Hindi originated inTurkey

by doofus_maximus Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:14 pm

Hindi originated in Turkey

Turkey is homeland of Hindi, English: Researchers
Ads by Google
|
Agencies : New York, Fri Aug 24 2012, 09:47 hrs

The origins of languages as diverse as Hindi, Russian, German and English have been traced to Anatolia, which is present-day Turkey, with researchers saying that this Indo-European family of languages spread out from the western Asian region about 8000 to 9500 years ago.

The researchers, led by evolutionary biologist at New Zealand's University of Auckland Quentin Atkinson, during a new study have used computational methods to analyse words from more than 100 ancient and contemporary languages.

Through this method, the scientists say they have identified Anatolia, an ancient region of western Asia which covers most of modern Turkey as the homeland of the Indo-European family of languages, spoken on every continent by a total of three billion people.

The study, published in the journal Science said there are two competing hypotheses for the origin of the Indo-European language family.

The conventional view places the homeland in the Pontic steppes about 6000 years ago, while an alternative hypothesis claims that the languages spread from Anatolia with the expansion of farming 8000 to 9500 years ago.

The researchers used a complex technique which studies the evolution and spread of disease as well as basic vocabulary data from 103 ancient and contemporary Indo-European languages to explicitly model the expansion of the family and test these hypotheses.

"We found decisive support for an Anatolian origin over a steppe origin. Both the inferred timing and root location of the Indo-European language trees fit with an agricultural expansion from Anatolia beginning 8000 to 9500 years ago," the study said.

Linguists have believed that the first speakers of the mother tongue were chariot-driving pastoralists who moved from their homeland on the steppes above the Black Sea about 4,000 years ago and conquered Europe and Asia.

A rival theory holds that, to the contrary, the first Indo-European speakers were peaceable farmers in Anatolia, now Turkey, about 9,000 years ago, who disseminated their language by the hoe, not the sword.

While English, Dutch, Spanish, Russian, Greek and Hindi may sound very different, researchers said there are several commonalities in a host of words in these languages. In the study, researchers examined cognates or words that have a clear line of descent from the same ancestral word.

The word 'mother', which is 'mutter'in German, 'mat' in Russian, 'madar' in Persian, 'ma' in Hindi and 'materi in Latin are all cognates derived from the proto-Indo-European word 'mehter'.

"These methods pave the way for reconstructing human prehistory in other parts of the world, using the legacy of our past that is documented in our languages," said Atkinson.

"It allows us to place these language family trees on a map in space and time and play out histories over the landscape," he said.

by doofus_maximus Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:19 pm

original pdf file..paper got into Science. Career set ;-)

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:20 pm

you have now angered the beast. prepare for a fusillade of posts on how tamilians are accommodating of hindi even though it has nothing to do with this topic.

by Hellsangel Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:20 pm

Those Hindians are turkeys!

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:21 pm

hahaha. i finish posting and what do i see?

by southindian Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:50 pm

english too?

also, both northindians and tamilins think they are special.

by southindian Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:53 pm

What this post also tells me is that I'm a Negro, since my forefathers came from Africa.

hahaha

by Seva Lamberdar Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:39 pm

doofus_maximus wrote:Hindi originated in Turkey

Turkey is homeland of Hindi, English: Researchers

Here is another take on this .... Appendix A (Comment on “Mother of Sanskrit...was spoken by Turkish farmers long ago” -- http://rivr.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog):

The recent Times of India article by Subodh Verma (“Mother of Sanskrit and related languages was spoken by Turkish farmers, says new study”, TNN / TOI, Aug. 24, 2012, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-24/india/33365607_1_indo-european-languages-sanskrit-agriculture) reports the findings from a linguistic study (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/957.abstract) that Sanskrit and many other present languages have their roots in a language spoken in Turkish villages (Anatolia) 8000 to 9500 years ago. This is attributed to the spreading of agriculture which supposedly led to similarities in common words (such as “ma”, “mater”, etc. for mother) in different languages. Moreover, while the presence of such words (matri and ma etc. for mother) in Sanskrit and other Indian languages was taken into consideration in this study (computer model), the choice as the possible home (root) for languages in this case was limited to only two regions (Anatolia about 8000 years ago and Pontic steppes 6000 years ago), thus leaving India (the home of Sanskrit etc.) strangely out of this study as the potential home / origin for other languages (including the ancient languages in Anatolia and Pontic Steppes).

