Language and Understanding and the Science of
Historical Linguistics
Dr K.Loganathan, 2004
Language and Understanding and the Science of Historical
Linguitics-1
Dear Dr Sastry
Thank-you for raising some interesting questions that relate to Language
and Understanding and how the historical and trans-historical nature of languages
also figure in all these. I hope to have a dialog with you in the same spirit I
had with Prof Antonio and more recently with Gary M Cooper of Ontological
ethics. The point is that we are moving
in the dark and where the exchanges are objective with a FREE mind and where there is a willingness to LEARN on the part of all, then the dialog turns
out to be a learning experience for all concerned. I have renamed this dialog
as “Language and Understanding” as the essence will be that. And I shall be posting
also to a number of other groups so
that a wider circle of friends become aware of this dialog.
I am trying o initiate the birth and development of a new
field of Historical Linguistics: Paleo Dravidian Linguistics in which the
ancient languages such as Sumerian Elamite the Nubian Meroitic, Egyptian the language of Linear A script of the
Minoans and so forth may turnout to be
cognate with Dravidian such as Tamil. I
believe also that Rigkrit Sanskrit and so forth belong to this language
family and NOT to the IE family of
languages. I also want to develop this field as belonging to Hermeneutic
Science and which is the Proper Model of Science for all human studies
including the historical. The model of Positive Sciences is mindless and
mechanical and it cannot unearth
historical truths which are that of the mind or self.
With this et me say at the
outset that in whatever I say I remain open and quite willing to revise
provided my views are properly deconstructed.
From: "Dr. B. V. Venkata Krishna Shastry" <sastry_bvk@hindu-university.edu>
Date: Sun May 2, 2004 6:24 am
Subject: RE: [Tolkaappiyar] Digest Number 85
Dear Dr Loganathan,
Namaste,
Please see my inented responses. As I have repeatedly
said, I would prefer to wait for the completion of your final proposition
before making my further observations.
Loga1
Reg. 1 <<Thank-you. In
looking at Rigkrit and hence Sk that probably developed out of it, I am NOT
saying anything false or improbable about the essence of Rk and Sk. And this
despite the claim that Vedas are Apurushya etc. What I state are TRUTHS that
anyone can examine and ascertain. Of course it is NEW for the discovery that
Sumerian is Archaic Tamil is new. Even the discovery of Sumerian language and
culture itself is new and therefore something that was NOT available for our
ancient grammarians and Achariyas.>>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sastry 1
If you are telling about Acharya's and the grammarians in the
TIMELINE OF HISTORY and REGION backdrop, neither Panini,Tolkappiyur, Nirukta,
Shiksha works, and the like become of any relevance. The domain of your
discussion centers then round the 'specific l;anguage of the specific region
and the focused literature' you want to analyze. The difficulty is you are
stretching it beyond the time period and in a way the entire tradition
did NOT recognize in TAMIL and SANSKRIT literature, till at least during
the periods 700 B.C.E to 1100 A.D. When you use the 'language shades of this
intermediary period, and a grammar work of one language in preference over all
the other languages and grammars to draw a continuity, more explanation
needs to be provided - firstly for ignoring the available traditions; secondly
for the new constructions and consistency related to it. This is what is
awaited from your writings. .Speaking of the probability is different. from
Speaking with hard facts and evidence is different.
Loga
2:
I
did not say that the works of Tolkaappiyar PaNini and so forth are irrelevant
for such studies as I am conducting. What I am saying is that Tol and so forth
MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE of Sumerian Language and Culture and such other
languages of the deep past. Tol. is aware of many grammarians of the time
before him and he continuously refers to them but we do not know exactly who
they were and what they wrote.
Though
I don’t know much the details of PaNini, I study very deeply Tolkaappiyam and I
find the Process Grammar implicit in it, very useful for understanding the
Evolutionary dynamics underlying the transformations of SumeroTamil into C.
Tamil and how Rg is also a language that branched off from S.umTamil. What appealed
to me about the Process grammar of Tol. is that he recognized Transformational
and Generative processes as parts of language features i.e., IlakkaNam. He also
has listed TG processes at phonological semantic syntactic and prosodic levels.
