3 ms·

> How can Sanskrit be called as the "Mother of Indo-European languages" and still be "derived" from the Indo-European family? Because a language does not pop o

> How can Sanskrit be called as the "Mother of Indo-European languages" and still be "derived" from the Indo-European family? Because a language does not pop out of nowhere. A language is simply a relatively standardized register. I'm not asserting that Sanskrit is derived from a Western language (far from it) but that the roots of Sanskrit are shared with roots of various Western languages, which is quite clear. > Sri Aurobindo also noted that a large part of the vocabulary of the South Indian languages (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam) is common with Sanskrit. Vocabulary is not very indicative as these can easily be loanwords. As in my other sibling (cousin?) comment consider basic articles and fundamental verbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula

shripadk 10y ago
> Vocabulary is not very indicative as these can easily be loanwords. As in my other sibling (cousin?) comment consider basic articles and fundamental verbs. I understand where you come from. Even if I consider the "linguistic relationship" vs "loanwords" argument as a fact explain to me how Vedic literature got integrated into Sangam literature (I ask this because the context of this discussion is "Aryan Invasion theory")? How is it that the Sangam literature extols Lord Vishnu as "the supreme deity who is the inner controller of the entire universe" if the concepts of Vishnu were Aryan of origin? If there was a clear division between the "Aryan invaders" and the "Dravidian natives" why is it that there is no mention of any such strife in the Vedas/Puranas or even in the Sangam literature (which is considered the oldest literature by the Tamilians)? Also, why does the Sangam literature have Vedic/Puranic stories (stories of Kartikeya, Vishnu, Shiva etc) if the civilizations are so distinct (and supposedly in strife during that period)?
shripadk 10y ago
Also, the other big problem with "Aryan Invasion Theory" is that it directly conflicts with a very famous Indian scripture: Ramayana. In the story, which takes place in the Treta Yuga (many hundreds of thousands of years before the supposed "Aryan invasion" took place), the Demon King Ravana of Lanka (modern day Sri Lanka) was killed by Lord Rama (of Ayodhya). Ravana is extolled in the Ramayana as a great worshipper of Lord Shiva and a great Brahmin Vedic scholar who was thorough in all the 4 Vedas. How is this even possible? Aryan Invasion had not taken place during the Ramayana. How is it that Ravana, who was a King of the supposed "Dravidian" Lanka, be a Brahmin Vedic scholar who worshipped Shiva? Why doesn't Ramayana mention that Lanka was a "Dravidian Kingdom" and was invaded by "Aryan Ram"? It's not a small detail that can be missed right?

shripadk 10y ago

> Vocabulary is not very indicative as these can easily be loanwords. As in my other sibling (cousin?) comment consider basic articles and fundamental verbs. I understand where you come from. Even if I consider the "linguistic relationship" vs "loanwords" argument as a fact explain to me how Vedic literature got integrated into Sangam literature (I ask this because the context of this discussion is "Aryan Invasion theory")? How is it that the Sangam literature extols Lord Vishnu as "the supreme deity who is the inner controller of the entire universe" if the concepts of Vishnu were Aryan of origin? If there was a clear division between the "Aryan invaders" and the "Dravidian natives" why is it that there is no mention of any such strife in the Vedas/Puranas or even in the Sangam literature (which is considered the oldest literature by the Tamilians)? Also, why does the Sangam literature have Vedic/Puranic stories (stories of Kartikeya, Vishnu, Shiva etc) if the civilizations are so distinct (and supposedly in strife during that period)?

shripadk 10y ago

Also, the other big problem with "Aryan Invasion Theory" is that it directly conflicts with a very famous Indian scripture: Ramayana. In the story, which takes place in the Treta Yuga (many hundreds of thousands of years before the supposed "Aryan invasion" took place), the Demon King Ravana of Lanka (modern day Sri Lanka) was killed by Lord Rama (of Ayodhya). Ravana is extolled in the Ramayana as a great worshipper of Lord Shiva and a great Brahmin Vedic scholar who was thorough in all the 4 Vedas. How is this even possible? Aryan Invasion had not taken place during the Ramayana. How is it that Ravana, who was a King of the supposed "Dravidian" Lanka, be a Brahmin Vedic scholar who worshipped Shiva? Why doesn't Ramayana mention that Lanka was a "Dravidian Kingdom" and was invaded by "Aryan Ram"? It's not a small detail that can be missed right?