Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Conclusions on ikSvAku and "Ikshvakyu"

Expand Messages
  • Lalit Mishra
    Mr Varmha, AMAZING !! Do you know that with your latest explanation, you infact, yourself is declaring futility of your entire script, Pls recall, You built
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 12, 2013
      Mr Varmha,
      AMAZING !!
      Do you know that with your latest explanation, you infact, yourself is declaring futility of your entire script, Pls recall, You built script that "ikSvAku" the founder of Surya Vansha derived it's name from ikSu (Sugarcane, according to the fairytale known only to you, he invented making sugar) , However, now, you are categorically making it clear that "ikSvAku" or "Ikshvakyu , the founder of Surya Vansha and the ikSu or ikShu (Sugarcane) are two different terms with no relation in between at all, therefore,Your entire script stands NULL  and VOID going by your own logic, although you are wrong as usual in this laest explanation of yours on this thread.
      Note : I have noted that here is a need to illustrate "Ka" / "kU" / "kUla", that you are mireading to be not of Sanskrit Origin, I will be writing in weekendo n it seperately, In fact, I shall be making a series on meaning is Devanagri Alhabets.
      Pls understnad below response as well.
      R Varmha
      Let me repeat again: Iksh is written in Sanskrit as "eeksh", with a long "e". The word means, as you write: "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold". The word may be a cognate with, akSi = eye, sight etc.
      The word for sugar-cane is written in Sanskrit as ikSu with a short "e", so also ikSvAku. A word with a long "e" does not lend to be a root for a short "e". Furthermore, what has "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold" relate to ikSu or ikSuvAku? There seems to be no lgical reason for the transformation!
      L Mishra
      Unfortunately, You are wrong over here, Iksh is not written in Sanskrit as with a long "e", use below url in your browser or spend Rs 160.00 to buy copy of any Puran published by Geeta Press having sanskrit with hindi interpretations and locate how  "ikSvAku" or "Ikshvakyu is written in sanskrit, I can upload a scanned page to this group also if that helps you in overcoming false script.
       
      "eeksh" "Iksh" , "eeksh" " ikShu" all are derived from same root in sanskrit, the added "vu" to "ikSvAku" is a result of conjunction, Hence, your theory stands null and void.
      Regards,
      Lalit Mishra
      From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
      To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 4:08 PM
      Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian seal
      Mr. Mishra,
      Do you not understand what I showed you abut the conventional form of writing Devanagari script in English format, which is adopted world wide? You had written that it is wrong to write ikSu and ikSvAku and they should be written in your form of Ikshu and Ikshuvaku. So, now do you understand why I wrote ikSu and ikSvAku?
      << You won't have difficulty in grasping that root for Ikshva ir Iksh which means "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold", not the so called sugarcane. >>
      Let me repeat again: Iksh is written in Sanskrit as "eeksh", with a long "e". The word means, as you write: "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold". The word may be a cognate with, akSi = eye, sight etc.
      The word for sugar-cane is written in Sanskrit as ikSu with a short "e", so also ikSvAku. A word with a long "e" does not lend to be a root for a short "e". Furthermore, what has "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold" relate to ikSu or ikSuvAku? There seems to be no lgical reason for the transformation!
      Let me get this straight: are you saying the root for both ikSu as well as ikSvAka (both short "e") is IkS or Ikshva, (with the long "ee") meaning to see, behold etc? I do not see any logical connection with the etymology of these words, ikSu and ikSvAku with "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold". Could there be other possibilities? Can you explain further?
      Regards,
      Ram --- On Fri, 3/8/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:

      From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
      Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian seal
      To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com" <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Friday, March 8, 2013, 2:56 AM

      Dear Mr R Varmha,
      Is the Harvard university discussing issue over here or it's you Mr Varmha, I am sure Harvard wont be making academic theories on the basis fairytale, It's you who tried doing that using content of wikipedia pages, When asked to provide evidences you have got nothing to produce.
      Question is not What's the convention of Harvard-Kyoto script but question is do you understand the terms, If you truly understand, You won't have difficulty in grasping that root for Ikshva ir Iksh which means "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold", not the so called sugarcane.
      Hope it get's clear to you.
      Thanks,
      Lalit Mishra

      From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
      To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 9:47 AM
      Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian seal
      Dear Mr. Mishra,
      << Lalit Mishra (LM) : Looks you have some difficulty in understanding pronunciation of the Sanskrit Terms, It's not ikSav, ikSu and ikSuka as you understood but ikShav, ikShu and ikShuka. >>
      It is not I, but you who are confused about the spellings of the referenced words. What you have written is nonsense!
      In order to eliminae the confusion created by writing Sanskrit/Devanagari scripts to English the accepted form is the Harvard-Kyoto script convension. I presume you are not aware of this system. So read on:
      Look, in H-K spelling convention the following holds good.
      i = as in e
      I = as in ee
      S = as in sh
      ikSav = ekshav (vocal)
      ikSu = ekshu (vocal)
      ikSuka = ekshuka (vocal)
      Read below:
      You have to get your basics right.
      The word Iksha that you are proposing as the root for ikSu is wrong because
      I is a long "ee" and "i" is the short "e" and a word Iksha is starting with a long"ee". Please explain how "Iksha" forms the root for such as:
      ikSav = ekshav (vocal)
      ikSu = ekshu (vocal)
      ikSuka = ekshuka (vocal)
      and also, ikSvAku?
      And, what is the meaning of ikSvAka based on this then?
      Will appreciate.
      The response to the rest of the contents will be addressed appropriately, but let this item be concluded, first.
      Thanks,
      Ram
      --- On Tue, 3/5/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:

      From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
      Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian seal
      To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com" <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013, 11:41 AM

      Dear Mr R Varmha, Reading the quality response received from you, made me to think kind of adverse effect Wiki-Curry can have on life of scholars, I found, the source of your fantastic script on Munda is nothing but the a Wiki- Curry, However, you pasted a different link instead of the below : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit Just have a look at it, a replica of your original argument:

      // Wiki Content without references/evidences

      Dravidian

      There are an estimated thirty to forty Dravidian loanwords in Vedic., Those for which Dravidian etymologies are certain include kulāya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daṇḍa "stick", kūla "slope", bila "hollow", khala "threshing floor"

      //
      Now, Responses to your Arguments :

      1.) R Varmha (RV): "Iksha" (eekSa = ) does not appear to be the root to "ikshu" Sugar-cane. The words for sugar-cane are: ikSav:, ikSu and ikSuka, with "i" for "e" - not "ee" as in "Iksha". Please clarify what you mean?
      Lalit Mishra (LM) : Looks you have some difficulty in understanding pronunciation of the Sanskrit Terms, It's not ikSav, ikSu and ikSuka as you understood but ikShav, ikShu and ikShuka.
      2.) Lalit Mishra ( LM) : Can you pls also tell us asto how such a fantastic script is made that Asura mentioned in the Devasur sangram are Munda people, Do you have some historical/scriptural/archaeological/genetic findings to back this script. You have provided nothing on the fantastic script except the assertion that Munda are the Asura, Don't you think that your assertion is exactly like imagining UFOs, both afantastic specimen of human imagination.
      Regards, Lalit Mishra

      From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
      To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:58 PM
      Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian seal
      Dear Mr. Mishra,
      1. << Now, with the enough clarity provided on root "Iksha" which means "to see" or "view" in Sanskrit and having explained how it has given name to "Sugarcane", If any chance, confusion still remains at your end, Pls search "Ikshan" in any sanskrit dictionary available to you and your doubt is removed by yourself. >>
       "Iksha" (eekSa = ) does not appear to be the root to "ikshu" Sugar-cane. The words for sugar-cane are: ikSav:, ikSu and ikSuka, with "i" for "e" - not "ee" as in "Iksha".
      Please clarify what you mean?
      2. << Also, need to examine if the idea that if a term doesn't have a cognate in same language or in same family of languages than the only conclusion that can be derived without question is that very term is borrowed from some other language, I don't think it so simple. >>
      I do not think it is as simple either. But, a pretty good conclusion may be derived given the situation. If not explain.
      3. << Truly, I liked the fantastic script that Munda people are the Asura who participated in Devasur war, however, Let me correct you that Munda tribe is not the Asura, If you are interested for a debate on it, find me available, I have lived in Korab-Ranchi area during my schooling and I know the reality on ground. >>
      It would seem that the word A'Sura was used in Vedic or early Sanskrit to freely to indicate people of non-Sura groups. These may have been referenced as demons as well. With names such as Chanda and Munda it is quite plausable that the Asuras/Demons depicted in the Devi Mahathmyam were in fact of some Munda tribe.
      In all these descriptions of the batles between the Vedic Gods and A'Suras, the depiction may be between the Indo-Aryan Vedics and the local inhabitants of the land, termed, by then as Asuras or demons. I do not see this as a negative affront on the Vedics or the local non-Indo Aryan folks. It may in all probability be just a normal consequence of animosity existing between people of different cultures liivng in the same geographical location.
      << I have lived in Korab-Ranchi area during my schooling and I know the reality on ground. >>
      With due respect, I do not find this a qualification of sufficient intensity to be an expert on Ancient Indian History. What was then and what is now are matters of wide margins. Better to ignore this, it leads to no where.
      4. << I w'd further request you to overcome the very idea that we people do favor Sanskrit over other Indian leanguages, No, it's not the case, We only urge to not to propagate false theories having potential to impact the integrity and collective framework of any culture/country, luckily, we have enough resources available to refute all such theories if impacting the sanctity of Indian history. >>
      I do not know who the WE PEOPLE are? It is unnecessary to draw distinctions between WE and YOU when discussing matters related to Indian history. We are all in this together! So, let us approach it from that direction. There may be others, but I am not, nor have I propogated, intentionally, false theories on North vs South or Aryans vs Dravidian or Mundas etc. So, please cut off all that rhetorics. It is not useful.
      5. << We are for true findings and against the fallacies only, we are not against any language, gender, race or religion, since we know and practice the ancient wisdom of "Vasudha-Eva-Kutumbakam" whose modern interpretition is "Global Village". >>
      Again that WE is troublesome. It will make greater acceptance if the WE is changed to I. Let us all stay as permanent residenants of that "Vasudha-Eva-Kutumbakam".
      So, let us proceed with discussions with an open mind and a clear approach. Take into mind, that such discussions are open to disagreement even by established experts. Differing views exist; different understandings exist; different explananations are possible - especially when dealing with topics on ancient India where detailed historical documentations are sparse, and much of what is available is of semi-historical values as found mostly in Vedas, Epics and Puranas which are wonderful religious books, but not fully understood and found self-contridictory at times, by even those who have spent a life time trying to understand the subject matter, let alone by students of history living in the present.
      With Regards,
      Ram --- On Sat, 2/23/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:

      From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
      Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian seal
      To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com" <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: "shobhan_ganji@..." <shobhan_ganji@...>, "litsol@..." <litsol@...>
      Date: Saturday, February 23, 2013, 1:50 PM

      Dear Mr R Varmha,
      Now, with the enough clarity provided on root "Iksha" which means "to see" or "view" in Sanskrit and having explained how it has given name to "Sugarcane", If any chance, confusion still remains at your end, Pls search "Ikshan" in any sanskrit dictionary available to you and your doubt is removed by yourself.

