“Talageri Does Not
Know Sanskrit” –
A Hackneyed Issue Which Never Stales For Empty Brains
Here I am back again with another reply to another illiterate clownish tweeter on “X/Twitter”: i.e. to one more of those jokers who adopt pompous titles for their twitter handles: this one combines three strong words: Deva, Raja and Indra, obviously under the impression that pompous titles serve as impenetrable disguises to hide empty and outdated brains.
I have just been sent the following tweet by this joker, who struts around under the name DevarajaIndra@DevarajaIndra:
“Then, Mr Bhaskar, you are quite severely underread. Griffith, Jones, Mueller, Jamison and even Witzel have done extremely comprehensive analysis.
Talageri, as per his own admission, doesn’t
even know Sanskrit!!
This was apparently in reply to a tweet by another tweeter, who wrote as follows:
“Talageri's analysis is the most comprehensive, logical & rational analysis of Rig Veda. None of the AryaN Myth founders, promoters, supporters, have analyzed RV as Talageri has done.
I have been researching and writing on the Rigveda since over 30 years (my first book published in 1993), and my studies started even earlier. That some pipsqueak squeaking for attention thinks he can refer to what he calls my lack of knowledge of “Sanskrit”, speaks volumes for the presumptuous boldness which the pompousness of his adopted title seems to have given him.
To start with, about my “not knowing Sanskrit”: I have already written on the value of this half-witted and lame-brain “accusation” in many articles, notably even in the following full article:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2019/10/devdutt-pattanaik-on-speaking-sanskrit.html
On specific issues regarding my analysis of the Rigveda, many twitter sepoys (conjoined twins to this pompous DevarajaIndra) have tried to claim that my analysis, where it differs sharply from the analyses of some or most of the western Indologists, is wrong because I “do not know Sanskrit” (apart, of course, from my being a “bank clerk”, and not my having had my papers “peer-reviewed” by my academic opponents in “academic journals” controlled by them), and have ended up with egg on their faces when I showed them how not only their second-hand knowledge of “Sanskrit” but even the “first-hand” knowledge of the western Indologists and scholars whom they quote and cite, stands exposed as shoddy and faulty:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-proto-indo-european-word-for.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/05/is-brbu-non-aryan-name-in-rigveda.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/kavi-cayamana-in-dasarajna-battle.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-prthu-parsu-in-dasarajna-hymn.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/09/vadhryasva-and-internet-clown.html
This is apart from my demonstration of the Indo-European origin of the common IE words for “elephant”, in many articles, starting with the one below:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-elephant-and-proto-indo-european.html
Apart from the fact that the Indologists worshipped by all these Indian sepoys failed to give the correct interpretations in each of the above cases where I got it right, here is my irrefutable indictment of the latest and most touted (even by Witzel) of these wrong-interpreting western “expert scholars”:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/05/an-incredibly-blatant-mistranslation-in.html
I simply do not understand how these Indian sepoys who are so completely ignorant of anything and everything, in spite of the pompous titles and attitudes they adopt, do not feel even a bit ashamed of their pathetic selves. Ultimately, for lack of any other explanation, I have to fall back on the favorite verdict/explanation of one of my aunts: “This is Kaliyug”.
APPENDIX added evening 22-11-2024:
should have stopped there, but I have now been sent another tweet by another conjoined twin blockhead of DevarajaIndra, named Prashant Natarajan (possibly another Dravidian language speaking Brahmin who identifies with what he considers to be his “Aryan invader ancestors”) apparently from the same twitter conversation, a vacant headed person who styles himself: Prashant Natarajan @AIML4Health. This idiot again shows the vacant-headedness of these Indian sepoys:
Talageri doesn’t have an amateur’s understanding of linguistics, let
alone Sanskrit & Vedas. In this interview, he claims to have learned
languages such as “African” and “Red Indian.” Enough said about his
credentials. https://youtu.be/DKEpERD_U4I?feature=shared… (5:15 onwards) 
The Rigveda:
Historical analysis with @sgtalageri | Out of India...