You can see that in my derivation of base language of Rig Veda and Bagavath
Gita I am using these TG notions. As such studies progress I am sure we can
list out the details of these TG rules.
Just
to give an example: we can trace the Rg ‘bhir’ to Sum ba-ere and relate them
Ta. Peer. Another one is Rg ‘tanve’ to Su te-en-bi and Ta. taNivi. As we collect more and more such words we
can formulate rules: Su. ‘-e > Rg –O, Ta. –O (empty, deleted and so forth).
We can also say Su. –n > Ta. –N , Rg
–n and so forth.
Such
studies are made possible only because there is an enormous range of Sumerian
literature that is available now and
which were not available (as far I know) for Tolkaappiyar or PaNini
Yes
I am stretching the history of Tamil and Sk BEYOND the traditionally accepted
dates. I do not see anything wrong with it.
There is NEW data that has become available and therefore new kinds of
perspectives on the historical origins of these languages and how they are
interrelated.
Why
should this be surprising or unacceptable? For than two hundreds and even now
many Indian scholars go along with the notion that Sk is Indo-European and
that as such it belongs to the same family of language as German Greek Latin and
so forth.
Did
PaNini Tolkaappiyar or any other Indian linguists ever said anything like this?
It held sway and continues to do so but at the same time declining only because
it is all false, a build-up on a very flimsy data-base as Aurobindo himself
recognized decades ago.
Now
while I admit that more studies may be relevant for showing that Rg has
SumeroTamil as its base, I have already provided tons of evidences, according
Dr Winters, to show that Sumerian is Archaic Tamil. In hermeneutic Science there is NOTHING such as PROVING but also helping out or
demonstrating and so forth. I recognize and understand that Sumerian is Archaic
Tamil and have posted tons of materials and continue to post (see my websites)
such materials. So the onus is on the part of other scholars such as you. You
have to READ seriously what I have posted. examine for yourself the truths of
what I have written. seek to recognize what I have recognized, raise questions
when problems are encountered SPESFIC to the problem in understanding. So far
most of the scholars just simply react globally and emotionally (some even going to the level of calling a
crack-pot!)
The
claims that I make are serious claims and after decades of careful study of
original texts. While I admit I can be wrong here and there but in essence and
majority of cases I am right. Sumerian is Archaic Tamil and while C.Tamil
constitutes a continuation of it, Rigkrit branched off from it.
(to
continue) 1
Language and Understanding and the Science of Historical
Linguitics-2
Sastry-1
2. REg
<< In human history the notion of apurushya( Su. na-purushya )
which itself of Sumerian origins is not confined to Vedas alone. It was an
ancient idea in Sumerian literature. Such is also the claim of Al Koran of Muslims
where it is said that these verses were brought to the Prophet
Mohamed(Sal) in Mount Sinai through Gabriel of thousand wings and so forth.
There are extensive records of this remarkable phenomena in Al Koran itself(
the Tamil version of which I have studied).
The term 'ubar-tu-tu' , the father of Suruppak also carries the same meaning;
ubar-tu-tu> umpar-tuu-tu : speech from above and hence NOT that of a person
as an expressions of his will, intention and so forth. This is also the meaning
upanishad (< uppa-ni-saaRRu) if you see it as a word of SumeroTamil origins.
This is also the meaning of Bagavath Gita as much as Teiva Vaakku that you find
to this day among the Shaman priests in Tamil Nadu ( also in Malaysia).
>>
^^^^^^^^^^^^
More claer references from the original needed here. The secondary
translations are not convincing. The later practices of the 'Teiva vaakku' is
also not convincing for the same reasons .See your own observations below
at (3) for why this is not clear proof.
Loga-1
3. REg <<While the ordinary
language is that of a person , that which comes as expressions of his own will
and hence purushya, those which emerge through his mouth but of which he is NOT
the author but that of divine and mysterious powers that take over his body and
mind and make them their tool for REVELATIONS may not be purushya. Such
extraoridinary and mystical experiences lead such possessed people
to believe that whatever they uttered is a-purushya, NOT his own
declarations and in which he is right.
During trances the shaman priests may utter all kinds of things but they cannot
recall them on coming free of that trance .
