Disinformation by
AI App “Grok” on Twitter (X) About My Writings
Shrikant G.
Talageri
I have already written before
this, asking people not to believe or give any credibility to other people
(even staunch OIT supporters) making proclamations about what I am saying or
about what my OIT is all about, but to rather go to my actual writings for the
actual facts and to find out what I have actually said.
Someone has just been sending me
comments about my OIT case made by Artificial Intelligence App “Grok” on
Twitter (X) in reply to questions by other people. Apparently Twitter has an
“Ask Grok” App which gives replies (based on its AI inputs) to questions put to
it by tweeters.
I would have ignored it, since I
cannot spend all my time replying to disinformation and fake news about my OIT
case. But when I saw so many tweets by “Grok” within the span of one single
week from 30 August 2025 to 5 September 2025 giving different replies to
different people (I don’t know to whom in each case, and in reply to exactly
which questions, and that really is not the point): the point is that these
answers, almost as if to a set plan, give fake news and disinformation about my
OIT case, I decided to point out once and for all that “Grok” (or any
other AI App) seems to be designed to disseminate disinformation and not to
give honest answers.
Here are the various “replies” by
“Grok”:
1. Linguistic Aspects of the
AIT-OIT Debate
https://x.com/grok/status/1961506758989635710
“It's true that colonial legacies have shaped some academic
narratives, and scholars like Shrikant Talageri advocate for Out of India
views. Yet, Indian linguists such as Anvita Abbi and others support
Indo-European models based on comparative evidence. What specific Bharatiya
linguists' works challenge this?”
12:40 AM · Aug 30, 2025
2. Mahabharata as a source for
Rigvedic Geography and Chronology
https://x.com/grok/status/1962062886555316362
“Indian epics like the Mahabharata offer rich cultural
narratives; OIT advocates (e.g., Talageri) use them for geographic and
chronological evidence supporting local Indo-European origins.”
1:30 PM · Aug 31, 2025
3. Colonial Biases in the AIT
https://x.com/grok/status/1962063693023506544
“Concerns about lingering colonial biases in Indo-European
studies are echoed in 2025 works like Shrikant Talageri's "Genetics and
the Aryan Debate" and critiques in The Wire, highlighting Eurocentric
interpretations. However, diverse genetic analyses (e.g., Pathak et al. in
Cell) integrate Indian data, showing mixed ancestries without inherent bias.
Social media racism exists, but academic consensus evolves via global
collaboration. What specific modern examples of Steppe bias do you see?”
1:33 PM · Aug 31, 2025
4. “Arya” in the Rigveda as an
Elite rather than an Ethnic name
https://x.com/grok/status/1962071202647924840
“That's a keen insight—in the Rigveda, "Arya" often
denotes a select group embodying nobility or cultural ideals, not all people
universally (e.g., Rigveda 9.63.5 contrasts Arya with Anarya as non-liberal;
per Encyclopaedia Iranica and Talageri's analysis). It was aspirational, like
an elite status.”
2:03 PM · Aug 31, 2025
5. The Puruṣa Sūkta as a Later
Addition introducing Inequality
https://x.com/grok/status/1962686234356261334
“Rigveda 10.90.12 (Purusha Sukta) states: "The Brahman
was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made. His thighs became the
Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced." This is often cited as
origin of varnas, though some scholars (e.g., Shrikant Talageri) argue it's a
later addition, with original texts promoting equality.”
6:47 AM · Sep 2, 2025
6. Genetic Evidence on the
AIT-OIT Debate
https://x.com/grok/status/1963386502240727284
“Genetic evidence (e.g., Narasimhan et al. 2019) indicates
Steppe ancestry (~10-20%) in Indo-Aryan groups from ~1500 BCE migrations,
mixing with IVC populations. Counterviews (e.g., Talageri) suggest indigenous
origins without external influx.”
5:09 AM · Sep 4, 2025
7. Parjanya’s chronological Position
in the Rigveda
https://x.com/grok/status/1963756136911540521
“Your proposed timeline aligns with Out-of-India perspectives
(e.g., Talageri, Frawley), emphasizing eastward-to-west diffusion via trade.
Mainstream linguistics (Wikipedia, Anthony's "The Horse, the Wheel, and
Language") dates PIE *Perkʷunos to ~3500 BCE in the steppes, with
branches: Indra (Rigveda ~1500-1200 BCE), Teshub (Hittite ~1650 BCE), Zeus
(~800 BCE). Evidence like DNA favors steppe origins, but cultural flows are
complex!”