First of all, the basic presumption in this study to decide the root language (especially from Anatolia) on the basis of spread of agriculture (leading to the introduction of similar words for mother and father etc. in different languages) does not seem right. In reality, words for mother (“ma” etc.) and father (“pa” etc.) probably arose due to the propensity in babies to first utter sounds “ma ma..”, “pa pa…” , “ba ba…” (involving the consonants ‘m’, ‘p’, ’b’, respectively) by using their lips, after having gotten used in the beginning to make vowel sounds (‘a’, ‘e’ etc.) by blowing air through larynx.

The words for mother and father (persons closest to the baby and taking care of it after birth) in most cases (places and languages) therefore sound similar and are usually dominated by sounds uttered by babies first (using their lips), consonant ‘m’ in the case of mother and ‘p’ etc. in the case of father. In addition, these words for mother and father (starting with or using the letters / sounds ’m’ and ‘p’ etc.) probably originated independently in most places and languages when humans first started living together as communities and created and used various languages even before taking to farming and agriculture. Needless to say, rather than due to the spread of agriculture, the occurrence of words for mother and father starting and involving the sounds (letters) ‘m’ and ‘p’ (or ‘b‘), especially ‘m’ in the case of mother, in different languages has more to do with babies first uttering consonants ‘m‘ and ‘p‘ etc. using their lips (after the initial vowels ‘a‘, ‘e‘ etc. by simply blowing air through the larynx).

Secondly, it seems a poor choice to carry out the new research on the origin of languages with just two insignificant language options (a language spoken in Anatolia region more than 8000 years ago and a language in Pontic steppes 6000 years ago), both of which have left little evidence behind regarding the language itself and any literature related to it. Meanwhile, this study / research discards beforehand all other important options as the possible root / home for languages, including that of India and the Sanskrit language which has enormous Vedic literature going back at least 7000 years and containing abundant evidence of agriculture in it (Refs. 2 & 3 above, and “Farming and Philosophy in India during ancient Times” : http://rivr.sulekha.com/farming-and-philosophy-in-india-during-ancient-times_527016_blog).

The strange technique used in this research (limiting the possible answers or options beforehand to just two, Anatolia and Pontic steppes, while ignoring other important choices, e.g. India and Sanskrit) makes the findings based on this research about the origin / root of languages totally meaningless. Consider, for example, that a person uses this method and the computer model to find out the origin of languages (Sanskrit etc.) by considering beforehand only England (English) and France (French) as the possible root choices. He might end up with the answer based on this study that the mother of Sanskrit and other languages in India is a language (French) spoken in France. Such a conclusion probably will be due to the fact that the words (used for father) ‘pitre’ in Sanskrit and ‘pita’ in Hindi (starting with letter / sound ‘p’) appear to be closer to ‘pere’ in French than ‘father’ in English (even though ‘father’ in English is based on Latin ‘pater’ which starts with ‘p’, one of the first consonantal sounds by babies). Some people might go further and even claim that such a conclusion (French, and not English, is the root language for Sanskrit etc.) is justifiable because French speaking people (from France) had arrived in India before the English speaking people (from England) a few centuries ago and that possibly could have led to Sanskrit being seen as influenced by French more than English.

Of course, this silly inference (about Sanskrit having the roots or influence from French) is simply due to the flawed assumption initially, i.e. limiting the root of languages to only two choices (French and English, or France and England) and ignoring all other choices (such as India or Sanskrit). This also restricts any chance for Sanskrit (or India) to be at the root for French, even though French can become the root language for Sanskrit according to this research. The same thing seems to be happening by restricting the choice to only Pontic steppes and Anatolia in the above study, because that results in Sanskrit having roots in the language spoken in Anatolia long ago while leaving no room for Sanskrit to be identified as the “mother” of language spoken in Anatolia long ago.

Lamberdar

by nevada Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:05 pm

This is old news. People in villages in AP call Hindi as "Turuka basha".

by FluteHolder Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:49 pm

nevada wrote:This is old news. People in villages in AP call Hindi as "Turuka basha".

Was it Turuka or Tulukka? In TN, Urdu is referred as Tulukka Basha..(Tulukkaar- Muslims).

by Rishi Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:53 pm

FluteHolder wrote:
nevada wrote:This is old news. People in villages in AP call Hindi as "Turuka basha".

Was it Turuka or Tulukka? In TN, Urdu is referred as Tulukka Basha..(Tulukkaar- Muslims).

Tulukka was derived from Turukka which in turn meant Turkey.

