Are we about to make a truely fantastic discovery????

Page 7 of 8 [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

31 Aug 2024, 9:25 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
The Dravidian language family was the original paint that covered the whole subcontinent of India (the Indus Valley Civilization was probably Dravidian speaking) for thousands of years. The Indoeuropean intruders covered the northern two thirds in Sanskrit (which evolved into the modern Indoeuropean Pakrit languages of the north). But even that was thousands of years ago. So the remaining Dravidian languages would evolve away from each other in the time. As well as both give and receive foreign influences.


I'm not an expert in the field and neither am I a linguist or a native speaker. tamil was originally an oral language (not a written language much like Sanskrit and English). the likely origin of written script was from Sematic languages although given the concurrent antiquity of tamil which could have crossed paths with other language isolates Elamite and Sumerian which had cuniform script predating semetic. However Brahmi script was puported to be borrowed from semetic.

DNA studies by Reich suggest the path by which tamil entered India via Iran. Ancestral south indians are descended from indigenous populations and male Iranian farmers who bought with them their Y chromosome, agriculture and the tamil language.
https://www.science.org/content/article ... na-reveals

Deductive reasoning suggest the pre-Indo-European farmers of Iran who were genetically forbearers of tamils were also concurrent with Elamites and Sumerians of the bible.

Modern tamils are, however, largely a mix of indigenous and these farmers. Sure, over time the tamil language might have been influenced and changed, especially borrowing loan words from indigenous Indians. But imagining some form of "Dravidian" supergroup as a precursor to all south Indian languages has been debunked long ago as some type of western linguistic fancy.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,164
Location: temperate zone

31 Aug 2024, 9:36 pm

A) The Bible doesnt mention "Sumerians".

B) Your DNA data, if anything, confirms that there must have been an ancestral Dravidian language.

c) You cite no linguist to back up your contention that...ALL OTHER WESTERN linguists are wrong in still claiming that there is a Dravidian language family.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 28,550
Location: Right over your left shoulder

31 Aug 2024, 9:43 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Sorry according to tamil speakers there is no such thing as "dravidian". tamil was (according to them) spoken throughout the Indian continent but due to the incursion of Indo-European language speakers was pushed to the southern peninsula or India. Case in point is Malayalam, which like telugu and Kannada became influenced by Sanskrit. However malayalam is relatively more recent and we know historically Malayalam did not exist prior to the arrival of brahmins in on the south west coast who changed the way the vocabulary of the language so it became different to tamil. telugu and Kannada have been exposed to sanskritisation much longer so are now no longer intelligible to tamil.


Why should we accept the Tamil's legends about themselves at face value without any critical thinking? A chauvinistic national mythos isn't anything more than that CD.

You're trying to make the case that because they're linguistically conservative that's synonymous with speaking the language as it existed several thousand years ago and that's just a mindbogglingly misinformed understanding of how languages actually work in real life.

cyberdad wrote:
the existence of the one isolate Brahui on the border of Iran and Pakistan actually proves that tamil was once spoken all the way to Iran.


No, that proves Dravidian languages were spoken that far north, not that the historic language in the area was synonymous with Tamil.

cyberdad wrote:
But imagining some form of "Dravidian" supergroup as a precursor to all south Indian languages has been debunked long ago as some type of western linguistic fancy.


<citation needed>


_________________
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas, this is part of our strategy” —Netanyahu
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

31 Aug 2024, 9:45 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
A) The Bible doesnt mention "Sumerians".


I recall starting a thread on this very subject and if I remember correctly it was because I postulated that sumerians escaping invading armies who were the ancestors of the Babylonians/Assyrians/Persians, some travelled west. I suggest Abraham was the leader of this group because he came from Ur which (surprise surprise) was the capital of the sumerians. the bible refers to these people as Chaldean (Ur of the Chaldees) because memory of Sumer was long vanished when scriptures were being cobbled together some time after Jesus's crucifixion. there were people living in tigris/Euphrates who were indigenous and these people were referred to as Chaldean which is where I suspect the name comes from.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

31 Aug 2024, 9:46 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
B) Your DNA data, if anything, confirms that there must have been an ancestral Dravidian language.


