lpetrich

phaedrus:
*wondering where this thread is going*

LP:
???

Phaedrus:
... Didnt you read what i said, how do you make out the difference whether the horse they are referring to is domesticated, wild or their neighbours'?? And how exactly are you refuting my position when you said - "Interestingly, when Sumerians first learned of horses, they called these beasts "mountain donkeys" (anshe kur) or "fast donkeys" (anshe zi-zi)". Isnt this what i suggested. We are trying to impose our modern knowledge on the interpretation of what the ancients referred to

LP:
One checks on what the word was used for; it's standard linguistic research. Does the word refer to some domestic animal, some wild animal, or both? And as to imposing modern knowledge, that is an absurd accusation -- and one that I think is a red herring.

[a lot of irrelevant stuff deleted]

LP earlier:
What alternative term would you prefer to use for the arrival of the Aryans, since "invasion" is so offensive to you, Phaedrus?

Phaedrus:
Umm talk about stupidity, how did that answer my question exactly?

LP:
Phaedrus, I really wonder what evidence would satisfy you -- a tablet showing chariot bodies and wheels being transported in wagons? Especially when you are willing to believe in the "Out of India" theory on much flimsier evidence.

LP earlier:
That's exactly what happened. And it had happened to Greece after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces. Your perpetual whines that this or that has not been proved to your satisfaction are getting annoying, especially when you show much lower standard for the theories you like.

Phaedrus:
You idiot, it should be that is what "could" have happened. If you are so sure, simple request....prove it. And what are the theories i like??

LP:
I was using the Greek Dark Ages between the Mycenaeans and classical times as an example of a literacy gap that is known to have happened.

Phaedrus earlier:
... The question remains, if these great dynasties have survived for so long without writing, then what could be the reason for reacquiring it?

LP earlier:
What's the reason for adopting *any* technological advance? Don't be stupid, Phaedrus.

Phaedrus:
Looks like the comprehension levels are dipping altogether. Elaboration : If they had done so well without writing, what is reason for acquiring it? If you are going to say common sense says that, because it improves the organising capability or for record keeping and what not... Then again the same old question about how come there was no writing in the pre-mauryan era among the wealthy kingdoms like Magadha. It is all just speculation based on our common sense and falls short of any historic reality.

LP:
If there had been writing, some of it would likely have been done on some durable material, which would then have survived. Why not the account of some Magadha king who brags about how he had defeated some troublesome enemies? Why not some personal stamp like what we find of the Harappans?

LP earlier:
A trader can *invent* writing if necessary. Phaedrus, you are making yourself look absolutely stupid.

Phaedrus:
Yet again you prove your stupidity by saying this. Let me elaborate more so that can comprehend. If the trader invented the writing, how can the writing spread?. Why should the whole kingdom adapt it without the king or the priests (intellectuals) giving a diktat?
It is not the internet where something just spreads without control.

LP:
Writing has spread in many, many, many places without some central leader decreeing that it be adopted. It does not have to spread to the entire population instantaneously; it only has to spread to a few people at a time. It's like Phaedrus's Internet example, though slower. Imagine an Indian trader who decides to borrow some writing from some Middle Eastern colleages. That trader's colleagues see what he's up to and ask him to teach them. Which he does. And which those other traders do. And writing thus gradually spreads.

HindooHeathen

In its classical form, Aryan Invasion model, is based upon the conjecture
that Vedas depict a conflict between the indigenous tribes and the invading
Aryans.
Later when in the 1920s Sir John Marshall proclaimed to the world the presence of Indus (Saraswathy) civiliztion (originally excavated by Indian archaeologist
RD Bannerjee), the conclusion that is non-injurious to the AIT model was that
it was destroyed by the invading Aryans.
The original infidels article written by me (Missionary's Swastika) contends that the
Eighteenth century promotion of this AIT model has been considerably influenced by factors non-academic. In fact, Bishop Caldwell when questioned about his creation of Dravidian family of languages basedon the comparative grammars of Sanskrit and Tamil, replied that his act was governed by motives higher than mere academic interests such as spiritual and moralistic. Both missionaries and colonial administrators repeatedly used AIT to question the rights of Indians to rule India. In this connection, a quib by Winston Churchill (as his response to Mahatma Gandhi's 1942 Quit India movement)is
note worthy, "Let those who colonized India first quit first"The use and promotion of AIT to justify British colonial exploitation of India and proselytizing Hindus to Christianity had been noted and recorded by almost all Indian scholars. This is no conspiracy theory but a well documented case study in how the academicians of one culture and one era have projected into another culture of another age their own menatl images and values.
Many papers have been brought out in many international forums (by both Indian and Western scholars of post-colonial age)which have shown a defnitive euro-centric bias in the construction of AIT. This bias can be clearly seen in the selective presentation of facts, particularly in the
form of quoting mistranslated Vedic hymns taken out of context. Also there is the ignoring of facts.
Both Asko Porpola and Iravatham Mahadevan are eminent scholars. And their honesty (unlike that of Witzel) is unquestionable. They both support a AMT model. But just look at some of the important conclusions of these scholars.

