Tattered JNU : Prof Chomsky – Rig Vedas Linguistic Framework
February 26, 2016 by skanda987
From: Lalit Mishra < >
Dear Prof Chomsky,
Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus),
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Professor of Linguistics, University of California,
It’s a pleasure to let you know that the attempts made by you and many others to intimidate ongoing Judicial process for providing justice to students accused for anti Indian slogan shouting at JNU university ( Jawahar Lal Nehru ) of Delhi, that has made you eyeball of a section of Indian media who is as usual ill-informed on what is the India in itself.
Have seen a few Indian scholars have responded to Prof Chomsky on personal capacity but I intend to make use of this issue to begin an overt interface between people of two different faith, belief, culture and continents.
Prof Chomsky, I don’t have to criticize you much on ‘JNU’ but to update you on your areas of linguistics with a glimpse on Rigvedic linguistic framework and historicity, something which may leave you in surprise that you who is equipped with most modern neurological lab and surrounded with best breed of neurologists, kind of theses you have been producing to your credit, can be termed as ‘reinventing the wheel’ if we review your theses from perspective of linguistic legacy left by Rigvedic Seers.
In your paper dated, August 26, 2014 titled ‘How Could Language Have Evolved?’ you happen to make a good start stating query that it is uncontroversial that language has evolved, but there is considerably less agreement as to how language evolved and then you note down problems –
First, “language” is not always clearly defined”
Second, “there is often confusion as to the nature of the evolutionary process”
Third, “What it can tell us about the mechanisms of language”
These problems are adequately explained to future generations by Vedic seers, primarily by Rigvedic seers, I can help you having solution that Rigvedic seers already provided in antiquity.
However, that you argue that “..the basic principle that underlies language’s hierarchical syntactic structure is consistent with a relatively recent evolutionary emergence..” gets falsified as the very foundation of your argument the evolutionary thesis itself is getting rejected in 21’st century as it appears pseudo scientific thesis that was perpetuated in colonial world.
You seem to not to have noted that for AnatomicallyModern Humans (AMH), no conclusive genetic evidences or otherwise have ever been found in Africa, this absence of evidence is further attested if we take a look of linguistic tree of Indo-European (‘IE’henceforth) languages. I trust that it’s known to you that IE languages are entirely different than languages spoken to Africa right from the phonemes to roots and stems of words. Hardly a minimum amount of cognates to imagine possibility of African origin of IE languages which was first spoken by modern humans, are found in African and IE languages and therefore your premise of your argument that “language’s hierarchical syntactic structure is consistent with a relatively recent evolutionary emergence” stands rejected.
You also miss the point in all your linguistic theses that it is the Sanskrit that is foundational to all IE languages, which could be a topic that may be taken up separately with you and Judith provided she is interested.
A linguistic survey of Rigveda tells us that language of Rigveda is older than the advent of agriculture and that Rigveda indicates beginning of agriculture in basin of Saraswati Sindhu which is archaeologically proven atexcavation of Mehargarh where farming is found ever since 7000 BCE
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh ) rejects Anatolian origin of Indo European languages and therefore the thesis given by Dr. Atkinson (University of Auckland ) using innovative method called Bayesian phylogeny or by Lord Colin Renfrew get’s rejected. One may not believe that in *PIE ( Proto Indo European Language) there is no word for domesticated bull which shows domestication of bulls didn’t happen in Anatolia, however, Sanskrit has this magic word ‘balivarda’ (बलिवर्द) for domesticated bull, a word that is most commonly spoken by even uneducated tribes of remote country areas of India.
Rigvedic record suggests that the ‘वाक (‘vak’) or first language of the modern human was born with the birth of cognitive intelligence which is called ‘मेधा’ (‘medha’), a point to where you are reaching but with many unanswered questions.
Rigveda suggests that intelligent humans, learnt sounds of flowing water, songs of birds, sounds of amphibians like frog and filtered out the sounds that he found meaningful to his business, you can refer to beautiful Rigvedic hymn (10.71) where forming words through filtration of sounds is explained and for surprise to everybody the hymn is dedicated to God of Knowledge (ज्ञान), First mantra of this hymn narrates naming of objects and second mantra narrates careful filtration of sounds (vācamakrata).
Last but not the least and very remarkable but ignored is the invention of mathematical tables by Rigvedic seers Rigveda records both forward and reverse tables. Neuroscientists and neurologists marked in email can understand that mathematical tables are a neurological aid to a child’s learning which doesn’t not require memory of processing calculation but involves a search process into reserved memory of brain.
You may like to laugh at kind of people employed at Harvard’s Sanskrit and History departments who theorize that Rigvedic Indians were not knowing how to read and write but they could discover mathematics and taught to rest of world of their times. I am grateful to Prof Dr Vinod Menon of Stanford university who confirmed to me that without writing such an advanced mathematics is not possible and with this 150 years old blemish concocted in colonial era and falsely perpetuated by JNU’s historians such that Romila Thapar, S R Sharma and by many others that Vedic Indians didn’t know how to read stands rejected.
Dear Chomasky and All.
There is a real problem that derides the sensitivity of human rights of every modern thinker and liberalists, is the denial of home to Tibetans by China. poor Tibetans are not allowed to live in their natural habitat such a brutal exploitation happened to none in history, not even to Palestinians, I w’d be happy if you and others, all those who were quick to sign