Correction ancestral tamil language. Dravidian does not exist.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,814
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

31 Aug 2024, 9:52 pm

but does anything live in the water that would be incompatible with earth? or could harm native species to this planet.

Would be cool if it is an untapped water resource, but before sending it to earth they should probably study it to see what sort of life may exist within the water.


_________________
We won't go back.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,164
Location: temperate zone

31 Aug 2024, 9:53 pm

cyberdad wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
B) Your DNA data, if anything, confirms that there must have been an ancestral Dravidian language.


Correction ancestral tamil language. Dravidian does not exist.


Why are you playing this sick game?

What you're claiming is both with out evidence and is impossible.

I could play word games too, and claim that "there are no Indoeuropean languages" and that all that exists is "English" and that all of what are called "Indoeuropean languages" are descended from a tribe that spoke a form of English five thousand years ago, and that all modern PIE languages, including modern English, are debased versions of this original "English". Makes as much sense as what you're claiming.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 28,550
Location: Right over your left shoulder

31 Aug 2024, 9:53 pm

cyberdad wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
B) Your DNA data, if anything, confirms that there must have been an ancestral Dravidian language.


Correction ancestral tamil language. Dravidian does not exist.


You keep asserting this and refusing to support it despite the fact that virtually all linguists say otherwise.

Citing national folklore isn't exactly proof of anything, if it was you'd favour Russia's claims to Ukraine because the Russians believe Ukrainians are really just Russians who've forgotten.


_________________
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas, this is part of our strategy” —Netanyahu
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,164
Location: temperate zone

31 Aug 2024, 10:02 pm

cyberdad wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
A) The Bible doesnt mention "Sumerians".


I recall starting a thread on this very subject and if I remember correctly it was because I postulated that sumerians escaping invading armies who were the ancestors of the Babylonians/Assyrians/Persians, some travelled west. I suggest Abraham was the leader of this group because he came from Ur which (surprise surprise) was the capital of the sumerians. the bible refers to these people as Chaldean (Ur of the Chaldees) because memory of Sumer was long vanished when scriptures were being cobbled together some time after Jesus's crucifixion. there were people living in tigris/Euphrates who were indigenous and these people were referred to as Chaldean which is where I suspect the name comes from.

Chaldeans were the same thing as "the Assyrians".

The Sumerians really were a linguist isolate...invented civilization. Had cities and city-states. The Akkadians were Semitic speakers from the west who founded rival city states in Mesopotamia to those of the contemporary Sumerians. The Babylonians and the Chaldean/Assyrians were later still and were also Semitic converts to Sumerian culture.

Abraham was a traveling salesman and a local patriarch. The Persians were LONG after Abraham and long after the Sumerians were forgotten as a people. And the Medes and Persians were Indoeuropean speakers and were niether Sumer nor Semitic.



Bestiola
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 22 Aug 2021
Gender: Female
Posts: 227

01 Sep 2024, 4:03 am

cyberdad wrote:
Bestiola wrote:
Not wishing to offend the Tamil speakers, but apparently, the order of appearance was: Proto Tamil, followed by Old Tamil, then Middle Tamil and then Modern Tamil.

There are no languages that don't change, but there are prescriptivists that try to halter that change and keep it artificially "pure" for whatever reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tamil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Tamil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language


So proto-tamil is a just a concept. It can't be demonstrated to have existed. If you read the article it says - Despite the significant amount of grammatical and syntactical change between Old, Middle and Modern Tamil, Tamil demonstrates grammatical continuity across these stages: many characteristics of the later stages of the language have their roots in features of Old Tamil. The Tamil from the Sangam period (old tamil) is still mutually intelligible to a degree by modern Tamil speakers.
.


