Examination of "An Indo-European
Cloudland" by Michel Danino, presented at ICHR 2002
Shrikant Talageri
The
above paper, "An Indo-European Cloudland" was presented by
Michel Danino at the ICHR seminar on "The Homeland of Indo-European
Languages and Culture", January 7-9, 2002. It was published in a
volume "A Discourse on Indo-European Language and Culture",
ed. D.N. Tripathi, ICHR, New Delhi, 2005, pp.42-53. It is a truly excellent
paper where it comes to examining some of the prominent fallacies in the AIT
(Aryan Invasion Theory), particularly in relation to the attempts to delink the Vedic civilization
from the Harappan Civilization, and should be read in full, and hence I will
not repeat his points and logical conclusions here: they should be read in the
original. Hence my criticism of this paper in this present article should
not be misconstrued by Danino or anyone else.
However,
there is one point on which the paper falls prey to a common fallacy to which
many opponents of the AIT from the Indian (and India-friendly) side are
susceptible. It denies or tries to brush away certain fundamental aspects of
the Indo-European debate: the very existence of such a thing as an
Indo-European language family, of a Proto-Indo-European ancestral language and
Homeland, and the concept of a common ancestry "based on the 'tree
model' (or genetic model)".
Danino
notes that "a school of thought has attempted an opposite model, the
'Out of India' theory (OIT) in which successive migrations out of India (which,
at least, clearly figure in the scriptures) explain the spread of IE languages
and culture. Among recent proponents (such as Koenraad Elst mentioned above in
connection with the linguistic aspect), two in-depth studies by Shrikant G.
Talageri (2000) and David Frawley (2001) deserve attention, based as they are
on a fresh look at historical elements in the Rig-Veda" (p.8).
However, he tell us, "OIT may not be the last word, and the first
question we must ask, in the face of the persistent failure of the IE model,
is: Do we need an original homeland and an original proto-language at all?
An alternative to this 'big bang' or 'Garden of Eden' approach may lie in a
much longer period of interaction between cultures in and outside India, with a
multiplicity of now vanished regional dialects tending to converge and diverge
in turn, and acting as bridges between the main language families. In such a
model, we would have many clusters of homelands, not just in Eurasia but beyond.
Vedic culture would be indigenous to India and contemporary with the Harappan
civilization―this is clearly imposed by the Sarasvati time line"
(p.8).
Now
it could seem that this is an old paper, from 2002 (published in 2005), and
therefore may not represent the exact present views of Danino, who is among one
of the respected leading lights of the Hindu intellectual movement. However,
this does not appear to be so: we were both present at a seminar in Hyderabad in January 2020, and he reiterated the same views in his talk at this
seminar as well. Moreover, this is a major fallacy subscribed to by many
opponents of the AIT―and very prominent and eminent opponents of the AIT at
that―and although I have already dealt with this issue earlier in a separate
article "Are German and French closer to Sanskrit than Malayalam,
Kannada and Telugu?", I feel it necessary to take up the question once
more here in the specific context of the clearly expressed views of Shri
Danino.
It
must be realized that the fact of an Indo-European language family, original
proto-language (at least as ancestral to the twelve known branches of
Indo-European languages) and an original homeland for this proto-language, is
exactly that: a fact. You cannot disprove the AIT by the simple
expedient of simply denying this fact. The "Indo-Aryan"
languages constitute just one of the twelve known distinct
branches of Indo-European languages, and it is not enough to simply try to show
that the Indo-Aryan languages were native to India: the history of the
dispersal of the twelve branches has to be uncovered, failing which the whole
linguistic problem remains unsolved. All the twelve branches have to have
originated in one small contiguous area, they cannot have automatically and
independently sprung up, unconnected with each other, in different
non-contiguous parts of the Old World, or connected to each other in some ethereal
or surreal reciprocal way in remote ancient times. Either Indo-Aryan originally
came from some distant area, or the other distant branches of Indo-European
moved out from India in the remote past. Trying to escape this conclusion, by
denying the validity of linguistic logic, and seeking to be satisfied with
providing a half-answer amounts to simply running away from this problem and
asking to be defeated in the debate.
[Note:
I have pointed out many times that the term "Indo-Aryan" should be
strictly applied only to the Vedic dialects, since the PIE was reconstructed by
only taking the Vedic and Vedic-derived Sanskrit structure and vocabulary in
the reconstruction: actually the modern "Indo-Aryan" languages are
originally derived from other non-Vedic but equally Indo-European
dialects to the east and south of the Vedic area, whose features were not
taken into consideration. However, keeping this fact in mind, we must also
consider the need to maintain coherence in the debate and so the term
"Indo-Aryan" will generally be used as a term to include both the
linguistic "Indo-Aryan" (i.e. Vedic) dialects as well as the other
unrecorded non-Vedic Indo-European dialects of the past to its east and south within
India].
We
will examine what Danino has to say in this paper:
I.
An "alternative model" to the "tree model"?
II.
The example of the English language.
I. An "alternative model" to
the "tree model"?
Danino
rejects the relationship of the different branches of Indo-European branches in
a family "tree model" and suggests instead that an "alternative to this 'big
bang' or 'Garden of Eden' approach may lie in a much longer period of
interaction between cultures in and outside India, with a multiplicity of now
vanished regional dialects tending to converge and diverge in turn, and acting
as bridges between the main language families. In such a model, we would
have many clusters of homelands, not just in Eurasia but beyond. Vedic
culture would be indigenous to India and contemporary with the Harappan
civilization―this is clearly imposed by the Sarasvati time line"
(p.8).
This
pretty picture of "a multiplicity of now vanished regional dialects"―"vanished"
regional dialects which have left no record anywhere―is rather strange when
even the very logical concept of a PIE ancestral language is
rejected because there is no written record available for such a language. And
how would one explain in detail this process of these dialects "tending
to converge and diverge in turn, and acting as bridges between the main
language families" when even the very simple concept of a family tree
seems to strain the credibility of people not wanting to accept it?
Further,
beyond the clues that can be gleaned from linguistics and studies in
comparative mythology and religion, is there even the faintest trace of any
concrete evidence that, for example, the pre-Vedic people, the pre-Hittite
people, the pre-Greek people, the pre-Teutonic (Germanic) people, to name just
four, all more or less in their present or earliest known historical habitats
representing "many clusters of homelands, not just in Eurasia but
beyond", were in touch with each other?
