Talk:Vedas/Archive 1

Untitled
I have removed the link to Ambedkars website- it was to do with Caste problem, and issues related to the Indian Constitution. It is not really relevant here. Ambedkar has his own Wiki at Ambedkar. Pls use that. Thanks. Shiva bakta 12:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Shiva_bakta

I have rewritten several parts of the page with a Hindu view point. Thank you. Shiva bakta

--

I have rewritten the historical part of this article without reference to the theological dogmas of later hinduism. The "Religion" part still needs to be cleared of the orientalist shit.

I hope somebody helps. -- If the person who has removed the 'a' from the end of Veda and Vyasa has a reason could they say so? They have negated the links. I am restoring the 'a's. This page is in English, so should use standard English language spellings of non-English words. Paul Barlow

I''' guess your reason for standard spellings of non-english words is okay. The a's in the end were probably removed''' because they give an incorrect impression of the pronounciation. All the words like Veda, Upanishada, Yoga etc, are actually pronounced as Yog, Upanishaad, and Ved. So while the standard English spellings could be retained, it could also mentioned that the a's are silent. Ybayba

Actually the pronunciation is Yog-uh and Ved-uh in Sanskrit. Yog and Ved render the words without a case. Also, to pronounce the word without completing the last alphabet is more common in Hindi and Urdu than Sanskrit.

I believe the basis for a lot of Sankrit words being spelt in English with an 'a' at the end has to do with either ensuring that the sound for the ':' mathra is achieved, or that the last alphabet is completely pronounced. In such a case, Sita would actually be spelt Sitaa.
 * Or perhaps Seetaa. Aupmanyav 17:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The basis for most Sanskrit words being spelt in English with an 'a' at the end is that, in fact, it's THE correct spelling.
 * To Ybayba- 'Yoga', 'Veda' are pronounced as 'Yog' and 'Ved' because in North Indian languages the final vowel of Sanskrit is extinct. If you're speaking Sanskrit, you'll say 'Veda', 'Yoga' but if you're speaking Hindi you'll say 'Yog', 'Ved'. However 'Upanishad' is written and spoken that way because it is a halant-ending word. Maquahuitl 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Point of View problems with this article
This sounds like religous dogma to me and is presented as historical fact:

"The Vedas were compiled by the great sage Krishna Dwipayana during the Dwapara Yuga with the goal to come up with a de-facto standard of education. Upon gathering all the teachings passed on from the Acharyas(Teachers) to their Sishyas(Students) from Kingdom to Kingdom"

Another example:

"The Vedas are considered Shruti (or Sruti), or revealed texts. They were not given by a prophet, but heard by many different Rishis (or very advanced Yogis) during deep meditation"

--Qweniden 16:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Vedas are revealed literature, revealed by the various sages who are clearly mentioned along with their geneologies. To consider them divine, we have first to prove the existence of God. What does Wikipedia say about that? Aupmanyav 07:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just like the origin of Vedas, these sages and their genealogies are still mythical. Without historical personalities how can we place a reality check. As such what we have is simply a statement that it existed and it was reavealed to some mythical person.

-- user 11/18/2006
 * Why should the origin of Vedas be considered mythical? After all a poem is written by a human. And why should the sages be considered mythical if a book clearly mentions the name, geneology, and region from which they hail (Upamanyu was a Kamboja, probably Charsadda in Afghanistan, and Vishwamitra was a Kaushik, from Kusha-dwip, grass-land, probably the steppes of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan). Why should these personages be considered mythical without any proof? These were real persons. There is correct cross reference in various verses. Aupmanyav 13:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Vedic Dating Continued
The article states that vedas were composed 5,000 to 20,000 years ago. pls check this

sandy

for all of you who think that it is the "scholarly consenus" that 1500BC is the legitimate date, I urge you to contact Professor Santucci of California State University Fullerton.

http://faculty.fullerton.edu/jsantucci/

He is the head of comparitive religion and also an "indologist" that is well versed Sanskrit, the Upanishads, and the Vedas.

He himself has stated that the dating on the Vedas is speculative and there isnt a single shred of proof for 1500BC.

If anything, all of the proof points to a much older date.

