4 ms·

Is there a real controversy over whether the Harappan script is writing vs. "a kind of ornamentation"? Your comment smacks of condescension but I'm sure you can

by rd108 14y ago

Is there a real controversy over whether the Harappan script is writing vs. "a kind of ornamentation"? Your comment smacks of condescension but I'm sure you can just provide citations. Your (wikipedia) article contains some arguments based on relative frequency of symbols, but is controverted by studies of modern pictographic languages with similar characteristic (e.g. Chinese.) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5931/1165 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5931/1165 You also mentioned the Brahmi script is "unquestionably based on the scripts of the ancient Near East". That is also news to me. Could you provide citations, please? The real controversial implication, IMHO, of studying ancient Indian languages is that Sanskrit (used over thousands of years and refined by rigid grammar rules by e.g. Panini 500 B.C.) may actually be the language from which Latin, and hence many European Romantic languages, developed. http://mutiny.wordpress.com/2007/02/09/sanskrit-mother-of-european-languages-says-prof-dean-brown/ http://mutiny.wordpress.com/2007/02/09/sanskrit-mother-of-eu... That's probably worth diving into, if you are genuinely curious. As the Welsh linguist Sir William Jones said, "The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists." [edit- link added and fluff redacted. :)]

meepmorp 14y ago
> You also mentioned the Brahmi script is "unquestionably based on the scripts of the ancient Near East". That is also news to me. Could you provide citations, please? Brahmi and Karoshthi (the two major origin scripts for the writing systems of the subcontinent) are generally accepted to be related to the Semitic writing systems. Source: an undergraduate class in writing systems several years ago; also, the relevant Wikipedia pages agree, giving Aramaic as the parent script.
tokenadult 14y ago
Is there a real controversy over whether the Harappan script is writing Yes. Again, this is a familiar issue to people who are familiar with linguistics, and one of the criticisms of the Rao et al. publication is that none of the authors are familiar with the methodology used in historical linguistics to solve comparable problems in other parts of the world. (I am able to read ancient Chinese and am intimately familiar with the history of the Chinese script, which is an illuminating example for comparing periods of early ornamentation, proto-writing, and full writing as that script developed with attested archeological finds.) I am also very familiar with the extent of the Indo-European languages and with the fact that many languages spoken in India (e.g., Tamil, a language spoken by many friends of mine) are not Indo-European. The links I already provided give much of the needed background information. But here are a few more links, for onlookers who are curious about this issue and may be interested in responses to the Rao et al. publication. http://www.safarmer.com/Refutation3.pdf http://www.safarmer.com/Refutation3.pdf http://www.safarmer.com/more.on.Rao.pdf http://www.safarmer.com/more.on.Rao.pdf http://horadecubitus.blogspot.com/2009/04/indus-what-did-rao-et-al-really-do.html http://horadecubitus.blogspot.com/2009/04/indus-what-did-rao... http://earningmyturns.blogspot.com/2009/04/falling-for-magic-formula.html http://earningmyturns.blogspot.com/2009/04/falling-for-magic... (The link immediately above is by a former president of the Society for Computational Linguistics.) http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/coli_a_00011 http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/coli_a_00011 (The review article linked above from the journal Computational Linguistics discussed the methodological issues involved.)
- naveensundar 14y ago
  Why did you leave out Rao's rebuttal to Farmer and friends' unabashed ad-hominmen laced pieces that you have given? Rao's reply in Computational Linguistics: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/IndusCompLing.pdf http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/IndusCompLing.pdf Also other articles at: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/IndusResponse.html http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/IndusResponse.html Edit 1. An aside: Being a logic student who uses probabilistic machine learning, Farmer's use of the words refutation, proof etc. make me despair. This web page is an example: http://www.safarmer.com/indus/simpleproof.html http://www.safarmer.com/indus/simpleproof.html Rao is much more careful and nuanced in his methods. Using time-tested logic and math. http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/ScienceIndus.pdf http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/ScienceIndus.pdf " As clearly stated in the last sentence of the paper, our results provide evidence which, given the rich syntactic structure in the script (and other evidence as listed below), increases the probability that the script represents language."
  - Mvandenbergh 14y ago
    It seems to me that at least 50% of this controversy is a culture clash between computational linguists and historical linguists. It's a little odd to describe the Rao paper as using time-tested logic and math when the idea of conditional entropy as an indicator of whether a given symbol system is linguistic is in no way time-tested. I'm not a professional linguist, and it may well be a valid and interesting technique, but it is not time-tested.
    - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
      How do you time-test models with a strictly limited and static set of test cases? Any scheme would suffer from over-training. Maybe we have to evaluate approaches using logic and math e.g. conditional entropy to attack problems spaces like this.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  The Indus Valley script doesn't look like a mere form of ornamentation to me (knowing something about archaeology and historical linguistics). The problem though is that when we say "writing" we usually mean "encoding otherwise spoken language in durable form" and there is no real evidence that this is what the Indus Valley script does. The problem is that there are plenty of kinds of markings that don't fall under either of these. Take for example Roman Numerals. You aren't encoding IX or VIIII as the word "nine" or equivalent in any language. Instead You are illustrating the number on a tally stick and the tally stick, rather than the spoken language, acts as the shared point of reference. So I think one has to be careful about saying that these are the only two options. The script could have a communicative function and even a formally defined one (much like Roman Numerals do) without being writing in the sense of encoding spoken language in durable form.
othermaciej 14y ago
It's not a mainstream position in linguistics that Sanskrit is a direct ancestor language of Latin. The overwhelmingly most popular theory is that both are ultimately descended from different branches of proto-European. Latin is from th centum branch and Sanskrit is from the satem branch (which includes Proto-Slavic as well). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum-Satem_isogloss http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum-Satem_isogloss The blog you cite shows serious signs of crackpotterry, as do its comments.
- brazzy 14y ago
  > crackpotterry My new favorite word!
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Agreed. Also note that the (Latin) Centum (pronounced Ken-tum) form has to be overall an older form than Satam due to the missing consonants and palatization noted in the latter. The current thinking as far as I can tell is that Indo-Iranian (basically the ancestor of Sanscrit and Avestan) was the latest branch to break off of common Indo-European, though I think these models always oversimplify. The most archaic attested Indo-European language is actually Hittite, possibly followed by Tocharian.
amalag 14y ago
I also find it strange that historians cannot accept that the extremely complex language of sanskrit is not accepted as the origin of latin and european languages. The study of it takes years and is very fine tuned. Yet so called historians say there is a 'proto' language which is before it which has mysteriously disappeared. Unless you agree with this hypothesis, you will have no chance of going anywhere in common academic circles.