The
main refrain is that the "similarities" in the oldest known
representatives of the twelve Indo-European branches do not represent common
ancestry but mutual influences among different originally linguistically
unrelated people in their "many clusters of homelands, not just in
Eurasia but beyond".
Can
languages in remote areas influence each other in such a manner? In fact, the
"similarities"―which is really a gross understatement of the nature
of the linguistic connections between the different branches―are such that even
different unrelated languages living in a geographically close space
and sharing a common culture and civilizational heritage cannot
influence each other to the extent that they can produce such close
correspondences.
The
only model that can explain these close correspondences is in fact the
"tree model". This logical model cannot be rejected on the ground
that it fails to answer every single seeming anomaly, or on the ground of lack
of concrete evidence, when the only vague "alternative models"
suggested are even more prone to countless anomalies and even greater lack of concrete
evidence.
Danino
tells us that the "whole IE edifice rests on migrations across vast
areas, but for which evidence is generally non-existent" (p.5). But
does one really require "evidence" to deduce that a language family
spread out historically over a huge stretch from Sri Lanka to Iceland must have
covered that huge area initially by migrations from one area to the others? The
only real alternative is to suggest either that different languages, totally
unrelated to each other, but having surprising "similarities",
automatically sprang up independently in different parts of Eurasia in the
remote past, or, alternately, to simply stoutly deny, and keep on denying, that
any "similarities" do indeed exist among the different branches.
Further,
Danino dismisses the IE idea by suggesting that "disagreement has
dogged the date of the supposed dispersal, which ranges from 7000 to 3000 BC
(Herbert Kühn and Lothar Kilian go even beyond 10000 BC). Clearly linguistics
has no reliable way to date the speeds with which languages evolve"
(p.2). But the question is not about the "speeds with which languages
evolve" but about the datable technological developments for which the
different branches have common words, and this narrows it down to around 3000
BCE. If the branches had dispersed from a common area in 7000 BCE or before 10000 BCE,
and separated from each other, they could not possibly have had common words
for wheeled vehicles and copper, among other things.
So
the only question―regardless of whether there is concrete evidence for it or
not―is: are the twelve branches "genetically" related to each other
in a family "tree model"? Or are the "similarities" based
on mutual influence and borrowing between originally unrelated languages?
What
are these so-called "similarities"?
1.
To begin with, let us take up the most common items: numbers and relationships.
Compare modern English father, mother, brother, sister,
son, daughter, Sanskrit pitar, mātar, bhrātar,
svasar, sūnu, duhitar, and modern Persian pidar, mādar,
birādar, xvāhar, pesar, dukhtar. Only the modern
Persian pesar does not show the connection, but the Avestan word was hūnu.
(and for sister it was xvasar). What is the connection between these
three languages that the words should be so closely similar? The modern Konkani
words are bappūsu, āvsu, bhāu, bhaiṇi, pūtu,
dhūva. The Hindi words are bāp, mā, bhāī, behen,
beṭā, beṭī. The reader can check the equivalent words in any
other Indo-Aryan language known to him/her. How can modern English and
Persian―two languages far separated from each other in space and from Vedic
Sanskrit in both time and space―have words so strikingly corresponding to Sanskrit
words if the three languages are not actually related to each other,
when even modern Indo-Aryan languages, all demonstrably related to each other
and to Sanskrit, have words different from Sanskrit and from each other? Of
course, the modern Indo-Aryan words can usually be shown to be derived from the
above Sanskrit words (Konkani dhūva from duhitar, etc.) or
derived from other Vedic words (Konkani pūtu from Sanskrit putra)
or words developed in later Sanskrit though in some cases they can be
local colloquial developments, but in the case of modern English and Persian,
there is no need to do any analysis: the relationship is loud and clear.
If
the words are to be explained as words borrowed from Sanskrit by the ancestral
forms (originally unrelated to Sanskrit) of English and Persian which
existed in ancient times, then this explanation is infinitely more hypothetical
and unsubstantiated than any reconstructed PIE language.
This
explanation becomes even more dubious if we add the related words from other
branches (other than the three already seen), all to be assumed to be
descended from hypothetical ancestral forms originally unrelated to
Sanskrit and to each other?
Tocharian:
pācer, mācer, procer, ser, soy, tkācer.
Old
Irish: athair, máthair, bráthair, sïur, ― , ― .
Greek:
patēr, mētēr, ― , ― , huios, thugátēr.
Latin:
pater, māter, frāter, soror, ― , ― .
Russian:
oteç, maty, brat, syestra, syn, dochy.
Lithuanian:
― , mótina, brolis, sesuõ, sūnùs, duktē.
Armenian:
hayr, mayr, ― , xwuyr, ― , dowstr.
2.
Let us take the numbers: Compare Sanskrit "dvā, tri, catur, panca"
with Russian "dva, tri, cetuire, pyac"; or Sanskrit "saptan,
aṣṭan, navan, daśan" with Latin "septem, octo, novem, decem".
Or
compare the Persian numerals "yak, du, si, chahar, panj, shish, haft,
hasht, nuh, dah" with Hindi "ek, do, tīn, chār, pānc, che,
sāt, āṭh, nau, das".
And
then compare all the above with Tamil "onṛu, iranḍu, mūnṛu, nāngu,
aindu, āṛu, ēzhu, eṭṭu, onbadu, pattu" or Telugu "okaṭi, renḍu,
mūḍu, nālugu, ayidu, āru, ēḍu, enimidi, tommidi, padi".
Instead
of wading through all the numbers, one number will illustrate the picture much
more clearly:
Sanskrit
tri, (and its form trīṇi, and the obviously related Indo-Aryan forms: Sinhalese tuna, Kashmiri tre,
Hindi tīn, Marathi tīn, Konkani tīni, Gujarati traṇ,
Sindhi ṭē, Punjabi tinna, Nepali tīna, Bengali tina,
Oriya tini, Assamese tini, etc.). In Iranian, we have Avestan thri,
becoming modern Persian sī/sē, Baluchi sē, Kurdish sē,
Ossetic erte, Pashto dray. Indo-Aryan outside India: Romany
(Gypsy) trin, Mitanni tera.