I wonder why RSS and BJP would want Hindus all over India to speak a language of the Muslim invaders.

by doofus_maximus Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:03 pm

Rishi wrote:
FluteHolder wrote:
nevada wrote:This is old news. People in villages in AP call Hindi as "Turuka basha".

Was it Turuka or Tulukka? In TN, Urdu is referred as Tulukka Basha..(Tulukkaar- Muslims).

Tulukka was derived from Turukka which in turn meant Turkey.

I wonder why RSS and BJP would want Hindus all over India to speak a language of the Muslim invaders.

this could have been come to mean the Turk-Mongol origins of the Mughal invaders rather than the origin of Hindi language.

by Hellsangel Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:06 pm

doofus_maximus wrote:
this could have been come to mean the Turk-Mongol origins of the Mughal invaders rather than the origin of Hindi language.

Did the Mughals invade India or were they like the Aryans?

by Seva Lamberdar Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:27 am

FluteHolder wrote:
nevada wrote:This is old news. People in villages in AP call Hindi as "Turuka basha".

Was it Turuka or Tulukka? In TN, Urdu is referred as Tulukka Basha..(Tulukkaar- Muslims).

That's right. The "origin" of Urdu (it's specific name) is said to have taken place a few centuries ago in Hyderabad area when a few soldiers and workers (with Turkish and Persian roots / family lineages) employed in king's stables started using (writing and reading) Hindi using the Persian script (which later got expanded through a few more letters in the alphabet into a separate Urdu script).

by artood2 Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:25 pm

Rishi wrote:
FluteHolder wrote:
nevada wrote:This is old news. People in villages in AP call Hindi as "Turuka basha".

Was it Turuka or Tulukka? In TN, Urdu is referred as Tulukka Basha..(Tulukkaar- Muslims).

Tulukka was derived from Turukka which in turn meant Turkey.

I wonder why RSS and BJP would want Hindus all over India to speak a language of the Muslim invaders.

you know hindi and urdu are two different languages, right? Do they call Sanskrit Tulukka too?

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:11 am

artood2 wrote:
you know hindi and urdu are two different languages, right?

No. Same language (Hindi basically) written in two different scripts (Devanagari and modified Persian / Farsi)

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:03 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
artood2 wrote:
you know hindi and urdu are two different languages, right?

No. Same language (Hindi basically) written in two different scripts (Devanagari and modified Persian / Farsi)

that's what i thought with the difference being in the script and vocabulary. in any case farsi and sanskrit also have a common origin, so that makes the languages even closer.

by artood2 Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:13 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
artood2 wrote:
you know hindi and urdu are two different languages, right?

No. Same language (Hindi basically) written in two different scripts (Devanagari and modified Persian / Farsi)

No it is not. The vocabulary is very different.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:20 pm

artood2 wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
artood2 wrote:
you know hindi and urdu are two different languages, right?

No. Same language (Hindi basically) written in two different scripts (Devanagari and modified Persian / Farsi)

No it is not. The vocabulary is very different.

are they different in the same sense that american english and british english are different? is it a case of truck vs lorry, of flash light versus torch, of trunk vs dickey/boot etc? they are mutually intelligible aren't they? they have the same basic grammar and share a good portion of their vocabulary.

by artood2 Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:24 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
artood2 wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
artood2 wrote:
you know hindi and urdu are two different languages, right?

No. Same language (Hindi basically) written in two different scripts (Devanagari and modified Persian / Farsi)

No it is not. The vocabulary is very different.

are they different in the same sense that american english and british english are different? is it a case of truck vs lorry, of flash light versus torch, of trunk vs dickey/boot etc? they are mutually intelligible aren't they? they have the same basic grammar and share a good portion of their vocabulary.

Nah.. way more than that. 99% of the words are the same across brit and american versions and heck you can read it the same way. A kid learning Hindi from NCERT books would not understand 70% of the urdu songs.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:29 pm

artood2 wrote:
Nah.. way more than that. 99% of the words are the same across brit and american versions and heck you can read it the same way. A kid learning Hindi from NCERT books would not understand 70% of the urdu songs.

if you say so. my personal experience as someone who has but a limited acquaintance with hindi is that i can understand a good deal of urdu. i am guessing for a native speaker of hindi, urdu is even more accessible and vice versa.

by Guest Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:36 pm

artood2 is right. i cannot understand the urdu songs of NFAK. try understanding the urdu of this guy if you understand hindi: https://such.forumotion.com/t9357-plight-of-call-girls#71419

by artood2 Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:41 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
artood2 wrote:
Nah.. way more than that. 99% of the words are the same across brit and american versions and heck you can read it the same way. A kid learning Hindi from NCERT books would not understand 70% of the urdu songs.