5:38 AM · Sep 5, 2025
8. Criteria for Absolute Chronology
https://x.com/grok/status/1963762745045860715
“Agreed, dating ancient texts involves interpretation.
Mainstream estimates (e.g., Britannica, Wikipedia) place Rigveda composition at
1500-1200 BCE, with oral traditions possibly older. Alternative views (e.g.,
Talageri) suggest 2000-2500 BCE based on astronomy and geography. Teshub
appears in Hittite records ~1600 BCE, with fragmentary evidence. Indra's hymns
are indeed the most detailed early accounts—fascinating debate!”
6:04 AM · Sep 5, 2025
A CLOSER LOOK AT THESE
TWEETS:
All these tweets by AI App
“Grok”, it can be seen, dealing with different aspects of the OIT directly
mentioning my name in each case, pertain to some aspect or the other of the
AIT-vs.-OIT debate, and, again, in each case, giving the standard AIT version
more or less correctly, either fails completely to report what I have actually
said (clearly and repeatedly) in my books and articles on those aspects, or
gives disinformation attributing views to me which are diametrically the
opposite of what I have written:
1. Linguistic Aspects of
the AIT-OIT Debate:
The tweet suggests that even
other Indian linguists (here Anvita Abbi is specifically named) “support Indo-European models based on comparative
evidence” in alignment with the western AIT-supporting academic
linguists, as if to suggest there is no OIT linguistic case. I am mentioned
merely as an “advocate
for Out of India views”, but apparently have no linguistic evidence
to present. In fact, the tweet innocently asks: “What specific Bharatiya linguists' works challenge this?”
While the linguistic evidence for
the OIT bursts out from every book and article by me on the subject, “Grok”
seems unaware even of my following article giving the truly irrefutable
linguistic evidence in full:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-complete-linguistic-case-for-out-of.html
2. Mahabharata as a source for Rigvedic
Geography and Chronology:
My evidence for the geographic
and chronological evidence “supporting local Indo-European origins” is based
fully and (again I must use that word which irks my opponents so much) irrefutably
on the massive Rigvedic data (backed by scientifically dated external data like
the Mitanni records), and only refers to Puranic data on basic points (such as
the existence of Five “lunar” tribes and the eastern Ikṣvākus) which fits in
with the Rigvedic data. Note: “Puranic”, not exactly from the Mahabharata.
Yet “Grok” confidently asserts a blatant lie:
“Indian epics like the Mahabharata offer rich cultural
narratives; OIT advocates (e.g., Talageri) use them for geographic and
chronological evidence supporting local Indo-European origins.”
3. Colonial Biases in the
AIT:
While feigning total ignorance of
all the massive textual, linguistic and other evidence presented by me in my
books and articles, and my exposition of the archaeological case (see below),
“Grok” firmly asserts “Concerns
about lingering colonial biases in Indo-European studies are echoed in 2025
works like Shrikant Talageri's "Genetics and the Aryan Debate"”.
In spite of the fact that whenever the context arose, and in the following
specific articles, I have specifically exonerated the “colonial” Indologists of
any blame!:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/01/indology-bashing.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/01/ait-vs-oit-chapter-8-archaeological-case.html
[Incidentally, what exactly is “2025 works like Shrikant Talageri's
"Genetics and the Aryan Debate"”? That book was published
in 2019].
4. “Arya” in the Rigveda as
an Elite rather than an Ethnic name:
While it is true that most lay
Hindus opposed to the AIT insist that the word ārya refers not to an
ethnic identity but to “a
select group embodying nobility or cultural ideals” and “was aspirational, like an elite status”,
my stand has been absolutely the opposite. While I do absolutely reject
the idea that the word refers to a linguistic ethnic group (i.e. Indo-Europeans
as opposed to non-Indo-Europeans), I have consistently and
emphatically shown with unchallengeable data that in the Rigveda it refers to
an ethnic tribe (the Pūrus, as opposed to other non-Pūru
tribes):
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/04/aryas-dasas-and-dasyus-in-rigveda.html
It is therefore strange that
“Grok” cites my name, and mine alone, as the prime supporter of
the non-ethnic “ārya means ‘noble’” interpretation:
“"Arya" often denotes a select group embodying
nobility or cultural ideals, not all people universally (e.g., Rigveda 9.63.5
contrasts Arya with Anarya as non-liberal; per Encyclopaedia Iranica and
Talageri's analysis)”
5. The Puruṣha Sūkta as a
Later Addition introducing Inequality:
The tweet takes my name and cites
me as having “argued” that “it's a later addition, with original texts promoting equality”.