      Can you also pls let's know who is the great scholar who made scintillating discovery that Sanskrit terms daNda and kUla etc doesn't have their cognates, Let's examine the very basis of this finding as well, Also, need to examine if the idea that if a term doesn't have a cognate in same language or in same family of languages than the only conclusion that can be derived without question is that very term is borrowed from some other language, I don't think it so simple.
      Truly, I liked the fantastic script that Munda people are the Asura who participated in Devasur war, however, Let me correct you that Munda tribe is not the Asura, If you are interested for a debate on it, find me available, I have lived in Korab-Ranchi area during my schooling and I know the reality on ground. Can you pls also tell us asto how such a fantastic script is made that Asura mentioned in the Devasur sangram are Munda people, Do you have some historical/scriptural/archaeological/genetic findings to back this script, Well, If Munda tribe is Asura, and then the onus comes on you to tell us who are the "Deva" participated in that Devasur sangram, There is an additional request to kindly let's know the time and place of Devasur sangram pls if you are so confirmed. I w'd further request you to overcome the very idea that we people do favor Sanskrit over other Indian leanguages, No, it's not the case, We only urge to not to propagate false theories having potential to impact the integrity and collective framework of any culture/country, luckily, we have enough resources available to refute all such theories if impacting the sanctity of Indian history. We are for true findings and against the fallacies only, we are not against any language, gender, race or religion, since we know and practice the ancient wisdom of "Vasudha-Eva-Kutumbakam" whose modern interpretition is "Global Village". Regards, Lalit Mishra
      From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
      To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:09 PM
      Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian seal
      Dear Mishra,
      << The wiki link given by you has no relevance, I fount not a single term that you mentioned ( kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick", kUla "slope") in your post are there in that wiki page. >>
      I did not give a Wiki link for the above words! I do not think you understood my post properly. You may want to re-read my referenced post, again.
      Vedic/Sanskrit is a branch of the Indo-European family. If there are words in Vedic/Sanskrit and cognates of which are not found in the Indo-European language base, then those words are borrowed from other languages or influenced by external languages. There is nothing to be bashful about it. Languages borrow from other languages all the time. It does not belittle any particular language or enhance the value of another. It is as simple as that.
      Can you find cognates for such words as, kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick", kUla "slope, in the Indo-European family of languages? If so please produce. In this case, Dravidian and Munda are likely candidates for these words.
      Can you deny that the Asura names given in the devotional Devi Mahathmyam, and which I have quoted, are not Munda names?
      tathRAsUraiRmahavErai devasaynyam parajitham,
      jithvA ca sakalAn devAn indrOabhUnMahishasura.
      "In that war, the powerful Asuras defeated the Devas and Mahishasura becomes (takes over) from Indra". (Translation mine).
      This is a description of the outcome of a battle between the Devas (Vedics?) and Asuras (Mundas). The Book says that the Asuras/Mundas defeated the Devas/Vedic and Mahisha takes over the functions of Indra! Given such an opening, how can any one disregard the co-existance of Vedic Aryans along side of the Mundas in the North? Of course there were interaction between the Indo Aryans and the Mundas and perhaps Dravidians and other inhabitants of that larger area, in the hoary past. It is a given. If there were such contacts, then it is logical that they interchanged ideas, concepts and words. It is a normal and logical event to have happened.
      Now, if you do not believe that Vedic/Sanskrit is part of the Greater Indo-European family of languages then you ought to do some serious research in that area. This fact has been pretty much established and if you are opposed to that then you need to concentrate on deeper research, and prove it other wise.
      Regarding the Ikshvaku line of argument please give us your interprtation of the name and how he came to be the patriarch of the Solar Dynasty?
      With due regards.
      Ram
      --- On Mon, 2/18/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:

      From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
      Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian seal
      To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com" <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: "litsol@..." <litsol@...>
      Date: Monday, February 18, 2013, 1:57 PM


      Dear Mr R Varmha,
      I understand what are Aryan people however on point of Vedic Sanskrit having borrowed it's terms from Munda/Tamil etc., It w'd have been better for you to produce supporting evidences, in lack of such evidences, all that you trying to convey shows you are into making sort of speculations out here.
      You are given yet another opportunity to prove your claims, however, in the context, a sincere advise for you is to look into best of etymological resources available to you to understand how the term "Ikshvaku" itself is formed, w'd be good for you to concentrate on "Iksh" of "Ikshvaku" at first place.
      The wiki link given by you has no relevance, I fount not a single term that you mentioned ( kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick", kUla "slope") in your post are there in that wiki page.
      Thanks for your time,
      Lalit Mishra
      From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
      To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:56 PM
      Subject: Fw: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian seal
      Dear Mr. Mishra,
      Sorry, but your post is quite rambling and I'm not sure where to begin?
      1. There are number of words in Vedic which are borrowed from both Old Dravidian and
      Munda and perhaps other languages which have gone obsolete, which existed in the vicinity of the Vedic Aryan settlement in upper India. This does not make the sanctity or the antiquity or the
      verity of the Vedas any less or any more. You should learn to look at these topics realistically.
      The Vedic Aryans were not divine people. They were probably just like you and me, living in a different period of time.
      Words from neighboring linguistic cultures get borrowed and loaned to close by establishments. It does not make the giver or taker of linguistic words in any way superior or inferior.
      Words such as, kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick", kUla "slope", and few others
      are all established to be proto-Dravidian words. Mayur "peacock" has Dravidian origin -
      Mayil in Tamil. There are many others as well.
      Some probable Munda substrates in Skt: are Kasava, son of a slave girl; Shambara, Chieftain of an enemy; Kulitara, a chieftain;
      I am quite certain that the names of the Asuras in Devi Mahathmyam are Munda names -
      Mahisha, Madhu, Kaidabha, Dhoomra, Nisumba, Sumba, Chanda, Munda, (hence Chamunda).
      River names such as Ganga, Gandaki may have come from Munda: *gad/gand.
      Kabul and Kurram rivers is most certainly, Kubba and Krumu in Munda. There are many others to speak of.
      Sugar
      through Old French sucre, Italian zucchero, Medieval Latin succarum, Arabic: سكر sukkar and Persian: شکر shakar ultimately from Sanskrit शर्करा sharkara which means "ground or candied sugar" (originally "grit" or "gravel"), from proto-Dravidian.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Sanskrit_origin#cite_note-133
      Also, Burrows and Emeneau - A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary:
      2. 2354 Ta. caracara (-pp-, -tt-): (page 207)
      curacura (-pp-,-tt-) to be rough, have a rough surface; curacurappu roughness as of woollen cloth. Ma. caral, carakkallu gravel. Ka. (Hav.) caralu small rounded pebbles. Tu. caraṭè what is coarse, leavings or stalks; jari grit, granule, sand. Kui srogu a rough surface, coarse sand or pebbles; rough, coarse, uneven; jrogu rough, gravelly; srogu srogu inba to be rough, coarse, uneven, pebbly; srāmbu gravel. Cf. 3097 Ta. taricu. DED 1945.
      These are far more antiquated words than "zarkara" found in Sanskrit.
      Now, there is the discussion on Ikshvaku. Ikshu = sugar cane. Why does the name of the first King from the Surya Vamsha have a name related to sugar cane? I do not know, but I have a supposition regarding this. I think the story of Surya Vamsha is allegorical. The sun is associated with the East. We may understand then that the Surya Vamsha kings came from the East since Surya is synonomous with the Eastern regions of India. It is therefore possible that the Solar Dynasty was started by a King named Ikshvaku who came from the East or South East. This could very well be from the ancient Andhra region. Andhras are of the Dravidian stock and there was a dynasty named after an Iksvaku king . But, what is still intriguing is why the first Solar Dynasty (Eastern Dynasty) king has a name connected with sugar-cane? We do not know that - yet.
      Regards,
      Ram
      Ram
      --- On Sat, 2/2/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:

      From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
      Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian seal
      To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com" <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: "litsol@..." <litsol@...>
      Date: Saturday, February 2, 2013, 1:27 AM

      Dear Mr Ram Varmha,

      Knowing that a few members, for lack of right knowledge�in matters of ancient literature like etymology, could give rise to incorrect idea that Sharkara is a non Sanskrit term borrowed from some other language, It was deliberately not revealed earlier that Sharakara is a term found right from Rigveda to ancient Brahaman scriptures, now, anybody who plays around the�apparent�fallacy that Sharakara is a non Vedic Term has to establish which are the scriptures in other language existed before Rigveda and how the Vedic Sages borrowed it from that, what has been the connection since same group also makes stories that Aryans were different from Dravidians, whereas, now, you propose that both lived�together,�
      �Which is self contradictory, We notice that whole�exercise is�maneuvered to showcase Dravida is different as well as more ancient than Vedas, We have noticed same set of wise members are also very quick to produce the irrelevant logic that a culture's being ancient doesn't matter at all just because USA is not that old. In that way, History and Archaeology is useless since it's look into past, it doesn't add value to our earnings that take home every month, What's the relevance all such ideas has got .... ?
    • Rajan Menon
      Some concluding remarks on this issue: I hope this would be of help to all : ON THE CONCEPT OF कु in ईक्ष्वाकु (ku in īkṣvāku)
      Message 2 of 18 , Mar 13, 2013
        Some concluding remarks on this issue: I hope this would be of help to all :

        ON THE CONCEPT OF कु in ईक्ष्वाकु (ku in īkṣvāku)

        (MWD) (1) कु pronominal base as in कुत्र , कुतः , कुविद् (ku
        pronominal base as in kutra, kutaḥ, kuvid)

        (2) कु (f) the earth कुज born from the earth
        ku kuja

        (3) कू (P) कौति and Vedic कवीति kū kauti kavīti : See Panini VII , 3, 95

        कवते kavate : see NaighaNtava 2-14

        कोकूयते Intensive Atmanepada kokūyate : (Panini VII,4,63) to cry aloud

        कू kū indeclinable = क्व kva where ? RV V.74.1

        क्वचिद् kvacid indeclinable anywhere RV IX,87,8

        कूचिद् अर्थिन् kūcid arthin : striving to get anywhere (seeking
        oblations from any quarter- Saayana ) RV IV-7-6

        कू female पिशाच kū female piśāca

        Nig 2-14 The term कवते belongs to गतिकर्माणः (kavate gatikarmāṇaḥ)

        गति gati literally motion ; stretching out , stretching out,
        lengthening of a syllable.

        Kale: An advanced Sanskrit Grammar

        कव् (Atmanepada) स्तुतौ वर्णने च कवते (kav stutau varṇane ca kavate)
        to praise kavate present indicative

        कु (1A) शब्दे to sound कवते present tense (ku śabde kavate)

        कु 2P to sound कौति present tense (ku kauti )

        कु 6A शब्दे (आर्तस्वरे) to sound, to moan कुवते present (ku śabde
        (ārtasvare) kuvate)

        कू 6A शब्दे to sound कुवते present ind. (kū śabde kuvate)

        Macdonell´s Vedic Grammar
        कुह where कु as a derivation stem. (kuha , ku )

        Surya Kanta : A Grammatical Dictionary of Vedic

        वाघत् A priest, praying, institution of a sacrifice. The guttural घ
        pertains to the hypothetical Indo-European (language) (vāghat gha)

        From the present participle वाघन्त् of वाघ् (vāghant , vāgh)
        The term could have originated as ईक्ष्वाघ (īkṣvāgha) a Sun Priest
        (not a fire priest). Or it may have indicated the “Seer” , a “Kavi” in
        the true sense of the word. Could also be a reference to the Sun as a
        Seer.

