From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 71397
Date: 2013-10-16
> Dear Dr Brighenty,
> Are you suggesting Arnaud knows Sanskrit and Vedic Sanskrit?
>
>
> What about your good self?
>
>
> Whether Talageri knows it or not we will address later. Let us
> resolve these two questions first.
>
>
> Regards,
> Shivraj
>
>
>
> ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I had written:
>
> > > Since
> this is a linguistic list, it would be dishonest to claim here that Arnaud's
>> > review does not entirely
> demolish Talageri's main linguistic "result".
> Shivraj "Khokhla" replied:
>
> > Dear Dr Brighenty,
> >
> >
> Have you checked with Arnaud if he knows Sanskrit? Or perhaps you know >
> Sanskrit? What about Vedic Sanskrit? If he does
> not know Vedic Sanskrit how > on earth is it "dishonest to claim here that
> Arnaud's review does not entirely > demolish Talageri's main linguistic
> "result"."?
>
> I rather think this charge could be made on Shrikant Talageri himself – see
> M. Witzel's review of Talageri' 2000 book at
>
> http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf
> http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf
> "At no point in Talageri's book do we find any suggestions that he has a
> genuine working knowledge of Sanskrit -- let alone of the obscure Old Vedic
> forms of the RV. […] Talageri relies throughout on Griffith 's outdated
> Victorian translation (1889), which even in its own day was aimed at a
> popular (and not scholarly) audience. The translation is also marred by its
> heavy dependence on Sayana's late medieval scholastic commentary (cf.
> Griffith 's preface to the first edition). […] Talageri testily defends the
> accuracy of the translation […]. He does not reveal what philological
> criteria he used in judging the translation, since it is clear from Sanskrit
> errors in the text (discussed infra) that he cannot read the original on his
> own. The RV is one of the most obscure and problematic ancient texts known.
> It is not too much to ask that those who claim to reinterpret it radically
> -- and to reinterpret much of world history along with it -- be capable of
> reading it in its original form. At a minimum, one would expect Talageri to
> consult one or more of the modern scholarly translations, accompanied by
> critical philological notes, produced in the 20th century by Geldner
> (German), Renou (French), or Elizarenkova (Russian). But Talageri, who
> cannot read any modern scholarly language besides English, does not leave a
> clue that he is aware that these works exist. […] Talageri does not admit
> his linguistic deficiencies, of course, but they are nonetheless immediately
> evident in his frequent misreporting of Rgvedic phrases [examples follow --
> FB]. […][H]ow someone who is incapable of reading an ancient text in the
> original is capable of making such judgments remains a mystery. Pace
> Talageri, the RV is a highly technical text composed in an archaic literary
> tradition that is still poorly understood -- and whose poetic forms are very
> imperfectly captured by Griffith ."
>
> In his reply to Witzel's review the non-academically trained Talageri --
> formerly "a bank clerk in Bombay actively involved with Hindu nationalist
> groups" (E. Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Oxford 2001,
> p. 344 n. 7) -- makes an attempt to counter the above quoted criticism but,
> revealingly, does *not* clarify whether he has got a genuine working
> knowledge of Sanskrit -- particularly of Old Vedic – or not:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/l7q5ayu http://tinyurl.com/l7q5ayu (read #II.5)
>
> Regards,
> Francesco Brighenti (not "Brighenty"!)
>
>
>
> ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Dr Brighenty,
> Have you checked with Arnaud if he knows Sanskrit? Or perhaps you know
> Sanskrit? What about Vedic Sanskrit?
> If he does not know vedic sanskrit how on earth is it "dishonest to
> claim here that Arnaud's review does not entirely demolish Talageri's main
> linguistic "result"."?
>
>
> Regards,
> Shivraj
>
>
>
>
>
> ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Koenraad Elst wrote:
>
> > I repeat that these books have received no *competent* reply.
> > The relation between the contents of Talageri's latest book and
> > Arnaud Fournet's "review" is very thin.
>
> IMHO Arnaud's review (why did you use inverted commas here?) of Talageri's
> 2008 book, which you yourself proposed him to write, is very apt to disprove
> Talageri's main linguistic thesis, that is:
>
> “I can confidently say that this book will set the seal on the controversy,
> and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that India was the original homeland
> of the Indo-European family of languages” (S. Talageri, The Rigveda and the
> Avesta: The Final Evidence, New Delhi , Aditya Prakashan, 2008, pp.
> XVIII-XIX).
>
> Since this is a linguistic list, it would be dishonest to claim here that
> Arnaud's review does not entirely demolish Talageri's main linguistic
> "result".
>
> Best,
> Francesco
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> languages.' (p.XVIII-XIX)
>
>
>
> ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Dear listfolk,
>
> The titles of the books were quoted from memory, and may well be as
> Francisco said. Thanks.
>
> That said, I repeat that these books have received no *competent* reply.
> The relation between the contents of Talageri's latest book and Arnaud
> Fournet's "review" is very thin. As for the review by Witzel of Talageri's
> 2000 book, that has in turn been answered in a separate paper by Talageri
> (and really found wanting) and in his latest book.