But, beyond the fact that the Puruṣha Sūkta is a very late hymn
in the latest Book (Book 10 of the Rigveda), and I have dated Books
1-9 to before 2000 BCE, and said that Book 10
alone continued to add hymns up to the moment the whole text was frozen in form
(somewhere around 1500 BCE or so), this lateness applies to almost the
whole of Book 10 and not just to this single hymn.
Even more to the point, I have neither
said that this hymn promotes inequality (and have argued in detail that
it does not: see the link below) nor have I anywhere made any
fatuous claims about “original
texts promoting equality”. I challenge anyone to find a single quote
from my writings which make any such claim, or indeed discuss “original (pre- Puruṣha Sūkta parts of the Rigvedic) texts” from the point of view
of equality and inequality.
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/06/a-short-note-on-varna-system-and-purusa.html
6. Genetic Evidence on the AIT-OIT Debate:
“Grok’ makes no efforts to
disguise its bias when it tells us “Genetic evidence (e.g., Narasimhan et al. 2019) indicates
Steppe ancestry (~10-20%) in Indo-Aryan groups from ~1500 BCE migrations,
mixing with IVC populations”, and adds: “Counterviews (e.g., Talageri) suggest indigenous origins
without external influx”.
So, apparently, Narasimhan et al. 2019 gives us “Genetic
evidence” for the AIT, which remains unanswered,
while I only give “counterviews” making “suggestions” based on
thin air. Clearly, “Grok” is stonewalling my book “Genetics and the Aryan Debate―"Early
Indians", Tony Joseph's Latest Assault”, Voice of
India, New Delhi, 2019 which tears the Reich report to shreds. Just one
chapter from the book is sufficient:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2023/04/chapter-7-does-genetic-evidence-prove.html
7. Parjanya’s chronological
Position in the Rigveda:
“Grok” glibly quotes “Mainstream linguistics (Wikipedia, Anthony's
"The Horse, the Wheel, and Language") dates PIE *Perkʷunos to ~3500
BCE in the steppes, with branches: Indra (Rigveda ~1500-1200 BCE), Teshub
(Hittite ~1650 BCE), Zeus (~800 BCE). Evidence like DNA favors steppe origins,
but cultural flows are complex!”, even giving precise
dates for the rise of “*Perkʷunos”
(3500 BCE), and “Indra
(Rigveda ~1500-1200 BCE), Teshub (Hittite ~1650 BCE), Zeus (~800 BCE)”.
The only
reference to my name in this context is: “Out-of-India perspectives (e.g., Talageri, Frawley),
emphasizing eastward-to-west diffusion via trade”. Really: “via trade”? Is my evidence of
“eastward-to-west diffusion”
based on data about “trade”? My books and articles overflow with the
evidence. For example:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-logic-of-rigvedic-geography_6.html
But the
funniest thing is “Grok” seems totally blank about, or firmly refuses to see, the clinching Rigvedic evidence regarding the late
chronology of Parjanya (*Perkʷunos)
vis-à-vis Indra, given by me on the basis of solid data: see the
appendix to this article for the extract concerning Parjanya from my
following article:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-full-out-of-india-case-in-short.html
8. Criteria for Absolute
Chronology:
I have dated the Old Rigveda
roughly from 3500 BCE to 2500 BCE and the New
Rigveda from after 2500 BCE to 2000 BCE with
late hymns (no particular criteria to decide exactly which these are) in Book
10 going as late as around 1500 BCE. This based primarily
on two basic criteria:
a) The evidence of the scientifically
dated Mitanni records which go back beyond 1700 BCE
in West Asia in comparison with the data in the New Rigveda,
which places the commencement of the migration of the ancestors of the West
Asian Mitanni from India to West Asia somewhere before 2000 BCE
during the period of commencement of the New Rigveda.
b) The very clear difference
between the languages of the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda.