        Thank you,

        Rajan Menon

        On 3/12/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
        > Mr Varmha,
        > AMAZING !!
        > Do you know that with your latest explanation, you infact, yourself is
        > declaring futility of your entire script, Pls recall, You built script that
        > "ikSvAku" the founder of Surya Vansha derived it's name from ikSu
        > (Sugarcane, according to the fairytale known only to you, he invented making
        > sugar) , However, now, you are categorically making it clear that "ikSvAku"
        > or "Ikshvakyu , the founder of Surya Vansha and the ikSu or ikShu
        > (Sugarcane) are two different terms with no relation in between at all,
        > therefore,Your entire script stands NULL  and VOID going by your own logic,
        > although you are wrong as usual in this laest explanation of yours on this
        > thread.
        > Note : I have noted that here is a need to illustrate "Ka" / "kU" / "kUla",
        > that you are mireading to be not of Sanskrit Origin, I will be writing in
        > weekendo n it seperately, In fact, I shall be making a series on meaning is
        > Devanagri Alhabets.
        > Pls understnad below response as well.
        > R Varmha Let me repeat again: Iksh is written in Sanskrit as "eeksh", with
        > a long "e". The word means, as you write: "To View" or "To See" or "To
        > Behold". The word may be a cognate with, akSi = eye, sight etc.
        > The word for sugar-cane is written in Sanskrit as ikSu with a short "e", so
        > also ikSvAku. A word with a long "e" does not lend to be a root for a short
        > "e". Furthermore, what has "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold" relate to
        > ikSu or ikSuvAku? There seems to be no lgical reason for the transformation!
        >
        > L Mishra
        > Unfortunately, You are wrong over here, Iksh is not written in Sanskrit as
        > with a long "e", use below url in your browser or spend Rs 160.00 to buy
        > copy of any Puran published by Geeta Press having sanskrit with hindi
        > interpretations and locate how  "ikSvAku" or "Ikshvakyu is written in
        > sanskrit, I can upload a scanned page to this group also if that helps you
        > in overcoming false script.
        >
        > http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=sugarcane&script=&direction=ES&link=yes
        > "eeksh" "Iksh" , "eeksh" " ikShu" all are derived from same root in
        > sanskrit, the added "vu" to "ikSvAku" is a result of conjunction, Hence,
        > your theory stands null and void.
        > Regards,
        > Lalit Mishra
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
        > To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 4:08 PM
        > Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian
        > seal
        >
        > Mr. Mishra,
        > Do you not understand what I showed you abut the conventional form of
        > writing Devanagari script in English format, which is adopted world wide?
        > You had written that it is wrong to write ikSu and ikSvAku and they should
        > be written in your form of Ikshu and Ikshuvaku. So, now do you understand
        > why I wrote ikSu and ikSvAku?
        > << You won't have difficulty in grasping that root for Ikshva ir Iksh which
        > means "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold", not the so called sugarcane. >>
        > Let me repeat again: Iksh is written in Sanskrit as "eeksh", with a long
        > "e". The word means, as you write: "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold". The
        > word may be a cognate with, akSi = eye, sight etc.
        > The word for sugar-cane is written in Sanskrit as ikSu with a short "e", so
        > also ikSvAku. A word with a long "e" does not lend to be a root for a short
        > "e". Furthermore, what has "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold" relate to
        > ikSu or ikSuvAku? There seems to be no lgical reason for the transformation!
        >
        > Let me get this straight: are you saying the root for both ikSu as well as
        > ikSvAka (both short "e") is IkS or Ikshva, (with the long "ee") meaning to
        > see, behold etc? I do not see any logical connection with the etymology of
        > these words, ikSu and ikSvAku with "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold".
        > Could there be other possibilities? Can you explain further?
        > Regards,
        > Ram --- On Fri, 3/8/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
        >
        >>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
        >>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian
        >> seal
        >>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com" <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
        >>Date: Friday, March 8, 2013, 2:56 AM
        >>
        >>
        >>Dear Mr R Varmha,
        >>Is the Harvard university discussing issue over here or it's you Mr Varmha,
        >> I am sure Harvard wont be making academic theories on the basis fairytale,
        >> It's you who tried doing that using content of wikipedia pages, When asked
        >> to provide evidences you have got nothing to produce.
        >>Question is not What's the convention of Harvard-Kyoto script but question
        >> is do you understand the terms, If you truly understand, You won't have
        >> difficulty in grasping that root for Ikshva ir Iksh which means "To View"
        >> or "To See" or "To Behold", not the so called sugarcane.
        >>Hope it get's clear to you.
        >>Thanks,
        >>Lalit Mishra
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>________________________________
        >>From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
        >>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
        >>Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 9:47 AM
        >>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian
        >> seal
        >>
        >>Dear Mr. Mishra,
        >><< Lalit Mishra (LM) : Looks you have some difficulty in understanding
        >> pronunciation of the Sanskrit Terms, It's notikSav, ikSu and ikSuka as you
        >> understood but ikShav, ikShu and ikShuka. >>
        >>It is not I, but you who are confused about the spellings of the referenced
        >> words. What you have written is nonsense!
        >>In order to eliminae the confusion created by writing Sanskrit/Devanagari
        >> scripts to English the accepted form is the Harvard-Kyoto script
        >> convension. I presume you are not aware of this system. So read on:
        >>Look, in H-K spelling convention the following holds good.
        >>i = as in e
        >>I = as in ee
        >>S = as in sh
        >>ikSav = ekshav (vocal)
        >>ikSu = ekshu (vocal)
        >>ikSuka = ekshuka (vocal)
        >>Read below:
        >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard-Kyoto
        >>You have to get your basics right.
        >>The word Iksha that you are proposing as the root for ikSu is wrong
        >> because
        >>I is a long "ee" and "i" is the short "e" and a word Iksha is starting with
        >> a long"ee". Please explain how "Iksha" forms the root for such as:
        >>
        >>ikSav = ekshav (vocal)
        >>ikSu = ekshu (vocal)
        >>ikSuka = ekshuka (vocal)
        >>and also, ikSvAku?
        >>And, what is the meaning of ikSvAka based on this then?
        >>Will appreciate.
        >>The response to the rest of the contents will be addressed appropriately,
        >> but let this item be concluded, first.
        >>Thanks,
        >>Ram
        >>--- On Tue, 3/5/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
        >>
        >>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
        >>>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian
        >>> seal
        >>>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com" <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
        >>>Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013, 11:41 AM
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>Dear Mr R Varmha, Reading the quality response received from you, made me
        >>> to think kind of adverse effect Wiki-Curry can have on life of scholars,
        >>> I found, the source of your fantastic script on Munda is nothing but the
        >>> a Wiki- Curry, However, you pasted a different link instead of the below
        >>> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit Just have a
        >>> look at it, a replica of your original argument:
        >>>// Wiki Content without references/evidences
        >>>
        >>>Dravidian
        >>>There are an estimated thirty to forty Dravidian loanwords in Vedic.,
        >>> Those for which Dravidian etymologies are certain include kulāya "nest",
        >>> kulpha "ankle", daṇḍa "stick", kūla "slope", bila "hollow", khala
        >>> "threshing floor"
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>//
        >>>Now, Responses to your Arguments :
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>1.) R Varmha (RV): "Iksha" (eekSa = ) does not appear to be the root to
        >>> "ikshu" Sugar-cane. The words for sugar-cane are: ikSav:, ikSu and
        >>> ikSuka, with "i" for "e" - not "ee" as in "Iksha". Please clarify what
        >>> you mean?
        >>>Lalit Mishra (LM) : Looks you have some difficulty in understanding
        >>> pronunciation of the Sanskrit Terms, It's notikSav, ikSu and ikSuka as
        >>> you understood but ikShav, ikShu and ikShuka.
        >>>2.) Lalit Mishra ( LM) : Can you pls also tell us asto how such a
        >>> fantastic script is made that Asura mentioned in the Devasur sangram are
        >>> Munda people, Do you have some
        >>> historical/scriptural/archaeological/genetic findings to back this
        >>> script.You have providednothing on the fantastic script except the
        >>> assertion that Munda are the Asura, Don't you think that your assertion
        >>> is exactly like imagining UFOs, both afantastic specimen of human
        >>> imagination.
        >>>
        >>>Regards, Lalit Mishra
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>________________________________
        >>>From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
        >>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
        >>>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:58 PM
        >>>Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
        >>> Mesopotamian seal
        >>>
        >>>Dear Mr. Mishra,
        >>>1. << Now, with the enough clarity provided on root "Iksha" which means
        >>> "to see" or "view" in Sanskrit and having explained how it has given name
        >>> to "Sugarcane", If any chance, confusion still remains at your end, Pls
        >>> search "Ikshan" in any sanskrit dictionary available to you and your
        >>> doubt is removed by yourself. >>
        >>> "Iksha" (eekSa = ) does not appear to be the root to "ikshu" Sugar-cane.
        >>> The words for sugar-cane are: ikSav:, ikSu and ikSuka, with "i" for "e" -
        >>> not "ee" as in "Iksha".
        >>>Please clarify what you mean?
        >>>2. << Also, need to examine if the idea that if a term doesn't have a
        >>> cognate in same language or in same family of languages than the only
        >>> conclusion that can be derived without question is that very term is
        >>> borrowed from some other language, I don't think it so simple. >>
        >>>I do not think it is as simple either. But, a pretty good conclusion may
        >>> be derived given the situation. If not explain.
        >>>3. << Truly, I liked the fantastic script that Munda people are the Asura
        >>> who participated in Devasur war, however, Let me correct you that Munda
        >>> tribe is not the Asura, If you are interested for a debate on it, find me
        >>> available, I have lived in Korab-Ranchi area during my schooling and I
        >>> know the reality on ground. >>
        >>>It would seem that the word A'Sura was used in Vedic or early Sanskrit to
        >>> freely to indicate people of non-Sura groups. These may have been
        >>> referenced as demons as well. With names such as Chanda and Munda it is
        >>> quite plausable that the Asuras/Demons depicted in the Devi Mahathmyam
        >>> were in fact of some Munda tribe.
        >>>In all these descriptions of the batles between the Vedic Gods and
        >>> A'Suras, the depiction may be between the Indo-Aryan Vedics and the local
        >>> inhabitants of the land, termed, by then as Asuras or demons. I do not
        >>> see this as a negative affront on the Vedics or the local non-Indo Aryan
        >>> folks. It may in all probability be just a normal consequence of
        >>> animosity existing between people of different cultures liivng in the
        >>> same geographical location.
        >>><< I have lived in Korab-Ranchi area during my schooling and I know the
        >>> reality on ground. >>
        >>>With due respect, I do not find this a qualification of sufficient
        >>> intensity to be an expert on Ancient Indian History. What was then and
        >>> what is now are matters of wide margins. Better to ignore this, it leads
        >>> to no where.
        >>>4. << I w'd further request you to overcome the very idea that we people
        >>> do favor Sanskrit over other Indian leanguages, No, it's not the case, We
        >>> only urge to not to propagate false theories having potential to impact
        >>> the integrity and collective framework of any culture/country, luckily,
        >>> we have enough resources available to refute all such theories if
        >>> impacting the sanctity of Indian history. >>
        >>>I do not know who the WE PEOPLE are? It is unnecessary to draw
        >>> distinctions between WE and YOU when discussing matters related to Indian
        >>> history. We are all in this together! So, let us approach it from that
        >>> direction. There may be others, but I am not, nor have I propogated,
        >>> intentionally, false theories on North vs South or Aryans vs Dravidian or
        >>> Mundas etc. So, please cut off all that rhetorics. It is not useful.
        >>>5. << We are for true findings and against the fallacies only, we are not
        >>> against any language, gender, race or religion, since we know and
        >>> practice the ancient wisdom of "Vasudha-Eva-Kutumbakam" whose modern
        >>> interpretition is "Global Village". >>
        >>>Again that WE is troublesome. It will make greater acceptance if the WE is
        >>> changed to I. Let us all stay as permanent residenants of that
        >>> "Vasudha-Eva-Kutumbakam".
        >>>So, let us proceed with discussions with an open mind and a clear
        >>> approach. Take into mind, that such discussions are open to disagreement
        >>> even by established experts. Differing views exist; different
        >>> understandings exist; different explananations are possible - especially
        >>> when dealing with topics on ancient India where detailed historical
        >>> documentations are sparse, and much of what is available is of
        >>> semi-historical values as found mostly in Vedas, Epics and Puranas which
        >>> are wonderful religious books, but not fully understood and found
        >>> self-contridictory at times, by even those who have spent a life time
        >>> trying to understand the subject matter, let alone by students of history
        >>> living in the present.
        >>>With Regards,
        >>>Ram --- On Sat, 2/23/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
        >>>
        >>>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
        >>>>Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
        >>>> Mesopotamian seal
        >>>>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com"
        >>>> <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
        >>>>Cc: "shobhan_ganji@..." <shobhan_ganji@...>,
        >>>> "litsol@..." <litsol@...>
        >>>>Date: Saturday, February 23, 2013, 1:50 PM
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>Dear Mr R Varmha,
        > Now, with the enough clarity provided on root "Iksha" which means "to see"
        > or "view" in Sanskrit and having explained how it has given name to
        > "Sugarcane", If any chance, confusion still remains at your end, Pls search
        > "Ikshan" in any sanskrit dictionary available to you and your doubt is
        > removed by yourself.
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>Can you also pls let's know who is the great scholar who made
        >>>> scintillating discovery that Sanskrit terms daNda and kUla etc doesn't
        >>>> have their cognates, Let's examine the very basis of this finding as
