|
|
|
General Forum: Govt. and Politics | | Restore Telugu Pride | |
| Mr.Vachaspati,
I appreciate your elaborate response, but your conclusions regarding the "Hittite link" are simply untenable. Here is why:
The Boghazkoi inscription is a Mittanni-Hittite treaty where the Mittanni swore by Mitra, Varuna, Indra and Nasatya at about 1500 B.C - by this time the major portions of the Veda Samhitas are acknowledged to have been already composed by all present-day Historians.
1) The Hittites were the "other party" of the treaty - they did not mention the same gods. The Hittites are thought to be a Semitic people in fact. Drawing a link between Indo-Aryans and Hittites is simply not warranted.
2) The Gods mentioned by the Mittanni were already being worshipped in India - NOT IN IRAN (if so, not with the same phonetic names) - which is important because Iranian territory falls between India and Boghazkoi which is in present-day Turkey. Obviously the Mittanni Kings were Indic - not generic Indo-European.
3) The Horse-training manual of Kikkuli (who was a Mittanni - not Hittite) uses Sanskrit-like words - Pinkara (Pingala in Sanskrit?)for Red, Babhru for brown and Sanskrit-like numbers (That is, Sapta instead of the Iranian Hepta, etc.,) all of which point to an INDIAN origin for the Mittanni.
4) While I don't discount the possibility that that Sanskrit-speaking peoples may have migrated into India, the Mittanni were DEFINIETELY not the origin - in fact they were migrants from India. They were culturally Indian and DIFFERENT from other Indo-European peoples around them for this reason.
5) The language used by the Mittanni was NOT a kind of pre-literate version of Sanskrit as you seem to believe - it is simply a spoken dialect of Sanskrit - the treaty is the earliest recorded WRITING in Indic - not the earliest recorded Sanskrit - the language of the Veda is reckoned to be earlier.
The point I am trying to make is that the Hittites are NOT the origin of the "Aryans" of India. You are probably the first and the only to believe that they are the ancestors of "Aryans".
It was the Mittanni who were "Indic" and their origin points to India, not the other way around.
As for Telugu and Prakrit, if you read my earlier posts in this topic, you simply repeated what I had already said. In fact, Prakrit may have initiated the "Sanskritization" of Telugu starting with Buddhist influence from before the Classical Hindu kingdoms starting with the Saatavahanas.
I did not deny that Tamil and Telugu are related - of course they are. However, I do clarify that it is NOT a parent-child relationship. More of cousins of a sort.
Based on the above arguments:
1) There is simply NO truth to your argument that "Aryans" were foreigners and of Hittite origin.
2) Telugu is permanently bound to Sanskrit in it's development although it is also related to Tamil. To claim a "Dravidian" kinship with Tamil is fine by me, but raking up "Anti-Aryan"isms has more to do with Tamil-Dravidianism and Tamil Nationalist politics than the reality of Telugu History.
Posted by: Mr. Aditya Vedula At: 22, Jul 2004 9:04:25 AM IST
At first, I admire Mr.Aditya for his deep insight.
//To clarify your "Aryan" - "Hittite" ..It's a fact. Refer any book on Racial (in biological sense, not ethnological sense) any book for the reference.
//1) You are probably referring to the Mittanni who are contemporary with early Hittites.
..I am referring Boguz kui inscription.
//2) Hittites have NOT been identified as "Indo-European" with any certainity.
...Yes. As I said the same, the branch from Hettites who came to India are called Indo-Aryans.
//3) You are also probably referring to the Mittanni Horse training manual of Kikkuli - it is NOT 3,500 B.C but 1,500 B.C.
..I have already given the answer above.
//4) The "crudest form of Sanskrit Alphabet" is all your imagination and no scholarship.
...Earliest Sanskrit was orally transmitted. when the time came to write, there was local influence...such as environment, mixing with local people or earliest people who may be so called Aryans or INdo-Aryans.
//It has to do with the WORDS used, which SEEM to be Sanskrit-based.
...Yes. Earliest Sanskrit was phonetic based, later it became alphabetical.
//But, we are drifting from the main topic. You and Ms.Rosy seems pretty cosy in your knowledge of "Aryan languages" and "Dravidian languages". However, my point is:
...Since the topic is on languages, for the sake of convenience, let it be. Morever,the word Aryan is was basically linguistic, but not racial word.
//1) Telugu may fall into the same classification of "Dravidian" as Tamil, but Telugu was NOT BORN FROM TAMIL. No self-respecting scholar has ever claimed that.
...The influence of Prakrit has played a pivotal role in developing the telugu too.
//2) The British colonial scholars have created a permanent schism between so-called "Aryan" and "Dravidian" languages by their arbitrary nomenclature. Telugu is of Non-Sanskrit origin but there will not be a Telugu today without the deep influence of Sanskrit.
...It's we calle it 'Ethno-semantics'. It's a perfect fact. No language is static in human history.
//There is more Sanskrit vocabulary in Telugu than in modern-day Hindi, the so-called "Aryan" language. Enough said!
...I too agree.
//3) Telugu has ALWAYS HAD AN INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE from Tamil. In literature, history AND IDENTITY.
...In literature, history and identify it is independent, but not in Grammar. There are similarities, that's why we call it Dravidian or South-Indian group of language.