So no, it is NOT the "scholarly consensus" that the Vedas are dated to 1500 BC. Anonymous, please register with Wikipedia and give yourself an identity. I agree with you. 1500 BC is orientalist bullship for something which may be 15000 years old. Aupmanyav 02:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that the oldest portions of the Samhhitas (e.g., RV ii-vii, parts of x, portions of the SV) refers to a period prior to the late bronze age. That said, there should be a distinction made between the dating of the texts and the dating of the culture the texts describe. The scholastic dating of the texts is based upon theories regarding the length of time it takes for certain language changes to occur. Actually, 1500 BCE itself is a concession to the older-veda school because most Indologists in the 19th and 20th centuries settled on something around 800 BCE for the older parts of the RV (except for Muller who thought it was around 1200 BCE and Haug who also thought it was much older, though not as old as the Gathas). I personally think the archaeological evidence from the Iranian Plateau, Afghanistan, and Ghandara do point to a much earlier date than 1200 or 1500 BCE for the time of Indo-Iranian unity, but this doesn't mean the texts themselves were composed then. Those are two distinct problems.--Almijisti 07:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The dating of Taittiriya Samhita can be stated quite accurately. This was when it was found that sun rose in Pleidas (Krittika) instead of Orion (Mrigashiras). That gives us a date of 2,500 BCE. B.G.Tilak in his 'Aryan Homes in Vedas' opines that the European and Iranian branches had separated from the Indian branch. Avestan story of Yima saving species of humans, animals, and vegetation by keeping them in an enclosure (Vara) is the original deluge story and is 20,000 years old. When the story reached regions where there was no snow, it changed into a deluge by water. New research has found that at least some parts of the RigVeda existed in prose before they were versified by later makers of Samhitas. The culture, of course, kept on changing and is found in India today with its admixture of indigenous Hindu culture and in Parsis as modified by Zarathrushta. Aupmanyav 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I CERTAINLY feel that the Veda dating in this article should be immediately changed because it illustrates a very biased source and thinking. The date of 1500 BC and the vedas being only about like 500 - 1000 years old is so absurd it is a wonder on how many people even thought like this. That idea came up originally from European "experts" and "scholars" who randomly used wrong timelines to come up with an insignificant number. I am not making fun of any of these people such as Max Mueller, but they were no experts with the Indian subcontinent or its culture, so how come they were the ones who got to "officialy" date the Vedas. The thing that makes me angry is that a lot of the people who believe in the Vedas, Hindus and others, actually believe that date till today. I am no radicalist, but if someone else is telling you where and when your religion came up, I can bet it cannot be right. The people from the location of the Vedas must do some innovative and thorough research on this topic to come with a number that is both correct and unbiased without political bureaucracy or things like that. Yet, from what I have heard from a majority of modern scholars the actual date is very hard to figure out because of the Vedas being handed down by word of mouth and perishable scriptures. Still, through its content the Vedas are rated at least 14,000 years old! That is a far cry away from 1500 BC. 1500 BC is used because the people who came up with this number did not have any history past that or a certain period. Thanks for reading. Mebizzare 02:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with the dating is the question of languages. What language was used to convey this revelation. At least in the current language it is impossible to be dated as far as 1500 B C even since writing did not exist at that time. Sanskrit itself was not in existance until 150 A.D and it came to be popular only by fifth century A.D. Apart from Rig Veda (excluding Mandala II and X) all other Vedas are written today in Sanskrit and could not have been written down earlier than 150 A.D.  How far back in history it was transmitted orally and in what language it was transmitted is anybody's imagination. We cannot refute such an assertion while they cannot assert it as a fact. It is just a conjecture.

If it helps to build a "academic consensus," Dr. Stuart Ray Sarbacker has also set the date at roughly 1500 BCE. He is a tenured professor at Northwestern University and also, I believe, chair there of the Religious Studies dept. Happy arguing.


