collection of hauma hamiddha's scattered posts

Posts tagged ‘linguistics’

Talageri’s analysis of the RigVeda

Shri Talageri’s work is indeed provides the first major model of Aryan
origins within an OIT framework. Importantly Talageri destroys the
scholars with a consistently flippant attitude towards the vedas. He
decimates Michael Witzel, D. Kosambi the buddo-communist and the Arya
samaj brand of scholars. The result is a very solid work on R^ivedic
history many points of which are likely to hold good for a time to
come. The Iranian connection of the kANva angirasas is quite
undeniable given the names like medhathiti, priyamedha and medhya.
This gives us a critical direction to understand the milleu within
which Zoroasterianism, i.e Mazda worship arose- it was within the
fold of the Anu. Thus the origins of Iranian were within Indo-Aryan
and not as an equal level sister group of it. Furthermore Talageri,
quite convincingly demonstrates the association of the R^igveda with
the pUru mainstream. The good part of his research is that unlike many
OITists he argues within a linguistic frame work. Many OITists
persistantly make a fool of themselves by rejecting the monophyly of
IndoEuropean languages and some times even lingusitics itself. He
rightly maintains that Linguistics is a very solid historical science
unlike what some people imagine. He also does not labor under the false
notion that nothing can be ‘proved’ by lingusitics. However, a
careful analysis of his work reveals some problems. I shall detail
these over time.

I do not intend to negatively criticize or attack Shri Talageri’s
research, i am just raising issues that need to be addressed.

Who was divodAsa of the R^igveda?
One of the prominent rulers of the R^igvedic horizon was divodAsa and
Talageri rightly identifies him as associated with the bharadvAjas.
Talageri calls him a pUru. This is supported by the observation hymn
RV I.130.7 by parushcchepa daivodAsi that identifies him as a pUru.
Yet when one looks at the Aryan regnal genealogies we get:

divodAsa as the 49th king in the pUru lineage- successor of bhArata in
the ajAmiDHa line. Talageri identifies divodAsa as an early period
3 generations after him we get sudAsa, sahadeva and somaka in
succession identified by Talageri as belong to Middle an Late period.
So is the entire R^ig compressed into this little window with no other
king’s names surviving in the list?

Now if we look at the kAshirAja dynasty that emerges from nAhusha but
not yayAti and pUru we get the kings:divodAsa and pratardana some way
down this dynasty about 7-8 generations from nahusha. Thus this pair
of divodAsa and pratardana are the most likely ones mentioned in the
R^igveda. Formally they are not pUrus but nAhushas. None of the
correspondng pUru rAjas of that period mentioned in the R^ig
suggesting that main activity of the early R^ig composers occured in
the patronage of the kAshi dynasty.

Similarly if we correctly trace the descent of vishvAmitra from
pururavA through amAvasu and jAhnu we get him to be contemporary of
jamadagni that matches the corresponding generations in the bhArgava
tree. Furthermore we also get him as a contemporary of trishanku of
the ikshvAkus with whom he is traditionally associated. Hence the
original vishvAmitra of the RV maNdala III is not a bona fide pUru as
stated by Talageri. There is one corrupt genealogy in the mahabhArata
that supports Talageri’s claim but it is an anachronism in every other

sound changes in prakrits etc.

Skt Pali/Pkt
grIShma gimha summer
kR^ishNa kaNha dark
ashman amha stone
vismaya vimhaya wonder
prashna paNha question
prasnava paNhava flow
a~nkusha ankusa goad
shanti santi peace
agni aggi fire
abimathnAti abhimatthati to whirl
Atman attA
Apnoti appoti reach
tattva tatta reality
dR^iShTva diTTha having seen
loptra lutta to loot
mantra manta
chandra chanda moon
dvipa dIva island
apAra avAra boundless
nakha naha nail
megha meha cloud
AkAsha AkAha atmosphere
kathayati kahei say
krodha kova/koha anger
shubha suha good
rAShtra raTTha nation
vastra vattha clothes
matsya maccha fish
satya saccha true
lakshmI lacchI
tIkshNa tikkha sharp
pArshva passa side
kapha kabha phelgm
markaTa makkaDa monkey
bhakta bhatta food
dugdha duddha milk
ShaTka chakka six
utkara ukkara filth
mudga mugga mung bean
sapta satta seven
Ajya ajja goat butter/cheese
ramya ramma pleasant
sarasvati sarassai
vipra vippa brahmin
ratri ratti night
pakva pakka cook
Arya Ayya Aryan
vajra vajja
dharma dhamma law
chakra chakka wheel
jvalati jalati burns

tatsama and tadbhava in dravidian languages

It should be noted that many of the examples that were given as tadbhavas in
dravidian tongues are actually mere
transfers from the southern Prakrits. So they may appear as tadbhavas with
respect to sanskrit but are tatsama with
respect to the parent prakrit. To give an example tamils say: khAyaM (wound). In
sanskrit it is kshata. So it appears
tadbhava in Tamil (S. dravidian). However, if one examines prakrits both
northern and southern one finds the following
forms: Pali: khata, Prakrit1:chaya Prakrit2: khaya. So Tamil is actually tatsama
with respect to the neighboring prakrit.
These prakritic forms are seen even in northern areas (even central Asia) that
have no detectable dravidian substratum.
Hence these forms arose independent of Dravidian. The observation that most of
the tamil borrowings (beyond the
“brahminical terms”) are from MIA rather than OIA support an initial fringe
(and/or) late contact between the IE and D
worlds in India. This fits very well with the mahArAshTri prakrit area being the
zone where the (originally hunter-gatherer/
pastoral- like the Gonds) Dravidians formed the syncretic megalithic horse
culture along with the prakrit speakers of more
northern origin. This culture then moved south to establish the old Tamil states

Indra & Thor

> IEists refer to indra’s slaying of vrtra as similar to IE myths of a
> hero who slays a dragon.