//4)Andhras are proud of their Sanskrit heritage unlike Tamils.
...Mistake. Cholas and other Tamil kings issued their inscriptions in Sanskrit. It's Pandyas only totally patronized Tamil. But they too patronized Sanskrit Scholars in their court. They too like Cholas funded the Translation Sanskrit versions into Tamil vice versa.
...
Adityaji,
Thank q for your wonderful response.
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 21, Jul 2004 9:28:14 PM IST
Good question and same time you answered the question. Most of the Sanskrit words are translated into Telugu and left some of the words as it is without being translated?
Posted by: Mr. M Kumar N At: 21, Jul 2004 6:38:26 PM IST
ohhh hold on mr. aditya,
I dint say telugu born from tamil n none said too i guess, but bahudoorapu was sayinn telugu doesnt belong to dravidian classification, so i was asking for clarification.
one q telugu lingo is short of words that it loaned words from sanskrit?
Posted by: Ms. Rosey At: 21, Jul 2004 9:37:56 AM IST
Mr.Vachaspati,
To clarify your "Aryan" - "Hittite" conundrum -
1) You are probably referring to the Mittanni who are contemporary with early Hittites.
2) Hittites have NOT been identified as "Indo-European" with any certainity.
3) You are also probably referring to the Mittanni Horse training manual of Kikkuli - it is NOT 3,500 B.C but 1,500 B.C.
4) The "crudest form of Sanskrit Alphabet" is all your imagination and no scholarship. To clarify, the "Alphabet" used for that inscription has nothing to do with Sanskrit. It has to do with the WORDS used, which SEEM to be Sanskrit-based.
But, we are drifting from the main topic. You and Ms.Rosy seems pretty cosy in your knowledge of "Aryan languages" and "Dravidian languages". However, my point is:
1) Telugu may fall into the same classification of "Dravidian" as Tamil, but Telugu was NOT BORN FROM TAMIL. No self-respecting scholar has ever claimed that.
2) The British colonial scholars have created a permanent schism between so-called "Aryan" and "Dravidian" languages by their arbitrary nomenclature. Telugu is of Non-Sanskrit origin but there will not be a Telugu today without the deep influence of Sanskrit. There is more Sanskrit vocabulary in Telugu than in modern-day Hindi, the so-called "Aryan" language. Enough said!
3) Telugu has ALWAYS HAD AN INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE from Tamil. In literature, history AND IDENTITY.
4) Andhras are proud of their Sanskrit heritage unlike Tamils.
Posted by: Mr. Aditya Vedula At: 20, Jul 2004 10:12:48 PM IST
Brilliant Madhuji.....you are very close to the reality.
Wonderful guess.
But the present geological conditions has set-in at almost in Holocene Epoch, that means at 10,000 B.C At that time, the Aryans(means Hettites) yet to start their migrations. Bogux Kui the earliest instrictions by them found at Turkey, belongs to 3,500 B.C it contains crudest form of Sanskrit Alphabets. One branch of Hettites went to Egypt to invade, another branch invaded Iran (the name derived from Aryan), and another Branch came to India. All this process completed at approx 1,500 B.C. The continents have almost separated before Aryans started moving or migrating!
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 20, Jul 2004 7:33:42 PM IST
mI snEhituDini 'arE..orE'..annAru... No Problem . mari nannu enduku 'arE' ani annaTTu. tamari A nAlugELLa chaduvulO idE nErpinchArA ! paigA I ranku moguLla goDava emiTi! adi kUDa tamari A nAlugELla chaduvulOnE cheppArA !
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 20, Jul 2004 7:28:28 PM IST
When Aryans migrated the distance from Delhi to Australia / Africa / Europe hardly may be less than 500 KM.
They all at equator.
Posted by: Mr. M Kumar N At: 20, Jul 2004 7:27:27 PM IST
And the languages in North are Indo-Burmese, Indo-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burmese...there are three groups...very complex structure they have. It's because that there were several migrations and invasions.
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 20, Jul 2004 7:15:14 PM IST
I pity you on every thing, VeVa! You too, go ahead with your ideas.
Ha..HHA...
Fantastic!
...
i know telugu well donn ya worry abt it.
but compare and tell me sir, am ignorant.I noe only telugu. how dravidian and aryan classification done in lingos? wuts da deal abt em n telugu?
Posted by: Ms. Rosey At: 20, Jul 2004 2:50:12 PM IST
...
Sanskrit, Hindu, Bengali, Rajasthani, Punjabi, and other north Indian languages are Indo-Aryan group of languages. Sanskrit appears very crude form now. And sanskrit and Indo-Europian languages have same structure...Hence, it's Aryan language. They share some same words also!
Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada (and the tribal lanauge Kui and Gondi(it's in north Indian and north Andhra Pradesh), are Dravidina group of languages.) Languages can be studies by observing Phoenitics, and Phoenimics. Language Structure and Grammar. This is the method to study languages. If anybody knows Neom Chomsky....who is structural linguistics, he derived another theory, that language and thoughts are interlinked. Same group of people with same language, tend to have, some what or another, may have same mind-set. Obviously, to some extent, it's true also.
Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 20, Jul 2004 7:11:47 PM IST
| |
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