 * Vedas are called shruti. They were transferred vocally from generation to generation, when some one decided to write them down. If anything can be said about their history, it will only be about when they were written down as text, and not at all about when they were created. As far as 1500 years is concerned, that date is debated from long time. As a matter of fact, there has been a lot of other debates about mention of vanishing of river Saraswati in vedas, or is really Saraswati, or if the date concides with Indus valley civilizations etc. All in all, it is debated. The article should mention this inherent inaccuracy in determining the correct date and move along.--  Anupamsr | talk | contribs  05:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the last two unsigned posts. Dr. Stuart Ray Sarbacker is a ternured professor at Northwestern university and the poster believes that he is the chairperson of the religious studies department. But he/she has forgotten to mention why what Sarbacker says must be accepted by the whole world? Only Mandala I and X are in Sanskrit, the other eight are older and in Vedic Sanskrit. How does the coming of existence of Sanskrit in 150 AD (some people give 400 BC as Panini's date) give any idea about the dating of Vedas. The two things are completely different. Since writing came only in 1500 BC, we have to look for other pointers to the antiquity of Vedas. Basically the astronomical references in Vedas. The Vedas mention Vernal Equinox on the day when sun rose in the asterism of Orion. If we accept that it brings the reference to 4000 BC. There is also a mention of "Aditi being the beginning and end of Satra (the annual yagna cycle)". Aditi is related to asterism Punarvasu. If we accept that it bring the reference to 6,500 BC. Aupmanyav 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anupamsr, perhaps there were many Saraswatis in history apart from the mythical one, i.e., the milky way. Even the croats say that their name 'hrv' derives from Haravaiti. Hari-rud and Helmand also can claim to be Saraswatis at different periods of time. Alexander met the Arians in Merv, the second homeland of Aryans according to Avesta. Indian Saraswati was in their fifteenth homeland. Geologists opine that Indian Saraswati dried up around 1900 BC due to the capture of Sutlej by Indus and the capture of Yamuna by Ganges due to techtonic movements and what remains is the intermittant streams of Gagghar in Haryana, Hakra and Nakra in Rajasthan and Sindh. So the 1500 BC date is just funny. RigVedic language changed many a times, even at the time of Brahmanas, it was unintelligble to its votaries, and repeated attempts were made all through the history to ascertain the correct meaning of verses. Aupmanyav 08:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not very knowledgeable about Vedas as such, so I don't feel I can put any strong statement as fact. I agree to what you are saying, and that is exactly what I was saying. I main point was, that if something is debated, we should mention that and be done with it. In forming an article, it is hardly ever the case that you do everything one by one and at the end have a good article. Instead, we should make the article 'complete' as soon as possible, in literary sense; and then we can debate about the debatable facts, and remove/replace/add stuff. It is nothing about the date, just mention any date and say it is debatable (may be explain how) and focus on other parts that need attention. I hope I make myself clear :)--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 08:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Four Books of the Vedas
Hello,

Someone edited the "The Four Books of the Vedas" section to read "The Four Books of ollie", apparently today (20-Oct). A look at the last revision shows that a section of text was also deleted.

Can someone familiar with the editing process please fix this?

Thank you.

--

move
this should be moved to Veda (singular), like Brahmana, Aranyaka, Upanishad (also Shrautasutra, Grhyasutra). dab 08:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Vedas only for Hindus?
Hi! I'm not an expert in Hindu philosophy, but as far as I know, the Vedas were not written with the Hindu religion in mind. It is not a religious scripture meant for Hinduism as many people feel. It was written long before there was even a concept called religion. It's just a doubt. Can someone clarify? Jam2k 21:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * The word "Hindu" [and related words like Hinduism, Hindutva etc] has originated very recently. There is nothing called "Hindu religion" ... its just a dharmic 'way of life'. The "Hindu religion" itself is a conglomoration of million ideas/religions [including atheists] put under one umberella by Abrahamic followers - which ofcourse is now conveniently used by 'Hindus' today. This is because 'pluralism' and peaceful existence of multiple ideas under one roof is foreign to Abrahamic followers even today!!. A true Abrahamic follower is compelled to feel that 'Other', aka pagan or 'Hindu' is an infidel/kafir - unless the person bends over backwards to interpret 1st commandment and the pillar's of Islam to mean an inclusive philosophy. When the threat of exclusivism and totalitarianism of the followers of Abrahamic faiths is removed from this world [like seperation of Church and state], the word 'Hindu' would simply cease to exist ... and the rivers of multiple ideas will continue to flow in this world. 38.119.205.2 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mostly and perhaps completely right, and it fact this article as of now is good old Orientalism (vilifying Arab culture: the aspect which Edward Said dealt with in Orientalism; and glorifying Hinduism and Buddhism). I'd think the concept of religion usually arises only when two different belief systems meet. There might be exceptions, but I don't think the Vedas provide them. I am not an expert on this, and may be some hymns of the later vedas do show awareness of the concept of religion. But unlikely, I'd say. There is the problem of apocryphal verses also - writing was not known in these parts then (I'm sure there was nothing called "religion" though - those poems predate modern English :) ) 61.2.6.36 05:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC) (from "these parts" specif. Calcutta India)