Such possessions can be either by lower deities or higher deities. For the
Teevaram and Divviya Prabantam corpus are also DIVINE DISCLOSURES but certainly
their QUALITY and LANGUAGE is not the same as those of the Teiva Vaakku of the
Shaman priests though they are similar kind of phenomena.
The sources may be divine but this does not mean that the LANGUAGES in which
the disclosures are couched are not historical. The languages may vary only
because these divine disclosures were meant for a community of speakers and
hence in a language INTELLIGIBLE to them.
Sastry-1
Links of Trance state , Langauge output, Quality of language, Divine
disclosures, Shaman priests, Lower deities and higher dieties - linked with
HISTORICITY ?? - More clarity of thought and the deliberations on
the relation of langauge and state of consciousness needed. Just saying
'Mantrayana' will not help. Because the same argument is self cutting thing
from the vedas.
Loga-2
The
phenomena I am referring to is not only ancient but also quite widespread even
and cuts across all religions cultures and languages. I have experienced
directly this phenomena when during a crisis in brother’s life, Lord Muruka
took over the body and mind of my sister and said to the effect that the crisis
will be over in due course. After that my sister collapsed with exhaustion and
I have to tell what in fact she said. I have seen documentaries where in
Zanzibar trhe black Muslims still resort to shaman priests to get cures for
their ailments. The same goes for the Muslim at the extreme North of Pakistan
where such practices though disallowed are still practiced, In Malaysia this is
a good practices among the Malays Indian and Chinese .
If
you want textual references to
substantiate the presence phenomena and thsir possible linkage with Rig Vedic
Sukta , here are some from Sumerian literature.
This
is a selection from very extensive
Sumerian incantations. You can read some them at the following address:
http://arutkural.tripod.com/sumstudies/sum-incan-1.html
TEXT
226. i-re-ni-pa` sag i-re-ni-pa` ( I adjure
there, first I adjured you)
227. zi an-na i-re-pa` zi ki-a
i-re-pa` (I adjured you by heaven, I adjure you by earth)
228. zi hendur-sag-ga nimgir ge i-re-pa`
( I adjure you by Hendursag, the night watchman)
229. zi dingir gal-gal-e-ne i-re-pa` (I
adjour you by the great gods )
230 tu mu-un-na -ab-sum-mu-ta (When I
deliver the spell)
231. [.........] x-ta si ba [x x '-ta (
..............)
232. tu en e-nu-ru ( Enuru incantation)
226 *Ta. nii-yiree poo!
saan nii yiree poo! ( You all go away! You all go away from people!)
227. *Ta. jii vaanna yiree poo! jii
kiiza yiiree poo! ( In the name of the celstial beings, you all go away
! In the name of the earth, you all go away !)
228. *Ta. jii eentur saaGa nimgiir yiree
poo! ( You all go away in the name of the good gods who live
in the hilltops)
229. *Ta. jii tingir kaLkaLayinee
yiree poo ! ( In the name of the great divine beings, you all go away!)
230. *Ta. too munna av summatu ( When I recite the spell )
41. ga-e lu (d)en-ki-ga me-an ( I am
Enki's man)
42. ga-e kin-gi-a-ni me-en ( I am his
messenger)
*Ta. Gaayee uLu ENkiizka maan ( I am
Enki's man)
*Ta. Gayee kaaNki aani maan ( I am his
deputy)
43. nig-tu-ra-a-ni lu til-la-ni-se ( To
heal the man in his illness)
44. en-gal (d)en-ki-ke
mu-un-si-in-gi-en-am ( the great lord Enki sent me)
*Ta. nika turra aani uLu tillanii se (To
cure that man from his severe afflictions)
*Ta. ENkaL ENkiizka
municinmiiLen aam ( The great Lord Enki impelled me to return to him)
45. tu ku-ga-a-ni tu-ga
gal-la-am ( Since he made his holy incantations into my incantations)
*Ta. too kooka aani tooGaa
kaalla aam ( " )
(Gap of 3 lines restored
from other tablets)
45^ ka ku-ga-a-ni ka-mu gal-la
( causing his pure mouth to be my pure mouth)
*Ta. kaa kooka aanii
kaamoo kaalla ( causing his divine mouth to be my mouth )
46^ us ku-ga-a-ni us-mu
gal-la-na ( his pure spell to be my pure spell)
*Ta. ussu kooga aani ussumoo
kaallana ( His divine breath to be my breath)
47^ su ku-ga-a-ni su-mu gal-la-na ( his
pure prayer to be my pure prayer)
*Ta. cuur kooka aanii cuurmoo kaallana (
his divine hands to be my hands)
These lines from 45-46 clearly shows that
the Priest here clearly declares that he is the deputy of Enki( <EnSi) of
Eridu ) and well aware of he being possessed by EnKi where his mouth becomes
the mouth of EnKi, the words that
emerge are that of EnKsi and hence efficacious in curing the sick. In fact the
whole body – hands breath etc become that of EnSi.