>
> Anyway, the aim of these mails is to make clear that it will not to do to
> remain satisfied with these hostile "representations" of the OIT. There is
> no substitute for confronting the original.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Koenraad Elst
>
>
>
>
>
> ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Koenraad Elst wrote:
>
> > It is just a handful of people who have seriously developed an argument
> for
> > the Out-of-India Theory. Anyone interested in this debate are welcome to
> deal with
> > (and possibly refute) these few books:
> >
> > * Shrikant Talageri: The Rg-Veda and the Avesta (Delhi 2000) and The
> Rg-Veda,
> > the Final Evidence (2008);
> > * Koenraad Elst: Asterisk in Bharopiyasthan (2007);
> > * Nicholas Kazanas: Indo-Aryan Origins (2010).
> > * Michel Danino: The Lost River (2011)
> >
> > These books have so far received a lot of abuse, swearwords, hand-waving
> and
> > other dismissals, but no competent reply. The solid belief in the AIT is
> based on
> > a wilful ignorance of the arguments for the OIT.
>
> First of all, there is no 2000 book by Shrikant G. Talageri entitled "The
> Rg-Veda and the Avesta;" what you actually meant to cite is certainly his
> _The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis_ (New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 2000).
> This was reviewed in extenso by Michael Witzel here:
>
> http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf
> http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf
>
> Secondly, there is no 2008 book by Shrikant G. Talageri entitled "The
> Rg-Veda, the Final Evidence;" what you actually meant to cite is certainly
> his _The Rigveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence_ (New Delhi: Aditya
> Prakashan, 2008). This was reviewed by Arnaud Fournet here:
>
> http://diachronica.pagesperso-orange.fr/TMCJ_vol_2.1_Fournet_Review_of_Talageri.pdf
> http://diachronica.pagesperso-orange.fr/TMCJ_vol_2.1_Fournet_Review_of_Talageri.pdf
>
> (By the way, in this online writing of his Arnaud also included a reply to
> Talageri's 'Detailed Reply to a Jojer's "Review" of my Book', only the first
> pages of which are available here:
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/31680984/A-Reply-To-A-Joker
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/31680984/A-Reply-To-A-Joker
>
> Could you, or any other member of this List, kindly find a way to upload
> the full text of Talageri's reply to Arnaud's review in the Files section of
> cybalist?)
>
> Your book and Kazanas' one have, to my knowledge, not been reviewed by
> anyone so far.
>
> As to Michel Danino's book on the Sarasvati, his arguments have been
> outdone by recent geological studies of the paleo-rivers of northwestern
> South Asia; I have repeatedly pointed Michel to such scientific studies on
> another List, but he has, as you know, completely retracted from these
> public discussions since he is probably aware of the fact that these new
> scientific studies sound the death knell for the "Mighty Sarasvati" theory
> he has propagated around the world for the last fifteen years..
>
> Best wishes,
> Francesco
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Dr. Koenraad Elst
>
>
>
> ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Dear listfolk,
>
> interesting to see this reply on this specialist list from someone who has
> his own list, Hinducivilization. It could be informative for those vaguely
> interested in this debate but unacquainted with the Hindu input.
>
> The first doubts about the East-European Homeland Theory (in respect of
> India known as the Aryan Invasion Theory) arose in the 1980s among Indian
> (and a few Western) archaeologists, because in excavation after excavation,
> the evidence for any Aryans moving into India failed to turn up. At the same
> time, the evidence of the political use of te AIT both in Europe
> (colonialism, racism, Nazism) and in India (various movements and government
> policies pitting upper against lower castes, Indo-Aryans against Dravidians,
> non-tribals against tribals, also used by the Christian missionaries) was
> overwhelming. Some Hindu polemicists deduced from its political use that the
> theory had to be wrong -- a category mistake, but convincing enough to
> numerous Hindus, So, by the early 1990, the Aryan Non-Invasion Theory became
> very popular, and was embraced by the Hindu nationalist movement. An
> American, Edwin Bryant, gave it the name Out-of-India Theory, a flattering
> exaggeration because most partisans of this theory, including practically
> all writers about it, only dealt with (viz. denied) the Aryan immigration
> into India, but didn't deal with the question how Iranian and European
> populations came to speak cognate languages. Their horizon stopped at the
> Khyber pass.
>
> All the same, a few very vocal and influential "Hindu noise-makers"
> announced, and millions of Hindus swallowed, that "nobody believes the Aryan
> Invasion Theory anymore" -- this at a time when a great many
> Indo-Europeanists had not even heard that India was proposed as a candidate
> for homeland status, while the others just dismissed it and didn't consider
> it worth any study. So, when in 2005 the school textbooks in California came
> up for review, two Hindu organizations proposed a series of edits to the
> chapter on Hinduism. Some were uncontroversial, e.g. replacing the
> photograph of a mosque with the caption "Hindu temple" by the photograph of
> a proper Hindu temple. Some were cases of intra-Hindu infighting, e.g.
