Talk:Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit

WIN
I appreciate you having created this article - it is necessary and interesting. BUT: You cannot remove tags placed by other editors - only other editors can do that once the problems have been adressed. This article is messy- it is text cut from the OIT article and pasted into here - that is not the way to create a smooth flowing article about an importat and interesting topic: it needs a cleanup. Having been cut from the OIT article it has the same POV problems that are found in that article and the POV tag will have to stay on the article untill you fnd a way to detach yourself from your emotional baggage and edit in an objective way - or until someone else edits this article to make it neutral (I don't have the time or the will to do this at the moment). Also if you look around a few wikipedia artuicls you will se that they never contain large bolded sections because this looks ugly and impedes readability. If what you want is to italicize the quote then you should only place two '' and not three. Maunus 09:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not created this article. It's by Dab. I am not that well in creating article page ( may be because I never tried ). WIN 09:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I am sorry. You did bold the paragraps though and remove the pov tag. Maunus 09:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

cleanup
I got round to doing some quick cleanup. The article is sitll far from satisfactory of course. It turns out that it is undisputed that some 2% of Rigvedic vocabulary is non-IE. That's an appreciable fraction, typical for a substratum, but not in any way extremely high. Once again, the story is surprisingly aligned with Greek (Pre-Greek substrate, although I gather the number of words is somewhat higher there). It would be interesting to compare the two cases, there are many parallels between the arrival of the Greeks in Greece and that of the Indo-Aryans in India, since both took place in the same period, towards the end of the Middle Bronze Age. It also turns out that while the presence of a substratum (or possibly adstratum, if you want to split hairs) is undisputed, but its identification is much more uncertain, and opinions seem to be divided into "Dravidian", "Munda" and "both" camps. dab (𒁳) 11:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reference requirement tags
I have placed (citation required) tags on some of the sentences. Mr.Dieter Bachmann has removed all of them without any explanation. It looks like you want to impose your opinion on others without plausible explanation (I dont think Wikipedia policies allow this kind of actions). vcpk (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have explained my removal: this article is fully referenced. Please come back and raise specific concerns, after you have consulted the references given. You cannot just sprinkle articles with tags just because you feel like it, you have to present a valid reason. Now how about you actually tell us what it is you want instead of your oblique beating around the bush? dab (𒁳) 14:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the references may be there. But, they were not quoted right next to the sentences. That is just confusing for Wikipedia readers. People who use Wikipedia usually use it for quick references and it would be convenient to have the references in a convenient location rather than to search the whole article and find out.

