Subject: Review of :From Indus to Sanskrit Part-I (1996) by Prof. M Witzel
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Reply-I
From: MADHUSUDAN MISHRA
Date: Friday, March 09, 2001 4:20 PM
Subject: Review of :From Indus to Sanskrit Part-I (1996) by Prof. M Witzel
Dear Prof. Witzel,
Thank you very much for the critical review of my first book on the Decipherment of The Indus Script with the title: From Indus to Sanskrit Part-I(1996) which I came to know about thru an e-mail forward.
In fact, I would have appreciated your critical review of my last published book which is also given in its full form in the given website and has the revised readings and methodology of decipherment : http://www.indusscript.net
From Indus to Sanskrit Part-I was published in 1996. It was as much a raw product as I myself was in the field of decipherment by this time. Much of its material was criticised by myself later in From Indus to Sanskrit part-II in 1997.In this part, I was able to identify the various series of the numerals with the syllabic order of the Mahesvarasutras. Chapter 3 and 4 of the Part-I were expressly rejected by me in this part of the book. In 1998,the IIIrd part of the book appeared. Though, the interpretations of the IInd part were not accepted in the IIIrd part,much of the research was carried on in this part of the book.
I was able to claim that three types of scripts have been used in the Indus inscriptions: Animal figure, Geometrical figure and Numerals. That is to say,The Sanskrit syllabary appears here in three-fold ways: 33 consonants, 14 vowels X 3 types= 141 basic signs. The ligatures and syllables with other vowels raised the number to 419 or more. In my fourth book, The Discovery of Indus (1999), I have summarised the results of my research chronologically.
My last published work:The Evolution of The Indus Language and its Transition into Sanskrit was published in the year 2000.
If you like, I would be happy to send you all the books for a frank review from your side. Kindly inform your postal address for sending same.
Please do criticise me where I am on the wrong track. Though often I fall in line with the propagators of the Hindutva ideology, my research is altogether different and is purely linguistic. ------I would like to draw your attention to the following points:
The IE numerals between 5-10 are just based on the counting of syllables of the Sanskrit syllabry as seen thru the syllabic order of the Mahesvarasutra. In that order, the consonants are presented thus: ha ya va ra la, M n'a ma n"a Na na, jha bha gha Dha dha ja ba ga Da da, kha pha cha Tha tha ca Ta ta ka pa, s'a sa Sa Ha (the first h voiced, the last H voiceless, the capitals being cerebrals).
Now, counting in opposite direction from pa to ca, there are five syllables . Putting n'(the 5th nasal) in the middle, pa-n'ca=5. As \c\ is affricate, Greek has pente.
Because,Sa is at the head of three sybilants, it stands for 3.Therefore,SA SA(3+3)=6.Sanskrit SaS=6.
Counting from Ha to ta via p, there are seven syllables, therefore, Ha-p-ta=7, the initial sound becoming s in Sanskrit and Latin, remaining h elsewhere.
Similarly, from Ha to Ta via S, there are eight syllables. Therefore, Ha-S-Ta=8.The H was lost in Sanskrit, Greek and Latin, but retained in Persian.
Then, from na to va, there are nine syllables. Therefore, nava=9.
Finally, from da to jha, there are ten syllables. Therefore,10=dajha.
But, the affricate jh has split as dz'h, where the stop element and aspiration has been lost and z' devoiced in the Sanskrit das'a. In Latin and Greek, it is velarised but devoiced and deaspirated to k(decem, deka).
The Vowel changes are remarkable in all these cases. ------I would also like to draw your attention on two points:
1.The voiceless h.
In Sanskrit, h is voiced. That is why, RV prat 14.28 says that "the voicelessness in h is a fault". Just this statement led me to suppose that those phoneticians also knew about a voiceless h. Because, I believe that the syllabic order of the Mahesvarsutras represents the earlier Indus phonology, the Indus syllabary had a voiceless h at the beginning of the consonants and a voiced h at the end.
2.IE reconstructions.