Such practices , we can see led the practices of the Siddhas and which later developed as the science of Mantrayana. Here we have the phenomena of
Uccaadanam, exorcism, that of abjuring the evil spirits , with words that are
actually of EnSi.
Now
such priests can be seen almost
the same as the ‘kavikaratuh’ in the Rig Veda, the shaman priests who burst
into singing( kavi-karaituh) during perhaps trance-like states.
Hymn 1.5
The very interesting final sloka of the
First hymn goes as below:
agnir hotaa kavikaratuh satyas
citrasra-vastamah / devo devebhir aa gamat:\
The adorable God, the source of
vitality and knowledge, the giver and acceptor, is truth personified, and
divine unparalleled. may He be a source of inspiration to the aspirants.
agnir hotaa:
This can be taken as 'agni-ir uutaa' where
" uutaa" means 'to flow out , to blow' as in Su. uta and
Ta.uutu. The primordial meaning of Ta. uu: to radiate , to blow is retained
here. The -ir in 'agni-ir" may be a variant "-il" the
locative/ablative case marker . Collectively it means : whatever that radiates
out from the Glorious Fire
kavikratuh satyas : kavi: inspired person; kratu: source of
knowledge; satyas: true in knowledge etc.
The term 'kavikratuh" appears to be
quite certainly Ta. kavi-karaitu meaning what the singers utter or sing
out. The word 'ka" exists in Su. as "mouth ' as "ka-ta-e-a'
meaning to narrate but literally ' coming out from the mouth'. As I have
pointed out this 'ka' as mouth is retained in Tamil only as frozen form as in
'kaa-viri" the branching mouth, a name for the river Kaaveeri. The word
'kataittal' is still retained with the meaning ' conversing' in Sri
Lankan Tamil.
The word Ta. karai is a variant of Ta. kali
: to cry out . In Su. in occurs as 'gala' the Akkadian equivalent ( or
borrowing) is given as "kalu^", the ritual singer. . The following is
an instance of it:
Sir.
139. ni gi-u-na ma-ra-an- du-ga (
That which I recited to you at (mid) night)
140: gala
an-NE-ke su hu-mu-ra-ab-gi-gi ( may the singer
repeat it to you at noon)
*Ta. nii mai-uu-na maanRaan tuukka
* Ta. kalai vaanakkee ummonRa
av cuur mii-mii
The ' saty-as' can be taken as a
variant of Su. ji-de-es : something true , authentic, right , appropriate
etc. We may note here that 'gala ' can be derived from 'gal' meaning to sing
and which has a variant 'kar, karai" meaning to cry , to call out
etc. The Su. su/ju as equivalent to Ta. cuur ( cf.
Malay suruh: to tell) might have become Ta. kuuRu: to tell etc.
The 'satyas" may be a variant of Su.
ji-de-es. (= zi-de-es)
Sir.
4. aga-zi-de ki-aga nam-en-na
tum-ma ( Enamoured of the appropriate tiara, suitable for high
priest-hood)
* Ta. angka jittee kiaangka eeNNanam
takumma ( Beautiful with true ornaments, really fit for the divine status)
ji-de-es> satte-es > satyas
Thus 'kavikratuh satyas" can be
taken to mean " utterances that are true"
I can go on with more such citations but the
above are sufficient to show that there
are similarities and that there were individuals, the kavikaraitu, those who
recited some verses ( tu en-nu-ru) and
who were AWARE of the a-purushiya and DIVINE nature of these mantra-like utterances.
The important point is the LANGUAGE of
such disclosure was the language of the people, at least in such cases and something
historical and naturally available.