My intention is to make sure if these aricles reflect a fair opinion and not a propaganda of a view which has not gained a lot of attention. If you delete my reference rewuirements and deny me proper explanations, I may have to end up asking other people's (administrator) help in resolving this issue.vcpk (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * please do. see also Dispute resolution. A good first step may be to say what you actually want, and to read the references provided in order to familiarise yourself with the topic. As you read, you are also welcome to (gasp) actually improve the article by adding more references to points you feel have been neglected. dab (𒁳) 16:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a case of reference style preferences, since all the sentences that VCPKumar asked for citations for did have citation with page number in the end-note at the end of the paragraph. The guideline here is that different reference styles are allowed and that the style which is applied by the articles main editor (in this case mr. Bachman) should be followed by the rest of the editors.·Maunus· · ƛ · 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * well, that sounds like an acceptable reason. Thanks Maunus. vcpk (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Witzel
Stop this Witzel spamming in this article. Witzel is not really reputable. He flip-flops day by day. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He's professor of Sanskrit at Harvard. In wikipedia terms that's about as reliable as it's possible to be. Paul B (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's his problem. He's a Sanskritist. They always have their own theories. And his contradicting positions to Harappa-Culture language are well known. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * if you are a regular reader of Hindutva blogs, I suppose they are. dab (𒁳) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm just trying to explain, why he's disputable. I'm not a Hindutva ideologist. I know that horse hoax story very well. Kinda funny, but scary though. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * well, I'm happy to discuss academic criticism of Witzel. I'm sorry, but this has become something of a reflex after three years of Hindutva "anti-Witzel" trolling. I'm sure the man can and should be criticized within academia, it's just too rarely that anything like that is even brought up. Your contribution "Stop this Witzel spamming in this article. Witzel is not really reputable" doesn't raise vey high hopes though. How about you specify what point of Witzel's has been ciritcized where and by whom. --dab (𒁳) 15:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According the article Indus script Witzel and other Sanskritists stated first, that the Indus script doesn't underlie any language. Mahadevan and others doesn't support this view according this article: http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/02/04/stories/2007020400260500.htm . It is notable, that the Mahadevan fraction is not only Sanskritistic, but also knows other languages. After getting critizesed by these people Witzel changed his mind and stated, that Para-Munda could be a language of Indus-Culture. So, this contradicts his view about the Indus-Script. According him, the dravidian languages lacks of scientific works in fields of archaelogical linguistic research. So he doesn't accept any dravidian language theory. This also shows, that he doesn't like any dravidian hypothesis, which makes him unneutral. I hope, it's now clear, why Witzel shouldn't be taken too seriously. There are several points, which make him disputable. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Im finding it very curious and strange that the entire wiki article on the Dravidian origin Bhil Meena tribe of Rajasthan has been locked down . The Meena ( whose cousins in Pakistan - Meo tribes) today speak an Indo-Aryan language, but were formerly linked to Dravidian origins. And then we have the name Meena which is derived from the reliable Dravidian word for fish , but the article on Meena's lists a primitive work as reference and implies falsely a Sanskrit etymology for fish . 2600:6C58:4300:3C11:7536:A2EB:774A:D5F2 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indus Valley culture was likely pretty cosmopolitan given its large geographical spread and population relative to the 3rd Millenium BC time period and was neither exclusively Dravidian nor Indo Aryan, and certainly had a now lost linguistic substrate that Witzel has pointed out, except we can disagree if it was Munda . Witzel has corrected that to call it a Kubha-Vipas ( Kabul-Beas ) substrate. And there are traces of other lost language families in North India - especially the Tharu laguages of Nepal, Kusunda, Burusho etc . 2600:6C58:4300:3C11:7536:A2EB:774A:D5F2 (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I asked you to cite criticism of Witzel, not to give me your own criticism of his work. You didn't get this quite right. Witzel's "Para-Munda" hypothesis has nothing to do with the Indus script. Witzel is skeptical the Indus script can be deciphered. That doesn't mean he rejects Mahadevan outright, but the burden of proof is on the would-be decipherers, not on the sceptics. dab (𒁳) 09:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"If, as Witzel and Kuiper believe, Para-Munda was a major language of the Indus Valley, culture – Witzel(1999b:14) even suggest it may have been the language of the Indus script..." - Franklin C. Southworth This is not my personal criticism. Witzel suggests now the Indus-script could be "Para-Munda", after he said, the script is not a script at all. End of discussion. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "End of discussion" as in, this is it? You completely fail to cite any criticism whatsoever, and what "criticism" you synthesize on your own is laughable. In other words, I assume you implicitly take back your initial comment ("Stop this Witzel spamming in this article. Witzel is not really reputable. He flip-flops day by day.") and apologize for the inconvenience. You are welcome. dab (𒁳) 15:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No I'm not taking back any comments about Witzel's flip-flop thinking. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion. Just, reviewing your other contributions, you need to learn that Wikipedia isn't a platform for airing them. --dab (𒁳) 07:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Southworth is not me. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually find it curious that Michael Witzel asserts *sinsap (mustard) as a 'BMAC substrate' term ( hence implying a non Indo-European root) when in fact it seems very much cognate to Latin sinapis ( mustard) and Ancient Greek σίναπι (sínapi 'mustard')). Unless of course we can agree BMAC is the foundational PIE language or an immediate daughter language of PIE.  IS this another example of poor lingustics or an overwhelmingly narrow focus on Sanskrit without looking critically at other ancient languages of PIE family ? Lets face it - linguistics is not as much a 'science' as Chemistry is.

Munda and lack of unanalyzed Munda words in Witzel/Kuiper's substratum theories
To User:Sindhutvavadin: Please cite examples of unanalyzed whole words from some language from the Munda family that Witzel has cited in his writings. Witzel and Kuiper only show analyzed formations with presumed prefixes. Munda and other scholars will be surely happy to see them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perichandra1 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Page title incorrect
Please rename this page substratum to substrata, the former is singular. User:Godanov —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC).

Quotative Marker
A quotative marker is found elsewhere in Indo-European. Persian ke does this for example:

Ali goft ke miāyam

Ali said ke I'm coming

"Ali said 'I'm coming!'"

So I'm removing the bit on the quotative marker, as it is a shared feature with Iranian

Szfski (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ciil.org/Main/Announcement/MBE_Programme/images/paper%20-%20hans.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)