Asko Porpola rejects the thesis that the Dasyu-Arya conflict as depicted in Vedas is a
conflict between indigenous tribes and Aryan invaders. Rather he considers both Dasyus and Aryans as belonging to the same cultural group.

Indian Vedic scholars have been stating the same for more than two centuries but text books after text books supplied in the curriculum of India even a debate was not allowed. AIT became a truth unquestinable. Why alternative hypotheis by equally (even better) scholars of Sanskrit (than Max Muller) was not allowed even a fair discussion? The answer is simple. As late as 2001, we have people who defend AIT as the "pinnacle of 18th cenury European intellect" and the fruit of European reading of Sanskrit.

Now take the case of Iravatham Mahadevan's identification of Vedic imagery in Indus(/Saraswathi)scripts. He does not find any obscure Vedic verse nor an image in the seal which is derisively mentioned in Vedas.

But he finds in te most prominent seal of the ISV Civilization (Unihorn seal)the most important Vedic ritual object represented Soma. Interesting is it not that Vedas often describe Indra as Soma intoxicated Bull as shown in the seal!

Let us come to another major identification by Iravatham Mahadevan. He not only identifies specialized classes of priests and warriors but also traces the imagery to the cate names which are prelevant (and also had been historically dominant royal families mentioned in popular Sanskrit classics)among the Indian society even today.

So when Jim Shaffer writes about a cultural continum existing in India unbroken by any invasion or intrusion , but existing not in isolatin,from Indus valley to the so-called second urbanization, he is not only right but he also confirms what Indian scolars have been stressing for the past two centuries.

So when Jim Shaffer states that,
"..Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo Aryan or Euroean invasion into South Asia any time in pre-historic or proto-historic periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural developments from pre-historic to historic periods."
[Jim Shaffer "The Indo Aryan Invasions: Cultural Myth and Archaeological reality" in J.R. Lukak's People of South Asia p.88]

We can very well understand twhy it is hard for the old of the established AIT model to accept the rejection of AIT. Did't the physicist Maxwell tell something about the new ideas getting accepted not because the old ones of a discipline change their views but because they eventually die and the new ideas get accepted!

Now let us consider some more facts. It is not just thousand pillared palaces that make the Vedas as having urban (and rural) settings. But also that Aryans like Dasyus are city builders who seek divine protection for their cities. (RV I.166.8;VI.48.8;VII.3.7;15.14) So common place the forts have been that they have been used as poetic analogies (see RV -VII 95:1-2 for example).

Mistranslation of the generic term for metal ('Ayas' found in Vedas) as iron is an accepted fact today. Interestingly the specific term for iron appears in later Vedic text. The more frequent ritalistic use of copper and bronze in Vedic literature is also consistent with the material culture of ISV civilization.

As I have stated I will not be able to post messages frequently.

LP, Thank you for making me get new and in-depth insights into the current problem. Still I doubt how your perception will change if you can feel the cultural continum that exists between Harappan culture, Vedic culture and present day Indian culture! Why don't you learn Sanskrit?It also shows the kind of restrainst we should show when we evaluate the history of one culture through our lens and judge it with our cultural yard stick.

[ August 21, 2001: Message edited by: HindooHeathen ]

copernicus

HindooHeathen, I would not be so presumptuous as to say that I have "learned" Sanskrit or Hindi, although I have studied both and can still read devanagari script. I tend to agree with most of the observations and claims made by LP, who, although not a professional linguist, has shown a good deal more knowledge than I have of some of the Indo-European issues. Frankly, I have no problem with the "AMT" vs. "AIT" argument. I am an agnostic on that subject, but I just find it hard to believe that the Indo-European tribes who entered north India did so with no opposition from the indigenes at the time. It doesn't seem likely.