This illiterate joker clearly does not have the intelligence of a cockroach, and interprets my words in the above video as meaning that I am claiming to have learned languages such as “African” and “Red Indian”, implying that I am so ignorant trhat I think there are two languages spoken in the world named “African” and “Red Indian” respectively!!
He gives two glaring examples of his stupidity here:
Firstly, I did not say I learnt two languages named African and Red Indian respectively: I clearly said that I learnt numbers 1-100 in over a hundred languages (including African and Red Indian=American Indian ones). This shows the utter inability of this clown to understand what is being said.
Secondly, he also demonstrates his illiteracy about my writings which he dares to presume to have the right to criticize. In my article “India's Unique Place in the World of Numbers and Numerals”, I have actually given a great number of examples of numbers 1-100 from these African and Red Indian languages. Long and boring though this is, let me repeat those examples here for the reader to understand the extent of this Prashant Natarajan’s illiteracy. I leave it to the readers to decide whose linguistic “credentials” are more genuine: mine or those of these twitter clowns:
I. AFRICAN LANGUAGES:
Masai (NiloSaharan/Sudanic:
1-9: nabu, ari, üni, ungwun, miet, elle, nabishäna, issiet, nawdu
10, 20,
30, 40, 50, 60: tomon, tigitum, ossom, arrtam, orrnom,
ïp
70, 80,
90, 100, 110: ïp-tomon, ïp-tigitum, ïp-ossom,
ïp-arrtam, ïp-orrnom
Other
numbers in between 10-60 are formed by the tens word
followed by the following secondary forms of 1-9: obbo, are,
ogüni, ungwun, oimiet, oīille, nabishäna, oissiet,
nawdo
sexagesimals 60, 120, 180, 240, etc: ïp,
ari-ïp, üni-ïp, ungwun-ïp, etc. (60, 2x60, 3x60, 4x60,
etc.)
Other
numbers above 60: sexagesimal (60, 120, etc) followed by 1-59.
Thus:
11: tomon-obbo (10+1), 99: ïp ossom-nawdo
(60+30+9), 179: ari-ïp orrnom-nawdo (60x2+50+9).
Mende
(NigerCongo):
1-10: yira,
fere, sawa, nani, lolu, woita,
wofela, wayakpa, tau, pu
11-19: pu-mahũ-yira
(10+mahũ+1) etc.
20, 40,
60, 80, 100: nu-yira-gboyongo, nu-fere-gboyongo, nu-sawa-gboyongo,
nu-nani-gboyongo, nu-lolu-gboyongo
Other
numbers: vigesimal + 1-19. Thus:
21: nu-yira-gboyongo
mahũ yira (20+mahũ+1), 99: nu-nani-gboyongo mahũ pu-mahũ-tau
(80+mahũ+19).
Hausa
(SemitoHamitic-Hamitic):
1-10: daia,
biu, uku, fudu, biar, shidda, bakoi, takos,
tara, goma
tens
20-90: gomia-biu, etc.
100: dari
Other
numbers: 11-17, etc.: tens+sha+unit. Thus 11: goma sha daia, 21: gomia-biu sha daia
18-19: following
tens+gaira+biu/daia (i.e. following tens-minus-2/1). Thus:
18: gomia-biu
gaira biu (20-minus-2),
99: dari gaira daia (100-minus-1).
Wolof
(NigerCongo):
1-10: ben,
nīar, nīat, nīanit, jiūrum, jiūrumrumben, jiūrum-nīar,
jiūrum-nīat, jiūrum-nīanit, fūk
tens
20-90: nīar-fūk, etc.