(to continue)2
Language and Understanding and the Science of Historical
Linguistics- 3
Loga-1
4.Reg << We must also note that such
happenings are continuous in history. When Arutpirakasa VaLLallaar sang more than
7000 verses, he was fully aware that they were all the aruL of BEING.
A linguist can bracket off these aprushiya aspects and just look at the
language in its historical settings and this is what I am doing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The analysis of a 'divine disclosure' in historical set up'
is the an antethema. The time frame for the 'divine' needs to be drawn. Please
provide the reasons for such restricted analysis. This is what Prof.Michael
Witzel had raised the question earlier in a different forum a s'thinking inside
the box'.
I
don’t understand here why a TIME Frame has to be drawn. BEING is TIMELESS and
in history you can see that BEING discloses himself in so many different ways.
There are already many book lengths studies on it and I can only recommend such
studies. The studies of Eric Neumann on Mother Goddess are an excellent study
of the Mother Archetype and how BEING shows Himself as MOTHER from very
primitive times where the Icon shape itself has evolved. I can also recommend
the book of William James “ On Varieties of Religious Experiences” where he
studies the actual documents written by many Mystics throughout the world and
who belong to all religions and where the mystics are also both males and
females.
I
am NOT doing a restricted study but rather a component of a larger range of
studies. As I have already stated not
all expressions of language are non-personal and divine. Right from the beginning language has been a
tool for divine disclosures as well as that of human intentions.
In
my view ‘closed box’ means seeing everything within the Physicalistic Seeing,
equating SEEING with sensory perception as is the case with Lokayatas as well
as the bulk of Western philosophers.
There are Transductive Perceptions and Hindu religious practices; philosophies
and Yogas are centered on such SEEING (Vinjanajk kaadci, Sivanjaanak kaadci
etc) beyond the senses. In my major book on Philosophy in Tamil, Azivil Unmai,
I have classified them into PoRiliyap
Paarvai (physicalistic Seeing),
Nuuliyap Paarvai (Hermeneutic Seeing), Nutaliyap Paarvai (Transductive
Perceptions) and so forth. There are
divine disclosures everywhere but we can SEE them only if we acquire the
capacity for Transductive Perception, the Mental Seeing traditionally put as
the Vision of the Third Eye.
5.
Reg <<Now certainly this
does not exhaust the study of Vedas and any such revealed literature. To
understand the processes of divine disclosures- how the messages icons
mythical tales and so forth are configured - we have to take the study of
Mantrayana such as that of Tirumular . Tolkaappiyar deliberately bracketed off
Mantrayana but fortunately Tirmular took it up and made a science of it.
In my studies of Mantrayana of Tirumular I am trying to show this as well.
Now the non-mystical historical dimensions are also quite available in the
history of Sk. We are aware that Rk was transformed or developed into
Prakrit and Sanskrit languages and such processes belong to history - we can
study and identify such processes by taking up a comparing the languages.
My basic question is and has been : How is that Rk shows so many features
-
lexical, grammatical, metaphoric and so forth that are so similar to
SumeroTamil (and Classical Tamil) ? I have written quite extensively on this
and continue to write.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sastry-1
For the basic question you have
asked the answer is 'At the higher level of consciousness, the
human communication with the divine is convergent; and any expression that
emerges at that level will have very close similarities.
Yes
and you can understand this better if you see such phenomena in terms of the
Mantrayana of Tirumular. All such
phenomena can be seen as the workings of Mantra-phonemes with which the
fundamental Siva Tatvas Natam and Bindu
( Yin and Yang) are played to create everything in the world including
the world itself. Of great importance
for metaphysics and hence religions is that of creation of MEANINGS which help
the destruction of IGNORANCE or a metaphysical BLINDNESS already there as part
of the psychic constitution of all creatures.
There are many differences and discords on the way and at the lower
levels and but as one goes higher and higher, more similarities begin to
emerge. The experience of Pure Light or
Radiance is a convergent experience among all mystics throughout the world as William James shows in his book on
Varieties of Religious Experiences.
I
have also noted this in my studies of Sumerian and C.Tamil literature. The
first line of En Hudu Anna ( c. 2200 BC) is Nin Me sar-ra , u dalla-ea : Lady
of all powers and resplendent light.
