The language was similar. It looks more conservative, but it isn't. It's just the translation. Were they written in Indian script and then translated no doubt they would be the same.
The language was similar. It looks more conservative, but it isn't. It's just the translation. Were they written in Indian script and then translated no doubt they would be the same.
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
Again, Dravidian refers to a language family, not a racial identity. I think the term you're looking for is Australoid. And from what I gather, there was more than one racial ethnicity in the IVC, so we cannot assume it was Dravidian Culture. Certainly there doesn't appear to be much by way of commonality, nor do we see continuity or cultural spread across the subcontinent.
I'm flattered. So far that's been your response to anybody talking the slightest bit of sense, so must mean I'm doing something right
You guys also forget that Sanskrit could have many dialects, as it was spoken in almost all of North India (Aryavarta)
Nobody knows then which dialect when into the North and became the element of the Mitanni. So a slight variation is nothing to worry about in only few characteristics.
Nobody knows then which dialect when into the North and became the element of the Mitanni. So a slight variation is nothing to worry about in only few characteristics.
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
You're basing this on what? The "Indian" script here is what? Brahmi? Devnagari? Both of these evolved several centuries after the recorded mention of the Mitanni, if we go by the evidence. In the time frame we are discussing, Sanskrit didn't even have a script, with the only known example of a Sanskrit script coming from almost a millennium afterwords
Like I said they were Dravidians with a Mediterannean element. Australoid aren't Dravidian. Indus Valley was at that point inhabited by Dravidians, some were migrated to South India but some also stayed for example the ancestors of the Brahui in Balochistan. Meaning IVC = Dravidian.
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
You've got a few words. With quite major differences from their Sanskrit counterparts. There's no basis for your assumption that the Mitanni were Sanskrit speakers. The linguistics and phonetics of the language indicate a divergent evolution from Sanskrit, and nobody I know of has suggested that the Mitanni language originated in Sanskrit. there's a reason they're referred to as an Indo-Aryan language, rather than merely a Sanskritic dialect, and that's because it is clearly not a mere dialect of Sanskrit.
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
Firstly, we don't know WHEN the Brahui language evolved in Balochistan. It takes a HUGE stretch of imagination to assume that its been there, untouched, since the end of the IVC. And, please show me the evidence for the IVC people migrating to South India. The recorded migration has them going east, becoming the Cemetary H culture, and then being absorbed by the Aryans over time. Where is the evidence for them going to South India? Or do you like making theories based on no evidence?
Obviously the script used for the Old Indian literature which is Brahmi, nobody knows. Could also be a precursor. Nobody is certain.
Actually, very, minor differences indeed. LOL @ major differences, who are you kidding?
Cultural and linguistic similarities have been cited by researchers such as Finnish Indologist [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asko_Parpola"]Asko Parpola[/ame] as being strong evidence for a proto-Dravidian origin of the ancient Indus Valley civilisation.
Who else?
Not going to even discuss this even further, offtopic.
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
Yes, one among several dozen theories floating around. There's no consensus on the subject because Asko Parpola doesn't have clinching evidence, and like everyone else he's got mostly conjecture. You favor one theory, which is fine. But don't insinuate and assert that the issue is settled and that the theory you favor is indisputably correct, because it isn't. It may be correct, but it equally may not be. Personally i favor the assertion that the two were completely distinct and the IVC was independent from the Dravidian cultures which evolved from the Megalithic cultures, but again, that's ne favoring one theory. There's no consensus yet because the evidence doesn't support one theory over all others. You've got the same problem with your Mitanni assertions
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
Who are you? This isn't the difference between aindra and Indra. These are fairly substantive differences in names indicating that it likely did not evolve from Sanskrit. Simply posting the words LOL do not add any value to your assertions or your credibility nor does it negate what I and others have tried explaining here.