The
words in the other distant branches are also obviously related: Greek
treis, Albanian tre, English three, German drei,
Dutch drie, Swedish tre, Danish tre, Norwegian tre,
Icelandic ϸryu, Gothic ϸrija, Latin tres, French trois,
Spanish tres, Portuguese três, Catalan tres, Italian tre,
Romanian trei, Russian tri, Belarusian tri, Ukrainian try,
Macedonian tri, Polish trzy, Czech tři, Slovak tri,
Slovenian tríje, Serbian tri, Croatian tri, Lithuanian trys,
Latvian tris, Irish trī, Welsh tri, Tocharian trai,
Hittite tēries.
Compare
all these words with the Dravidian words, all within India: Tamil
mūnṛu, Malayalam mūnnu, Telugu mūḍu, Kannada mūru,
Tulu mūji, Gond mūnd, Toda mūd, Kodagu mūdu, Brahui
musit.
Further,
compare them with the Austric words, in India as well as in southeast Asia:
Santali pɛ, Turi pea, Mundari apia, Korku apai,
Bhumij pea, Kharia uphe, Bijori apia. And in southeast
Asia: Vietnamese ba, Cambodian (Khmer) bǝy.
The
family-wise division between the three language families is clear. Again, if
ancient Sanskrit could influence all the "unrelated" languages spread
out over such a huge stretch of Eurasia into borrowing its numbers so
completely, without leaving, in a single one of them, any parallel trace of
earlier unrelated numbers, why did it fail with equal totality to influence all
these Indian languages into doing so as well?
3.
As we saw, there is complete identity between the numbers in the different
Indo-European branches. There is no parallel trace of any assumed earlier
non-Indo-European numbers in a single one of these languages.
And
if all of them were more or less native to their historical areas and were only
supposed to be "interacting" with and influencing each other, there
is zero evidence anywhere of such deep "interaction".
But,
hypothetically and minimally speaking, it is still not impossible in general that
languages can borrow words for relationships and numbers from other
languages. Today, we frequently find Indians using words like "mummy,
"daddy", "uncle", "aunty", as well as English
numbers, in their discourse even when talking in their own languages (Hindi,
Tamil, whatever).
But
there are classes of words which are not easily borrowed.
Personal pronouns are one such class. Compare the personal pronouns in the
various Indo-European languages: the nominative plurals in Sanskrit vay-,
yūy-, te, English we, you, they, and Avestan vae, yūz,
dī, or the accusative forms of the same plural pronouns, Sanskrit nas,
vas, Avestan noh, voh,
Russian nas, vas, and the Latin
nominative forms nos, vos.
Or
the Sanskrit dative forms -me and -te with Avestan me and te, English me and thee, Greek me
and se (te in Doric Greek), Latin me and te, etc.
Again,
one word will illustrate the picture much more clearly: Sanskrit tu-, Hindi
tū, Marathi tū, Konkani tūȗva, Sindhi tuȗ, Punjabi tūȗ,
Gujarati tū, Bengali tui, Oriya tu, Assamese toi, Kashmiri
tsa, Romany (Gypsy) tu. In Iranian, we have Avestan tū
Persian tu, Pashto tu, Kurdish tu, Baluchi tæw.
Here
are the words in the other distant branches: Latin tū, Italian
tu, Spanish tu, Portuguese tu, French tu, Romanian tu,
Catalan tu, Irish tu, Scots-Gaelic thu, Welsh ti,
Old English thū (later English thou), Icelandic thu,
German du, Norwegian du, Danish du, Swedish du, Old
Church Slavic ty, Russian ty, Belarusian ty, Polish ty,
Czech ty, Slovak ty, Ukrainian ty, Bulgarian ti,
Serbian ti, Croatian ti, Slovenian ti, Macedonian ti,
Bosnian ti, Armenian du, Albanian ti, Doric Greek tu,
Lithuanian tu, Latvian tu, Tocharian tu, Hittite ta /
du.
Compare
this flood of Indo-European words with the Dravidian equivalents: Tamil nī,
Malayalam nī, Toda nī, Kota nī, Brahui nī, Kurukh nīn,
Kannada nīnu, Kolami nīv, Naiki nīv, Telugu nīvu.
It
is extremely unnatural for languages to borrow personal pronouns from other
languages. Therefore the completely sweeping nature of the correspondences
among different Indo-European languages is again proof of the relationship
between them.
4.
But the very basis of any language lies in its verbal roots. We
will not bother to give lists of common verbal roots here, since many such
lists are available on the internet, and in any case the comparative study of
Indo-European languages, and the hypothetical reconstruction of the likely PIE vocabulary
from its verbal roots, is actually based primarily on these common
verbal roots. But, it would be too technical for this article.
But
we will just take brief note here of a few easy-to-understand common features
of the Indo-European verbs:
a)
To begin with, a look at the comparative conjugation of a verb in a few main ancient
Indo-European languages. This is a standard example often given, and it is
important for us because it is of a verb very important to us: the verb bhar-
"to bear", which is the root from which we get the name of the people
among whom the oldest Indo-European text in the world, the Rigveda, was
composed: the Bharatas; the name of India's greatest epic: the Mahābhārata;
and, in fact the very name of India itself: Bhārat or Bhāratvarṣa.
The
comparative chart gives the present tense conjugation:
|
|
(I)
bear
|
(thou)
bearest
|
he/she/it)
bears/beareth
|
(we)
bear
|
(you)
bear
|
(they)
bear
|
|
Sanskrit
|
bharāmi
|
bharasi
|
bharati
|
bharāmas
|
bharatha
|
bharanth
|
|
Avestan
|
barā
|
barāhi
|
baraiti
|
barāmahi
|
baratha
|
baranti
|
|
Gothic
|
baira
|
bairis
|
bairith
|
bairam
|
bairith
|
bairand
|
|
Greek
|
pherō
|
phereis
|
pherei
|
pheremon
|
pherete
|
pherousi
|
|
Latin
|
ferō
|
fers
|
fert
|
ferimus
|
fertis
|
ferunt
|
|
OldIrish
|
birum
|
bir
|
berid
|
bermoi
|
beirthe
|
berait
|
|
OldSlavic
|
bero
|
bereši
|
beretŭ
|
beremŭ
|
berete
|
berotŭ
|
Note
the connection not only in the verbs but also in the consonants in the
suffixes: m in the first person singular and plural, s in the
second person singular, t in the third person singular, th in the
second person plural, and nt in the third person plural (though all changed
in some cases).