But
as Tirumular says in many places, the LIMIT is reached when speech itself gets
uprooted and only a Deep Silence comes to prevail. This is the metaphysical
LIMIT of all where the understanding is formed and informed by the Logos AUM
and which may have its beginnins in the Sumerian ‘am, aaM and which is retained by the Christian ‘amen” ( I think) I am explaining all such
things in my series on The Mantrayana of Tirumular.
Loga-1
6 Reg. << Let me recall the
presence of the phrase "Dhosa Vastir Dhiya Vaiyum:" and
"yaatumaavan" in the language of Rig Veda and which are quite obviously
Tamil in meaning lexicon and grammar. In fact such studies and
identification of the base as Tamil can be extended to the whole of Rig Veda
and with that RECOVER base form and meaning of the Vedic Suktas.
The same applies to the Sk of Bagath Gita on which I am posting regularly.
The Tamil language remains the base form of Rk and Sk and perhaps also the
Prakrit languages like Pali and so forth and therefore all these languages are
properly speaking belong to the Dravidian Family of languages. Now this does
not deny that the Vedas could be apurushya and the same with Teevaram
Divvya Prabantam and so forth ( though certainly not CaGkam Classics)
>>
Loga >>
Sastry-1
Sir, You have a view point in support of which you are looking for
supporting evidence. What you state so passionately about the Tamil and
the Dravidian languages ( though this classification of Aryan-Dravidian is
itself doubted) can equally apply to the statement about the Vedic Sanskrit.
The same statement made you can be rephrased and said - " [[[[[[ The Chandas
(Vedic Sanskrit) language remains the base form of classical Sanskrit,
and perhaps of (Sumero) Tamil and also the Prakrit languages like Pali
(In India) and so forth and therefore all these languages are properly speaking
belong to the Vedic Sanskrit Family of languages. Now this does not
deny that the Vedas could be apurushya and the same with Teevaram Divvya
Prabantam and so forth ( though certainly not CaGkam Classics).
]]]]]] The existing tradition supports this as well, without any
need for any interpretation. All that we have to establish is
Historically the 'Chandas- Vedic Sanskrit' was present in a period earlier to
5000 B.C.E. For this the other forms of evidence is needed. For the
contrary, you will have to provide the evidence for the views please.
With respects
I doubt very much. By the way the science I practice is Hermeneutic Science such as that of Tolkaappiyar where what are sought are TRUTHS and within a mental frame of being truly OBJECTIVE and where we allow only the TEXTS analyzed speak from within themselves. What I say are already there in the Sumerian, Rigkrit and C.Tamil texts. I contemplate deep on them and when I get some insights then I write about them and post them in such forums for others to deconstruct my views, if possible.
Can we REVERSE and say Vedic Sanskrit is the base of SumeroTamil, C.Tamil and so forth?
I doubt very much. For one thing you would notice if you take up actual studies (instead of just speculating) that SumeroTamil is MORE ARCHAIC than Rigkrit so that we can see the line of development from SumeroTamil to Rigkrit and NOT the reverse. And also you will discover that the Base Language of Rigkrit, which is a kind of Archaic Tamil, is INTERMEDIATE between SumeroTamil and C.Tamil. Phrases like “Dhosa Vastir Dhiya Vaiyum” ‘yaatumaavaan” ‘ varuutham taNivi’ and and hundreds of such clauses and phrases are CLOSER in morphology to C.Tamil than SumeroTamil.
Now if you go deeper you may have to agree with Dr Winters who links up such ancient languages with the African Nubian Sub-Saharan languages and so forth. If you seek to show that Vedic Sanskrit is the BASE language of Sumerian, Elamite and so forth, you must also explain how it is related to Meroitic of the Nubians, the language of Linear A script of the Minoans and so forth.
Anyway the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You are most welcome to REVERSE the opinion I hold about the evolutionary linkages and SHOW that Vedic Sanskrit is the base language of Sumerian, C.Tamil and so forth. You cannot say that this already the traditional view for SumeroTamil was NOT known till recently. Also only a few among the Indian scholars have studied them. Perhaps I have done more than others as I have quite a large collection of original Sumerian texts and have been studying them for decades.