There is no solid evidence one way or the other as to whether Indo-European tribes (either Dasyus or Aryans) conquered and destroyed the Harappans. The most likely history seems to be that Harappans spoke a Dravidian language. Aryans and Dasyus spoke Indo-European languages. (That speculation is best debated among dispassionate scholars, not Indian nationalists who have a political agenda.) The linguistic facts don't really tell us for certain that Aryans, Dasyus, or Harappans were descended from ancestors who spoke those languages, since we know that linguistic lineage does not necessarily parallel genetic lineage. It just seems very likely that Indo-European tribes occupied northern India sometime after the non-Indo-European Harappan culture occupied that area. Whether or not the entry was technically an "invasion" is utterly irrelevant to the world's perception of modern India. Nobody really cares, outside of the nationalist Indian factions. Nobody cares what Churchill said, other than modern Hindu nationalists. Nobody with any sense really thinks worse of modern India one way or the other. Europeans recognize that their own ancestors committed all kinds of brutal atrocities and behaved in the worst possible way. There is nothing that Hindu ancestors did that made them in any way inferior to the ancestors of modern Europeans. Why is this such an issue in India? The problems that outsiders have with India have to do with modern issues--e.g. the development of nuclear weapons technology or the question of whether the caste system can be justified in modern times. The question of whether or not the Aryans used violence in their occupation of northern India has no relevance to current international perceptions of India.

[ August 21, 2001: Message edited by: copernicus ]

lpetrich

HH:
In its classical form, Aryan Invasion model, is based upon the conjecture
that Vedas depict a conflict between the indigenous tribes and the invading
Aryans.

LP:
However, the Aryans could have been present and sort-of settled for a few centuries before they decided to codify a set of Official Hymns. Wandering people often forget their earlier history as they wander.

HH:
Later when in the 1920s Sir John Marshall proclaimed to the world the presence of Indus (Saraswathy) civiliztion (originally excavated by Indian archaeologist RD Bannerjee), the conclusion that is non-injurious to the AIT model was that it was destroyed by the invading Aryans.

LP:
A non sequitur. The Aryans could have arrived *after* the collapse of Harappan society. That collapse was most likely due to a big drought; this would have made the farmers unable to support a big city population, who then either starved or moved into the countryside. However, the Aryans could more easily live in dry climates, so they had no trouble just moving in.

HH:
The original infidels article written by me (Missionary's Swastika) contends that the Eighteenth century promotion of this AIT model has been considerably influenced by factors non-academic. In fact, Bishop Caldwell when questioned about his creation of Dravidian family of languages based on the comparative grammars of Sanskrit and Tamil, replied that his act was governed by motives higher than mere academic interests such as spiritual and moralistic.

LP:
However, there is good linguistic reason for Indo-Aryan and Dravidian to be distantly related -- at best, despite some borrowing of phonology (retroflex consonants lacking from the rest of Indo-European), vocabulary, and syntactical style. Consider the word morphology and basic vocabulary such as pronouns, body parts, family members, 'water", "fire", "name", "Sun", "Moon", and so forth. Maybe I should look for online tutorials for Hindi and Tamil, and do some elementary comparative linguistics.

Much of the development of Indo-European studies took place in Germany, which was hardly a big colonialist; some German linguists had made analogies with Germanic and Hun invasions of the later Roman Empire. In fact, it's worth asking why the Aryan Invasion Theory is so controversial, when similar theories are not:

Anglo-Saxon-Jute Invasion Theory: why English is a Germanic language
Magyar Invasion Theory: why Hungarian is a Uralic language
Roman Invasion Theory: why "Romance languages", descendants of Latin, are spoken in much of Europe
Slavic Invasion Theory: why Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian are Slavic languages

HH:
Both missionaries and colonial administrators repeatedly used AIT to question the rights of Indians to rule India. In this connection, a quib by Winston Churchill (as his response to Mahatma Gandhi's 1942 Quit India movement)is note worthy, "Let those who colonized India first quit first" ...

LP:
So what? It might be good to have asked them about the Angles and the Saxons and the Jutes.