 * The other two entries are from 2004, 2005. Let me add one for 2006. Vedas were not written for Hindus. They were for their own people, the Aryans, who probably started from a sub-polar region and landed among other places in Central Asia, where they remained for a length of time. Here they were met by Hindus around (3,000-2,500 B.C.), the two took to each other and gelled. Commentaries on Vedas like the Taittariya Sanhita were written during this period (named as the 'Orion Period' by Tilak). Central Asian hindus, who probably were not too many in number later succumbed to Zorastrians and then to Buddhism. The Aryans who came to India prospered, settled in India, became one with Hindus, and were the only one to be able to save the Vedic tradition. Later, combined Aryans and Hindus refined the 'Brahman' principle and wrote Upanishads.


 * User 61.2.6.36, I do not know if you would ever return to this page, but please know, we have no interest in villifying Arab culture (actually we do not think much of it). Hindu differences with Abrahamic religions are very clear. We do not believe in exclusivism, revelations, and contracted saviors. I do not see any reason why Hindus would glorify Buddhism. Live with it, no problem, we have done that with all religions of the world. We have all that Buddhism has, without the confusion of Nibbana and Buddha Mind. You are not very correct in saying that concept of religion arises when two different systems meet. In India we had hundreds of different systems, but we found a common denominator, and have no word of religion even now except for 'panth' and that is a personal choice and nothing much to fight for. Hindus put much more emphasis on right action (Dharma). Aupmanyav 04:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The concept of the Aryan race originating from Subpolar regions is a fantasy that europeans hold on to as it is being taught in our schools today. The Vedas clearly states that the Aryans who wrote the vedas, divinely or not, originates from the Himilayan regions of India. Why has no one addressed the issue that the vedas is being portrayed as a polytheistic text, when in deed it is a monotheistic text which originated the Jewish teachings as well as Islam and Christianity, even though the direct "child" of the vedas is modern hinduism?02:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sub-polar origin of Vedas is not a fantasy for these reasons (or otherwise you give me a better explanation): 1. Seven suryas born to Aditi and the eighth born dead/deformed (and aptly named Martanda, Mrit + Anda), 2. Ushas, the thirty sisters that delayed arrival of sun, 3. Ati-Ratra, which could be up to 100 days and no more (please note 1+2+3 make 12 months of a year), 4. Navagwah and Dashagwah, priests who completed their satra in nine or ten months. Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who is one of the proponents of the theory was not a European. I suppose Himalayas are not even mentioned in Vedas. Many of the Rishis were from Central Asia and are mentioned as Valhik (Balkh) or Kamboja, Charsadda in Afghanistan (like my progenitor, Upamanyu; the name even now is a caste name in Hindus). The second verse of the first chapter of RigVeda asks Agni to come with all Gods. Yes, the unitary Brahman is also mentioned in Vedas. So, it represents many views, not just one. Of course Hinduism is a direct child of the 'Vedas', only what you forget is that a child always has two parents, indigenous Indian belief (Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Devi, Bhairav, etc.) is the other parent. You also forget that in history hindu influence extended at least up to Hindukush and possibly even beyond. Aupmanyav 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I must admit first up that neither am I a Vedic scholar nor a Sanskrit expert. However, of whatever little study I have conducted, a few points are worth bearing in mind here. The Vedas, in their teachings, and the Bhagvad Gita, with which more people are generally familiar, do not 'profess' a religion. They profess the importance of dharma which, rightly translated, implies basis or suppport. Your basis for actions can be anything that you deem right, and by that it means something that is acceptable to your conscience. To help you determine that, there is the concept of Karma, or action. Actions that you take have repercussions. If your action has the larger interests at heart, the repercussions will be good, and vice versa. You know you are committing a mistake when you are aware that your action can have negative repercussions but you still go ahead because of vested interests or greed. On the other hand, any action taken with the larger good at heart will always appeal to your conscience since there is nothing harmful about it. To practice a dharma is to have a basis to your actions, and this includes having a reason in your mind and conscience for your actions. It is this dharma that forbade Arjuna from not fighting the war, and it is this dharma that preaches non-violence since, within the teachings and ideology of the vedas, violence can never be justified as a means to an end. Remember the words "Yadayadahi dharmasya...". Krishna shall manifest Himself on earth whenever dharma is in danger, that is whenever the basis of life is threatened. Nowhere is it said that a particular apostle shall be dispatched, nor that if you stick to your basis you will achieve immortal pleasure or anything of that sort. Which is why, the Vedas are not exclusive to Hinduism. They are, rather, a superset of all religions since you can very well reinterprete the Vedic teachings in terms of those of other religions and still not have to take recourse to dangling carrots or threatening in order to have the followers stay honest. As far as the question of Aryans arriving and displacing the original inhabitants of Bharat and the Vedas having somehow being passed onto to Bharat by them goes, Max Muller, in a letter to his wife, has admitted to doctoring his presentation of the theory so as to "undo what has been done over the past 3000 years". Refer to Dr. Jha's work, as well as that of others, and they have conclusively proved that the Vedas were original to Bharat, did not have their reliance on any external ideology, tribe or teaching and that they date back at least as far as 6000 BCE. It should not be a surprise, therefore, that Vedic teachings can be implemented in daily life by anyone from any religion since these teachings are the basis of whatever wisdom may be contained in religions that originated post the Vedic period. --Cbchhaya 17:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio
Moved from Copyright problems End moved text
 * Vedas (old edition) from . From "There is hardly any Hindu" up to "Why this circumlocution?" - Vague | Rant 07:56, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 203.199.120.7 is a serial copyright violator. I have commented on his user page twice, and since I have noticed that in addition to violations I have found, BrokenSegue also removed Problems In Hinduism, a repost of Riddle In Hinduism, which I removed. - Vague | Rant 08:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio revisions deleted from article history. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vedam
Vedas are also referred to as Vedam in the various Indian languages. Hence i added "Vedam" too as part of the intro to Vedas.