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
Which variant of Brahmi? Asokan? That didn't have Sanskrit. Gupta? That came centuries later. See the problems here? The oldest available evidence we have for Brahmi comes from South India. Even then we are discussing a time frame over 500 years or so after the Mitanni. What is the evidence that Brahmi even existed in the time frame contemporary to the Mitanni?
Listen, let me stick to this as I find these findings the most logical. You can not convince me with your desperate replies and observations.
"Was there any country, other than India, in the entire world in the 14th century BCE, i.e. at the time of the Bogazkoy treaty, where the gods Indra, Varun.a, etc. were worshipped?" The answer is an emphatic "NO". In fact, at one stage in his own review, Dr. Francesco admits: "the so-called Mitanni Indo-Aryans can be but a group of Vedic Aryans having migrated to Kurdistan from their supposed ancestral homeland in N.W. South Asia."
Thank you, and have a nice day.
"Was there any country, other than India, in the entire world in the 14th century BCE, i.e. at the time of the Bogazkoy treaty, where the gods Indra, Varun.a, etc. were worshipped?" The answer is an emphatic "NO". In fact, at one stage in his own review, Dr. Francesco admits: "the so-called Mitanni Indo-Aryans can be but a group of Vedic Aryans having migrated to Kurdistan from their supposed ancestral homeland in N.W. South Asia."
Thank you, and have a nice day.
Others and you are no experts. So it's not important. There is too much similarities to accept a theory they're from seperate IE branches.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]such as: Biridasva (=Vedic Vr.idha-śva); Urudi-ti, a Hurrian king (= Skt. Urudi-ti)
There is no difference V is often pronounced in Indian languages as B
[/FONT][/FONT]
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
Varuna was worshipped in Greece, though later Persia too had mention of them.
Spamming the same post isn't going to change the problems in your theory. Everybody accepts they were Indo-Aryans. The problem is with your certainty that they came from India. Do you know who the gods of the BMAC were?
When you can overcome the significant differences between the names of the Mitanni Gods and their names in Sanskrit, then you can close your case. Until then, you, and the authorities you quote are speculating. Ill grant that the speculation may not be baseless, but its not proved either. What is clear is that these guys were not the descendants of a Sanskrit speaking peoples but that of a group from which Sanskrit arose. The Mitanni and the Sanskritic people share a common linguistic ancestor, but the Mitanni language doesn't appear to be derived from Sanskrit.
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
Last edited:
You really wanna assert that V is pronounced as B? So you wanna argue that Vasudeva is pronounced as Basudeva? In some cases yes v does become interchanged with B, though i don't think this is in Sanskrit but as a result of local corruption. But not all cases. V and B are bot always interchangeable, Vishnu would be Bishnu.
Oh and so far, the likes of WF and Dream Regent and others have demonstrated a far better grasp of linguistics and phonetics than you, so i wouldn't be so quick to asset my superiority if I were you.
It's as a group. Not a certain one deity, these are typical to the Indian subcontinent that happened to be found somewhere else then South Asia. Mithras was also worshipped in Rome, which is just a one case but not as such.
You're annoying and you cannot convince me, you're not an expert and you don't bring any sources. I thank you very much. You, my friend, are an amateur. Keep reading.
You're annoying and you cannot convince me, you're not an expert and you don't bring any sources. I thank you very much. You, my friend, are an amateur. Keep reading.
No it's not. V > B is common to North (Western) India due to devoicing some time in the middle Indic period. Punjabi Gobinder vs Hindi Govinda. It's not a case of randomness. Why is it you can speak with such certitude on that which you know nothing?
If the devoicing is in effect in Mittanni that means their dialect has undergone a phenomenally HUGE sound change that the other Indian languages would not experience for millennia and even then only partially. Once more, not derived from Sanskrit but sharing a common ancestor.
I said oftenly, it is CERTAINLY the case. As your Indian you should know already, you're making a fool out of yourself denying that V is not often pronounced as B. Note, Mahaveer often pronounced as Mahabir. Just one example. Anyway, I have no more time for your random and rather useless posts.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-