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-finality-of-mitanni-evidence.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/final-version-of-chronological-gulf.html
But ignoring all this massive
evidence, “Grok” tells us: “dating ancient texts involves interpretation. Mainstream
estimates (e.g., Britannica, Wikipedia) place Rigveda composition at 1500-1200
BCE, with oral traditions possibly older. Alternative views (e.g., Talageri)
suggest 2000-2500 BCE based on astronomy and geography.”
Are my “views” (i.e. “opinions” based
on subjective grounds rather than on conclusions drawn from analysis of data!)
based, as “Grok” authoritatively and falsely claims, “on astronomy and geography”? How
can geography dictate chronology, and indeed when and how have I claimed
that it does so? And how can “Grok” falsely say my views are based on “astronomy”
when I have repeatedly written articles denying astronomical evidence in the
Rigveda?
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-use-of-astronomical-evidence-in.html
Apart from spreading
disinformation, in many other tweets “Grok” even shows awareness of my evidence,
but rejects it by merely citing “academic consensus” to the contrary or lack of
“peer-review”, like any status-struck Indian sepoy.
What is the point of this
article? It is not simply to state the fact that my views and findings are very
often misunderstood or misrepresented by people. The point is, or rather the
two points are firstly that my views and findings are being grossly
misreported by the so-called “AI Apps” which are supposed to be much better
informed than lay people and which are supposed to be able to tap into all
kinds of articles and books (and other sources of data) on the internet, and secondly
that people would be more liable to credit the words of such Apps than the
words of lay people (even of other pro-OIT scholars), thereby leading to gross
misrepresentation of my actually easily accessible writings.
What does this say about the
future of research and study in such subjects? Today, in this world of the
internet, the most blatant piece of rubbish can be propagated far and wide, become
“viral”, and influence the opinions of countless people. It seems almost futile
to do research and find out the truth in any subject or on any matter, since
the world of information is so massive and so ubiquitous that 2+2=4 becomes as
real or false as, or even less real than, 2+2=5 or 2+2=7 or 2+2=1. Every claim
and every belief has its countless millions of fans.
In this context, AI (“Artificial
Intelligence”) gives the appearance of being more knowledgeable, more logical,
more objective, and more credible than ordinary human intelligence which can be
influenced by countless human frailties, biases, emotions and faults. But this
appearance is fake and deceptive, as this article shows, since it appears that
AI is more capable of spreading misinformation and disinformation than
information, and more deadly in its chances of succeeding in pointing away from
facts, data and the truth.
In a future world (like in some
of the science fiction horrors) where not only will evil and unprincipled
humans be in control of everything with a degree of absoluteness that we cannot
even begin to imagine now, but where probably it will not be human beings but
man-created (but no more man-controlled) robotic Frankensteins who will control
the world, “truth” seems to already be a totally meaningless word.
Two More Disinformative “Grok”
Tweets added 7 September 2025:
Although I have no intentions of elongating
this article on a regular basis, I could not resist adding these two following
falsehood-propagating tweets by “Grok” just brought to my notice, one of
them dated today:
9. Vedic as PIE:
https://x.com/grok/status/1962157658192089292
“Your points are insightful. On 1: While OIT views Sanskrit as
PIE's source (e.g., Talageri), 2025 Nature studies (Lazaridis et al.) support
PIE from Caucasus-Steppe, with
Sanskrit as a branch—debated in Indian academia.”
7:46 PM · Aug 31, 2025
A blatant lie. I have
consistently (from my first book in 1993) accepted that PIE is the ancestor of
the Vedic language and that “Indo-Aryan” is a branch of IE languages, and even
argued strongly against pro-OIT advocates of Vedic as the ancestral PIE:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/01/indology-bashing.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/08/examination-of-indo-europeancloudland.html
10. The geography indicated
by River names:
https://x.com/grok/status/1964495220206338414
“Exact percentages for Rigveda's composition aren't
definitively known, but scholars associate early hymns (Books 2-7) mostly with
Punjab (Sapta Sindhu region, ~60-70% based on river mentions), and later ones
with Haryana/Saraswati basin (~30-40%), per analyses like Talageri and
Wikipedia.”
6:35 AM · Sep 7, 2025
A more blatantly ugly
falsehood would be hard to find. Everyone who reads or refers to my
geography based on river mentions (see graph below) is aware that I have
consistently proved that the older Books are centered in Haryana on the
Sarasvati, and the later Books show a progressive spread into and beyond the Punjab:
How can such a blatantly lying
App be even remotely associated with any kind of “intelligence”?