Just as "the grass grows from stem to stem, from one knot to another (VS 13.20),the formation of a word should be conceived to be syllable by syllable according to the linguistic embryology. But, in IE reconstructions, we almost spread a blanket over the cognate forms. That is why, I have begun to doubt the veracity of the IE reconstructions, although, I have spent my whole academic life in the study of IE linguistics. The cognate IE words are, therefore, the same on the first syllable, but differ as the word proceeds syllable by syllable in the different land of its origin. Sri Aurobindo has given the example of Sanskrit dal-mi, Latin dolabra, Greek dolon, delphi.
I can quote the words for horse "it started with the Indus ha-. Then, ha-s'va was reduced to as'va, ha-rva to arvA in Vedic, ha-spha (for ha-sapha) to aspa in Avesta, ha-kva to aquus in Latin, ha-pva to hippos in Greek, ha-rsa to hors in Germanic.
I think that the inflexional stage of Indus is IE. I do not agree with Hirt who was not concerned with IE as a spoken language.
With best wishes,
Dr.Madhusudan Mishra
Reply-II
Dear Prof. Witzel,
Namaskar!
In continuation of my last e-mail in response to the review of my book From Indus to Sanskrit Part-I (1996), I would like to add the following, Something of it being the reply of some remarks you made:
Do you think that ka, kha, etc. are exactly like dhI, bhU,etc.? The latter are derived, the former bare syllables. The typological classification of languages as isolating, agglutinative and inflexional is a truth. It can not be outdated or updated. I have revived it for the sake of linguistic Darwinism.
I have read Wackernagel, Burrow, but I have really forgot them as you suppose because I have come to believe in the linguistic Darwinism. The IE linguistics has failed, because it has blatantly ignored the linguistic embryology.
What you really perceived,I see ur-Sanskrit in the language of Indus inscriptions. I want to briefly indicate the evolution of ur-Sanskrit upto its fossilised state.
Just when the articulate human sound could be heard on the banks of the river Sarasvati, the monosyllabic subject Na (a creature) made a small clause with the verb ra (speed): Na ra=a creature walks. In plural it was Na Na Na ra. Such clauses are there in the Indus text. It was the isolating stage of the language.
Later, the two syllables came closer and Nara became a phrase (a walking creature), and then it also signified a man. This needed a new verb, e.g., ha (sky) "to say". then, Nara ha= A man says (Also, said, will say). But, soon the past was specified by nara Aha= The man said. Though, the plural was made by -Sa in each case, the final a of the verb was bent towards u. nara-Sa A-hu-Sa (Men said)
It was the fag end of the agglutinative stage. At the inflexional stage, the accent reduced the size of the words: na'ras A'hus. This is the Vedic stage.
If the clauses from the monosyllabic words, ta na Sa (from the womb gems come out),e.g., combine, they became polysyllabic and ta'nas (Child) (RV 5,74,4) is its reduced form and such examples are in dozen and have been given in my last published book:
"The Evolution of Indus language and its Transition into Sanskrit"
I would like to specially mention the UR-form of sa't in the Indus inscriptions (text 8013,Mahadevan) read thru the syllabic order of the Mahesvarasutras.
The scholars who do not believe in AIT are not your opponents , rather all scholars in the study of Indus script decipherment are coordinators in the search of truth.
I would also like to bring to your attention that I have worked with Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan for a number of years in the position of Assistant Director(c.c) 1973-1977 and Deputy Director (Academic) 1977-1993 with some time as Director of the Sansthan also. It is an autonomous organisation under Govt.of India. I did not quite understand the context of your mention of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan and my long association with it. The study of Indus inscriptions is started by me after my retirement in the year 1993 and Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan has nothing to do with it.
With best regards,
Dr. Madhusudan Mishra
Reply-III
Dear Prof. Witzel,
I have been eagerly waiting for your reply which is still awaited.
As a renowned Prof. of Sanskrit and Editor-in-Chief of Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, it does not suit you to do a review of the first book written in the year 1996 particularly when there are five published books on the Decipherment of Indus Script.
Have you read Burrow's gymnastics over ratha ! And you call it "sophisticated knowledge of linguistics!"