Some languages (and language groups) change faster, some more slowly. I can still understand old church Slavonic, more than some native English speakers can understand Old English, but that doesn't mean that language hasn't changed. Slavic languages (and Tamil) just change more slowly than some Germanic ones, but they do change nonetheless.



jimmy m
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,135
Location: Indiana

01 Sep 2024, 12:48 pm

I am not an expert on Tamil but I will take a look. One article says:

The Tamils are an ancient people. Their history had its beginnings in the rich alluvial plains near the southern extremity of peninsular India which included the land mass known as the island of Sri Lanka today. The island’s plant and animal life (including the presence of elephants) evidence the earlier land connection with the Indian sub continent. So too do satellite photographs which show the submerged ‘land bridge’ between Dhanuskodi on the south east of the Indian sub-continent and Mannar in the north west of Sri Lanka.

Some researchers have concluded that it was during the period 6000 B.C. to 3000 B.C. that the island separated from the Indian sub continent and the narrow strip of shallow water known today as the Palk Straits came into existence. Many Tamils trace their origins to the people of Mohenjodaro in the Indus Valley around 6000 years before the birth of Christ. There is, however, a need for further systematic study of the history of the early Tamils and proto Tamils.

History of Tamil

So for tens of thousands of years were were in a great ice age and most of the water was deposited in a sheet of ice over the north and south poles. This ice age came to an end around 13,000 years ago (~11,000 B.C.) and much of the water now resides in the oceans. This has raised ocean water levels around 400 feet.

So if you view this region around India and then reduce the sea level by 400 feet, what will it show?

According to USGS - The Coastline of the Eastern U.S. Changes

During the last ice age glaciers covered almost one-third of Earth's land mass, with the result being that the oceans were about 400 feet (122 meters) lower than today.


_________________
Author of Practical Preparations for a Coronavirus Pandemic.
A very unique plan. As Dr. Paul Thompson wrote, "This is the very best paper on the virus I have ever seen."


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

01 Sep 2024, 5:41 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
but does anything live in the water that would be incompatible with earth? or could harm native species to this planet.


I think this was an issue when it was thought water was only just subsurface. But since its now known to be 15km under the surface and in droplet/puddle form its unlikely (at this stage anyway) we will harm whatever is alive down there.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

01 Sep 2024, 6:00 pm

A few here ignoring my simple point. the term Dravidian was a sanskrit word (created by Indo-European speakers) which means tamil. the early sanskrit speakers were unable to pronounce the word tamil which is pronounced "tamizh" or "tamuhl"

According to Linguist David Shulman Whatever the correct etymology, tamiḻ clearly underlies the Sanskrit word draviḍa. The Sanskrit word reveals the attempt by speakers of Sanskrit or other north Indian languages to capture two distinctive Tamil sounds: the initial t, which is pronounced with the tongue slightly backed up and touching the back of the teeth and the alveolar ridge—thus a sharper sound than Sanskrit t—and the final retroflex ḻ, which I have already discussed. Classical Sanskrit uses draviḍa both to refer to Tamil speakers specifically and, at times, to indicate south Indians generally: in the royal palace at Ujjayini in central India, in the mid-first millennium A.D., lightly armed servants were mostly men identified by their home region as “Āndhra, Draviḍa, and Sinhala” (the Draviḍas presumably speaking Tamil);9 the great prose writer and poetician Daṇḍin (seventh century), himself a Tamilian, tells a story located draviḍeṣu—in the Tamil country and the topos of the “Draviḍa ascetic” (drāviḍa-dhārmika) became something of a cliché in Sanskrit narratives.
https://www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/06740599 ... 168&sr=1-1

So in modern linguists use the term out of convenience to classify all related languages to tamil but as clearly pointed out many times now, the earliest use of the word came from sankskrit speakers attempting to pronouce the word tamil. the earliest writing in India is emperor Ashokas edicts which were carved into stone. Ashoka refers to the same 3 kingdoms that were synonymous with tamil kingdoms existing up to 1300AD prior to muslim invasions namely Cholas, Pandyas and Cheras. All roads lead back to the same conclusion. tamil is old, it is prehistoric and while it has probably transformed, the relative change has not been that dramatic