if you say so. my personal experience as someone who has but a limited acquaintance with hindi is that i can understand a good deal of urdu. i am guessing for a native speaker of hindi, urdu is even more accessible and vice versa.

a bengali or gujju speaker may understand a great deal of hindi but that does not make them the same language.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:45 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:artood2 is right. i cannot understand the urdu songs of NFAK. try understanding the urdu of this guy if you understand hindi: https://such.forumotion.com/t9357-plight-of-call-girls#71419

i will later, but here is my point. every language has a "high language" and the language of the common man. there is a good deal of poetic tamil that i won't understand without the aid of commentary. that is however not the point. i am able to do reasonably well when i occasionally converse with a pakistani colleague in urdu/hindi. what he says is quite intelligible to me most of the time.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:46 pm

artood2 wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
artood2 wrote:
Nah.. way more than that. 99% of the words are the same across brit and american versions and heck you can read it the same way. A kid learning Hindi from NCERT books would not understand 70% of the urdu songs.

if you say so. my personal experience as someone who has but a limited acquaintance with hindi is that i can understand a good deal of urdu. i am guessing for a native speaker of hindi, urdu is even more accessible and vice versa.

a bengali or gujju speaker may understand a great deal of hindi but that does not make them the same language.

come come now. i think gujarati and bengali are further removed from hindi than urdu is. you are being disingenuous.

by Guest Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:57 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:come come now. i think gujarati and bengali are further removed from hindi than urdu is. you are being disingenuous.

no. they (bengali and gujarati) are more removed insofar as they have more sanskrit than hindi but even that has changed. even if it has not changed (viz. hindi has NOT absorbed more sanskrit), urdu has absorbed more pashto, sindhi etc.

by Guest Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:57 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi-Urdu

by artood2 Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:58 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
artood2 wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
artood2 wrote:
Nah.. way more than that. 99% of the words are the same across brit and american versions and heck you can read it the same way. A kid learning Hindi from NCERT books would not understand 70% of the urdu songs.

if you say so. my personal experience as someone who has but a limited acquaintance with hindi is that i can understand a good deal of urdu. i am guessing for a native speaker of hindi, urdu is even more accessible and vice versa.

a bengali or gujju speaker may understand a great deal of hindi but that does not make them the same language.

come come now. i think gujarati and bengali are further removed from hindi than urdu is. you are being disingenuous.

ho ho ho..hold on dude. nobody is debating the distance. You cannot call two languages the same if script is different and there is considerable difference in vocabulary.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:00 pm

Rashmun wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi-Urdu

thank you. i know wiki is not always 100% reliable, but this seems very well researched and written.

The colloquial languages are all but indistinguishable, and even the official standards are nearly identical in grammar, though they differ in literary conventions and in academic and technical vocabulary, with Urdu retaining stronger Persian, Central Asian and Arabic influences, and Hindi relying more heavily on Sanskrit

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:06 pm

script is a way of representing language in symbols. it is an aspect of language but not as important as syntax, vocabulary, and phonetics. an unlettered pakistani muslim and an unlettered indian hindu can converse with each other quite well. what do you call the language they speak? neither can read any script.

by Guest Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:13 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
i will later, but here is my point. every language has a "high language" and the language of the common man. there is a good deal of poetic tamil that i won't understand without the aid of commentary. that is however not the point. i am able to do reasonably well when i occasionally converse with a pakistani colleague in urdu/hindi. what he says is quite intelligible to me most of the time.

fair enough. yes, hindi and urdu are still mutually-intelligible languages -- i agree. provided a higher register is not employed. in that sense bengali or gujarati and hindi are not AS mutually-intelligible even at a low register. but i think the register has changed -- the vid. i linked was an aajtak type link for pakistanis.

by artood2 Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:40 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:script is a way of representing language in symbols. it is an aspect of language but not as important as syntax, vocabulary, and phonetics. an unlettered pakistani muslim and an unlettered indian hindu can converse with each other quite well. what do you call the language they speak? neither can read any script.