2.
The relation is fundamental, and covers not only the original roots of the
basic verbs, but even the prefixes used to form new words from those roots.
Compare the following Sanskrit prefixes with their Avestan and Greek equivalents:
SANSKRIT
|
AVESTAN
| GREEK
|
|
ati
|
aiti
|
ety
|
|
antar
|
antar
|
endo
/ ento
|
|
apa
|
apa
|
apo
/ ap
|
|
api
|
aipi
|
epi
|
|
abhi
|
aibi
/ aiwi
|
amphi
|
|
anu
|
anu
|
―
|
|
ava
|
ava
|
―
|
|
ā
|
ā
|
ana
|
|
ud
|
uz
|
―
|
|
upa
|
upa
|
hypo
/ hyp
|
|
ni
|
ni
|
eni
|
|
niṣ
|
niz
|
―
|
|
para
/ parā
|
para
/ parā
|
para
|
|
pari
|
pairi
|
peri
|
|
pra
|
fra
|
pro
|
|
prati
|
paiti
|
proti
/ poti
|
|
vi
|
vi
|
―
|
|
sam
|
ham
|
syn
/ sym
|
|
a
/ an
|
a/
an
|
in
|
|
duṣ
|
duz
|
―
|
|
sva
|
hva
|
―
|
|
su
|
hu
|
eu
|
3.
The verb which is the most fundamental to any language is the verb "to
be". It is almost impossible for any language to borrow this verb from
another language. But objecting to the idea of a "family tree" relationship
connecting the twelve branches of Indo-European languages amounts to claiming
that in the extremely remote, unrecorded and purely hypothetical past, a
great number of totally independent and unrelated languages spread out over
a major part of Eurasia were busy borrowing to such an extent from each
other that all of them, even thousands of years later, have closely
identifiable forms for this very basic verb.
Here are the singular present tense forms for the verb
"to be" in one prominent ancient or modern language from each of the
twelve branches, equivalent to the English forms (I) am, (thou) art, (he/she/it) is:
Sanskrit: asmi, asi, asti.
Avestan: ahmī, ahī, astī.
Homeric Greek: eimi, essi, esti.
Latin: sum, es, est.
Gothic: em, ert, est.
Hittite: ēšmi, ēšši, ēšzi.
Old Irish: am, at, is.
Russian: esmy, esi, esty.
Lithuanian: esmi, esi, esti.
Albanian: jam, je, ishtë.
Armenian: em, es, ê.
Tocharian: -am, -at, -aṣ.
Here are the equivalent forms in the Dravidian
languages of South India:
Tamil: irukkiŗēn, irukkiŗāy,
irukkiŗān/irukkiŗāḷ/irukkiŗadu.
Kannada: iddēne, iddi,
iddāne/iddāḷe/ide.
Telugu: unnānu, unnāvu,
unnāḍu/unnadi/unnadi.
And
in some representative modern Indo-Aryan languages of the North:
Marathi: āhe, āhes, āhe.
Konkani: āssa, āssa, āssa.
Hindi: hũ, hai, hai.
Gujarati: chũ, che, che.
Bengali: āchi, ācha,
āche.
Sindhi: āhyẫ, āhĩ,
āhe.
Punjabi: hẫ, haĩ,
hai.
Note how related words even in
languages bordering on each other develop noticeably distinct forms with the
passage of time: even the modern North Indian ("Aryan" language)
words are not exactly like the Sanskrit words or like each other,
though the connection can be seen or analyzed; but the words in the
ancient Indo-European languages given above, some of which are ancient
languages and some modern ones, and which are separated from each other by
thousands of miles and by diverse and independent histories and no known
ancient prehistorical contacts, are almost replicas of each other: by
simply changing the letter a in the Sanskrit words to e, you get
the exact Russian and Lithuanian words, and the Avestan, Greek and Hittite
forms also are very little different. A slightly different development gives us
the closely similar Germanic (English, Gothic), Celtic (Irish) and Tocharian
forms!
Why must anyone be so reluctant to
accept facts as to want to postulate a scenario of mutual influence of this
intensity in ancient times, so total and all-powerful that even such basic
words could have been borrowed from one to the other, when there is not a
single known example anywhere in the whole world where even closely situated
languages with one language totally influencing the other one has resulted in
the borrowing of personal pronouns or basic verbal forms.
Obviously the
"Indo-European" languages are closely related to each other. But
the speakers of the languages are clearly not racially or
genetically related to each other (while the speakers of different language
families in India are racially and genetically related to each
other). So this means that these languages have spread from some one particular
area to all the other areas in prehistoric times, and (by elite dominance or
whatever means) language replacement took place where the people in the other
areas, over the centuries, slowly adopted these languages: there can be no
alternative explanation. The only question is: from which original area did
they spread out? I have shown that it was from North India.
Why
must people refuse to win a battle and insist on trying to lose it by what is idiomatically
described as "bunging a spanner in the works"?
There
are many such spanners being thrown in the works by different sets of people
who speak in the name of Hindus and Hindu interests:
In
this article we are dealing with claims that there is no such thing as an
Indo-European family of languages with a common source, and therefore that the
academic search for an original homeland is unnecessary and that the AIT and
OIT are both equally misguided.
Then
there are those who find it sacrilegious to analyze an "apaurusheya"
text like the Rigveda because it is a divine and timeless text not written by
any human being, and that searching for clues to mundane historical events in
it is at worst blasphemy, and at best foolishness.
Then
we have those who reject all studies based on non-traditional methods as being
based on a "westernized" outlook. The AIT-promoting Indologists are
credited with malevolent intentions, but the OIT-claimants are no better, since
they use similar ideas, methods and
techniques in analyzing the Rigveda, rather than the methods used by ancient
Indian analysts of the Rigveda.
Then
there is the extremely popular multitude of scholars and their fans who want to
take Indian history (and texts like the Rigveda and events like the Ramayana
and Mahabharata) into as remote a past as possible. There is of course a division
between those who rely on periods of lakhs of years mentioned in the Puranas
and other scriptures, and those who are more modest: they are satisfied with
dates between 14000 BCE and 5000 BCE.
Then
there are those who want to base their ideas of ancient events and periods only
on the descriptions in the Puranas and Epics.