> replacing the philosophical "self-realization" as the goal of Hinduism with
> the devotional "God-realization". Outsiders who took an interest in this,
> could have an opinion on this, but it was not serious enough to warrant
> interference. But when Hindus proposed that "the Aryan Invasion Theory is
> wrong" and "nobody believes in it anymore", a revolutionary c.q. a plainly
> wrong statement, this alerted a number of Hindu-bashing groups including
> several academics with a say in the Aryan question.
>
> What followed was procedurally not very kosher, with the academics
> gate-crashing into the debate with a very partisan stance being accepted by
> the educational authorities as arbiters to a controversy which they
> themselves had started. However, American Hindus who don't live on another
> planet could have known that something like this would happen. They could
> have proposed that the AIT is "controversial", the "the jury is still out"
> on Vedic origins, or so, but to assert that the AIT has been found to be
> unequivocally wrong, and that this finding is generally accepted, just had
> to provoke a reaction.
>
> So, the Hindus involved were soundly defeated: this edit, and many others
> which otherwise would have passed, were rejected. This is the work of the
> "Hindu noise-makers" who were deluded and misinformed their own flock.
>
> I occasionally get what some call "hate mail" from Hindus who are angry
> with me for calling this outcome a "defeat". Yes, what else was it? The best
> proof is that they themselves started a court case to overrule the decision
> of the educational authorities. After spending 40.000 dollars or so, they
> lost that one too. It seems to me that a community which can't distinguish a
> victory from a defeat is in really serious trouble. Moreover, this way they
> don't learn from their defeat and fail to improve themselves to score a
> victory in the future.
>
> Well, at least the noise-makers got their come-uppance, and we can ignore
> them further. As for the archaeological and now also the genetic evidence:
> it is certainly relevant and important, but it cannot decide what language
> the poeple concerned spoke. In one immigration, the immigrants adopt the
> languuage of the natives, in another they impose their own language, in a
> third a more complex in-between situation develops. No excavation can decide
> on language. So, sciences dealing with products of the human mind have to be
> considered, chiefly linguistis, and where applicable, comparative mythology
> and other philological disciplines.
>
> It is just a handful of people who have seriously developed an argument for
> the Out-of-India Theory. Anyone interested in this debate are welcome to
> deal with (and possibly refute) these few books:
> * Shrikant Talageri: The Rg-Veda and the Avesta (Delhi 2000) and The
> Rg-Veda, the Final Evidence (2008);
> * Koenraad Elst: Asterisk in Bharopiyasthan (2007);
> * Nicholas Kazanas: Indo-Aryan Origins (2010).
> These books have so far received a lot of abuse, swearwords, hand-waving
> and other dismissals, but no competent reply. The solid belief in the AIT is
> based on a wilful ignorance of the arguments for the OIT.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Dr. Koenraad Elst
> * Michel Danino: The Lost River (2011).
>
>
>
>
> ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2013/10/hindu-noise-makers-elst-and-oit-review.html
> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2013/10/hindu-noise-makers-elst-and-oit-review.html
>
> OCT 11
>
>
>
> Hindu noise-makers, Elst and OIT -- a review of book by Harald Haarman
> (2012).
>
>
>
> Unwarranted generalisation.
>
> I take exception to Elst's categorisation of Hindus in a sweeping
> generalization even though
>
> the comment, hopefully, meant --as a guide from an elder researcher -- to
> promote serious
>
> research and falsifiable theories based on collation of evidences .
> California textbook case
>
> was NOT lost because of Hindu noise-makers, Elst. It was an issue sponsored
> by a few
>
> motivated academics and led by church-oriented bigots from Colorado.
>
> "Thus, a leading French IE philologist who was given a prize at the
> Louvain-la-Neuve conference,
>
> said that he had read a review of Michel Danino’s book on Harappan
> civilization (The Lost River:
>
> On the Trail of the Saraswati, Penguin, Delhi 2010), countering the AIT,
> but that he wouldn’t waste
>
> his time on actually reading the book, as its main thesis was “obviously
> ridiculous”... This state
>
> of affairs would not be very surprising, given that the limelight for the
> OIT has been captured by
>
> Hindu noise-makers, whose arrogance rivals only with their ignorance. "
>
> http://koenraadelst.blogspot.be/2013/10/the-varna-event-and-indo-european.html
> http://koenraadelst.blogspot.be/2013/10/the-varna-event-and-indo-european.html
>
> It is good to note that Elst differentiates himself from Hindu noise-makers
> and hopefully considers
>
> himself to be non- noise-maker, though non-Hindu !!
>
> It ain't scholarship to make sweeping comments categorising Hindus who study
> their indigenous
>
> evolution and spread into Euroasia, out of India, as noise-makers. In fact,
> Elst, non-Hindu, will top
>
> the list of OIT noise-makers ! He may recall that savants like Chatterjee,
> Kane DID believe in AIT.
>
> And, as a neo-linguist, Elst with Talageri and others are positing an OIT.
>
>
> Who knows? The debate can go on forever without facts and with intellectual
> manthan or grinding
>
> of limited anecdotes, of bits and pieces, covered in linguistic jargon.
>
> Kalyanaraman
>
>
> [Excessive quoting and HTML deleted. -BMS]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>