HH:
Asko Porpola rejects the thesis that the Dasyu-Arya conflict as depicted in Vedas is a conflict between indigenous tribes and Aryan invaders. Rather he considers both Dasyus and Aryans as belonging to the same cultural group.

LP:
Both of them outsiders.

HH:
Let us come to another major identification by Iravatham Mahadevan. He not only identifies specialized classes of priests and warriors but also traces the imagery to the cate names which are prelevant (and also had been historically dominant royal families mentioned in popular Sanskrit classics) among the Indian society even today.

LP:
All he's done is propose the identification of well-defined job categories, and job categories != castes.

HH:
So when Jim Shaffer writes about a cultural continum existing in India unbroken by any invasion or intrusion , but existing not in isolatin, from Indus valley to the so-called second urbanization, he is not only right but he also confirms what Indian scolars have been stressing for the past two centuries.

LP:
And what makes his conclusions the final word? He may not notice much evidence of incoming Aryans because nomadic tribes like them tend to have small archeological footprints.

HH:
We can very well understand twhy it is hard for the old of the established AIT model to accept the rejection of AIT. Did't the physicist Maxwell tell something about the new ideas getting accepted not because the old ones of a discipline change their views but because they eventually die and the new ideas get accepted!

LP:
But as Carl Sagan had pointed out, they laughed at Bozo the Clown.

HH:
Now let us consider some more facts. It is not just thousand pillared palaces ...

LP:
Seems like purely imaginary ones, on the order of Indra having 1000 testicles.

HH:
LP, Thank you for making me get new and in-depth insights into the current problem. Still I doubt how your perception will change if you can feel the cultural continum that exists between Harappan culture, Vedic culture and present day Indian culture! Why don't you learn Sanskrit? It also shows the kind of restrainst we should show when we evaluate the history of one culture through our lens and judge it with our cultural yard stick.

LP:
How would learning Sanskrit make me want to change my mind?

HindooHeathen

Jim Shaffer, in case you do not know, has more authority on field archaeology at the Harappan sites than Witzel( who is known for mistranslating a later Vedic text to support his AMT theory).

Lingustic conjectures don't a theory make.

Today almost all leading archaeologists agree that there is no evidence for an invasion or any major population movement.

The simple fact seems not to enter your prejudiced mindset is that how can a rural based society (and a society that has hatred against forts) use such imageries as 'hundred fortified cities', 'Indra like a fort protects', 'protect our cities' etc. Further the generic term for man is 'purusha' literally meaning the 'dweller in a fort'.

But LP, what is the most interesting thing is your parrot like repetition of what Witzel says even without reading my whole post. Try to be more objective.

Here I shall give the exact quote from Mahadevan: "The center sign he thinks refers to a bearer (Sanskrit equivalent Vahana) as in office holder or functionary; he notes that in old Tamil ministers and senior officers are known literally as "yoke bearers" (kaviti).

The fourth sign, which the unicorn seal being discussed here ends with, is read by him as a compound of the first and third, jar and bearer (Sanskrit equivalent Sata­vahana), and probably denotes an officer with priestly duties."

Satavahana is a famous royal dynasty of classical India ( and Kaviti (/Pandaram)are even today caste-associated names.

Initial caste classification has always been based on specialized job stratification and not birth. Anyone with even elementary knowledge of Indian history knows that.

Also a word about your out-of-context carl Sagan quote. What Maxwell told about was the vehement opposition that cmes from an established world views to the arising new facts that challenge the world view. Carl Sagn quote concerns the defence usually put forward for pseudo-sciences like ESP which thrive on negative evidence and much shifting of grounds. AIT is a classical example for a pseudo-scientific theory.

Throughout the thread the shifting of grounds you have made are innumerable and evading the data which do not fit the model has always been part of your tactics.

Varna for your information is different from but related to Jathi. The most dominant Varnas are the priest and the warrior.

I again quote Mahadevan's reading : "The first sign (from the left), the most common in the Indus script (10% of all known signs), is read by him as denoting a jar or sacrificial vessel (Sanskrit equivalent Sata) and probably denotes the concept of a priest.

He understands the second as denoting a lance or spear (Sanskrit equivalent Salya) and suggests that as a terminal sign it designates a warrior at the end of names."