        >>>> well, Also, need to examine if the idea that if a term doesn't have a
        >>>> cognate in same language or in same family of languages than the only
        >>>> conclusion that can be derived without question is that very term is
        >>>> borrowed from some other language, I don't think it so simple.
        > Truly, I liked the fantastic script that Munda people are the Asura who
        > participated in Devasur war, however, Let me correct you that Munda tribe is
        > not the Asura, If you are interested for a debate on it, find me available,
        > I have lived in Korab-Ranchi area during my schooling and I know the reality
        > on ground. Can you pls also tell us asto how such a fantastic script is made
        > that Asura mentioned in the Devasur sangram are Munda people, Do you have
        > some historical/scriptural/archaeological/genetic findings to back this
        > script, Well, If Munda tribe is Asura, and then the onus comes on you to
        > tell us who are the "Deva" participated in that Devasur sangram, There is an
        > additional request to kindly let's know the time and place of Devasur
        > sangram pls if you are so confirmed. I w'd further request you to overcome
        > the very idea that we people do favor Sanskrit over other Indian leanguages,
        > No, it's not the case, We only urge to not to propagate false theories
        > having potential to impact the integrity and collective framework of any
        > culture/country, luckily, we have enough resources available to refute all
        > such theories if impacting the sanctity of Indian history. We are for true
        > findings and against the fallacies only, we are not against any language,
        > gender, race or religion, since we know and practice the ancient wisdom of
        > "Vasudha-Eva-Kutumbakam" whose modern interpretition is "Global Village".
        > Regards, Lalit Mishra
        >>>>
        >>>>________________________________
        >>>>From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
        >>>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
        >>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:09 PM
        >>>>Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
        >>>> Mesopotamian seal
        >>>>
        >>>>Dear Mishra,
        >>>><< The wiki link given by you has no relevance, I fount not a single term
        >>>> that you mentioned ( kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick", kUla
        >>>> "slope") in your post are there in that wiki page. >>
        >>>>I did not give a Wiki link for the above words! I do not think you
        >>>> understood my post properly. You may want to re-read my referenced post,
        >>>> again.
        >>>>Vedic/Sanskrit is a branch of the Indo-European family. If there are
        >>>> words in Vedic/Sanskrit and cognates of which are not found in the
        >>>> Indo-European language base, then those words are borrowed from other
        >>>> languages or influenced by external languages. There is nothing to be
        >>>> bashful about it. Languages borrow from other languages all the time. It
        >>>> does not belittle any particular language or enhance the value of
        >>>> another. It is as simple as that.
        >>>>Can you find cognates for such words as, kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle",
        >>>> daNḍa "stick", kUla "slope, in the Indo-European family of languages? If
        >>>> so please produce. In this case, Dravidian and Munda are likely
        >>>> candidates for these words.
        >>>>Can you deny that the Asura names given in the devotional Devi
        >>>> Mahathmyam, and which I have quoted, are not Munda names?
        >>>>tathRAsUraiRmahavErai devasaynyam parajitham,
        >>>>jithvA ca sakalAn devAn indrOabhUnMahishasura.
        >>>>"In that war, the powerful Asuras defeated the Devas and Mahishasura
        >>>> becomes (takes over) from Indra". (Translation mine).
        >>>>This is a description of the outcome of a battle between the Devas
        >>>> (Vedics?) and Asuras (Mundas). The Book says that the Asuras/Mundas
        >>>> defeated the Devas/Vedic and Mahisha takes over the functions of Indra!
        >>>> Given such an opening, how can any one disregard the co-existance of
        >>>> Vedic Aryans along side of the Mundas in the North? Of course there were
        >>>> interaction between the Indo Aryans and the Mundas and perhaps
        >>>> Dravidians and other inhabitants of that larger area, in the hoary past.
        >>>> It is a given. If there were such contacts, then it is logical that they
        >>>> interchanged ideas, concepts and words. It is a normal and logical event
        >>>> to have happened.
        >>>>Now, if you do not believe that Vedic/Sanskrit is part of the Greater
        >>>> Indo-European family of languages then you ought to do some serious
        >>>> research in that area. This fact has been pretty much established and if
        >>>> you are opposed to that then you need to concentrate on deeper research,
        >>>> and prove it other wise.
        >>>>Regarding the Ikshvaku line of argument please give us your interprtation
        >>>> of the name and how he came to be the patriarch of the Solar Dynasty?
        >>>>With due regards.
        >>>>Ram
        >>>>--- On Mon, 2/18/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
        >>>>>Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
        >>>>> Mesopotamian seal
        >>>>>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com"
        >>>>> <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
        >>>>>Cc: "litsol@..." <litsol@...>
        >>>>>Date: Monday, February 18, 2013, 1:57 PM
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>Dear Mr R Varmha,
        >>>>>I understand what are Aryan people however on point of Vedic Sanskrit
        >>>>> having borrowed it's terms from Munda/Tamil etc., It w'd have been
        >>>>> better for you to produce supporting evidences, in lack of such
        >>>>> evidences, all that you trying to convey shows you are into making sort
        >>>>> of speculations out here.
        >>>>>You are given yet another opportunity to prove your claims, however, in
        >>>>> the context, a sincere advise for you is to look into best of
        >>>>> etymological resources available to you to understand how the term
        >>>>> "Ikshvaku" itself is formed, w'd be good for you to concentrate on
        >>>>> "Iksh" of "Ikshvaku" at first place.
        >>>>>The wiki link given by you has no relevance, I fount not a single term
        >>>>> that you mentioned ( kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick", kUla
        >>>>> "slope") in your post are there in that wiki page.
        >>>>>Thanks for your time,
        >>>>>Lalit Mishra
        >>>>>
        >>>>>________________________________
        >>>>>From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
        >>>>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
        >>>>>Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:56 PM
        >>>>>Subject: Fw: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
        >>>>> Mesopotamian seal
        >>>>>
        >>>>>Dear Mr. Mishra,
        >>>>>Sorry, but your post is quite rambling and I'm not sure where to begin?
        >>>>>1. There are number of words in Vedic which are borrowed from both Old
        >>>>> Dravidian and
        >>>>>Munda and perhaps other languages which have gone obsolete, which
        >>>>> existed in the vicinity of the Vedic Aryan settlement in upper India.
        >>>>> This does not make the sanctity or the antiquity or the
        >>>>>verity of the Vedas any less or any more. You should learn to look at
        >>>>> these topics realistically.
        >>>>>The Vedic Aryans were not divine people. They were probably just like
        >>>>> you and me, living in a different period of time.
        >>>>>Words from neighboring linguistic cultures get borrowed and loaned to
        >>>>> close by establishments. It does not make the giver or taker of
        >>>>> linguistic words in any way superior or inferior.
        >>>>>Words such as, kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick", kUla
        >>>>> "slope", and few others
        >>>>>are all established to be proto-Dravidian words. Mayur "peacock" has
        >>>>> Dravidian origin -
        >>>>>Mayil in Tamil. There are many others as well.
        >>>>>Some probable Munda substrates in Skt: are Kasava, son of a slave girl;
        >>>>> Shambara, Chieftain of an enemy; Kulitara, a chieftain;
        >>>>>
        >>>>>I am quite certain that the names of the Asuras in Devi Mahathmyam are
        >>>>> Munda names -
        >>>>>Mahisha, Madhu, Kaidabha, Dhoomra, Nisumba, Sumba, Chanda, Munda, (hence
        >>>>> Chamunda).
        >>>>>River names such as Ganga, Gandaki may have come from Munda: *gad/gand.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>Kabul and Kurram rivers is most certainly, Kubba and Krumu in Munda.
        >>>>> There are many others to speak of.
        >>>>>Sugar
        >>>>>through Old French sucre, Italian zucchero, Medieval Latin succarum,
        >>>>> Arabic: سكر sukkar and Persian: شکر shakar ultimately from Sanskrit
        >>>>> शर्करा sharkara which means "ground or candied sugar" (originally
        >>>>> "grit" or "gravel"), from proto-Dravidian.
        >>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Sanskrit_origin#cite_note-133
        >>>>>Also, Burrows and Emeneau - A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary:
        >>>>>2. 2354 Ta. caracara (-pp-, -tt-): (page 207)
        >>>>>curacura (-pp-,-tt-) to be rough, have a rough surface; curacurappu
        >>>>> roughness as of woollen cloth. Ma. caral, carakkallu gravel. Ka. (Hav.)
        >>>>> caralu small rounded pebbles. Tu. caraṭè what is coarse, leavings or
        >>>>> stalks; jari grit, granule, sand. Kui srogu a rough surface, coarse
        >>>>> sand or pebbles; rough, coarse, uneven; jrogu rough, gravelly; srogu
        >>>>> srogu inba to be rough, coarse, uneven, pebbly; srāmbu gravel. Cf. 3097
        >>>>> Ta. taricu. DED 1945.
        >>>>>>These are far more antiquated words than "zarkara" found in Sanskrit.
        >>>>>>http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/search3advanced?dbname=burrow&query=grit&matchtype=exact&display=utf8
        >>>>>>Now, there is the discussion on Ikshvaku. Ikshu = sugar cane. Why does
        >>>>>> the name of the first King from the Surya Vamsha have a name related
        >>>>>> to sugar cane? I do not know, but I have a supposition regarding this.
        >>>>>> I think the story of Surya Vamsha is allegorical. The sun is
        >>>>>> associated with the East. We may understand then that the Surya Vamsha
        >>>>>> kings came from the East since Surya is synonomous with the Eastern
        >>>>>> regions of India. It is therefore possible that the Solar Dynasty was
        >>>>>> started by a King named Ikshvaku who came from the East or South East.
        >>>>>> This could very well be from the ancient Andhra region. Andhras are of
        >>>>>> the Dravidian stock and there was a dynasty named after an Iksvaku
        >>>>>> king . But, what is still intriguing is why the first Solar Dynasty
        >>>>>> (Eastern Dynasty) king has a name connected with sugar-cane? We do not
        >>>>>> know that - yet.
        >>>>>>Regards,
        >>>>>>Ram
        >>>>>Ram
        >>>>>--- On Sat, 2/2/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
        >>>>>
        >>>>>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
        >>>>>>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
        >>>>>> Mesopotamian seal
        >>>>>>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com"
        >>>>>> <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
        >>>>>>Cc: "litsol@..." <litsol@...>
        >>>>>>Date: Saturday, February 2, 2013, 1:27 AM
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>Dear Mr Ram Varmha,
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>Knowing that a few members, for lack of right knowledge�in matters of
        >>>>>> ancient literature like etymology, could give rise to incorrect idea
        >>>>>> that Sharkara is a non Sanskrit term borrowed from some other
        >>>>>> language, It was deliberately not revealed earlier that Sharakara is a
        >>>>>> term found right from Rigveda to ancient Brahaman scriptures, now,
        >>>>>> anybody who plays around the�apparent�fallacy that Sharakara is a non
        >>>>>> Vedic Term has to establish which are the scriptures in other language
        >>>>>> existed before Rigveda and how the Vedic Sages borrowed it from that,
        >>>>>> what has been the connection since same group also makes stories that
        >>>>>> Aryans were different from Dravidians, whereas, now, you propose that
        >>>>>> both lived�together,�
        >>>>>>�Which is self contradictory, We notice that whole�exercise
        >>>>>> is�maneuvered to showcase Dravida is different as well as more ancient
        >>>>>> than Vedas, We have noticed same set of wise members are also very
        >>>>>> quick to produce the irrelevant logic that a culture's being ancient
        >>>>>> doesn't matter at all just because USA is not that old. In that way,
        >>>>>> History and Archaeology is useless since it's look into past, it
        >>>>>> doesn't add value to our earnings that take home every month, What's
        >>>>>> the relevance all such ideas has got .... ?
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>Anyways, Another tricky question, rather funny is that Loga, You and
        >>>>>> and a few other members are relying, reading too much the story of
        >>>>>> Ishvakyu inventing Sugar Making process based on some imaginary fairy
        >>>>>> tail,�whereas, Ishvakyu�in all the means following same fairy tail
        >>>>>> existed much later after Rigveda was composed, So, if we believe the
        >>>>>> unbelievable,�still, no way it can be established that Rigvedic sages
        >>>>>> borrowed the term "Sharkara" from Ishvakyu who came to world after
        >>>>>> ages.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>Don't we know counting properly that what comes first and what comes
        >>>>>> later ?
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>Best Regards,
        >>>>>>Lalit Mishra
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>________________________________
        >>>>>>From: Ram Varmha
        >>>>>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
        >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:19 AM
        >>>>>>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
        >>>>>> Mesopotamian seal
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>�
        >>>>>>When in doubt on a Sanskrit word, go to Apte.
        >>>>>>�
        >>>>>>According to Apte's Dictionary:
        >>>>>>Zarkara = Candied sugar, a pebble, gravel etc.
        >>>>>>Many Sanskrit words have multi meanings.
        >>>>>>In English for example, "box" is a prismatic container. It could be a
        >>>>>> punch by a person's
        >>>>>>fist. It could be a seating location in a theater. Such words are
        >>>>>> called homonyms. There
        >>>>>>are no relationship between the meanings, the commonality exists in the
        >>>>>> word.�
        >>>>>>�
        >>>>>>Since Zarkara is also a name for candied sugar in Sanskrit and occurs
        >>>>>> in Dravidian
        >>>>>>(Malayalam = zarkara, Tamil = chakkara) it is obvious that the word for
        >>>>>> sugar or candy is common in both Sanskrit and Dravidian. The question
        >>>>>> is who borrowed from whom?�It is
        >>>>>>likely that the word was a borrow from Dravidian into Vedic and hence
        >>>>>> to Sanskrit. Both
        >>>>>>these languages lived side by side for many centuries and one often
        >>>>>> borrowed from the
        >>>>>>other. This does not mean one language is superior to the other - just
        >>>>>> that the two cultures,
        >>>>>>speaking different languages, co-existed in the general area - just as
        >>>>>> the French and
        >>>>>>English speaking people live in Canada!
        >>>>>>�
        >>>>>>Regards,
        >>>>>>Ram��
        >>>>>>�
        >>>>>>--- On Tue, 1/15/13, Rajan Menon wrote:
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >
      • Lalit Mishra
        Thank you Very Much Mr Rajan for sharing this piece of information, I w d add a point -  क in Devanagri denotes - Origin, It symbolizes Brahma or
        Message 3 of 18 , Mar 23, 2013
          Thank you Very Much Mr Rajan for sharing this piece of information, I w'd add a point - 