by rd108 14y ago

meepmorp 14y ago

> You also mentioned the Brahmi script is "unquestionably based on the scripts of the ancient Near East". That is also news to me. Could you provide citations, please? Brahmi and Karoshthi (the two major origin scripts for the writing systems of the subcontinent) are generally accepted to be related to the Semitic writing systems. Source: an undergraduate class in writing systems several years ago; also, the relevant Wikipedia pages agree, giving Aramaic as the parent script.

tokenadult 14y ago

Is there a real controversy over whether the Harappan script is writing Yes. Again, this is a familiar issue to people who are familiar with linguistics, and one of the criticisms of the Rao et al. publication is that none of the authors are familiar with the methodology used in historical linguistics to solve comparable problems in other parts of the world. (I am able to read ancient Chinese and am intimately familiar with the history of the Chinese script, which is an illuminating example for comparing periods of early ornamentation, proto-writing, and full writing as that script developed with attested archeological finds.) I am also very familiar with the extent of the Indo-European languages and with the fact that many languages spoken in India (e.g., Tamil, a language spoken by many friends of mine) are not Indo-European. The links I already provided give much of the needed background information. But here are a few more links, for onlookers who are curious about this issue and may be interested in responses to the Rao et al. publication. http://www.safarmer.com/Refutation3.pdf http://www.safarmer.com/Refutation3.pdf http://www.safarmer.com/more.on.Rao.pdf http://www.safarmer.com/more.on.Rao.pdf http://horadecubitus.blogspot.com/2009/04/indus-what-did-rao-et-al-really-do.html http://horadecubitus.blogspot.com/2009/04/indus-what-did-rao... http://earningmyturns.blogspot.com/2009/04/falling-for-magic-formula.html http://earningmyturns.blogspot.com/2009/04/falling-for-magic... (The link immediately above is by a former president of the Society for Computational Linguistics.) http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/coli_a_00011 http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/coli_a_00011 (The review article linked above from the journal Computational Linguistics discussed the methodological issues involved.)