100: tēmēr
Other
numbers: tens+a+unit. Thus 11: fūk a ben, 21: nīar-fūk a ben, 99: jiūrum-nīanit-fūk a jiūrum-nīanit
Fulani
(NigerCongo):
1-10: goo,
zizi, tati, nayi, joyi, jeegom, jeezizi,
jetati, jenayi, sappo
20: noogas, tens 30-90: capanze-tati, etc. 100: temedere
Other
numbers: tens+e+unit.
Thus
11: sappo e goo,
21: noogas e goo,
99: capanze-jenayi e jenayi
Namagua-Hottentot
(Khoisan):
1-10: ckui,
ckam, qnona, haka, kore, qnani, hû, xkhaisi,
goisi, disi
tens
20-100: ckam-disi, etc.
[even 100: disi-disi]
Other
numbers: tens+unit+ckha.
Thus:
11: disi ckui-ckha, 21: ckam-disi
ckui-ckha, 99: goisi-disi goisi-ckha
[the
four letters c, v, q, and x represent four
different types of clicking sounds. Clicking sounds as part of the language are
unique in the whole world to the Khoisan languages, though some non-Khoisan
neighboring languages like Zulu have also borrowed this feature from them]
Swahili
(NigerCongo):
1-9: mosi,
pili, tatu, 'nne, tano, sita, saba, nane,
kenda
Tens
10-100: kumi, makumi-mawili, makumi-matatu,
makumi-ma'nne, makumi-matano, makumi-sita, makumi-saba,
makumi-manane, makumi-kenda, mia
(The
word for 100 is borrowed from Arabic)
Other
numbers: tens+na+unit 1-9 [Here,
1 and 2 have special forms: moja, mbili], e.g. 11 is kumi na
moja (10+na+1).
Kanuri
(NiloSaharan/Sudanic):
1-10: tilo,
ndi, yasgә, degә, ugu, arasgә, tulur,
wusgә, lәgar, megu
tens
20-90: pindi, piyasgә, pidegә, piugu, pirasgә,
pitulur, pitusgu, pilәgar
11-19: lәgari,
nduri, yasgәn, deri, uri, arasgәn, tulurri,
wusgәn, lәgarri
Other
numbers: tens+unit, or tens+tata+unit [units ending in vowels add a -n,
and units ending in consonants add a -nyin in the compound words].
Thus:
21: pindi tata tilon,
99: pilәgar tata lәgarnyin
II. AMERINDIAN LANGUAGES:
Nahuatl/Aztec (Amerindian):
1-5: ce,
ome, yey, naui, macuilli
6-10: chica-ce,
chic-ome, chicu-ey, chic-naui, matlactli
11-15: matlactli-on-ce,
matlactli-on-ome, matlactli-on-yey, matlactli-on-naui, caxtulli
16-19: caxtulli-on-ce,
caxtulli-on-ome, caxtulli-on-yey, caxtulli-on-naui
20, 40,
60, 80, 100: cem-poualli, ome-poualli,
yey-poualli, naui-poualli, macuil-poualli
Other
numbers: vigesimal numbers followed by (the word) on and the
numbers 1-19. Thus:
21: cem-poualli
on ce (20+on+1), and 99: naui-poualli
on caxtulli-on-naui (80+on+19).
[on-ce can be shortened to oce].
Yucatec/Mayan
(Amerindian):
1-10: hun,
ca, ox, can, ho, uac, uc, uaxac,
bolon, lahun
11-19: buluc,
lahca, ox-lahun, can-lahun, ho-lahun, uac-lahun,
uuc-lahun, uaxac-lahun, bolon-lahun
20, 40,
60, 80, 100: kal/hun-kal, ca-kal, ox-kal, can-kal, ho-kal
30, 50,
70, 90: lahu-ca-kal, lahu-ox-kal, lahu-cankal, lahu-hokal
(10 less than 40, etc.).
Other
numbers:
21-39
(except 30): 1-19 + tu kal. Thus: 21 is hun tu kal (1+tu+20).