There
are many more groups, in which we cannot include those staunch upper-caste Hindus
who are actually pro-AIT, and very militantly so, for reasons I have already
dealt with in my article on Manasataramgini.
But,
like it or not, the original PIE homeland is an extremely important and
indispensable part of the Indo-European debate. It cannot be denied. Either the
AIT is true or the OIT, there can be no half-way solutions.
Two
incidental questions which are often raised:
1.
Is this subject important? If history as an academic subject is of any
importance at all, then this subject is definitely important,
since we are speaking of the geographical and historical origins of a language
family which almost exclusively dominates four of the six
inhabited continents of the world (Europe, North America, South America and
Australia) and large parts of a fifth one (Asia), and is extremely
important in the sixth continent as well (Africa).
2.
Does it make any difference to the concept of "Hindutva hi rashtriyatva
hai" for India? No, it does not really. Even if the Vedic culture came
from outside India, which it very definitely did not, Hindutva
is still rashtriyatva in India. I dealt with this subject in
detail at the very beginning of my very first book "The Aryan Invasion
Theory and Indian Nationalism" in 1993. See the pdf of the
introduction and first three chapters of that book in my google drive:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4WOjKfTt7NbRlpjNDE5WjYwaEk
But
this does not mean that we should let falsehood prevail or deliberately choose
to lose or sabotage a winning battle.
II. The example of the English language
As
we saw, Danino tells us that the "tree model" "does not even
work for the historical period: for instance the model shows English as
originating from Germanic (through West Germanic and Low German), but does not
account for the very considerable influence of Latin on it, largely through
French".
Fortunately,
Danino chooses for his illustration the English language, which will be very
well known to at least the readers of this article, which is in English. So it
will make it easier to discuss the issue.
Firstly,
the logic Danino uses above is misplaced: the point of IE studies―or at least
of that part of IE studies which involves the quest for the original
homeland―is not to trace out the subsequent history of each branch and language
and the numerous influences which each of these individual branches and
individual languages underwent in the course, each, of its long individual
history: it is only to locate the chronological and geographical origins
of these branches and languages. And later influences do not change the
origins: English does not become anything other than a Germanic language,
whatever other non-Germanic influences it underwent during its subsequent
checkered history―a very closely parallel example is Urdu which remains an
Indo-Aryan language, and does not become an Iranian or Semitic language,
despite the huge infusion of Persian and Arabic vocabulary and idioms and
literary devices into the language. Subsequent influences on each of the
branches and languages is each a matter of separate study.
English
was indeed a Germanic language. It is strange that Danino chooses to give as an
example a language which is recorded and documented, with every new change and
transformation and innovation taking place, under different influences or with
the passage of time, in almost every stage of its history from at least the
eleventh century.
In
this context, we may first note that a glance at English will also demonstrate
a point about the PIE language which it is necessary for many opponents of the
AIT―who insist that the Vedic language rather than some artificially
reconstructed PIE "which is purely hypothetical" should be treated as
the ultimate parent―to understand: i.e. that change is an inevitable aspect
of any language.
To
illustrate the changes which take place in languages as part of the natural
process of language change, here is a passage from the Bible, from the story of
the "prodigal son" in chapter 15 of the Gospel according to Luke, as given
in a twentieth century English translation (the example is taken from "The
history of the English Language" by Charles Barber and others):
"Now
his elder son was out on the farm; and on his way back, as he approached the
house, he heard music and dancing. He called one of the servants and asked what
it meant. The servant told him, 'Your brother has come home, and your father
has killed the fatted calf because he has him back safe and sound'".
And
here is an eleventh century translation of the same in the English of that time
(the vowel-elongation line over the vowels has been added by the authors of the
book):
"Soplīcē
his yldra sunu wæs on æcere; and hē cōm, and ϸā hē ϸām hūse, genēalǣthe, hē
gehyrde ϸæne swēg and ϸæt wered. ϸā clypode hē ānne ϸēow, and acsōde hine hwæt ϸæt
wǣre. ϸā cwæϸ hē, 'ϸīn brōϸor cōm, and ϸīn fæder ofslōh ān fætt cealf, forϸām
thē hē hine halne onfēng'".
How
many readers would be able to understand this small paragraph in the English of
the 11th century? Or even to recognize that the language of that paragraph
is English? The vocabulary, grammar, syntax, spellings and even the
alphabets (ϸ = th) are distinct from the English of the present day. I have
given only one example: the reader can himself check up the plentiful material
on the historically changing nature of English available on the internet or in
other scholarly studies.
Language
change is a natural process in any and every language in the world. No language
remains completely static over a long period of time. In the case of the
Rigveda itself, since it was composed over a long period of time, we see
distinct differences in language between the oldest and newest parts of the
text. As the oldest hymns of the Rigveda were not composed at the point of time
of "creation" of the universe, or in the first moment when human
beings started speaking, it is only to be expected that if we go back into time
further and further backwards from the point of time when the earliest hymns of
the Rigveda were composed, the older unrecorded forms of
the language will differ more and more from the earliest recorded form. When we
move back to a certain point of time, we will naturally reach the
Proto-Indo-European stage.
That
PIE language may not be exactly identical to the PIE language reconstructed by
linguists, but it may be that this PIE language reconstructed by linguists
nevertheless is as good an approximation of the real thing as may be expected
in a reconstruction with all its shortcomings of available data and input and
its human errors. But in any case, it simply cannot be that the original PIE
language was identical to the Vedic language, which must have been more and
more different from its earliest recorded version as we go further and further
back into the past. That those earlier versions are not recorded does not
mean they never existed: if they are "hypothetical" that is only
natural and to be expected. Everyone knows one's father's name and identity,
and grandfather's, and perhaps great-grandfather's. But after a certain point
one does not know the names and identities of ancestors going further and
further back in time: does this mean those ancestors, being hypothetical, did
not exist, and the earliest known ancestor was the First Man?
[A
side-issue: some people churlishly ask why the earliest hypothetical common
ancestor of the Indo-European languages should not be called
"proto-Vedic" instead of proto-Indo-European. Well, since it was the
ancestor of all the Indo-European languages besides Vedic, it could just as well
be called proto-Greek, proto-Latin, proto-Slavic, proto-Anatolian, etc. So
proto-Indo-European is the most unbiased and objective name. The only
important question is: where was this language spoken? And the answer is: in
India!]