          क in Devanagri denotes - Origin, It symbolizes "Brahma" or "Prajapati" , such  a symbolism is documented in scriptures, this is how we get other meanings from other words beginning with क.

          Regards,
          Lalit Mishra



          From: Rajan Menon <vajradanta5@...>
          To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:13 AM
          Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Conclusions on ikSvAku and "Ikshvakyu"

           
          Some concluding remarks on this issue: I hope this would be of help to all :

          ON THE CONCEPT OF कु in ईक्ष्वाकु (ku in īkṣvāku)

          (MWD) (1) कु pronominal base as in कुत्र , कुतः , कुविद् (ku
          pronominal base as in kutra, kutaḥ, kuvid)

          (2) कु (f) the earth कुज born from the earth
          ku kuja

          (3) कू (P) कौति and Vedic कवीति kū kauti kavīti : See Panini VII , 3, 95

          कवते kavate : see NaighaNtava 2-14

          कोकूयते Intensive Atmanepada kokūyate : (Panini VII,4,63) to cry aloud

          कू kū indeclinable = क्व kva where ? RV V.74.1

          क्वचिद् kvacid indeclinable anywhere RV IX,87,8

          कूचिद् अर्थिन् kūcid arthin : striving to get anywhere (seeking
          oblations from any quarter- Saayana ) RV IV-7-6

          कू female पिशाच kū female piśāca

          Nig 2-14 The term कवते belongs to गतिकर्माणः (kavate gatikarmāṇaḥ)

          गति gati literally motion ; stretching out , stretching out,
          lengthening of a syllable.

          Kale: An advanced Sanskrit Grammar

          कव् (Atmanepada) स्तुतौ वर्णने च कवते (kav stutau varṇane ca kavate)
          to praise kavate present indicative

          कु (1A) शब्दे to sound कवते present tense (ku śabde kavate)

          कु 2P to sound कौति present tense (ku kauti )

          कु 6A शब्दे (आर्तस्वरे) to sound, to moan कुवते present (ku śabde
          (ārtasvare) kuvate)

          कू 6A शब्दे to sound कुवते present ind. (kū śabde kuvate)

          Macdonell´s Vedic Grammar
          कुह where कु as a derivation stem. (kuha , ku )

          Surya Kanta : A Grammatical Dictionary of Vedic

          वाघत् A priest, praying, institution of a sacrifice. The guttural घ
          pertains to the hypothetical Indo-European (language) (vāghat gha)

          From the present participle वाघन्त् of वाघ् (vāghant , vāgh)
          The term could have originated as ईक्ष्वाघ (īkṣvāgha) a Sun Priest
          (not a fire priest). Or it may have indicated the “Seer” , a “Kavi” in
          the true sense of the word. Could also be a reference to the Sun as a
          Seer.