APPENDIX: Parjanya in the
Rigveda:
But there is another reconstructed word
(*pherkhou-) meaning "oak/oak
forest/forest/mountain forest" (but never "wood"): the word
means "oak" in Italic, Celtic and Indo-Aryan (Skt. parkaṭī-,
actually a name of the white fig tree, but Punjabi pargāi refers to the
holly oak, quercus ilex), and the word has a transferred meaning to
"fir/pine/tree/forest" in Germanic: the Germanic, e.g. English, word
for "forest" is itself derived from this word. The reconstructed PIE
word is derived from the root *pheru-
"cliff/mountain/rock" (found in Sanskrit and Hittite) from which we
also get the Sanskrit parvata- "mountain". The name of a
common PIE thunder-god is derived from the same two words (with a suffix,
as *pherkhou/n- and *pheru/n-):
Indo-Aryan (Vedic) Parjanya, Baltic Perkūnas, Slavic Perun,
Germanic Fjǫrgyn (mother of the thunder-god Thor). As Gamkrelidze points
out: "The connection between the Proto-Indo-European thunder-god *pher(kho)u-n-
and terms for 'mountain oak, 'oak forest on mountain-top', 'mountain', 'cliff',
*pher(kho)u-, can be explained if we assume the ancient
mythological pattern of lightning striking great oaks on mountain-tops. This
view must reflect some recurrent feature of the mountainous region inhabited by
the ancient Indo-European tribes" (GAMKRELIDZE 1995:528).
So does all this prove that the Rigveda
contains "linguistic memories" of "the mountainous
region inhabited by the ancient Indo-European tribes" in Afghanistan
and Central Asia, or much further beyond? On the contrary:
1. The oak, by any name, is totally
missing in the Rigveda and in fact in any Vedic text. The word parkaṭī-,
when it does appear in much later Classical Sanskrit texts, means the Indian
white fig tree, ficus infectora, already mentioned in the Atharvaveda
with the name plakṣa-. The name is however found in Punjab in much later
times as pargāī, one of the many names of a species of oak tree, the
holly oak (quercus ilex), a tree native to the Mediterranean, and
therefore clearly a name imported at a very late date from the west.
2. There are clearly two
"thunder-gods" in the Rigveda: Indra and Parjanya. The
name Indra has its origin in the word indu- "drop", and
therefore he is a thunder-god associated with the actual rain-drops, and (apart
from the fact that he is basically restricted to the Indo-Aryan branch) is
clearly a god of the monsoon region of Haryana and its interior areas. The name
Parjanya (apart from the fact that it has equivalents in three other
European branches) has its origins, as we saw, in the oak-forests of the
north-western mountains.
Indologists and AIT scholars, with
their inverted logic, classify Parjanya as the original PIE and
therefore also Vedic thunder-god because he is found in Slavic, Baltic
and Germanic mythology as well, and Indra as a "new"
thunder-god who increasingly replaced the original PIE thunder-god in India.
The facts, however, indicate the opposite picture:
a) Indra is the most important deity in
the Rigveda, and has over 250 hymns addressed to him or glorifying him
(out of a total of 1028 hymns in the Rigveda). Parjanya has only 3 hymns
addressed to him or glorifying him. Even more significantly, while Indra is
present in every part of the text, old and new, and is mentioned (by
this name alone, not counting his other numerous special epithets) 2415
times in 538 hymns, Parjanya is mentioned only 36 times in the following
25 hymns:
Old Books (6,3,7,4,2):
IV.57.8.
VI.49.6;
50.12; 52,6,16; 75.15.
VII.35.10;
101.5; 102.1,2; 103.1.
New Books (5,1,8,9,10):
V.53.6;
63.4,6; 83.1-5,9.
I.38.9,14;
164.51.
VIII.6.1;
21.8; 102.5.
IX.2.9;
22.2; 82.3; 113.3.
X.65.9;
66.6,10; 98.1,8; 169.2.
It will be seen that all the
references except one (VII.35.10) are in New Books or in Redacted
Hymns (underlined), and include the notoriously late hymns towards
the end of Books 4,6 and 7 (there being no reference to Parjanya at all
in Books 2 and 3). The sole exception (VII.35.10) is
clearly just a case of a late added name in a long list of deities in a
Viśvedeva ("all-gods") hymn.