Please consult Renan, what he thought about the IE linguistics.
India was certainly One country with One race and One language in the dawn of the Indian history on the banks of the river Sarasvati.
You evade looking at the bright side of a thing. You will ultimately see that my "cutting edge innovative, thought provoking" decipherment will succeed. It will not be what you have termed "failed". We will live to see it.
I would like to know how much you have worked on the Indus script.
Does "!" mean "attention"? Your reading is neither logographic, nor syllabic, nor alphabetic.
Regarding your A' (sic!) c.f. P.6,4,72.
You have referred to loan words in English, please do not compare the protestant English with a catholic Sanskrit.
With best regards,
Dr. Madhusudan Mishra Reply-IV
Dear Prof. Witzel,
In continuation of my e-mails, I would like to add:
Speaking about something ironically, quoting false logic of Ghana's monkey legs comparable to Swastika can not disprove a fact. Some similar events or facts taking place in distant lands are automatic and unrelated. The incision of letters on a wood by the insect doest not make it a calligraphist.
It is the preservation of common terms and not their disappearance, that is the miracle of language.
France has preserved just quatre-vingt meaning four-twenties=80. But, in the Indian villages there are also two-twenties and three-twenties.
In order to facilitate your review of my recent works, I wish to point out the following:
1.The main achievement of the book "From Indus to Sanskrit Part-I" is the identification of sign 342 (Mahadevan) with Sa.
2.The main achievement of the book "From Indus to Sanskrit Part-II" is the identification of the numerals with the syllabic order of the Mahesvarasutras. In this context, some other signs too have been identified.
3.The main achievement of the book "From Indus to Sanskrit Part-III" is the discovery of three types of scripts in the Indus inscriptions. Some texts too have been read which reflect in the RV as wornout and reduced vocables. You should not be lost in the extravagant details which are ladders to reach the height.
4.In the book "The Discovery of Indus" ,I have read some wonderful texts which reflect in the RV e.g., text no. 8013 (Mahadevan) Sa Tha reflects in Vedic sa't which itself has been paraphrased in the RV 10,121,1.
5.My last published book "The Evolution of The Indus Language and its transition into Sanskrit" would be able to clear all your doubts.
6.The unpublished work "On the banks of the river Sarasvati" gives some picture of the urban Indus society thru its own texts reflecting in the RV e.g., RbIsa ,RjISa, etc.. The urban Indus culture smoothly transited into the pastoral Vedic culture, when the "Chemical liquid" became soup, broth , "The centrally heated room" became abyss and so on. The Indus syphoning instruments is still used in the Indian countryside with the same name. With best regards,
Dr.Madhusudan Mishra
A general article for those who do not believe in Aryan and Dravidian divide on language and race.
Common Ancestor of North and South Indian Languages
The North and South Indian languages are similar to the extent that both are, at present, at the agglutinative stage. They are also dissimilar to the extent that while the North Indian languages have some amount of inflexion borrowed from the various phases of the inflexional ancestor, the South Indian languages have no inflexion worthy of name.
If they have evolved from a common ancestor, how, standing on the same latitude typologically, are they so different?
The incident at the root of it may be stated allegorically:
Three brothers A , B and C started on a journey. They started from X and walked upto Y thru the same path. But suddenly they have to face some natural catastrophe and they dispersed in haste. While A was fortunate in finding an easy path and reached the destination Z without any impediment. B and C stumbled and broke their legs.
After a pretty long time, when A was returning back from the destination in his old age, tired and exhausted but quite differently attired, although losing much of it and also having the old rags on his body, he saw B and C limping forward in their old rags. They did not recognise one another. But A and B anyhow embraced each other to begin their new life in their respective homes. On the other hand, C retired to the forest to lead an isolated life.
A represents the ancestor of the North Indian languages, B the ancestor of the South Indian languages and C the ancestor of Santhal (Munda) group of languages. Their parents were the same.
In this way, North Indian and South Indian languages have common ancestor. That common ancestor was The Language of the extant Indus Inscriptions.
Please refer to undermentioned website for more details :
http://www.indusscript.net