How Textbookworm Historical-PIE
Etymologists Go Completely Off the Tracks
Shrikant G. Talageri
A series of tweets by a tweeter (and yes, you guessed it: like all of his AIT-sepoy tribe, he has a Rigvedic-sounding twitter name: Rudrāḥ Tanūnapāt@Heg70412Hegde) has apparently given a series of tweets on the linguistic untenability of my interpretations of some of the names of the tribes opposing Sudās in the dāśarājña battle):
Mhmm, a few of Talageri's conjectures aren't linguistically
tenable. For example, he identifies Bhr̥gus with Phryges and Bryges. However,
Phryges & Bryges come from PIE *bʰerǵʰ-. ǵʰ always gives a ȷ́ʰ in
Indo-Iranian which is softened to give voiceless h in IA.
So the cognate of Phryge & Bryge in Indo-Aryan would be
something like barhá
Also Talageri identifies Rigvedic Alina with Ἕλληνες. However, one
must note that even if Ἕλληνες is an IE word (which its most probably not), the
initial /h/ would imply a PIE /y/, which would yield an IIr /y/.
Isn’t he clever? But, in
idiomatic English, he would actually be called “too clever by half” (in
Marathi, dīḍh śahāṇā, in Konkani dēḍ bu:dvantu). Everything
does not go by textbook rules, something which these textbookworms just don’t
seem to understand.
Is this how ancient words are to be analyzed and compared in historical analysis?
Unfortunately, textbookworms lose the ability to think, and the ability to comprehend natural and normal processes, and I refer particularly to those textbookworms who pass pompous pronouncements on the subject of the PIE origins, relationships and forms of words in the realm of historical studies on IE issues. They seem to think that Linguistics is an absolute science like Physics or Chemistry, so that everything moves in a fixed linear way as per certain rules that earlier linguists have noted down. See above: “ǵʰ always gives a ȷ́ʰ in Indo-Iranian which is softened to give voiceless h in IA”, or “the initial /h/ would imply a PIE /y/, which would yield an IIr /y/”. Anything even slightly different (as per their assumed laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry) automatically means that two words in two IE languages which are strikingly relatable and similar in form and meaning are not cognates, to the extent that far-reaching historical conclusions can be drawn from the conclusion that they are not cognates, e.g. “So the cognate of Phryge & Bryge in Indo-Aryan would be something like barhá”.
We have already seen this
kind of fake “scholarly” attitude where:
a) the cognate nature of two
words in two or more different IE languages (and even the IE
nature of one or more of them) is totally and absolutely denied very easily and
conclusively by citing such alleged immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry
when the historical agenda requires that the cognate or
even IE nature of the words be rejected; and
b) at the same time, much
more inexplicable and untenable word-formations, which violate every
single rule of the same laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry,
to the extent that there is absolute etymological chaos,
are easily and triumphantly accepted as cognates and IE words,
because they do not interfere or mess with that historical agenda:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/indian-fauna-elephants-foxes-and-ait.html
In this above article, see
how another similar textbookworm applies the above double-standard principles
to declare the clearly related IE words for elephant
to be non-cognate or non-IE, while at the
same time smoothly accepting the chaotic IE words for fox (which
violate every rule) to be both cognate and IE.
When the IE words for even such an undeniably PIE animal like the fox can develop into so many chaotic forms which require sophistry and rhetoric of the highest degree to claim them to be both cognate and IE, it is clear that these pretentious Textbookworm Historical-PIE-Etymologists are fake and agenda-driven.
But now, the question in this
present article is not even of an undeniably PIE animal like the fox:
in this case it is about the names of tribes or people, where the application
of strict laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry becomes
much more illogical, fake and agenda-driven.
A basic and simple common-sense fact not apparently known to, or understood by, the textbookworm in this present case is that names of people or tribes (or indeed of things like rivers or places) are not necessarily words of linear PIE descent that they should also be accepted or rejected as cognate or IE on the basis of whether or not they follow the alleged immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry. Such names are generally contemporary names, which can be either self-appellations or names given by others, which can be IE or non-IE in origin, but which have become fixed as names. The particular tribe or person (or river or place or kingdom) is known by this fixed name, and others will also know them by the same name modified as per the linguistic idiosyncrasies and linguistic habits of their own languages and customs, totally regardless of the origins and etymologies of the name.
When people borrow words from, or use names of, some other people, they simply borrow that existing contemporary form of that word or name (regardless of its linguistic origins) and then automatically modify it as per their own present linguistic idiosyncrasies and linguistic habits: they do not consult etymological conversion tables to see what form that name or word would have had (and therefore should now have) as per the laws of immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry.