See: http://www.harappa.com/seal/16.html
Now let me also tell that Phaedrus has more than any filmsy data to adhere to OIT.I consider a cross-cultural model with no invasion recorded in Vedic scriptures as the most logical model. The Vedic naure of Harappan culture can explain also Gundestrup cauldron. See the pictures of Harappan seal compared with the celtic cauldron:
The ISVC seal:

Now the cauldron:

[ August 27, 2001: Message edited by: HindooHeathen ]

phaedrus

Aha nothing much has changed, same old stuff. And agree with HH here about the frog-in-the-well attitude...anyhows let me bite

LP

One checks on what the word was used for; it's standard linguistic research. Does the word refer to some domestic animal, some wild animal, or both? And as to imposing modern knowledge, that is an absurd accusation -- and one that I think is a red herring.

Umm you mean you use linguistic evidence alongside archeological evidence and then later use only "linguistic research" to ascertain the status of the animal? Absurd accusation? No one can get out of their belief/knowledge system (which is grounded in our modern perspective as well as the individuals' perspective colored by culture) and try to interpret what the ancients meant. And as i mentioned earlier, it would be great if you could point out to me the exact verses which contained all these references in the vedas to the horse or the cattle (btw there was a cow somewhere in the references i hope )

Phaedrus, I really wonder what evidence would satisfy you -- a tablet showing chariot bodies and wheels being transported in wagons? Especially when you are willing to believe in the "Out of India" theory on much flimsier evidence.

*restrains himself* Cant you comprehend? Where in the whole bloody thread did i ever said i "believe" in the "out of india" theory, instead of trying to continue the debate in a orderly fashion you keep answering portions which you "think" you can substantiate and keep accusing others of taking stands which they never taken. It is not just evidence that satisifies "me", it is evidence which satisfies all the parties involved in the research and study and not some netizens who take "theories" and "hypotheses" learnt from secondary sources and do not even update themselves on status of those theories until unless provided by others.

I was using the Greek Dark Ages between the Mycenaeans and classical times as an example of a literacy gap that is known to have happened.

And how can a human being with even a modicum of logical sense use the phrase "thats exactly what has happened" while trying to substantiate his statement with an example which occured at a geographical distance, as if the example has been able to prove his stance incontrovertibly?? Its speculative ground

If there had been writing, some of it would likely have been done on some durable material, which would then have survived. Why not the account of some Magadha king who brags about how he had defeated some troublesome enemies? Why not some personal stamp like what we find of the Harappans?


Exactly, all this means there is no archeological evidence (as of now) and goes on to show mere linguistic evidence doesnt coincide with "common sense" (again speculation). what happened to kharoshti?

Writing has spread in many, many, many places without some central leader decreeing that it be adopted. It does not have to spread to the entire population instantaneously; it only has to spread to a few people at a time. It's like Phaedrus's Internet example, though slower. Imagine an Indian trader who decides to borrow some writing from some Middle Eastern colleages. That trader's colleagues see what he's up to and ask him to teach them. Which he does. And which those other traders do. And writing thus gradually spreads.

And i am sure all of these places were established civilizations? In a prosperous kingdom, with a history of intellectual tradition, why would the scribblings of traders be allowed to spread without a decree? And how can a trading script be ideal for everyday usage or intellectual usage?

Adios and peace....

lpetrich

HH:
Jim Shaffer, in case you do not know, has more authority on field archaeology at the Harappan sites than Witzel( who is known for mistranslating a later Vedic text to support his AMT theory).

LP:
Jim Shaffer is simply looking at what is most apparent to an archeologist, and spoken language, for example, does not show up in the archeological record.

HH:
Lingustic conjectures don't a theory make.

LP:
I would not wave away linguistics that fast. I invite HindooHeathen to study comparative linguistics some time. I suggest that he consider Latin and the Romance languages, which have a nearly-continuous 2500-year paper trail. And I suggest that he ask himself why the Roman Invasion Theory for the spread of Latin-derived languages is so uncontroversial.

HH:
Today almost all leading archaeologists agree that there is no evidence for an invasion or any major population movement.

LP:
That's news to me; the consensus is that the Sanskrit language, horses, chariots, and other "Aryan" stuff were brought in from outside after the collapse of Harappan city society.

