----- Original Message -----
From: "kishore patnaik" <kishorepatnaik09@...>
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:34 PM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Re: Ban all non academic
> >It means Rg Veda and Sanscrit are more or less consubstantial,
> >just as Old Greek and Homer.
>> When Sanscrit did not exist, Rg Veda could not exist,
> >at least not under that form.
> I did not understand that. Often you talk things, the meaning of which I
> would not understand. Please make yourself very clear.
We know from some troublesome verses in the Illiad,
that these verses must have been composed in an archaic form of Greek
where the problem did not exist, but was later created because Greek
I remember a andraphontos which versifies properly as nr-phontos
(nr-hantas) otherwise there's one step too many.
If the Rg Veda does not pose that kind of problem,
then it means Rg Veda datation and Sanscrit datation must be the same.
I have no idea if there is any such versification problem in Rg Veda or not.
> >It is usually assumed that Script was invented for very ordinary means :
> >such as counting sheep and grain.
> >What does "much before" means ?
> >Egyptian is about -3300 BC
> >Cuneiform is Sargon -2600.
> I have not made any statement as such. I reserve my comments
you did not write what you wrote.
I let the community assess what kind of man you are.
>> Rg Veda clearly shows that the speakers who composed this document were
>> nomads living in a rather cold place and having no knowledge what a town
> >Cf. Witzel.
> >Nonsense. Ural Aryans are supposed to be the ancestors of SA's. UA's
> >fort building, the so called Mandala fort civilization pertains to them.
What's the point of building forts when you are an indo-iranian nomad ?
I guess the first fort around Urals was built by the Russians after 1540 AD.
> If this is so, then how come SA's who are supposed to be highly
> not only forgot fort building but have abruptly and totally started
> adopting a non artefact culture? Very silly premise.
What is the relationship between "highly intellectual" and "fort building" ?
Cave-men were highly intellectual and they survived to make us what we are.
> All the above clearly indicate that Aryans, from wherever they have come
> from, have a clear cut history much prior to the so called 1500 bce!
> I m not aware any Mittanni text says that.
> And in fact, I think Mittani or whatever is only remotely relevant for
> Sanscrit Veda.
> No you are wrong again. The various corners of old world are more
> than what we are ready to accept. This is true not just after historical
> times but even in pre historical times- that arrow- bow technology and
> mesolithic evidence are common to many cultures go on to prove this.
One of my friends is an archeologist.
Before say -10 000 in Europe, because there were few trees,
hunting could be made with rough spears projected against a compact herd,
you are very likely to hit one piece,
After that, because of forests, Europeans had to adjust and they started
because you need precision among the trees,
There is no need for a _diffusionist_ theory,
Environmental pressure explains all.
I have made a study about the names for arrows and bows
and It clearly shows there is no indication for a wanderword for
Most words are local inventions.
> the flood myth was prevalent in more than 300 cultures. Btw, the biblical
> flood story obviously has an indic origin - probably heard from Indus
> maritime merchants. That Noah left a dove to find the land is exactly
> a naval merchant ship captain from IVC was doing all the time - only
> is they were using ravines.
> > Kishore patnaik
Can't you feel the tremendous contradiction between :
S1 : the flood myth was prevalent in **more than 300** cultures.
S2 : the biblical flood story **obviously** has an indic origin
Any of the more than 300 cultures can made that obvious claim.
I suppose Hebrews could their flood story from either Mesopotamia or Egypt
where they have floods half the year.