Actually there are different issues here: The dragon myths and the
demon myths- both of which in my opinion can be traced back to the
PIE period and may even have homologs in the cultures that
diverged even before PIE. The dragon myth,involved the slaying of a
serpentine dragon and is attested in the Indian stream not by the
vR^itra myth but by the ahi myth. Ahi was clearly serpentine entity
quite distinct from vR^itra. Ahi emerges in the Iranian world as Azhi
Dahaka who was slain by Thraetaona with the aid of Verethraghna. Thor
slays a similar serpent termed Jormungand in the great battle of
Ragnarok. Zeus’ battles with Typhon are the greek version of this.

The demon myth involved the slaying of more anthropic entities
: dAnu, vR^itra, namUchi, kUyava and pipru fall in that category. We
see them as the jotunar slain by Thor in Germanic lore and the great
battles of Zeus with the Titans in the yavana world. In this context
some hymns of the early Germanic folk are very reminiscent of the
mantras of shaunaka or vAmadeva:
A hymn to Thor by Vetrlidi Summarlidason:

You smashed the limbs of Leiku, You bashed Thrivaldi
You knocked down Starkad, you trod Gjalp dead under foot.

A hymn to Thor by Thorbjorn Disarskald:
Your Mjollnir rang on Keila’s skull, you crushed the body of
you had killed Lut and Leidi, you made blood flow from Buseyra
you finished Hengjankapta, Hyrrokin died before that
earlier the dusky Svivor was robbed of her life.

Here is a hymn of a Germanic priestess Steinunn to the great god Thor
in response to a Christian missionary trying to convert the pagans.
She invokes Thor (who as the thunderer) destroyed the Saxon missionary
Thangbrand’s ship. You can again see deep impress of the Indra-like
deity on the pagan mind and the clear disdain for the fake god Christ
being peddled by the missionary (“The dasas who are anindra!”). In
many ways this is sort of a tragic hymn for it represents the last
bastion of our cultural kin in western Europe. But when we look back
we have many reasons to feel pleased that we are the last upholders of
the great Indo-European traditions that has elsewhere been obliterated
by the Abrahamic maniacs. It is important that we do not lose our
ultimately Indo-European identity in the very least to our internal
negationism and Rajaramism.

He that giant’s offspring slayeth
Broke the mew-field’s bison stout,
Thus the Gods, bell’s warder grieving,
Crushed the falcon of the strand;
To the courser of the causeway
Little good was that god Christ,
When Thor shattered ships to pieces
Gylfi’s reindeer Christ could not help.
Thangbrand’s vessel from her moorings,
Sea-king’s steed, Thor wrathful tore,
Shook and shattered all her timbers,
Hurled her broadside on the beach;
Ne’er again shall Viking’s snow-shoe,
On the briny billows glide,
For a storm by Thor awakened
Dashed the bark to splinters small.

> – Thor was the popular god. (Odin, the king of the gods of the
> Norse, was not widely worshipped, but instead primarily followed by
> the upper classes.) Indra is claimed by some to have been the main
> popular god among Vedist Hindus at some time

Indra clearly was indeed a very special deity for the Indo-Aryans. It
appears that the Aryans considered most of their deities to be
equipotent, but clearly the worship Indra was pinnacle of the core
Aryan religion. The Indra Mahotsava was the most important
public festival and just as with the Greeks, romans or germans the
best of the Indic votary poetry was aimed at Indra. The basic spirit
of Indra worship is far from gone amidst the lay Hindus. Much of
Indra has been transparently transfered to the hero cult of rAma the

> – Indra wields the vajra (thunderbolt). Thor wields the mjollnir
> (thunder-hammer).

There are more tied into this comparison. Thor’s mjollnir was forged
specially for him to slay the Jotunar just as tvashTA forged Indra’s
vajra for the slaying of the dAsas and dAnavas.

The nordics used the mjollnir is a rite called the hallowing rite
where they sanctified a bride during marriage or a new born with an
image of the hammer. This was called ‘vigja’. Now this is a cognate of
Roman vegeo- to invigorate, and descends from the same root as
Sanskrit vajra.

> >Stop peddling this myth of Hindu-Norseman bhai-bhai.

You and your like-minded fellows are free to remain profoundly deluded
in your negationist fervor. The opposition that you all are raising to
the Indo-European unification is only going to consigned to the
nearest historical trash-can at end of this confused generation of
Hindus, tossing about as a boat cutoff from its moorings. However in
the mean time it may cause a serious obstruction to the flow of
understanding of the ontology of the Hindu world to its lay

> Again, aren’t these 2000 years apart and 10000 miles apart, and so
> either you have to consider these human societies to be as
> deterministic as chemical solutions, or you have to

Context, Context, please read more about other IE cultures with an
open mind. 2000 years and 10000 miles mean nothing in this context. It
is a product of probabilities: a smaller number than the individual

Tag Cloud