In
any case, back to English:
English
is a Germanic language. But, due to other influences―as Danino correctly points
out, "the very considerable influence of Latin on it, largely through
French"―this would not be immediately apparent. In my first book, in
1993, I had illustrated the sharp difference between, for example, German and
English, to show the extent of these changes. I will present the case as
follows:
A.
The Sharp Difference between English and German.
B.
Why English is still a Germanic language.
A.
The Sharp Difference between English and German:
English
and German are strikingly different from each other, although at an early stage
they were reasonably similar to each other. German has remained conservative or
evolved within its own parameters, while English has changed in many ways,
usually due to external influences, but also separate internal evolution and
change:
1.
Vocabulary: While German has developed its own vocabulary from
its original Germanic root-words, English has borrowed heavily from the Italic
branch (Latin and the modern Romance languages). Compare the following few
examples of some English words and their German and Spanish (Italic)
equivalents:
|
ENGLISH
|
SPANISH
|
GERMAN
|
|
evidence
|
la evidencia
|
der Beweiss
|
|
evolution
|
la evolución
|
die Entwickelung
|
|
exact
|
exacto
|
genau
|
|
exaggeration
|
la exageración
|
die Übertreibung
|
|
exaltation
|
la exaltación
|
die Erhebung
|
|
examination
|
la examen
|
die Prüfung
|
|
example
|
el ejemplo
|
das Beispiel
|
|
exasperation
|
el exasperación
|
die Erbitterung
|
|
excavation
|
el excavación
|
die Aushöhlung
|
|
exceed
|
exceder
|
überschreiten
|
|
excellent
|
excelente
|
vortrefflich
|
|
except
|
exceptuar
|
ausnehmen
|
|
excess
|
el exceso
|
das Übermass
|
|
excitable
|
excitable
|
erregbar
|
|
exclamation
|
el exclamación
|
der Ausruf
|
The
effect is startling: going by the evidence alone, English could be branded an
Italic language rather than a Germanic one: the German words above are
incomprehensible but the Spanish words are immediately understandable. It is
estimated by some that if all the words, literary phrases and technical terms
in English are counted, the borrowings from Italic (Latin and French) and Greek
would easily exceed 60-70% of the English vocabulary. The book "The Loom
of Language" by William Bodmer is instructive in this regard. Another
short but interesting piece on borrowed words in English:
https://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words04/structure/borrowed.html
Not
only is the German vocabulary distinct, but even the attitude towards words is
different. The German style of joining together words to an extreme extent is
foreign to English. Douglas Busk, for example, in his book "The Curse of
Tongues and Some Remedies", parodies this by giving his idea of the
headline which a German newspaper would probably give if an assassination
attempt were made on the Hottentot emperor's wife on a visit to Germany: "Hottentottenpotentatentantenattentäter…..which,
despite its thirty-eight letters, would be instantly comprehensible to any
German reader".
2.
Syntax: The German vocabulary is richly distinct from the
English. Now see what Frederick Bodmer has to say (in his book "The Loom
of Language", p.286) about German-Dutch syntax: "The most
important difference between English and the two German languages is the order
of words. It is so great that half the work of translating a passage from a
German or Dutch book remains to be done when the meaning of all the individual
words is clear, especially if it conveys new information or deals with abstract
ideas". The most obvious fact is that in German (as in Indian
languages) the verb comes at the end of the sentence.
3.
Grammar: In grammar, the two languages have evolved so
differently that German grammar is a nightmare for any English speaker.
While
English nouns have no gender (except for the obvious, boy being
masculine, girl being feminine, etc.), German nouns have gender: thus,
in our above list, Beweiss (evidence) is masculine, Entwickelung
(evolution) is feminine and Beispiel (example) is neuter.
Likewise,
the conjugation of the verb in German is much more complicated than in English.
Worse,
the articles (in English, simply the definite the and indefinite a/an)
also have genders and even numbers, and even case (nominative, accusative,
genitive, dative)! Thus:
Definite
articles (the):
|
|
MASCULINE
|
NEUTER
|
FEMININE
|
PLURAL
|
|
NOMINATIVE
|
der
|
das
|
die
|
die
|
|
ACCUSATIVE
|
den
|
das
|
die
|
die
|
|
GENITIVE
|
des
|
des
|
der
|
der
|
|
DATIVE
|
dem
|
dem
|
der
|
den
|
Indefinite
articles (a/an):
|
|
MASCULINE
|
NEUTER
|
FEMININE
|
|
NOMINATIVE
|
ein
|
ein
|
eine
|
|
ACCUSATIVE
|
einen
|
ein
|
eine
|
|
GENITIVE
|
eines
|
eines
|
einer
|
|
DATIVE
|
einem
|
einem
|
einer
|
The
adjective is even more complicated. We will take as an example the adjective
blind=blind. When used as a predicate, it remains unchanged, e.g. sie ist
blind=he is blind. Otherwise, it can change form in three ways :
1.
When preceded by a demonstrative or definite article (that, the, etc.):
|
|
MASCULINE
|
NEUTER
|
FEMININE
|
PLURAL
|
|
NOMINATIVE
|
blinde
|
blinde
|
blinde
|
blinden
|
|
ACCUSATIVE
|
blinden
|
blinde
|
blinde
|
blinden
|
|
GENITIVE
|
blinden
|
blinden
|
blinden
|
blinden
|
|
DATIVE
|
blinden
|
blinden
|
blinden
|
blinden
|
2.
When precede by a possessive or an indefinite article (my, a/an, etc.):
|
|
MASCULINE
|
NEUTER
|
FEMININE
|
PLURAL
|
|
NOMINATIVE
|
blinder
|
blindes
|
blinde
|
blinden
|
|
ACCUSATIVE
|
blinden
|
blindes
|
blinde
|
blinden
|
|
GENITIVE
|
blinden
|
blinden
|
blinden
|
blinden
|
|
DATIVE
|
blinden
|
blinden
|
blinden
|
blinden
|
3.