 * Veda, Vedam, SrimadBhagawat, SrimadBhagawatham, Geeta, Gita, Geetha. Does it make any difference when we are thinking of these sublime philosophies. Aupmanyav 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Veda"s are "Veda"s only in Sanskrit. If it's "Ved" with the final vowel absent you're probably looking at a North Indian spelling. If it's "Vedam" with an unnecessary 'm' in religious spellings you're probably looking at a South Indian spelling. Maquahuitl 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Veda (band)
Does anyone mind if "Veda" is redirected to "Veda (band)" ? At Veda (band), there is a note at the top of the page for anyone looking for Vedas. If you want to keep Veda redirecting as it is, I'd like a note at the top of this page redirectly those looking for the band.


 * Humm, well. Which should it redirect to – one of the world's most important bodies of religious scripture, or a pretty obscure rock band from Kansas that was only formed last last year? Tough choice. I think, on balance, that it should remain as it is. Paul B 00:40, 4 Sept 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But I appreciate the note at the top of the page.

Pronunciation
I wanted to know the correct pronunciation, but there was nothing on the main entry page. I see one reference in the discussion here ("Ved-ah"?). If there is agreement amongst the scholarly, could this be added to the main page?

This confusion about a word ending with a vowel is common among non-native speakers of Indian languages. There is this characteristic among the different laguages of India where some words are pronunced ending with a vowel or consonant. For eg. "ved" in Hindi is equivalent to "veda" in Telugu. Silmilarly, for Ramayan/Ramayana, Mahabharat/Mahabharata, yug/yuga, swarn/swarna. Native Indian speakers do not see these differences as any significant but as mere differing phonetic forms. Sriwiki

Regarding Vedic/Sanskrit pronunciation: All sounds in the older language were meant to retain their full value. Thus, final vowels were never dropped. Vedas was meant to be pronounced thus. The letter "A" was not written out unless it appeared individually. Other vowels besides A, when preceeded by a consonant, were written out. Today, most Indian languages drop the final vowels from Sanskrit words, hence: Raja becomes "Raj", Rama becomes "Ram", etc. This is incorrect and is simply a simplification and "modernizing" of Sanskrit based words. Hindi, Gujarati, Panjabi, etc, are languages that have retained some Sanskrit words (along with a staple of Irano-Arabic vocabulary) and a general Indo-European grammar.