Syntax and phonetics are similar but script and vocabulary is not. An unlettered indian hindu and an unlettered pakistani muslim may or may not be able to converse based on where they are located. Paki unlettered man may be speaking pashtun, punjabi or sindhi.

going beyond the semantics of hindu and muslim, the colloquial language in non-oudh "hindi" speaking areas is fairly different from urdu vocab.

by Guest Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:41 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
i will later, but here is my point. every language has a "high language" and the language of the common man. there is a good deal of poetic tamil that i won't understand without the aid of commentary. that is however not the point. i am able to do reasonably well when i occasionally converse with a pakistani colleague in urdu/hindi. what he says is quite intelligible to me most of the time.
fair enough. yes, hindi and urdu are still mutually-intelligible languages -- i agree. provided a higher register is not employed. in that sense bengali or gujarati and hindi are not AS mutually-intelligible even at a low register. but i think the register has changed -- the vid. i linked was an aajtak type link for pakistanis.

The language you hear in a Hindi or Urdu television broadcast is either more sanskritised or more persianised than the language spoken on the streets by the common man in India and Pakistan.

by artood2 Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:47 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
i will later, but here is my point. every language has a "high language" and the language of the common man. there is a good deal of poetic tamil that i won't understand without the aid of commentary. that is however not the point. i am able to do reasonably well when i occasionally converse with a pakistani colleague in urdu/hindi. what he says is quite intelligible to me most of the time.
fair enough. yes, hindi and urdu are still mutually-intelligible languages -- i agree. provided a higher register is not employed. in that sense bengali or gujarati and hindi are not AS mutually-intelligible even at a low register. but i think the register has changed -- the vid. i linked was an aajtak type link for pakistanis.

The language you hear in a Hindi or Urdu television broadcast is either more sanskritised or more persianised than the language spoken on the streets by the common man in India and Pakistan.

well the more sanskritised version is hindi and the more persian version is urdu and that is why they have a very different set of words.

by Guest Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:48 pm

Rashmun wrote:The language you hear in a Hindi or Urdu television broadcast is either more sanskritised or more persianised than the language spoken on the streets by the common man in India and Pakistan.

but that is what we are sensitized with. add to that school if you are learning hidi/urdu. beyond that it is either the language of the province you reside in or hinglish. your point?

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:01 pm

artood2 wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
artood2 wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
artood2 wrote:
you know hindi and urdu are two different languages, right?

No. Same language (Hindi basically) written in two different scripts (Devanagari and modified Persian / Farsi)

No it is not. The vocabulary is very different.

are they different in the same sense that american english and british english are different? is it a case of truck vs lorry, of flash light versus torch, of trunk vs dickey/boot etc? they are mutually intelligible aren't they? they have the same basic grammar and share a good portion of their vocabulary.

Nah.. way more than that. 99% of the words are the same across brit and american versions and heck you can read it the same way. A kid learning Hindi from NCERT books would not understand 70% of the urdu songs.

How does the sentence “mera naam atwoo hai” (“my name is Atwoo”) in Hindi sound / translate into the Urdu language?

Exactly the same way, i.e. “mera naam atwoo hai” in Urdu. Although “mera naam atwoo hai” will look differently when written in Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (modified Persian) scripts.

Regarding your claim that Urdu songs are 70% different from Hindi songs in terms of vocabulary, that is not true. Here is an example of a genuine Urdu song from a Pakistani movie --

Pakistani (Urdu) movie song (Reema, Shan) “Resham ka hai”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUN7ZkbV85k

It does not seem any different or difficult to understand for anyone used to Hindi or Hindi songs.

by Guest Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:02 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The language you hear in a Hindi or Urdu television broadcast is either more sanskritised or more persianised than the language spoken on the streets by the common man in India and Pakistan.
but that is what we are sensitized with. add to that school if you are learning hidi/urdu. beyond that it is either the language of the province you reside in or hinglish. your point?

You forget the importance of Hindi movies. In Hindi movies the language used (usually) is the language spoken by the common man.

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:11 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: in any case farsi and sanskrit also have a common origin, so that makes the languages even closer.

Are you confusing Avestan with the (modern) Persian / Farsi language? The meaning of Avesta (which is the root word for Avestan) in Sanskrit is 'sacrificial act or offering to the deity', whereas Farsi symbolizes the regional connection (including linguistically) with Persia.

by Guest Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:12 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote: in any case farsi and sanskrit also have a common origin, so that makes the languages even closer.

Are you confusing Avestan with the (modern) Persian / Farsi language? The meaning of Avesta (which is the root word for Avestan) in Sanskrit is 'sacrificial act or offering to the deity', whereas Farsi symbolizes the regional connection (including linguistically) with Persia.

Isn't Farsi a direct descendant of Avestan ?

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:18 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote: in any case farsi and sanskrit also have a common origin, so that makes the languages even closer.