Thus, when the Rigvedic word or name mitra, which is miθra in Avestan, developed into mihr or mehr in ancient Pahlavi or Persian, and was then borrowed back by Sanskrit as mihira, no Sanskrit etymologist opened up his textbooks of Sanskrit, Avestan and PIE etymological tables to see whether or not it was proper to use a form into Sanskrit which did not fulfill the immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry in the matter of correctness as a Sanskrit form derived from PIE. They simply accepted it into Sanskrit. Today, a textbookworm could claim that Sanskrit mihira is not a Sanskrit or IE word at all, since it does not follow the immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry in the matter of correctness as a derived form in lineage from PIE to Sanskrit.
That is not just one example: Sanskrit borrowed various astronomical and some other technical Greek terms into Sanskrit: e.g. heli-, horā, kendra. Likewise, diámetron and hydrokhóos were borrowed into Sanskrit as jāmitra and hṛdroga. Also words like khalīnós and sŷrinx were borrowed into Sanskrit as khalīna and suruṅga. The Sanskrit pundits, who borrowed these words, simply borrowed them in conveniently modified forms. They did not consult etymological conversion tables to see whether their modified Sanskrit forms were in the exact politically correct forms dictated by the immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry.
Likewise, when the ancient Greeks encountered India in the late first millennium BCE, they recorded the names of certain northwestern rivers (which still retained their millennia-old Vedic names, whether in the exact forms as in the Rigveda or in slightly altered or modified forms – except the Ravi, whose Rigvedic name Paruṣṇī had become Irāvatī) as follows:
|
Present
Name |
Sanskrit
Name |
Greek
Name |
|
Beas |
Vipāś |
Hyphasis |
|
Sutlej |
Śutudrī/Śatadrū
|
Zaradros |
|
Ravi |
Irāvatī |
Hydraotes |
|
Chenab |
Asikni |
Akesinēs |
|
Jhelum |
Vitastā |
Hydaspes |
|
Kabul |
Kubhā |
Kōphēs |
It may be seen that in
not a single one of these cases did the Greeks pick up a Sanskrit
name (say, Irāvatī), check it up in their PIE-to-Sanskrit
and Sanskrit-to-PIE conversion tables to
find out what the PIE form of Irāvatī could be; and then check up
that PIE form in their PIE-to-Greek and Greek-to-PIE
conversion tables to find out what the Greek form of that PIE
form could be. They simply coined a Greek term reasonably (to their
reasoning) resembling the original Sanskrit word as far as
possible in sound.
Today, a Textbookworm Historical-PIE Etymologist like Rudrāḥ Tanūnapāt@Heg70412Hegde, sitting in his etymology class in his ivory tower, with his collection of books of lists of PIE etymology conversion tables, can check up all these Greek names of rivers (Hyphasis, Zaradros, Hydraotes, Akesinēs, Hydaspes, Kōphēs) in his lists and conclude that they are not, and cannot be, the Greek names of the respective Indian rivers (Beas, Sutlej, Ravi, Chenab, Jhelum, Kabul) since they do not fit in with the strict and immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry in the matter of Greek cognates to the Sanskrit forms (Vipāś, Śutudrī/Śatadrū, Irāvatī, Asikni, Vitastā, Kubhā). He could even cite all the necessary phonetic laws (as he does in his above tweets) to clinch the matter!!
It might be
difficult for textbookworms to understand normal human processes, but the same
was the case in respect of the names of the different tribes in the Rigvedic
world: there was clearly a tribe named Bhṛgu (or Phryge or Bryge,
or any recognizably similar sounding name) and a tribe named Alina (or Eline,
or Arina, or any recognizably similar sounding name) in the area.
Whether the names were self-given or given by others, whether the names were of
clear IE etymology or not, the fact is that these were the names of
the tribes, and all other tribes referred to them with similar-sounding names
(i.e. the same names modified as per the linguistic
idiosyncrasies and linguistic habits of their own
languages and customs).
Not a single person in those times was concerned about whether all the different varieties of the names, individually or collectively, would pass the eagle-eyed scrutiny of present day Textbookworm Historical-PIE-Etymologists in the matter of PIE lineage and of etymological exactitude of cognateness as per all the phonetic laws. So, inevitably, Textbookworm Historical-PIE-Etymologists will end up completely “foxed” when they set out to try and examine these words. It is time for them to keep their textbooks in their desks in their classrooms, and to step out of their ivory towers into the real world if they want to return to a normal and realistic state of mind: according to this particular one, if there had been a tribe named Phryge or Bryge, the Indo-Aryan composer of the hymn would not have called the tribe “something like Phryge/Bryge”, but “something like Barhá”!
To sum up:
The evidence of the names of Sudās’ enemies in the Battle of Ten Kings cannot be submitted to etymological tests of the kind these Textbookworms want (or rather, claim to want when convenient to them. Where it is inconvenient, as in the case of the diverse IE names for the fox, they themselves would refuse such etymological tests).