HH:
Here I shall give the exact quote from Mahadevan: "The center sign he thinks refers to a bearer (Sanskrit equivalent Vahana) as in office holder or functionary; he notes that in old Tamil ministers and senior officers are known literally as "yoke bearers" (kaviti).

LP:
So what? I notice that Parpola, Mahadevan, and Dani all agree that the Harappans were non-Aryan, though both Parpola and Mahadevan use the hypothesis of partial cultural continuity in their efforts to decode Harappan writing.

HH:
Also a word about your out-of-context carl Sagan quote. What Maxwell told about was the vehement opposition that cmes from an established world views to the arising new facts that challenge the world view. Carl Sagn quote concerns the defence usually put forward for pseudo-sciences like ESP which thrive on negative evidence and much shifting of grounds. AIT is a classical example for a pseudo-scientific theory.

LP:
Carl Sagan's real point was that if a theory gets criticized as erroneous or heretical or whatever, that does NOT mean that it's right. That's one of the problems with simplified histories of ideas, because they tend to focus on those theories that eventually get accepted. And I think that this is because putting in lots of examples of rejected theories that deserved to be rejected would make such histories much more bulky.

HH:
... The Vedic naure of Harappan culture can explain also Gundestrup cauldron. See the pictures of Harappan seal compared with the celtic cauldron:

LP:
To me, however, they look too different. And how would the Gundestrup cauldron prove that the Vedas had been composed by Harappans?

lpetrich

LP:
One checks on what the word was used for; it's standard linguistic research. Does the word refer to some domestic animal, some wild animal, or both? And as to imposing modern knowledge, that is an absurd accusation -- and one that I think is a red herring.

Phaedrus:
Umm you mean you use linguistic evidence alongside archeological evidence and then later use only "linguistic research" to ascertain the status of the animal? Absurd accusation? No one can get out of their belief/knowledge system (which is grounded in our modern perspective as well as the individuals' perspective colored by culture) and try to interpret what the ancients meant. ...

LP:
That's postmodernist gos'akrit (listed at online Sanskrit dictionary http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ind...ap_search.html as gozakRt [Harvard-Kyoto transliteration]). Why is that supposed to be impossible? It's done all the time by historians of ideas.

Phaedrus, I really wonder what evidence would satisfy you -- a tablet showing chariot bodies and wheels being transported in wagons? Especially when you are willing to believe in the "Out of India" theory on much flimsier evidence.

Phaedrus:
*restrains himself* Cant you comprehend? Where in the whole bloody thread did i ever said i "believe" in the "out of india" theory, ...

LP:
The "out of India" theory is implied by rejection of the AIT; if Sanskrit did not come from outside, then it must have developed locally, meaning that the Indo-Iranian or even the Indo-European homeland must be in India. Phaedrus's position, however, might best be described as eel-wriggling.. To use a term coined in India long ago for such argumentation.

I was using the Greek Dark Ages between the Mycenaeans and classical times as an example of a literacy gap that is known to have happened.

Phaedrus:
And how can a human being with even a modicum of logical sense use the phrase "thats exactly what has happened" while trying to substantiate his statement with an example which occured at a geographical distance, as if the example has been able to prove his stance incontrovertibly?? ...

LP:
So what about geographical distance? This is intended as an example of a known literacy gap. And if you want examples, here's another one: the Latin-Romance literacy gap. Literary Latin emerged as the language of highbrow discourse late in the Roman Republic, and has stayed essentially unchanged since then. However, lowbrow Latin continued to change, and it changed until it became the Romance languages. For over a thousand years since the emergence of literary Latin, there was a spoken-Latin/early-Romance literacy gap, where those who liked to write preferred to write in literary Latin.

If there had been writing, some of it would likely have been done on some durable material, which would then have survived. Why not the account of some Magadha king who brags about how he had defeated some troublesome enemies? Why not some personal stamp like what we find of the Harappans?


Phaedrus:
Exactly, all this means there is no archeological evidence (as of now) and goes on to show mere linguistic evidence doesnt coincide with "common sense" (again speculation). what happened to kharoshti?

LP:
Are you conceding that there was a literacy gap, Phaedrus? Or are you doing more eel-wriggling?