Are you confusing Avestan with the (modern) Persian / Farsi language? The meaning of Avesta (which is the root word for Avestan) in Sanskrit is 'sacrificial act or offering to the deity', whereas Farsi symbolizes the regional connection (including linguistically) with Persia.

Isn't Farsi a direct descendant of Avestan ?

Good question Rashmun. Even though I am not a specialist in this area, Farsi seems to have a considerable influence of Arabic (including the Farsi script which is an expanded version of Arabic script / alphabet).

by Guest Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:27 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote: in any case farsi and sanskrit also have a common origin, so that makes the languages even closer.

Are you confusing Avestan with the (modern) Persian / Farsi language? The meaning of Avesta (which is the root word for Avestan) in Sanskrit is 'sacrificial act or offering to the deity', whereas Farsi symbolizes the regional connection (including linguistically) with Persia.

Isn't Farsi a direct descendant of Avestan ?

Good question Rashmun. Even though I am not a specialist in this area, Farsi seems to have a considerable influence of Arabic (including the Farsi script which is an expanded version of Arabic script / alphabet).

Leaving aside the question of script my understanding is that Farsi is a direct descendant of Avestan. I agree that the Farsi script is an expanded version of the Arabic script.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:38 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote: in any case farsi and sanskrit also have a common origin, so that makes the languages even closer.

Are you confusing Avestan with the (modern) Persian / Farsi language? The meaning of Avesta (which is the root word for Avestan) in Sanskrit is 'sacrificial act or offering to the deity', whereas Farsi symbolizes the regional connection (including linguistically) with Persia.

Isn't Farsi a direct descendant of Avestan ?

Good question Rashmun. Even though I am not a specialist in this area, Farsi seems to have a considerable influence of Arabic (including the Farsi script which is an expanded version of Arabic script / alphabet).

Leaving aside the question of script my understanding is that Farsi is a direct descendant of Avestan. I agree that the Farsi script is an expanded version of the Arabic script.

and avestan and vedic sanskrit are like twin sisters.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:40 pm

listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWnAyQKQqFo

forget what the words mean for a second. the tonal registers and the style of chanting are eerily similar to vedic chants i have heard in southern indian temples.

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:48 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: avestan and vedic sanskrit are like twin sisters.

More like mother (Sanskrit) and daughter (Avestan).

"some people think that ancient Persian language Avestan and the Persian holy text Avesta (ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism) had a considerable influence on Sanskrit and Vedas, because there are many similar words and names (including the names for deities and sages) in Vedas and Avesta. But that makes little sense considering the word Avesta (and Avestan therefore) seems to be rooted in Sanskrit, avesta (or avestha) meaning “offering to the deity” in Sanskrit. This indicates that the influence in the beginning might be from the Vedas and Sanskrit and not from Avesta and Avestan.

" Yajurveda in Sanskrit means “the sacrificial Veda” or the Veda dedicated specifically to yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Yajurveda thus has the same type of emphasis in relation to offerings and sacrifices during worship as does Avesta (which in Sanskrit means “the offering to the deity”). This indicates that the timeline and connection involving Avesta and Vedas (including the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit on Avesta and Avestan) is Yajurvedic rather than Rigvedic,... "

https://such.forumotion.com/t9095-timeline-for-the-vedas

by Guest Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:16 pm

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/archive/index.php/t-31456.html

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:40 am

That implies the original / indirect influence of Sanskrit on languages which are derived from or based on Avestan (due to the influence of Sanskrit on Avestan).

by Guest Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:17 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:That implies the original / indirect influence of Sanskrit on languages which are derived from or based on Avestan (due to the influence of Sanskrit on Avestan).

It could also be that both Avestan and Sanskrit are descendants of some other language which is now extinct.

by Seva Lamberdar Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:28 am

Rashmun wrote: It could also be that both Avestan and Sanskrit are descendants of some other language which is now extinct.

The study / research in this regard should not make arbitrary and haphazard assumptions / choices beforehand, such as I indicated earlier in this thread (based on Appendix A -- http://rivr.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog) on people trying to show (through computer models / runs) as to which language (whether a language in Anatolia / Turkish region 8500 years ago or another one in Central Asia / Pontic steppes 6000 years ago) might be the mother of Sanskrit and Hindi etc., while they ignored the possibility that perhaps even Sanskrit might be the mother of those languages (the language in Anatolia and that in Pontic steppes) long ago. Or, perhaps the similarity in common words for mother etc. in different languages happened independently and due to other reasons (such as children / babies making similar vocal sounds everywhere, as indicated in Appendix A, above link).

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com