          Thank you,

          Rajan Menon

          On 3/12/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
          > Mr Varmha,
          > AMAZING !!
          > Do you know that with your latest explanation, you infact, yourself is
          > declaring futility of your entire script, Pls recall, You built script that
          > "ikSvAku" the founder of Surya Vansha derived it's name from ikSu
          > (Sugarcane, according to the fairytale known only to you, he invented making
          > sugar) , However, now, you are categorically making it clear that "ikSvAku"
          > or "Ikshvakyu , the founder of Surya Vansha and the ikSu or ikShu
          > (Sugarcane) are two different terms with no relation in between at all,
          > therefore,Your entire script stands NULL  and VOID going by your own logic,
          > although you are wrong as usual in this laest explanation of yours on this
          > thread.
          > Note : I have noted that here is a need to illustrate "Ka" / "kU" / "kUla",
          > that you are mireading to be not of Sanskrit Origin, I will be writing in
          > weekendo n it seperately, In fact, I shall be making a series on meaning is
          > Devanagri Alhabets.
          > Pls understnad below response as well.
          > R Varmha Let me repeat again: Iksh is written in Sanskrit as "eeksh", with
          > a long "e". The word means, as you write: "To View" or "To See" or "To
          > Behold". The word may be a cognate with, akSi = eye, sight etc.
          > The word for sugar-cane is written in Sanskrit as ikSu with a short "e", so
          > also ikSvAku. A word with a long "e" does not lend to be a root for a short
          > "e". Furthermore, what has "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold" relate to
          > ikSu or ikSuvAku? There seems to be no lgical reason for the transformation!
          >
          > L Mishra
          > Unfortunately, You are wrong over here, Iksh is not written in Sanskrit as
          > with a long "e", use below url in your browser or spend Rs 160.00 to buy
          > copy of any Puran published by Geeta Press having sanskrit with hindi
          > interpretations and locate how  "ikSvAku" or "Ikshvakyu is written in
          > sanskrit, I can upload a scanned page to this group also if that helps you
          > in overcoming false script.
          >
          > http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=sugarcane&script=&direction=ES&link=yes
          > "eeksh" "Iksh" , "eeksh" " ikShu" all are derived from same root in
          > sanskrit, the added "vu" to "ikSvAku" is a result of conjunction, Hence,
          > your theory stands null and void.
          > Regards,
          > Lalit Mishra
          >
          > ________________________________
          > From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
          > To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 4:08 PM
          > Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian
          > seal
          >
          > Mr. Mishra,
          > Do you not understand what I showed you abut the conventional form of
          > writing Devanagari script in English format, which is adopted world wide?
          > You had written that it is wrong to write ikSu and ikSvAku and they should
          > be written in your form of Ikshu and Ikshuvaku. So, now do you understand
          > why I wrote ikSu and ikSvAku?
          > << You won't have difficulty in grasping that root for Ikshva ir Iksh which
          > means "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold", not the so called sugarcane. >>
          > Let me repeat again: Iksh is written in Sanskrit as "eeksh", with a long
          > "e". The word means, as you write: "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold". The
          > word may be a cognate with, akSi = eye, sight etc.
          > The word for sugar-cane is written in Sanskrit as ikSu with a short "e", so
          > also ikSvAku. A word with a long "e" does not lend to be a root for a short
          > "e". Furthermore, what has "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold" relate to
          > ikSu or ikSuvAku? There seems to be no lgical reason for the transformation!
          >
          > Let me get this straight: are you saying the root for both ikSu as well as
          > ikSvAka (both short "e") is IkS or Ikshva, (with the long "ee") meaning to
          > see, behold etc? I do not see any logical connection with the etymology of
          > these words, ikSu and ikSvAku with "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold".
          > Could there be other possibilities? Can you explain further?
          > Regards,
          > Ram --- On Fri, 3/8/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
          >
          >>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
          >>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian
          >> seal
          >>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.comIndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
          >>Date: Friday, March 8, 2013, 2:56 AM
          >>
          >>
          >>Dear Mr R Varmha,
          >>Is the Harvard university discussing issue over here or it's you Mr Varmha,
          >> I am sure Harvard wont be making academic theories on the basis fairytale,
          >> It's you who tried doing that using content of wikipedia pages, When asked
          >> to provide evidences you have got nothing to produce.
          >>Question is not What's the convention of Harvard-Kyoto script but question
          >> is do you understand the terms, If you truly understand, You won't have
          >> difficulty in grasping that root for Ikshva ir Iksh which means "To View"
          >> or "To See" or "To Behold", not the so called sugarcane.
          >>Hope it get's clear to you.
          >>Thanks,
          >>Lalit Mishra
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>________________________________
          >>From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
          >>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
          >>Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 9:47 AM
          >>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian
          >> seal
          >>
          >>Dear Mr. Mishra,
          >><< Lalit Mishra (LM) : Looks you have some difficulty in understanding
          >> pronunciation of the Sanskrit Terms, It's notikSav, ikSu and ikSuka as you
          >> understood but ikShav, ikShu and ikShuka. >>
          >>It is not I, but you who are confused about the spellings of the referenced
          >> words. What you have written is nonsense!
          >>In order to eliminae the confusion created by writing Sanskrit/Devanagari
          >> scripts to English the accepted form is the Harvard-Kyoto script
          >> convension. I presume you are not aware of this system. So read on:
          >>Look, in H-K spelling convention the following holds good.
          >>i = as in e
          >>I = as in ee
          >>S = as in sh
          >>ikSav = ekshav (vocal)
          >>ikSu = ekshu (vocal)
          >>ikSuka = ekshuka (vocal)
          >>Read below:
          >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard-Kyoto
          >>You have to get your basics right.
          >>The word Iksha that you are proposing as the root for ikSu is wrong
          >> because
          >>I is a long "ee" and "i" is the short "e" and a word Iksha is starting with
          >> a long"ee". Please explain how "Iksha" forms the root for such as:
          >>
          >>ikSav = ekshav (vocal)
          >>ikSu = ekshu (vocal)
          >>ikSuka = ekshuka (vocal)
          >>and also, ikSvAku?
          >>And, what is the meaning of ikSvAka based on this then?
          >>Will appreciate.
          >>The response to the rest of the contents will be addressed appropriately,
          >> but let this item be concluded, first.
          >>Thanks,
          >>Ram
          >>--- On Tue, 3/5/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
          >>
          >>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
          >>>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on Mesopotamian
          >>> seal
          >>>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.comIndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
          >>>Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013, 11:41 AM
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>Dear Mr R Varmha, Reading the quality response received from you, made me
          >>> to think kind of adverse effect Wiki-Curry can have on life of scholars,
          >>> I found, the source of your fantastic script on Munda is nothing but the
          >>> a Wiki- Curry, However, you pasted a different link instead of the below
          >>> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit Just have a
          >>> look at it, a replica of your original argument:
          >>>// Wiki Content without references/evidences
          >>>
          >>>Dravidian
          >>>There are an estimated thirty to forty Dravidian loanwords in Vedic.,
          >>> Those for which Dravidian etymologies are certain include kulāya "nest",
          >>> kulpha "ankle", daṇḍa "stick", kūla "slope", bila "hollow", khala
          >>> "threshing floor"
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>//
          >>>Now, Responses to your Arguments :
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>1.) R Varmha (RV): "Iksha" (eekSa = ) does not appear to be the root to
          >>> "ikshu" Sugar-cane. The words for sugar-cane are: ikSav:, ikSu and
          >>> ikSuka, with "i" for "e" - not "ee" as in "Iksha". Please clarify what
          >>> you mean?
          >>>Lalit Mishra (LM) : Looks you have some difficulty in understanding
          >>> pronunciation of the Sanskrit Terms, It's notikSav, ikSu and ikSuka as
          >>> you understood but ikShav, ikShu and ikShuka.
          >>>2.) Lalit Mishra ( LM) : Can you pls also tell us asto how such a
          >>> fantastic script is made that Asura mentioned in the Devasur sangram are
          >>> Munda people, Do you have some
          >>> historical/scriptural/archaeological/genetic findings to back this
          >>> script.You have providednothing on the fantastic script except the
          >>> assertion that Munda are the Asura, Don't you think that your assertion
          >>> is exactly like imagining UFOs, both afantastic specimen of human
          >>> imagination.
          >>>
          >>>Regards, Lalit Mishra
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>________________________________
          >>>From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
          >>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
          >>>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:58 PM
          >>>Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
          >>> Mesopotamian seal
          >>>
          >>>Dear Mr. Mishra,
          >>>1. << Now, with the enough clarity provided on root "Iksha" which means
          >>> "to see" or "view" in Sanskrit and having explained how it has given name
          >>> to "Sugarcane", If any chance, confusion still remains at your end, Pls
          >>> search "Ikshan" in any sanskrit dictionary available to you and your
          >>> doubt is removed by yourself. >>
          >>> "Iksha" (eekSa = ) does not appear to be the root to "ikshu" Sugar-cane.
          >>> The words for sugar-cane are: ikSav:, ikSu and ikSuka, with "i" for "e" -
          >>> not "ee" as in "Iksha".
          >>>Please clarify what you mean?
          >>>2. << Also, need to examine if the idea that if a term doesn't have a
          >>> cognate in same language or in same family of languages than the only
          >>> conclusion that can be derived without question is that very term is
          >>> borrowed from some other language, I don't think it so simple. >>
          >>>I do not think it is as simple either. But, a pretty good conclusion may
          >>> be derived given the situation. If not explain.
          >>>3. << Truly, I liked the fantastic script that Munda people are the Asura
          >>> who participated in Devasur war, however, Let me correct you that Munda
          >>> tribe is not the Asura, If you are interested for a debate on it, find me
          >>> available, I have lived in Korab-Ranchi area during my schooling and I
          >>> know the reality on ground. >>
          >>>It would seem that the word A'Sura was used in Vedic or early Sanskrit to
          >>> freely to indicate people of non-Sura groups. These may have been
          >>> referenced as demons as well. With names such as Chanda and Munda it is
          >>> quite plausable that the Asuras/Demons depicted in the Devi Mahathmyam
          >>> were in fact of some Munda tribe.
          >>>In all these descriptions of the batles between the Vedic Gods and
          >>> A'Suras, the depiction may be between the Indo-Aryan Vedics and the local
          >>> inhabitants of the land, termed, by then as Asuras or demons. I do not
          >>> see this as a negative affront on the Vedics or the local non-Indo Aryan
          >>> folks. It may in all probability be just a normal consequence of
          >>> animosity existing between people of different cultures liivng in the
          >>> same geographical location.
          >>><< I have lived in Korab-Ranchi area during my schooling and I know the
          >>> reality on ground. >>
          >>>With due respect, I do not find this a qualification of sufficient
          >>> intensity to be an expert on Ancient Indian History. What was then and
          >>> what is now are matters of wide margins. Better to ignore this, it leads
          >>> to no where.
          >>>4. << I w'd further request you to overcome the very idea that we people
          >>> do favor Sanskrit over other Indian leanguages, No, it's not the case, We
          >>> only urge to not to propagate false theories having potential to impact
          >>> the integrity and collective framework of any culture/country, luckily,
          >>> we have enough resources available to refute all such theories if
          >>> impacting the sanctity of Indian history. >>
          >>>I do not know who the WE PEOPLE are? It is unnecessary to draw
          >>> distinctions between WE and YOU when discussing matters related to Indian
          >>> history. We are all in this together! So, let us approach it from that
          >>> direction. There may be others, but I am not, nor have I propogated,
          >>> intentionally, false theories on North vs South or Aryans vs Dravidian or
          >>> Mundas etc. So, please cut off all that rhetorics. It is not useful.
          >>>5. << We are for true findings and against the fallacies only, we are not
          >>> against any language, gender, race or religion, since we know and
          >>> practice the ancient wisdom of "Vasudha-Eva-Kutumbakam" whose modern
          >>> interpretition is "Global Village". >>
          >>>Again that WE is troublesome. It will make greater acceptance if the WE is
          >>> changed to I. Let us all stay as permanent residenants of that
          >>> "Vasudha-Eva-Kutumbakam".
          >>>So, let us proceed with discussions with an open mind and a clear
          >>> approach. Take into mind, that such discussions are open to disagreement
          >>> even by established experts. Differing views exist; different
          >>> understandings exist; different explananations are possible - especially
          >>> when dealing with topics on ancient India where detailed historical
          >>> documentations are sparse, and much of what is available is of
          >>> semi-historical values as found mostly in Vedas, Epics and Puranas which
          >>> are wonderful religious books, but not fully understood and found
          >>> self-contridictory at times, by even those who have spent a life time
          >>> trying to understand the subject matter, let alone by students of history
          >>> living in the present.
          >>>With Regards,
          >>>Ram --- On Sat, 2/23/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
          >>>
          >>>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
          >>>>Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
          >>>> Mesopotamian seal
          >>>>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.comIndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
          >>>>Cc: "shobhan_ganji@...shobhan_ganji@...litsol@...litsol@...>
          >>>>Date: Saturday, February 23, 2013, 1:50 PM
          >>>>
          >>>>
          >>>>Dear Mr R Varmha,
          > Now, with the enough clarity provided on root "Iksha" which means "to see"
          > or "view" in Sanskrit and having explained how it has given name to
          > "Sugarcane", If any chance, confusion still remains at your end, Pls search
          > "Ikshan" in any sanskrit dictionary available to you and your doubt is
          > removed by yourself.
          >>>>
          >>>>
          >>>>Can you also pls let's know who is the great scholar who made