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

01 Sep 2024, 6:09 pm

jimmy m wrote:
Some researchers ave concluded that it was during the period 6000 B.C. to 3000 B.C. that the island separated from the Indian sub continent and the narrow strip of shallow water known today as the Palk Straits came into existence. Many Tamils trace their origins to the people of Mohenjodaro in the Indus Valley around 6000 years before the birth of Christ. There is, however, a need for further systematic study of the history of the early Tamils and proto Tamils.


the antiquity of the Indus valley suggests the first tamil sangam prior to the flood is very very old. I'm assuming from the stories that after the deluge of their land the survivors created the civilisation of Mohenjodaro. Western and Indian Archaeologists currently claim the civilisation is of unknown origin due to the unability to translate the written script but the most plausible theory is that the language spoken there was a precursor to tamil.

Interestingly a number of features in the indus valley including planned bricked cities, with roads, ducted water and sewage seem to make it more advanced than cities built in India up to muslim times. However, recent excavations in tamil Nadu state in southern India have found similar technology dating to about the time the Indus valley collapsed which follows historical narrative where the people of Indus moved south to escape Indo-European speaking tribes.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,164
Location: temperate zone

01 Sep 2024, 8:20 pm

cyberdad wrote:
A few here ignoring my simple point. the term Dravidian was a sanskrit word (created by Indo-European speakers) which means tamil. the early sanskrit speakers were unable to pronounce the word tamil which is pronounced "tamizh" or "tamuhl"

According to Linguist David Shulman Whatever the correct etymology, tamiḻ clearly underlies the Sanskrit word draviḍa. The Sanskrit word reveals the attempt by speakers of Sanskrit or other north Indian languages to capture two distinctive Tamil sounds: the initial t, which is pronounced with the tongue slightly backed up and touching the back of the teeth and the alveolar ridge—thus a sharper sound than Sanskrit t—and the final retroflex ḻ, which I have already discussed. Classical Sanskrit uses draviḍa both to refer to Tamil speakers specifically and, at times, to indicate south Indians generally: in the royal palace at Ujjayini in central India, in the mid-first millennium A.D., lightly armed servants were mostly men identified by their home region as “Āndhra, Draviḍa, and Sinhala” (the Draviḍas presumably speaking Tamil);9 the great prose writer and poetician Daṇḍin (seventh century), himself a Tamilian, tells a story located draviḍeṣu—in the Tamil country and the topos of the “Draviḍa ascetic” (drāviḍa-dhārmika) became something of a cliché in Sanskrit narratives.
https://www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/06740599 ... 168&sr=1-1

So in modern linguists use the term out of convenience to classify all related languages to tamil but as clearly pointed out many times now, the earliest use of the word came from sankskrit speakers attempting to pronouce the word tamil. the earliest writing in India is emperor Ashokas edicts which were carved into stone. Ashoka refers to the same 3 kingdoms that were synonymous with tamil kingdoms existing up to 1300AD prior to muslim invasions namely Cholas, Pandyas and Cheras. All roads lead back to the same conclusion. tamil is old, it is prehistoric and while it has probably transformed, the relative change has not been that dramatic


Exactly. You have clearly made this irrelevant point countless times. You can stop kicking the dead horse already. :D



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

02 Sep 2024, 1:49 am

jimmy m wrote:
Some researchers have concluded that it was during the period 6000 B.C. to 3000 B.C. that the island separated from the Indian sub continent and the narrow strip of shallow water known today as the Palk Straits came into existence.


Yes the dating doesn't align with rise in global sea levels though, the end of the younger Dryas makes more sense as we know 12,900 years ago there was a rise in sea levels which means Hanuman's bridge on the palk straits was above sea level much earlier than 6-9000 BC.