Other
numbers (after 40, except the actual non-vigesimal tens numbers 50, 70,
90, etc., where the word tu is dropped): 1-19 + tu and the
following vigesimal. Thus:
41: hun
tu ox-kal (1 below 60), 99: bolon-lahun tu ho-kal (19 below 100).
[Some
additional, but not necessary, euphonic variations in
speech are:
a) 15, ho-lahun,
is sometimes contracted to ho-lhun
b) a y
is sometimes inserted between a word ending in u and a following ox
or ho. Thus: lahu-oxkal and lahu-hokal (50 and 90) become lahu-y-oxkal
and lahu-y-hokal, and similarly hun tu ox-kal, 41, becomes hun
tu y-ox-kal]
c) l
of lahun is dropped before tu. Thus bolon-lahun tu kal,
39, becomes bolon-lahu tu kal]
[Note:
This is important since the Mayans were the only people to invent a vigesimal
numeral system. Hence also, perhaps, the system of forming the other
numbers (21-99) is slightly less regular or more complicated (but still
explicable by certain rules]
[Note: the x is pronounced "sh" and the c
as well as k as "k"].
Yupik
(EskimoAleut):
1-10: atauciq,
malruk, pingayun, cetaman, talliman, arving-legen,
malrung-legen, pingayun-legen, qulngunritaraan, qula.
11-19: qula-atauciq,
qula-malruk, qula-pingayun, akimiarunrita'ar, akimiaq,
akimiaq-ataucik, akimiaq-malruk, akimiaq-pingayun, yuinaunrita'ar
vigesimals
20, 40, 60, 80, 100: yuinaq, yuinaak-malruk, yuinaat-pingayun,
yuinaat-cetaman, yuinaat-talliman
Other
numbers: vigesimal + 1-19. Thus:
21: yuinaq atauciq, 99: yuinaat-cetaman yuinaunrita'ar
Quechua/Inca
(Amerindian):
1-10: huk,
iskay, kimsa, tawa, pisqa, suqta, qanchis,
pusaq, iskun, chunka
tens
20-90: iskay-chunka, etc.
100: pachak
Other
numbers: tens+unit+yuq/niyuq [-yuq after vowel,-niyuq
after consonant. final y in 2 is consonant]. Thus:
11: chunka-huk-niyuq,
13: chunka kimsa-yuq, 99: iskun-chunka iskun-niyuq
Guarani (Amerindian):
1-10: peteĩ,
mokoĩ, mbohapy, irundy, po, poteĩ, pokoĩ,
poapy, porundy, pa
tens
20-90: mokoĩ-pa, etc.
100: sa
Other
numbers: tens+unit. Thus 11: pa peteĩ, 21: mokoĩ-pa peteĩ, 99: porundy-pa porundy
Tarahumara
(Amerindian):
1-10: bire,
oka, beka, nawo, mari, usani, kichao,
osanawo, kimakoi, makoi
tens
20-90: oka-makoi, etc.
100: makoi-makoi
Other
numbers: tens+wamina+unit. Thus:
11: makoi
wamina bire, 21: oka-makoi
wamina bire, 99: kimakoi-makoi
wamina kimakoi
Tonkawa
(Amerindian):
1-10: wē'isbax,
gedai, med'is, sigid, gasgwa, sikwālau, sigidyē'es,
sikwē'isxw'ēl'a, sikbax
tens
20-90: sikbax-'āla-gedai, etc.
100: sendo-wē'isbax (borrowed from Spanish)
Other
numbers: tens+'en+unit+'en.
Thus 11: sikbax-'en wē'isbax-'en,
21: sikbax-'āla-gedai-'en
wē'isbax-'en, 99: sikbax-'āla-sikwē'isxw'ēl'a-'en
sikwē'isxw'ēl'a-'en
Zuñi
(Amerindian):
1-10: t'opa,
kwili, ha'i, awiten, apte, t'opaleqä, kwilileqä,
ha'eleqä, tenaleqä, astemła
tens
20-90: kwili-qän-astemła, etc.