          >>>> scintillating discovery that Sanskrit terms daNda and kUla etc doesn't
          >>>> have their cognates, Let's examine the very basis of this finding as
          >>>> well, Also, need to examine if the idea that if a term doesn't have a
          >>>> cognate in same language or in same family of languages than the only
          >>>> conclusion that can be derived without question is that very term is
          >>>> borrowed from some other language, I don't think it so simple.
          > Truly, I liked the fantastic script that Munda people are the Asura who
          > participated in Devasur war, however, Let me correct you that Munda tribe is
          > not the Asura, If you are interested for a debate on it, find me available,
          > I have lived in Korab-Ranchi area during my schooling and I know the reality
          > on ground. Can you pls also tell us asto how such a fantastic script is made
          > that Asura mentioned in the Devasur sangram are Munda people, Do you have
          > some historical/scriptural/archaeological/genetic findings to back this
          > script, Well, If Munda tribe is Asura, and then the onus comes on you to
          > tell us who are the "Deva" participated in that Devasur sangram, There is an
          > additional request to kindly let's know the time and place of Devasur
          > sangram pls if you are so confirmed. I w'd further request you to overcome
          > the very idea that we people do favor Sanskrit over other Indian leanguages,
          > No, it's not the case, We only urge to not to propagate false theories
          > having potential to impact the integrity and collective framework of any
          > culture/country, luckily, we have enough resources available to refute all
          > such theories if impacting the sanctity of Indian history. We are for true
          > findings and against the fallacies only, we are not against any language,
          > gender, race or religion, since we know and practice the ancient wisdom of
          > "Vasudha-Eva-Kutumbakam" whose modern interpretition is "Global Village".
          > Regards, Lalit Mishra
          >>>>
          >>>>________________________________
          >>>>From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
          >>>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
          >>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:09 PM
          >>>>Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
          >>>> Mesopotamian seal
          >>>>
          >>>>Dear Mishra,
          >>>><< The wiki link given by you has no relevance, I fount not a single term
          >>>> that you mentioned ( kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick", kUla
          >>>> "slope") in your post are there in that wiki page. >>
          >>>>I did not give a Wiki link for the above words! I do not think you
          >>>> understood my post properly. You may want to re-read my referenced post,
          >>>> again.
          >>>>Vedic/Sanskrit is a branch of the Indo-European family. If there are
          >>>> words in Vedic/Sanskrit and cognates of which are not found in the
          >>>> Indo-European language base, then those words are borrowed from other
          >>>> languages or influenced by external languages. There is nothing to be
          >>>> bashful about it. Languages borrow from other languages all the time. It
          >>>> does not belittle any particular language or enhance the value of
          >>>> another. It is as simple as that.
          >>>>Can you find cognates for such words as, kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle",
          >>>> daNḍa "stick", kUla "slope, in the Indo-European family of languages? If
          >>>> so please produce. In this case, Dravidian and Munda are likely
          >>>> candidates for these words.
          >>>>Can you deny that the Asura names given in the devotional Devi
          >>>> Mahathmyam, and which I have quoted, are not Munda names?
          >>>>tathRAsUraiRmahavErai devasaynyam parajitham,
          >>>>jithvA ca sakalAn devAn indrOabhUnMahishasura.
          >>>>"In that war, the powerful Asuras defeated the Devas and Mahishasura
          >>>> becomes (takes over) from Indra". (Translation mine).
          >>>>This is a description of the outcome of a battle between the Devas
          >>>> (Vedics?) and Asuras (Mundas). The Book says that the Asuras/Mundas
          >>>> defeated the Devas/Vedic and Mahisha takes over the functions of Indra!
          >>>> Given such an opening, how can any one disregard the co-existance of
          >>>> Vedic Aryans along side of the Mundas in the North? Of course there were
          >>>> interaction between the Indo Aryans and the Mundas and perhaps
          >>>> Dravidians and other inhabitants of that larger area, in the hoary past.
          >>>> It is a given. If there were such contacts, then it is logical that they
          >>>> interchanged ideas, concepts and words. It is a normal and logical event
          >>>> to have happened.
          >>>>Now, if you do not believe that Vedic/Sanskrit is part of the Greater
          >>>> Indo-European family of languages then you ought to do some serious
          >>>> research in that area. This fact has been pretty much established and if
          >>>> you are opposed to that then you need to concentrate on deeper research,
          >>>> and prove it other wise.
          >>>>Regarding the Ikshvaku line of argument please give us your interprtation
          >>>> of the name and how he came to be the patriarch of the Solar Dynasty?
          >>>>With due regards.
          >>>>Ram
          >>>>--- On Mon, 2/18/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
          >>>>
          >>>>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
          >>>>>Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
          >>>>> Mesopotamian seal
          >>>>>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.comIndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
          >>>>>Cc: "litsol@...litsol@...>
          >>>>>Date: Monday, February 18, 2013, 1:57 PM
          >>>>>
          >>>>>
          >>>>>
          >>>>>
          >>>>>Dear Mr R Varmha,
          >>>>>I understand what are Aryan people however on point of Vedic Sanskrit
          >>>>> having borrowed it's terms from Munda/Tamil etc., It w'd have been
          >>>>> better for you to produce supporting evidences, in lack of such
          >>>>> evidences, all that you trying to convey shows you are into making sort
          >>>>> of speculations out here.
          >>>>>You are given yet another opportunity to prove your claims, however, in
          >>>>> the context, a sincere advise for you is to look into best of
          >>>>> etymological resources available to you to understand how the term
          >>>>> "Ikshvaku" itself is formed, w'd be good for you to concentrate on
          >>>>> "Iksh" of "Ikshvaku" at first place.
          >>>>>The wiki link given by you has no relevance, I fount not a single term
          >>>>> that you mentioned ( kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick", kUla
          >>>>> "slope") in your post are there in that wiki page.
          >>>>>Thanks for your time,
          >>>>>Lalit Mishra
          >>>>>
          >>>>>________________________________
          >>>>>From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
          >>>>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
          >>>>>Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:56 PM
          >>>>>Subject: Fw: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
          >>>>> Mesopotamian seal
          >>>>>
          >>>>>Dear Mr. Mishra,
          >>>>>Sorry, but your post is quite rambling and I'm not sure where to begin?
          >>>>>1. There are number of words in Vedic which are borrowed from both Old
          >>>>> Dravidian and
          >>>>>Munda and perhaps other languages which have gone obsolete, which
          >>>>> existed in the vicinity of the Vedic Aryan settlement in upper India.
          >>>>> This does not make the sanctity or the antiquity or the
          >>>>>verity of the Vedas any less or any more. You should learn to look at
          >>>>> these topics realistically.
          >>>>>The Vedic Aryans were not divine people. They were probably just like
          >>>>> you and me, living in a different period of time.
          >>>>>Words from neighboring linguistic cultures get borrowed and loaned to
          >>>>> close by establishments. It does not make the giver or taker of
          >>>>> linguistic words in any way superior or inferior.
          >>>>>Words such as, kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick", kUla
          >>>>> "slope", and few others
          >>>>>are all established to be proto-Dravidian words. Mayur "peacock" has
          >>>>> Dravidian origin -
          >>>>>Mayil in Tamil. There are many others as well.
          >>>>>Some probable Munda substrates in Skt: are Kasava, son of a slave girl;
          >>>>> Shambara, Chieftain of an enemy; Kulitara, a chieftain;
          >>>>>
          >>>>>I am quite certain that the names of the Asuras in Devi Mahathmyam are
          >>>>> Munda names -
          >>>>>Mahisha, Madhu, Kaidabha, Dhoomra, Nisumba, Sumba, Chanda, Munda, (hence
          >>>>> Chamunda).
          >>>>>River names such as Ganga, Gandaki may have come from Munda: *gad/gand.
          >>>>>
          >>>>>Kabul and Kurram rivers is most certainly, Kubba and Krumu in Munda.
          >>>>> There are many others to speak of.
          >>>>>Sugar
          >>>>>through Old French sucre, Italian zucchero, Medieval Latin succarum,
          >>>>> Arabic: سكر sukkar and Persian: شکر shakar ultimately from Sanskrit
          >>>>> शर्करा sharkara which means "ground or candied sugar" (originally
          >>>>> "grit" or "gravel"), from proto-Dravidian.
          >>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Sanskrit_origin#cite_note-133
          >>>>>Also, Burrows and Emeneau - A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary:
          >>>>>2. 2354 Ta. caracara (-pp-, -tt-): (page 207)
          >>>>>curacura (-pp-,-tt-) to be rough, have a rough surface; curacurappu
          >>>>> roughness as of woollen cloth. Ma. caral, carakkallu gravel. Ka. (Hav.)
          >>>>> caralu small rounded pebbles. Tu. caraṭè what is coarse, leavings or
          >>>>> stalks; jari grit, granule, sand. Kui srogu a rough surface, coarse
          >>>>> sand or pebbles; rough, coarse, uneven; jrogu rough, gravelly; srogu
          >>>>> srogu inba to be rough, coarse, uneven, pebbly; srāmbu gravel. Cf. 3097
          >>>>> Ta. taricu. DED 1945.
          >>>>>>These are far more antiquated words than "zarkara" found in Sanskrit.
          >>>>>>http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/search3advanced?dbname=burrow&query=grit&matchtype=exact&display=utf8
          >>>>>>Now, there is the discussion on Ikshvaku. Ikshu = sugar cane. Why does
          >>>>>> the name of the first King from the Surya Vamsha have a name related
          >>>>>> to sugar cane? I do not know, but I have a supposition regarding this.
          >>>>>> I think the story of Surya Vamsha is allegorical. The sun is
          >>>>>> associated with the East. We may understand then that the Surya Vamsha
          >>>>>> kings came from the East since Surya is synonomous with the Eastern
          >>>>>> regions of India. It is therefore possible that the Solar Dynasty was
          >>>>>> started by a King named Ikshvaku who came from the East or South East.
          >>>>>> This could very well be from the ancient Andhra region. Andhras are of
          >>>>>> the Dravidian stock and there was a dynasty named after an Iksvaku
          >>>>>> king . But, what is still intriguing is why the first Solar Dynasty
          >>>>>> (Eastern Dynasty) king has a name connected with sugar-cane? We do not
          >>>>>> know that - yet.
          >>>>>>Regards,
          >>>>>>Ram
          >>>>>Ram
          >>>>>--- On Sat, 2/2/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
          >>>>>
          >>>>>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
          >>>>>>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
          >>>>>> Mesopotamian seal
          >>>>>>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.comIndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.comlitsol@...litsol@...>
          >>>>>>Date: Saturday, February 2, 2013, 1:27 AM
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>Dear Mr Ram Varmha,
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>Knowing that a few members, for lack of right knowledge�in matters of
          >>>>>> ancient literature like etymology, could give rise to incorrect idea
          >>>>>> that Sharkara is a non Sanskrit term borrowed from some other
          >>>>>> language, It was deliberately not revealed earlier that Sharakara is a
          >>>>>> term found right from Rigveda to ancient Brahaman scriptures, now,
          >>>>>> anybody who plays around the�apparent�fallacy that Sharakara is a non
          >>>>>> Vedic Term has to establish which are the scriptures in other language
          >>>>>> existed before Rigveda and how the Vedic Sages borrowed it from that,
          >>>>>> what has been the connection since same group also makes stories that
          >>>>>> Aryans were different from Dravidians, whereas, now, you propose that
          >>>>>> both lived�together,�
          >>>>>>�Which is self contradictory, We notice that whole�exercise
          >>>>>> is�maneuvered to showcase Dravida is different as well as more ancient
          >>>>>> than Vedas, We have noticed same set of wise members are also very
          >>>>>> quick to produce the irrelevant logic that a culture's being ancient
          >>>>>> doesn't matter at all just because USA is not that old. In that way,
          >>>>>> History and Archaeology is useless since it's look into past, it
          >>>>>> doesn't add value to our earnings that take home every month, What's
          >>>>>> the relevance all such ideas has got .... ?
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>Anyways, Another tricky question, rather funny is that Loga, You and
          >>>>>> and a few other members are relying, reading too much the story of
          >>>>>> Ishvakyu inventing Sugar Making process based on some imaginary fairy
          >>>>>> tail,�whereas, Ishvakyu�in all the means following same fairy tail
          >>>>>> existed much later after Rigveda was composed, So, if we believe the
          >>>>>> unbelievable,�still, no way it can be established that Rigvedic sages
          >>>>>> borrowed the term "Sharkara" from Ishvakyu who came to world after
          >>>>>> ages.
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>Don't we know counting properly that what comes first and what comes
          >>>>>> later ?
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>Best Regards,
          >>>>>>Lalit Mishra
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>________________________________
          >>>>>>From: Ram Varmha
          >>>>>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
          >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:19 AM
          >>>>>>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
          >>>>>> Mesopotamian seal
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>�
          >>>>>>When in doubt on a Sanskrit word, go to Apte.
          >>>>>>�
          >>>>>>According to Apte's Dictionary:
          >>>>>>Zarkara = Candied sugar, a pebble, gravel etc.
          >>>>>>Many Sanskrit words have multi meanings.
          >>>>>>In English for example, "box" is a prismatic container. It could be a
          >>>>>> punch by a person's
          >>>>>>fist. It could be a seating location in a theater. Such words are
          >>>>>> called homonyms. There
          >>>>>>are no relationship between the meanings, the commonality exists in the
          >>>>>> word.�
          >>>>>>�
          >>>>>>Since Zarkara is also a name for candied sugar in Sanskrit and occurs
          >>>>>> in Dravidian
          >>>>>>(Malayalam = zarkara, Tamil = chakkara) it is obvious that the word for
          >>>>>> sugar or candy is common in both Sanskrit and Dravidian. The question
          >>>>>> is who borrowed from whom?�It is
          >>>>>>likely that the word was a borrow from Dravidian into Vedic and hence
          >>>>>> to Sanskrit. Both
          >>>>>>these languages lived side by side for many centuries and one often
          >>>>>> borrowed from the
          >>>>>>other. This does not mean one language is superior to the other - just
          >>>>>> that the two cultures,
          >>>>>>speaking different languages, co-existed in the general area - just as
          >>>>>> the French and
          >>>>>>English speaking people live in Canada!
          >>>>>>�
          >>>>>>Regards,
          >>>>>>Ram��
          >>>>>>�
          >>>>>>--- On Tue, 1/15/13, Rajan Menon wrote:
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>>
          >


