Re: Witzel and Sautsutras (was: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>
> At 10:59:18 PM on Saturday, October 13, 2012, shivkhokra
> wrote:
>
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
> > <gabaroo6958@> wrote:
>
> >> Because the ancestors of the Mitanni, the putative
> >> pre-Iranian Indians and putative Crimean "Bosphorus
> >> Aryans" were never in India. They moved in from Central
> >> Asia. Indo-Aryan is part of Indo-Iranian, which was
> >> originally located in the Eurasia steppe. Read Witzel and
> >> overcome your lack of knowledge
>
> > You know I have read Witzel and he is plain wrong.
>
> I see no reason to believe that you're qualified to judge.
>

Hmmm. This is testable. A Sanskrit shloka is given: 18.44 B. Srautsutra. We have one translation by Professor Witzel and on the contrary I am claiming Witzel is wrong. You can do a few things:

a) Ask Witzel if he stands by his Erdosy translation.
b) Ask an expert Sanskritist to get an independent opinion.
c) Try translating the shloka yourself.
c) Read my explanation below.

> > Let me give an example:
>
> [...]
>
> > The impression that Witzel is creating is that 18.44
> > somehow indicates an immigration from west to east only.
> > Infact what the verse says is the opposite.
>
> I'd trust Witzel's translation *long* before I'd trust
> yours. He's a scholar who's spent a lifetime working with
> the subject; you're an ideologue with an axe to grind.
>

SrautSutra under discussion is made of two parts:

i) ‘prāṅayuh … pravrājam’ is the first part and in it the verb used is ‘pravavrāja’, which means ‘migrated’.

ii) ‘pratyaṅamāvasuḥ …. amāvasam’ is the second part and here the verb is not repeated. Rules of grammar clearly state that the verb has got to be same as in the first sentence i.e. it has to be ‘pravavrāja’. Consequently the second part would mean that ‘Amāvasuh migrated westwards and his descendants are the Gāndhārī, Parśu and Araṭ̣ṭa.’

To give you a simpler example: In a game between Yankees and Orioles, the former scored 5 runs while the later only 3.

In the first part the verb has clearly been mentioned as “scored”, but in the second part it is not mentioned. Nevertheless, it has got to be the same as in the first part, viz. “scored”.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Shivraj