Simple common sense and an honest approach would only take into consideration the striking and recognizable similarity of the names (i.e. the same names modified as per the linguistic idiosyncrasies and linguistic habits of their own languages and customs). This will of course bring in the references to “P.N.Oak” and allegations of “Oakisms”! But I did say “Simple common sense and an honest approach”. Perhaps I should add viveka-buddhi.
In the particular case of the enemy tribes and enemies of Sudās in the Rigveda:, the evidence is sweeping:
1. This evidence (except for the
name of the Madra) is based wholly on names mentioned in just four
verses in two hymns out of the 1028 hymns
and 10552 verses in the Rigveda, and all pertain to one single
event:
VII.18.5
Śimyu.
VII.18.6
Bhṛgu.
VII.18.7
Paktha, Bhalāna, Alina, Śiva, Viṣāṇin.
VII.83.1
Parśu/Parśava, Pṛthu/Pārthava, Dāsa.
(Another
Anu tribe in the Puranas and later tradition is the Madra).
2. The identity of these names is unwittingly backed, in a large number of cases, even by western scholars opposed to the OIT (like Witzel). And the historical Iranian tribes and other (Armenian-Greek-Albanian) people with these names are found in later historical times in a continuous belt covering all the areas from the Punjab (the scene of the battle) to southeastern and eastern Europe:
Iranian:
Afghanistan
(Avesta): Sairima (Śimyu), Dahi (Dāsa).
NE
Afghanistan: Nuristani/Piśācin
(Viṣāṇin).
Pakhtoonistan
(NW Pakistan), South Afghanistan: Pakhtoon/Pashtu
(Paktha).
Baluchistan
(SW Pakistan), SE Iran:
Bolan/Baluchi (Bhalāna).
NE
Iran:
Parthian/Parthava
(Pṛthu/Pārthava).
SW
Iran:
Parsua/Persian
(Parśu/Parśava).
NW
Iran: Madai/Mede (Madra).
Uzbekistan: Khiva/Khwarezmian
(Śiva).
W.
Turkmenistan:
Dahae (Dāsa).
Ukraine,
S. Russia:
Alan (Alina), Sarmatian
(Śimyu).
Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian:
Turkey: Phryge/Phrygian
(Bhṛgu).
Romania,
Bulgaria: Dacian (Dāsa).
Greek:
Greece: Hellene
(Alina).
Albanian/Illyrian:
Albania: Sirmio/Sirmium
(Śimyu).
The
above named historical Iranian tribes (particularly the Alans and
Sarmatians) include the ancestors of almost all other prominent
historical and modern Iranian groups not named above, such as the Scythians
(Sakas), Ossetes and Kurds, and even the presently Slavic-language
speaking (but formerly Iranian-language speaking) Serbs, Croats,
Bulgarians and others.
3. We also see here an important historical phenomenon of the trail of names: the tribal group which migrates furthest retains its linguistic identity, while those of that tribe who remain behind, or on the way, get linguistically absorbed into the surrounding linguistic group:
1. Anu Alina, Iranian Alan, Greek Hellene.
2. Anu Śimyu, Avestan Sairima, Iranian Sarmaha/Sarmatian, Albanian Sirmio/Sirmium.
3. Anu Bhṛgu/Atharvan, Iranian Athravan, Thraco-Phrygian Bryge/Phryge.
4. Anu Madra, Iranian Mada.
5. Anu Dāsa, Avestan
Dahi, Iranian Dahae, Thraco-Phrygian Dacian.
4. The names correspond to the names of ancient tribes or people belonging to exactly those four branches―Iranian, Armenian, Greek, Albanian―of Indo-European languages which, according to the linguistic analysis, were (along with Indo-Aryan) together in the IE Homeland after the departure of the other seven branches.
Can all these be "coincidences" or "Oakish cases"? For really "Oakish logic", read Witzel’s articles listing “non-Aryan” or specifically “Munda” words discovered by him in the Rigveda. But honesty is something impossible to expect from the AIT tribe.
APPENDIX ADDED on same day 15
April 2025, 7 PM:
I just received a personal mail from the person who writes under the twitter name “Rudrāḥ Tanūnapāt@Heg70412Hegde”. In it, he writes as follows: “I have not said anything about the identification of several Iranian tribes in your Dāśarajña scheme and I deem it to be largely accurate. Once again, I have great respect for your work, and I hold it to be largely accurate. However, the reason I am playing devils advocate is because I have the best interests of the anti-AMT side at heart because I am an anti-AMTist myself.”
If that is so, I take back any rude words I may have written in the above article about him. Further, I am even grateful to him for raising such an issue in such a “textbookworm” manner, because it gave me an opportunity to present this very necessary and detailed explanation for why such PIE-etymologizing is incorrect and inaccurate, which I would not have thought of doing if I had not been sent these tweets.