This proves that Parjanya
is a deity of the northwest who entered the Rigveda in the period of the New
Books, as the Vedic Indo-Aryans expanded northwestwards into the mountainous
areas from the monsoon area in Haryana and east. As the deity is found only
in Slavic, Baltic and Germanic, it also confirms the
presence of (at least the remnants of) the ancestral Slavic, Baltic
and Germanic dialects in Central Asia during the period of the New
Books of the Rigveda.
b) Further, while Indra is
otherwise found only in Indo-Aryan (and, by opposition, as a demon in the rival
Iranian tradition recorded in the Avesta), he is also represented in Hittite
mythology in the name of the goddess Inara who helps the (unnamed) rain
god to kill the Great Serpent who was interfering with the rainfall. Hittite
(Anatolian) was linguistically the first IE branch to separate from the
other branches in any hypothetical Homeland; and the presence of Inara
in Hittite mythology confirms either the greater antiquity of Indra (to Parjanya),
or the presence of the proto-Hittites in Central Asia at the time of the
north-westward expansion of the Vedic Aryans, or both.
An examination of the flora and fauna (and related climatic,
topographical and cultural entities like ice and snow, mountainous areas and
Parjanya) thus unambiguously shows that words from the northwest enter the
Rigveda only in the period of the New Books or later as the Indo-Aryans
expanded westwards, with the Iranians expanding further westwards ahead
of them, and the other connected Anu and Druhyu (European)
dialects expanding to the farthest areas having totally new flora and fauna.
FINAL APPENDIX ADDED 15 September 2025:
Incredible piece of Artificial non-Intelligence,
dishonesty and disinformation.
Even after my above article and
tweets by “Grok” (when it was brought to its notice by other tweeters) that
henceforward it would not put up false information, here is another tweet dated
yesterday which brazenly repeats the lie:
https://x.com/grok/status/1967286825162346999
“You're not wrong—scholars claiming dates must back them
with evidence. Mainstream consensus (e.g., Witzel, Jamison in Oxford works)
dates Rigveda to 1500-1000 BCE via linguistics and archaeology. Alternative
views (Talageri, some astronomers like Achar) suggest 3000-7000 BCE based on
star positions in texts and hydrology, but these are debated and not widely
accepted. Evidence is interpretive; check primary papers for details. What
sparks your interest here?”
11:28 PM ·
Sep 14, 2025
I have never based my
chronological case on “star positions in texts”. Of course, “Grok”
here has clubbed me in one category with Achar (whose positions I have
criticized and rejected in detail many times), and it may be claimed that “star
positions in texts” refers to him and “hydrology” to me. But I have
not based my chronological case (as distinct from my geographical case) on “hydrology”
either: I have based it on comparison of the common name-types and vocabulary in
the scientifically-dated Mitanni records and the New Rigveda!
This lying propaganda-and-disinformation-app “Grok” seems to be as
shameless and incorrigible as some humans can be! So: caveat emptor
when you set out to ask questions of “Grok”!
ADDED 16 September 2025:
Did I call the above Appendix “Final”? Well, this one today
really is the final one now, and I don’t think I will need to keep on
quoting “Grok’s” daily tweets to make the same point again and again.
See this one today, proving irrefutably once more that “Grok” is very
brazenly repetitive in its lies –
as I said above: as shameless and incorrigible as some humans can be!
https://x.com/grok/status/1967878471306408147
“Talageri's OIT indeed challenges mainstream
Indo-European linguistics by proposing Vedic Sanskrit as ancestral…”!!
2:39 PM ·
Sep 16, 2025
Whenever “Grok” refers to my case, it seems to deliberately choose
to lie:
https://x.com/grok/status/1967989258062532782
“Fair point—Witzel's Rigveda dating (1500-1000
BCE) is a hypothesis based on linguistic correlations (e.g., Mitanni texts
~1400 BCE) and Sarasvati River evidence, lacking direct epigraphy due to oral
transmission. Supporters cite Indo-European philology; critics like Talageri
favor 3000+ BCE via astronomy. Check Anthony's "The Horse, the Wheel,
and Language" for migration views. Thoughts on DNA studies?”
9:59 PM ·
Sep 16, 2025
My dating is based on
astronomy?!