100: asi-astemlä
Other numbers: tens+unit+yäłto. Thus 11: astemła t'opa-yäłto, 21: kwili-qän-astemła t'opa- yäłto, 99: tenaleqä-qän-astemła tenaleqä-yäłto
Sahaptin
(Amerindian):
1-10: naxc,
nipt, mәtad, pinipt, paxad, ptәxninc, tusxas,
paxatumad, t'smәst, putәmd
tens
20-100: nibtid, mәtabtid, pinibtid, paxabtid, ptәxninseibtid,
tusxaseibtid, paxatumadeibtid, tsmaseibtid, naxcputabdid
Other
numbers: tens+unit or tens+wiya+unit. Thus:
11: putәmd wiya naxc, 21: nibtid wiya naxc, 99: tsmaseibtid wiya t'smәst
Navaho
(Amerindian):
1-10: dałai, nak'i, txā,
dī, ashdla, hastxá, tsosts'ed, tsebi, naast'ai,
naezná
11-19: ładzáda, nak'idzada,
txádzáda, didzáda, ashdlaáda, xastxaáda, tsosts'edzáda,
tsebidzáda, naas'aidzáda
tens 20-100: nadīn, txadīn,
dísdīn, ashdládīn, hastą́dīn, tsosts'idīn, tseebídīn,
náhást'édīn, naennádīn
Other numbers: tens+ła+unit. Thus 21: nadīn ła dałai, 99: náhást'édīn ła naezná
Finally, here is a link to my most original linguistic research on
the Konkani language, which is the subject on which I started my journey down
the linguistics road in 1973 (when I was still in high school). The linguistic
facts that I discovered about Konkani phonology (tonal accents) and the unique
(among all modern Indian languages) inflexional complexity of Konkani are my
first linguistic "credentials":
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/05/is-or-was-konkani-dialect-of-marathi.html
Appendix added 23-11-2024:
The abysmally, incredibly and breath-takingly low level of intellectualism which tries to dominate twitter / X can be seen from the two following tweets by this clown Prashant Natarajan (who I am beginning to believe is really and incurably mentally retarded as well as a sick and pathological liar) even after my above article.
Today he has put up two tweets where he reiterates that I referred to a language called “Red Indian”:
The first:
Koenraad, stick to deceiving Hindutva fellow
travelers w/ Talageri, True Indology, Savitri Momo, etc. None of you have any
evidence - let alone the intellectual temper or even amateurish knowledge. Your
“linguistics” expert Talageri claims to have mastered “Red Indian.”
The second, after he accused Koenraad Elst of not having any degrees in linguistics, and Koenraad replied “You are worse than an amateur. You are a liar. I do have several degrees in linguistics, among them specifically Indo-European linguistics. Now you owe me (& the readers whom you tried to misinform) an apology”, the liar continues to lie through his teeth (see the stupidity which does not even seem aware of the spelling of Koenraad’s name!):
Blocking replies tells us about ur
intellectual honesty, Conrad. U have degrees in Sinology, Indology, & philosophy
+ a PhD in Hindu Revivalism! What “several” linguistics degrees are u referring
to? U can’t include teaching “Red Indian” to Talageri as a degree.
Final Appendix added 23-11-2024:
The abysmally, incredibly and breath-takingly low level of intellectualism which tries to dominate twitter / X can be seen from the two following tweets by this clown Prashant Natarajan (who I am beginning to believe is really and incurably mentally retarded as well as a sick and pathological liar) even after my above article.
Today he has put up two tweets where he reiterates that I referred to a language called “Red Indian”:
The first:
Koenraad, stick to deceiving Hindutva fellow travelers w/
Talageri, True Indology, Savitri Momo, etc. None of you have any evidence - let
alone the intellectual temper or even amateurish knowledge. Your “linguistics”
expert Talageri claims to have mastered “Red Indian.”