By the time of the Grammarian Panini, Sanskrit was regarded as an almost "algebraic language" due to its increasingly complicated and stratified grammatical rules including: consonant and vowel replacements and substitutions, word and sound combinations, word fusions and amalgamations. A simple example of this is the fact that Sanskrit words are not seperated in a sentence but, rather, fuse into one continuous stream of Devnagari letters.

Additionally, Vedic was a musical, or tonal language in many aspects. Sanskrit retains a compendium of accents based on the earlier language but these really do not function in the same accord as the older language. Vedic/Sanskrit are highly inflected languages much like Latin, Old Greek, Modern Slavic languages and many North American Indian languages. In contrast Hindi, which uses Devnagari script, and Urdu, which uses an Arabic script, are both showing signs of drifting from an inflected state to a non-inflected state. Hence, modern Indian languages are streaming towards simplification. Most of the case endings in the modern Aryan based Indian languages have diminished along with the dual number and certain tenses. User: Michael Hajko

"Inflectionary" character has nothing to do here. Indian languages (Dravidian or non-Dravidian) have not changed a wee bit except for imbibing foreign words into their vocabulary. The drifting patterns with reference to inflection are imaginary and baseless. Unlike the old European languages with notable use of inflections, inflection is a rule for any constructed speech and grammar in Indian languages. The non-observance of certain vowels at the end of words is characteristic of the language. The current day Hindi usage is vastly influenced by Urdu and related Arabic languages (where the word end vowel property is absent). Thus it turned out for the Hindi speakers a matter of convenience to ignore the vowel ending sounds.. prefer to call "Ram/Raj" than calling as "Rama/Raja" as in Sanskrit, Telugu or Kannada. This is the case not only for nouns but also for verbs and adjectives. The simplification with respect to the vowel relaxation in North-Indian languages is not a drift but has existed since their association with Arabic languages.

"Hindi, Gujarati, Panjabi, etc, are languages that have retained some Sanskrit words (along with a staple of Irano-Arabic vocabulary) and a general Indo-European grammar." The above quote is completely incorrect. There is hardly any Indian language that has not been sanskritised. Notable difference is about the North-Indian ("Indo-European/Aryan") languages that have a heavy Arabic flavor and vocab when compared to their South-Indian counterparts that have remained largely untouched. For the same reason, the classical Carnatic music (the traditional Hindu/Sanskrit music) is associated with Telugu/Tamil/Kannada/Malayalam (all Dravidian/Southern languages) and Sanskrit. Carnatic music is NOT composed in Hindi/Punjabi/Gujarati despite the Sanskrit presence, because, 1) the languages have not retained the Sanskrit flavor (though retained the words) 2) (/say consequence) a large number of Carnatic musicians have hailed from the South. In contrast, North Indian languages have become associated with Hindustani music (with heavy Arabic influences). Sriwiki 04:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the North-Indian languages that you mention to have a heavy Arabic or Persian flavour have retained nearly all their verbs from Sanskrit (Hasana, Khana, Peena, Rona, Gana, Aana, Jaana, Sona, Jagana, Karna, Marana, Jeena, ..). Should I say Urdu is 70% Sanskrit? Aupmanyav 04:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The simplification with respect to the vowel relaxation in North-Indian languages is not a drift but has existed since their association with Arabic languages.

Apparently it may seem that North Indian languages have lost the final vowel because of the Islamic influence(better use the phrase 'languages of the Islamic rulers' rather than "Arabic languages" which is a senseless phrase). However this is not true. A simple proof towards this is that there are several names of people who lived before the Islamic rule but don't have a final 'a' vowel at the end of their names. ''Notable difference is about the North-Indian ("Indo-European/Aryan") languages that have a heavy Arabic flavor and vocab when compared to their South-Indian counterparts that have remained largely untouched.... Carnatic music is NOT composed in Hindi/Punjabi/Gujarati despite the Sanskrit presence, because, 1) the languages have not retained the Sanskrit flavor (though retained the words) 2) (/say consequence) a large number of Carnatic musicians have hailed from the South. In contrast, North Indian languages have become associated with Hindustani music (with heavy Arabic influences). ''

What does all this have to do with the topic at hand? Hindustani music has Persian not Arabic influences. Seems you are bent on proving that all non-South Indians are half-Arabic. Maquahuitl 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)