Writing has spread in many, many, many places without some central leader decreeing that it be adopted. It does not have to spread to the entire population instantaneously; it only has to spread to a few people at a time. It's like Phaedrus's Internet example, though slower. Imagine an Indian trader who decides to borrow some writing from some Middle Eastern colleages. That trader's colleagues see what he's up to and ask him to teach them. Which he does. And which those other traders do. And writing thus gradually spreads.

Phaedrus:
And i am sure all of these places were established civilizations? In a prosperous kingdom, with a history of intellectual tradition, why would the scribblings of traders be allowed to spread without a decree? And how can a trading script be ideal for everyday usage or intellectual usage?

LP:
That's another irrational argument. Why would writing be assumed to be forbidden unless explicitly allowed? When writing is forbidden, that prohibition is generally made explicit. Examples:

* Plato's dialogue _Phaedrus_ tells a story about how the king of Egypt objected to writing on the ground that it would cause memory to atrophy and how it would enable people to have a false appearance of learning.

* The Druids did not like writing, for similar reasons.

* US slaves were often not allowed to learn how to read and write.

Also, how would a "trading script" differ from other kinds of writing systems?

copernicus

LP, perhaps a better example in this thread would be that between Classical Sanskrit and the Prakrits. Classical Sanskrit, like Classical Latin, was a highly stylized version of the spoken language that was reserved for formal occasions. Panini himself mentioned the Prakrits occasionally in his grammar of Sanskrit.

phaedrus

LP o’ LP

That's postmodernist gos'akrit (listed at online Sanskrit dictionary http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ind...ap_search.html as gozakRt [Harvard-Kyoto transliteration]). Why is that supposed to be impossible? It's done all the time by historians of ideas.

He he, for kupastha Mandukas’ that is what it will look like (go figure, I have used the English version on this page itself and the toffler quote also should help yaaa). It is done all the time by historians of ideas??? And since that is what has been done all the time, it has to right? So any luck on the verses? ;-)

The "out of India" theory is implied by rejection of the AIT; if Sanskrit did not come from outside, then it must have developed locally, meaning that the Indo-Iranian or even the Indo-European homeland must be in India. Phaedrus's position, however, might best be described as eel-wriggling.. To use a term coined in India long ago for such argumentation.

somebody Upomoć! Moi…..You continue to amaze me with your stupendous logical and comprehension skills. Why don’t you go back and read my response to Copernicus on the same? Maybe then you wont indulge in your presumptions and assumptions?

So what about geographical distance? This is intended as an example of a known literacy gap. And if you want examples, here's another one: the Latin-Romance literacy gap. Literary Latin emerged as the language of highbrow discourse late in the Roman Republic, and has stayed essentially unchanged since then. However, lowbrow Latin continued to change, and it changed until it became the Romance languages. For over a thousand years since the emergence of literary Latin, there was a spoken-Latin/early-Romance literacy gap, where those who liked to write preferred to write in literary Latin.

Sigh, talk about solipsism, do you even remember or understand, why this particular point came up??? And how can a human being with even a modicum of logical sense use the phrase "thats exactly what has happened" while trying to substantiate his statement with an example which occurred at a geographical distance, as if the example has been able to prove his stance incontrovertibly?? Its speculative ground

Are you conceding that there was a literacy gap, Phaedrus? Or are you doing more eel-wriggling?

I am just trying to understand whether your shrink is an ex-proctologist. It means there is no archeological evidence and once found (if at all found) will explain the gap perceived currently.

That's another irrational argument. Why would writing be assumed to be forbidden unless explicitly allowed? When writing is forbidden, that prohibition is generally made explicit. Examples:

* Plato's dialogue _Phaedrus_ tells a story about how the king of Egypt objected to writing on the ground that it would cause memory to atrophy and how it would enable people to have a false appearance of learning.

* The Druids did not like writing, for similar reasons.

* US slaves were often not allowed to learn how to read and write.

Also, how would a "trading script" differ from other kinds of writing systems?

Irrational??? Who is being irrational? I said writing would not spread especially among an established civilization without a central decree. Do I have to tell you how things are done in a feudal environment, unlike nomadic tribes? I did not say writing was prohibited (again talk about assumptions). Do I have to explain everything like I would do to a child?
And what sort of a question is that? Such triviality can only answered by only saying, trading script is used for “trading” with other cultures

PS: btw if you want to discuss pomo, do drop in the philosophy forum and start a thread. That will be fun ;-)