The second, after he accused Koenraad Elst of not having any degrees in linguistics, and Koenraad replied “You are worse than an amateur. You are a liar. I do have several degrees in linguistics, among them specifically Indo-European linguistics. Now you owe me (& the readers whom you tried to misinform) an apology”, the liar continues to lie through his teeth (see the stupidity which does not even seem aware of the spelling of Koenraad’s name!):
Blocking replies tells us about ur intellectual honesty, Conrad. U
have degrees in Sinology, Indology, & philosophy + a PhD in Hindu
Revivalism! What “several” linguistics degrees are u referring to? U can’t
include teaching “Red Indian” to Talageri as a degree.
For a last laugh, the following tweet by the clown DevarajaIndra:
My friend has
done a detailed review of Talageri's work.
it will interest you too
And he gives the URL of his brother clown Sameer’s old article:
And, of course, a whole possey of internet clowns waxes enthusiasm over the above article.
Naturally, no one among these clowns will dare to read my two replies to this Sameer, much less accept the truth:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/indian-fauna-elephants-foxes-and-ait.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-shatterer-again-on-leopards-rather.html
In these two articles, DevarajaIndra’s clown friend, among other things (like adopting two blatantly opposing principles for the postulated PIE forms for elephant and fox), discovers the incredible theory that the PIE words for “elephant” are mixtures of African and (pre-AIT) Indian words!
As I pointed out at the end of the second of my two above responses to that clown:
“Sameer refuses to accept that the four
Indo-European words are derived from *ṛbha/ḷbha (ivory, elephant),
from an original root (I am giving the Vedic form of the root rather than
reconstructing a "PIE" one) *rabh/*labh: Vedic ibha,
Latin ebur, Greek erepa/elepha, Hittite laḫpa, each of the four word words
individually bearing a distinct resemblance to the word *ṛbha/ ḷbha.
But his pretence to be a textbook citer gets completely shattered when he is not able to explain how these four Indo-European languages happen to have such similar words for ivory/elephant when the elephant was not found either in the Steppes or in the historical areas of any of the branches other than Indo-Aryan. Then, without bothering to cite a single scholar, without giving a single protoform (or even a group of different protoforms) from Africa or "pre-Aryan" India, and without showing how and by which rules of phonetic derivation these words were derived from any such protoforms, he very breezily informs us that "words for “elephant; ivory” were getting borrowed around in the area in antiquity. The ultimate origin might be an Afroasiatic (or another African) language, or it might be India, or a mixture of both".
For someone who so very pompously and superciliously rejects the derivation from *ṛbha/ḷbha, in spite of (a) the very close resemblance of the four Indo-European words to *ṛbha/ḷbha, (b) the parallel semantic example of hastin, and (c) the connected etymology of the Vedic ṛbhu from *ṛbha/ḷbha, in a show of being a stickler for strict phonetic rules of derivation, Sameer does not find it necessary to be equally circumspect when suggesting alternate derivations.
So, I again put it as follows: the discussion can only proceed further (although I can sense many people yawning already and wondering when this quibbling will end), and/or Sameer can only save his face, by providing textbook quotations from other scholars of such words which are "mixtures" of "both" African and Indian words, and giving the specific African and (non-IE) Indian words which got "mixed" together to produce these four Indo-European words for ivory/elephant, and naming the specific African and (non-IE) Indian languages from which those words arose. A short description of the way in which those diverse words met together before getting "mixed" and the phonetic rules explaining these "mixtures" would also help.
Like it or not, the common Indo-European words for ivory/elephant prove the Indian Homeland or OIT.
It is not my call to "reconstruct PIE". It is his call to reconstruct the "mixtures" of "non-Aryan" Indian words and African words, to point out which Indian and African languages they came from, how they managed to join together and get "borrowed" only by four IE languages (but not by the Caucasian, Uralic, Altaic, Sumerian, etc. languages), and so on. While going about it, he could also reconstruct one common PIE word for "fox", explaining all the anomalies”