When there is no preceding demonstrative, article or possessive:
|
|
MASCULINE
|
NEUTER
|
FEMININE
|
PLURAL
|
|
NOMINATIVE
|
blinder
|
blindes
|
blinde
|
blinde
|
|
ACCUSATIVE
|
blinden
|
blindes
|
blinde
|
blinde
|
|
GENITIVE
|
blindes
|
blindes
|
blinder
|
blinder
|
|
DATIVE
|
blindem
|
blindem
|
blinder
|
blinden
|
If
it appears there is no consistency in the medley of forms above, consider the
different forms of the possessive (my/mine=mein) when it precedes the adjective,
so that one has to keep in mind two different kinds of changes in the
possessive and the adjective:
|
|
MASCULINE
|
NEUTER
|
FEMININE
|
PLURAL
|
|
NOMINATIVE
|
mein
blinder
|
mein
blindes
|
meine
blinde
|
meine
blinden
|
|
ACCUSATIVE
|
meinen
blinden
|
mein
blindes
|
meine
blinde
|
meine
blinden
|
|
GENITIVE
|
meines
blinden
|
meines
blinden
|
meiner
blinden
|
meiner
blinden
|
|
DATIVE
|
meinem
blinden
|
meinem
blinden
|
meiner
blinden
|
meinen
blinden
|
There
has been a massive simplification of grammar in English as compared to German.
Even here in a few cases there has been some influence from the Italic
languages (primarily French): e.g. the normal formation of plural nouns by
simply adding an "s": boy=boys, etc.; while the original plural
formation was more inflectional, and some archaic forms still survive either as
primary or secondary words: man=men, woman=women, child=children, cow=kine,
sow=swine, etc.
But
in most cases English has developed independently: e.g. English nouns not
having gender is an independent development, since the Italic languages also,
like German, have gender in nouns.
B.
Why English is still a Germanic language:
So
does the massive Italicization in the vocabulary of English mean it is no more
a Germanic language? This is not so, since borrowing of vocabulary, or even of
phonetic or grammatical features, does not change the family affiliation or
ancestry of a language, any more than a person changes his genetic ancestors
when he adopts the language, religion, beliefs, lifestyle and customs of other
people. While the borrowed vocabulary is generally for literary, technical and extra
words, the basic vocabulary and grammar of English has remained largely
Germanic.
So
much so that although, for example, as we saw, the large number of forms for the German
direct article (der, das, die, den, des, dem,
in various situations) is reduced to single form (the) in English, the
connection between the German forms and the English form is obvious. Spanish,
on the other hand, has distinctly different (Italic) forms (el, los,
la, las).
An
interesting point is that when the English word is still a Germanic word, and
obviously cognate to the German word (often closer to the Dutch or Swedish
form, but we will only give German equivalents, except in the rare case, when
we will also give the Dutch form), and the Spanish word is strikingly
different, we can still see in the Spanish word the different other
words that English has borrowed or derived from the original Italic root
present in the Spanish word. The borrowed Italic words (often even in two
forms, Latin and French, with different meanings: e.g. "major" from
Latin, "mayor" from French) are often given different shades of
meaning, or different but related meanings, than the original Germanic
inherited word in English, thereby adding to the extremely rich vocabulary of
English.
The
following few examples will illustrate the point (We will omit the articles
the/a/an, etc., and the capitalization of the first letter in the German nouns.
Also remember: the letter "v" in German-Dutch is pronounced
"f"):
|
English
|
German
|
Spanish
|
|
brother
|
bruder
|
hermano
|
|
sister
|
schwester
|
hermana
|
|
son
|
sohn
|
hijo
|
|
daughter
|
tochter
|
hija
|
|
uncle
|
oncle
|
tio
|
|
aunt
|
tante
|
tia
|
|
English
|
German
|
Spanish
|
|
four
|
vier
|
cuatro
|
|
five
|
fünf
|
cinco
|
|
ten
|
zehn (D. tien)
|
diez
|
|
eleven
|
elf
|
once
|
|
twelve
|
zwölf (D. twaalf)
|
doce
|
|
hundred
|
hundert
|
ciento
|
|
thousand
|
tausend
|
mil
|
|
English
|
German
|
Spanish
|
|
arm
|
arm
|
brazo
|
|
beard/chin
|
bart/kinn
|
barba
|
|
blood
|
blut
|
sangre
|
|
finger
|
finger
|
dedo
|
|
flesh
|
fleisch
|
carne
|
|
foot
|
fuss
|
pie
|
|
forehead
|
stirn (D. voorhoofd)
|
frente
|
|
hair
|
haar
|
cabello
|
|
hip
|
hufte (D. heup)
|
cadera
|
|
knee
|
knie
|
rodilla
|
|
shoulder
|
schutter (D. schouder)
|
hombro
|
|
English
|
German
|
Spanish
|
|
earth
|
erde
|
tierra
|
|
world
|
welt
|
monde
|
|
sun
|
sonne
|
sol
|
|
moon
|
mond
|
luna
|
|
heaven
|
himmel
|
cielo
|
|
hell
|
hölle
|
infierno
|
|
water
|
wasser
|
agua
|
|
waterfall
|
wasserfall
|
cascada
|
|
rain
|
regen
|
lluvia
|
|
rainbow
|
regenbogen
|
arco iris
|
|
weather
|
wetter
|
tiempo
|
|
hill
|
hügel (D. heuvel)
|
colina
|
|
field
|
feld
|
campo
|
|
grass
|
gras
|
hierba
|
|
sand
|
sand
|
arena
|
|
English
|
German
|
Spanish
|
|
monday
|
montag
|
el lunes
|
|
tuesday
|
dienstag
|
el martes
|
|
wednesday
|
mittwoch (midweek), D. woensdag
|
el miercoles
|
|
thursday
|
donnerstag, D. torstag
|
el jueves
|
|
friday
|
freitag
|
el viernes
|
|
saturday
|
samstag, D. zaterdag
|
sabado
|
|
sunday
|
sonntag
|
domingo
|
|
English
|
German
|
Spanish
|
|
white
|
weiss
|
blanco
|
|
yellow
|
gelb
