's linguistic hypotheses for everything is also unrealistic, and we need to have a sceptic mind. Koenraad Elst is one of a sceptic supporter of OIT.
So, as we have seen :
There is no firm linguistic basis for AMT. All arguments are refutable.
So, my dear AMT supporters, best of luck.
I cannot always special plead that India can never be a homeland. As far in my sceptic research, I have found India to be the natural opinion of a sceptic scholar.
Special request :
If any one of you have more arguments to be addressed, you may put them in comments section. I shall put that here. :)
And thanks, Prithvi Raj Botcha Botcha Prithvi Raj for indirectly providing me with an argument from AMT side, and Athi S Sundar
Sundar A.S for "indirect" help, though I disagree with your points.. ;)
And these people have contributed unknowingly through quora.
Comments
Post a Comment