naveensundar 14y ago
Why did you leave out Rao's rebuttal to Farmer and friends' unabashed ad-hominmen laced pieces that you have given? Rao's reply in Computational Linguistics: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/IndusCompLing.pdf http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/IndusCompLing.pdf Also other articles at: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/IndusResponse.html http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/IndusResponse.html Edit 1. An aside: Being a logic student who uses probabilistic machine learning, Farmer's use of the words refutation, proof etc. make me despair. This web page is an example: http://www.safarmer.com/indus/simpleproof.html http://www.safarmer.com/indus/simpleproof.html Rao is much more careful and nuanced in his methods. Using time-tested logic and math. http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/ScienceIndus.pdf http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/rao/ScienceIndus.pdf " As clearly stated in the last sentence of the paper, our results provide evidence which, given the rich syntactic structure in the script (and other evidence as listed below), increases the probability that the script represents language."
- Mvandenbergh 14y ago
  It seems to me that at least 50% of this controversy is a culture clash between computational linguists and historical linguists. It's a little odd to describe the Rao paper as using time-tested logic and math when the idea of conditional entropy as an indicator of whether a given symbol system is linguistic is in no way time-tested. I'm not a professional linguist, and it may well be a valid and interesting technique, but it is not time-tested.
  - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
    How do you time-test models with a strictly limited and static set of test cases? Any scheme would suffer from over-training. Maybe we have to evaluate approaches using logic and math e.g. conditional entropy to attack problems spaces like this.
einhverfr 14y ago
The Indus Valley script doesn't look like a mere form of ornamentation to me (knowing something about archaeology and historical linguistics). The problem though is that when we say "writing" we usually mean "encoding otherwise spoken language in durable form" and there is no real evidence that this is what the Indus Valley script does. The problem is that there are plenty of kinds of markings that don't fall under either of these. Take for example Roman Numerals. You aren't encoding IX or VIIII as the word "nine" or equivalent in any language. Instead You are illustrating the number on a tally stick and the tally stick, rather than the spoken language, acts as the shared point of reference. So I think one has to be careful about saying that these are the only two options. The script could have a communicative function and even a formally defined one (much like Roman Numerals do) without being writing in the sense of encoding spoken language in durable form.

othermaciej 14y ago

It's not a mainstream position in linguistics that Sanskrit is a direct ancestor language of Latin. The overwhelmingly most popular theory is that both are ultimately descended from different branches of proto-European. Latin is from th centum branch and Sanskrit is from the satem branch (which includes Proto-Slavic as well). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum-Satem_isogloss http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum-Satem_isogloss The blog you cite shows serious signs of crackpotterry, as do its comments.

brazzy 14y ago
> crackpotterry My new favorite word!
einhverfr 14y ago
Agreed. Also note that the (Latin) Centum (pronounced Ken-tum) form has to be overall an older form than Satam due to the missing consonants and palatization noted in the latter. The current thinking as far as I can tell is that Indo-Iranian (basically the ancestor of Sanscrit and Avestan) was the latest branch to break off of common Indo-European, though I think these models always oversimplify. The most archaic attested Indo-European language is actually Hittite, possibly followed by Tocharian.

amalag 14y ago

I also find it strange that historians cannot accept that the extremely complex language of sanskrit is not accepted as the origin of latin and european languages. The study of it takes years and is very fine tuned. Yet so called historians say there is a 'proto' language which is before it which has mysteriously disappeared. Unless you agree with this hypothesis, you will have no chance of going anywhere in common academic circles.