|
amarillo
|
|
red
|
rot
|
rojo
|
|
blue
|
blau
|
azul
|
|
brown
|
braun
|
moreno
|
|
green
|
grün
|
verde
|
But
the best indicator of any language is the verbal system. It is true that German
has created additional higher verbs out of its own stock while English, even while
retaining its original verbs, has adopted Italic words with a change in the
shade of meaning (thus English "sing" = Spanish "cantar",
and the Italic form has been adopted into English from the French form of the
verb as "chant"), but generally the verbal system is the most stable
part of a language. English has also preserved most of its original verbal
stock. In the following list, we have omitted the suffix "-en" from
the German verbs for better comparison:
|
English
|
German
|
Spanish
|
|
allow
|
erlaub
|
permitir
|
|
answer
|
antwort
|
contestar
|
|
bathe
|
bad
|
bañar
|
|
begin
|
beginn
|
empezar
|
|
behave
|
benehm
|
conducirse
|
|
bet
|
wett
|
apostar
|
|
bite
|
beiss
|
morder
|
|
bore (a hole)
|
bohr
|
perforar
|
|
borrow
|
borg
|
pedir prestado
|
|
break
|
brech
|
romper
|
|
bring
|
bring
|
traer
|
|
burn
|
brenn
|
arder
|
|
comb
|
kamm
|
peinar
|
|
come
|
komm
|
venir
|
|
dance
|
tanz
|
bailar
|
|
do
|
tu, D. do
|
hacer
|
|
drink
|
trink
|
beber
|
|
eat
|
ess
|
comer
|
|
fall
|
fall
|
caer
|
|
feel
|
fühl
|
sentir
|
|
fill
|
full
|
llenar
|
|
find
|
find
|
hallar
|
|
fish
|
fisch
|
pescar
|
|
flee
|
flieh
|
huir
|
|
fly
|
flieg
|
volar
|
|
fold
|
falt
|
doblar
|
|
follow
|
folg
|
seguir
|
|
forbid
|
verbiet
|
prohibir
|
|
forget
|
vergess
|
olvider
|
|
forgive
|
verzeih
|
perdonar
|
|
give
|
geb
|
dar
|
|
go
|
geh
|
ir, andar
|
|
greet
|
grüss
|
saludar
|
|
hang
|
hang
|
colgar
|
|
hate
|
hass
|
odiar
|
|
have
|
hab
|
tener
|
|
help
|
helf
|
ayudar
|
|
hinder
|
hinder
|
impedir
|
|
hold
|
halt
|
tener
|
|
hope
|
hopf
|
esperar
|
|
kneel
|
kniel
|
arrodilarse
|
|
kiss
|
küss
|
besar
|
|
land
|
land
|
rizar
|
|
laugh
|
lach
|
reir
|
|
lean
|
lehn
|
apoyarse
|
|
learn
|
lern
|
aprender
|
|
lend
|
leih
|
prestar
|
|
lie (tell a)
|
lug
|
mentir
|
|
live
|
leb
|
vivir
|
|
love
|
lieb
|
amar
|
|
make
|
mach
|
hacer
|
|
milk
|
melk
|
ordeñar
|
|
open
|
offn
|
abrir
|
|
rain
|
regn
|
llover
|
|
reach
|
erreich
|
alcanzar
|
|
rub
|
reib
|
frotar
|
|
run
|
renn
|
correr
|
|
say
|
sag
|
decir
|
|
scream
|
schrei
|
gritar
|
|
see
|
seh
|
ver
|
|
seek (search for)
|
such
|
buscar
|
|
send
|
send
|
enviar
|
|
shine
|
schein
|
brillar, lucir
|
|
shoot
|
schiess
|
tirar
|
|
shut
|
schliess
|
cerrar
|
|
sing
|
sing
|
cantar
|
|
sink
|
sink
|
hundir
|
|
sleep
|
schlaf
|
dormir
|
|
smear
|
schmier
|
manchar
|
|
sow
|
sa
|
sembrar
|
|
speak
|
sprech
|
hablar
|
|
spit
|
spuck
|
escupir
|
|
split
|
spalt
|
hender
|
|
steal
|
stehl
|
robar
|
|
stop
|
stopp
|
parar
|
|
stroke
|
streichel
|
acariciar
|
|
suck
|
saug
|
chupar
|
|
swim
|
schwimm
|
nadar
|
|
swing
|
schwing
|
oscilar
|
|
thank
|
dank
|
agradecer
|
|
think
|
denk
|
pensar
|
|
understand
|
versteh
|
comprender
|
|
wait
|
wart
|
esperar
|
|
wake
|
weck
|
despertar
|
|
wash
|
wasch
|
lavar
|
|
wish
|
wünsch
|
desear
|
|
work
|
wirk
|
trapajar
|
Take
also a few simple verbal forms:
|
English
|
German
|
Spanish
|
|
we sing
|
wir singen
|
nosotros cantamos
|
|
we sang
|
wir sangen
|
nosotros cantamos
|
|
we will sing
|
wir werden singen
|
nosotros cantaremos
|
|
we can sing
|
wir können singen
|
nosotros podemos cantar
|
|
we cannot sing
|
wir können nicht singen
|
nosotros no podemos cantar
|
|
we must sing
|
wir müssen singen
|
nosotros debemos cantar
|
|
we could sing
|
wir kömten singen
|
nos gusta cantar
|
|
we want to sing
|
wir wollen singen
|
nosotros queremos cantar
|
In short, English is a full-fledged Germanic
language, regardless of the rich and humongous nature of its borrowings from
Latin, French and Greek.
A
parallel example, as we saw, is Urdu. It uses the Arabic script, while Hindi uses
Devanagari, it borrows heavily from the vocabulary of Arabic, Persian and
sometimes even Turkish, while Hindi borrows (especially for technical terms)
from Sanskrit, but it is essentially a full-fledged Indo-Aryan language: it is
nothing but an Islamized (since it borrows from three languages perceived to be
Islamic) form of Hindi, and its basic vocabulary (personal pronouns, basic
nouns, numbers, verbs, etc., etc.) is absolutely identical with Hindi. The
conjugation of a simple verb, e.g. jā ("go"), is absolutely
the same in both Hindi and Urdu (jā , jāo, jāiye, jātā
hai, gayā, jāyegā, jānā, jā rahā hai,
gayā thā, etc., etc.) and every ordinary Urdu sentence is
identical with Hindi, and purely Indo-Aryan, with no connection at all to
Persian or Arabic, whatever the percentage of complicated or highfalutin Persian
or Arabic words adopted into the language.
In
short, the original ancestry of any language is the only thing which decides
its identity. And the twelve branches of Indo-European languages very
definitely have a common ancestry. Therefore they very definitely had a common
original homeland. Therefore, it is not a question of anyone
"needing" an original homeland: if this historical IE problem has to
be solved, then it is necessary in the interests of academic clarity (not to
mention political justice) to locate this homeland.