        • Lalit Mishra
          Dear Group Members,   Req to give light on origin and historicity of Dinar  the currency used in MEA countries, I am aware that the term  Dinar is
          Message 4 of 18 , Mar 23, 2013
            Dear Group Members,
             
            Req to give light on origin and historicity of "Dinar" the currency used in MEA countries, I am aware that the term "Dinar" is derived from "Drams" the term used in later Vedic Period which got prevailed in MEA and Eastern Europe, Pls let me know what's there recorded on pages of history and archaeology.
             
            Regards,
            Lalit Mishra
             
             
          • Rajan Menon
            Thank you for your latest comment. Ka(the short vowel) appears in the tenth book of the RgVeda. Occidental scholars have translated it as the mystical Who or
            Message 5 of 18 , Mar 26, 2013
              Thank you for your latest comment.
              Ka(the short vowel) appears in the tenth book of the RgVeda.
              Occidental scholars have translated it as the mystical Who or the
              Unknown, symbolizing Prajapati. The word was probably used as part of
              an ancient tradition among certain people to avoid the use of a name
              in reference to the First Cosmic Principle ( Aadhi). This is my
              inference and may not be shared popularly. In the Upanishads we have
              the Neti, Neti of Yajnavalkya.

              Rajan Menon

              On 3/23/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
              > Thank you Very Much Mr Rajan for sharing this piece of information, I w'd
              > add a point -
              >
              > क in Devanagri denotes - Origin, It symbolizes "Brahma" or "Prajapati" ,
              > such  a symbolism is documented in scriptures, this is how we get other
              > meanings from other words beginning with क.
              >
              >
              > Regards,
              > Lalit Mishra
              >
              >
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: Rajan Menon <vajradanta5@...>
              > To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:13 AM
              > Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Conclusions on ikSvAku and "Ikshvakyu"
              >
              >
              >
              > Some concluding remarks on this issue: I hope this would be of help to all
              > :
              >
              > ON THE CONCEPT OF कु in ईक्ष्वाकु (ku in īkṣvāku)
              >
              > (MWD) (1) कु pronominal base as in कुत्र , कुतः , कुविद् (ku
              > pronominal base as in kutra, kutaḥ, kuvid)
              >
              > (2) कु (f) the earth कुज born from the earth
              > ku kuja
              >
              > (3) कू (P) कौति and Vedic कवीति kū kauti kavīti : See Panini VII , 3,
              > 95
              >
              > कवते kavate : see NaighaNtava 2-14
              >
              > कोकूयते Intensive Atmanepada kokūyate : (Panini VII,4,63) to cry aloud
              >
              > कू kū indeclinable = क्व kva where ? RV V.74.1
              >
              > क्वचिद् kvacid indeclinable anywhere RV IX,87,8
              >
              > कूचिद् अर्थिन् kūcid arthin : striving to get anywhere (seeking
              > oblations from any quarter- Saayana ) RV IV-7-6
              >
              > कू female पिशाच kū female piśāca
              >
              > Nig 2-14 The term कवते belongs to गतिकर्माणः (kavate gatikarmāṇaḥ)
              >
              > गति gati literally motion ; stretching out , stretching out,
              > lengthening of a syllable.
              >
              > Kale: An advanced Sanskrit Grammar
              >
              > कव् (Atmanepada) स्तुतौ वर्णने च कवते (kav stutau varṇane ca kavate)
              > to praise kavate present indicative
              >
              > कु (1A) शब्दे to sound कवते present tense (ku śabde kavate)
              >
              > कु 2P to sound कौति present tense (ku kauti )
              >
              > कु 6A शब्दे (आर्तस्वरे) to sound, to moan कुवते present (ku śabde
              > (ārtasvare) kuvate)
              >
              > कू 6A शब्दे to sound कुवते present ind. (kū śabde kuvate)
              >
              > Macdonell´s Vedic Grammar
              > कुह where कु as a derivation stem. (kuha , ku )
              >
              > Surya Kanta : A Grammatical Dictionary of Vedic
              >
              > वाघत् A priest, praying, institution of a sacrifice. The guttural घ
              > pertains to the hypothetical Indo-European (language) (vāghat gha)
              >
              > From the present participle वाघन्त् of वाघ् (vāghant , vāgh)
              > The term could have originated as ईक्ष्वाघ (īkṣvāgha) a Sun Priest
              > (not a fire priest). Or it may have indicated the “Seer” , a “Kavi” in
              > the true sense of the word. Could also be a reference to the Sun as a
              > Seer.
              >
              > Thank you,
              >
              > Rajan Menon
              >
              > On 3/12/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
              >> Mr Varmha,
              >> AMAZING !!
              >> Do you know that with your latest explanation, you infact, yourself is
              >> declaring futility of your entire script, Pls recall, You built script
              >> that
              >> "ikSvAku" the founder of Surya Vansha derived it's name from ikSu
              >> (Sugarcane, according to the fairytale known only to you, he invented
              >> making
              >> sugar) , However, now, you are categorically making it clear that
              >> "ikSvAku"
              >> or "Ikshvakyu , the founder of Surya Vansha and the ikSu or ikShu
              >> (Sugarcane) are two different terms with no relation in between at all,
              >> therefore,Your entire script stands NULL  and VOID going by your own
              >> logic,
              >> although you are wrong as usual in this laest explanation of yours on
              >> this
              >> thread.
              >> Note : I have noted that here is a need to illustrate "Ka" / "kU" /
              >> "kUla",
              >> that you are mireading to be not of Sanskrit Origin, I will be writing in
              >> weekendo n it seperately, In fact, I shall be making a series on meaning
              >> is
              >> Devanagri Alhabets.
              >> Pls understnad below response as well.
              >> R Varmha Let me repeat again: Iksh is written in Sanskrit as "eeksh",
              >> with
              >> a long "e". The word means, as you write: "To View" or "To See" or "To
              >> Behold". The word may be a cognate with, akSi = eye, sight etc.
              >> The word for sugar-cane is written in Sanskrit as ikSu with a short "e",
              >> so
              >> also ikSvAku. A word with a long "e" does not lend to be a root for a
              >> short
              >> "e". Furthermore, what has "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold" relate to
              >> ikSu or ikSuvAku? There seems to be no lgical reason for the
              >> transformation!
              >>
              >> L Mishra
              >> Unfortunately, You are wrong over here, Iksh is not written in Sanskrit
              >> as
              >> with a long "e", use below url in your browser or spend Rs 160.00 to buy
              >> copy of any Puran published by Geeta Press having sanskrit with hindi
              >> interpretations and locate how  "ikSvAku" or "Ikshvakyu is written in
              >> sanskrit, I can upload a scanned page to this group also if that helps
              >> you
              >> in overcoming false script.
              >>
              >> http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=sugarcane&script=&direction=ES&link=yes
              >> "eeksh" "Iksh" , "eeksh" " ikShu" all are derived from same root in
              >> sanskrit, the added "vu" to "ikSvAku" is a result of conjunction, Hence,
              >> your theory stands null and void.
              >> Regards,
              >> Lalit Mishra
              >>
              >> ________________________________
              >> From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
              >> To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
              >> Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 4:08 PM
              >> Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
              >> Mesopotamian
              >> seal
              >>
              >> Mr. Mishra,
              >> Do you not understand what I showed you abut the conventional form of
              >> writing Devanagari script in English format, which is adopted world wide?
              >> You had written that it is wrong to write ikSu and ikSvAku and they
              >> should
              >> be written in your form of Ikshu and Ikshuvaku. So, now do you understand
              >> why I wrote ikSu and ikSvAku?
              >> << You won't have difficulty in grasping that root for Ikshva ir Iksh
              >> which
              >> means "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold", not the so called sugarcane.
              >> >>
              >> Let me repeat again: Iksh is written in Sanskrit as "eeksh", with a long
              >> "e". The word means, as you write: "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold".
              >> The
              >> word may be a cognate with, akSi = eye, sight etc.
              >> The word for sugar-cane is written in Sanskrit as ikSu with a short "e",
              >> so
              >> also ikSvAku. A word with a long "e" does not lend to be a root for a
              >> short
              >> "e". Furthermore, what has "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold" relate to
              >> ikSu or ikSuvAku? There seems to be no lgical reason for the
              >> transformation!
              >>
              >> Let me get this straight: are you saying the root for both ikSu as well
              >> as
              >> ikSvAka (both short "e") is IkS or Ikshva, (with the long "ee") meaning
              >> to
              >> see, behold etc? I do not see any logical connection with the etymology
              >> of
              >> these words, ikSu and ikSvAku with "To View" or "To See" or "To Behold".
              >> Could there be other possibilities? Can you explain further?
              >> Regards,
              >> Ram --- On Fri, 3/8/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
              >>
              >>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
              >>>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
              >>> Mesopotamian
              >>> seal
              >>>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.comIndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
              >>>Date: Friday, March 8, 2013, 2:56 AM
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>Dear Mr R Varmha,
              >>>Is the Harvard university discussing issue over here or it's you Mr
              >>> Varmha,
              >>> I am sure Harvard wont be making academic theories on the basis
              >>> fairytale,
              >>> It's you who tried doing that using content of wikipedia pages, When
              >>> asked
              >>> to provide evidences you have got nothing to produce.
              >>>Question is not What's the convention of Harvard-Kyoto script but
              >>> question
              >>> is do you understand the terms, If you truly understand, You won't have
              >>> difficulty in grasping that root for Ikshva ir Iksh which means "To
              >>> View"
              >>> or "To See" or "To Behold", not the so called sugarcane.
              >>>Hope it get's clear to you.
              >>>Thanks,
              >>>Lalit Mishra
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>________________________________
              >>>From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
              >>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
              >>>Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 9:47 AM
              >>>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
              >>> Mesopotamian
              >>> seal
              >>>
              >>>Dear Mr. Mishra,
              >>><< Lalit Mishra (LM) : Looks you have some difficulty in understanding
              >>> pronunciation of the Sanskrit Terms, It's notikSav, ikSu and ikSuka as
              >>> you
              >>> understood but ikShav, ikShu and ikShuka. >>
              >>>It is not I, but you who are confused about the spellings of the
              >>> referenced
              >>> words. What you have written is nonsense!
              >>>In order to eliminae the confusion created by writing Sanskrit/Devanagari
              >>> scripts to English the accepted form is the Harvard-Kyoto script
              >>> convension. I presume you are not aware of this system. So read on:
              >>>Look, in H-K spelling convention the following holds good.
              >>>i = as in e
              >>>I = as in ee
              >>>S = as in sh
              >>>ikSav = ekshav (vocal)
              >>>ikSu = ekshu (vocal)
              >>>ikSuka = ekshuka (vocal)
              >>>Read below:
              >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard-Kyoto
              >>>You have to get your basics right.
              >>>The word Iksha that you are proposing as the root for ikSu is wrong
              >>> because
              >>>I is a long "ee" and "i" is the short "e" and a word Iksha is starting
              >>> with
              >>> a long"ee". Please explain how "Iksha" forms the root for such as:
              >>>
              >>>ikSav = ekshav (vocal)
              >>>ikSu = ekshu (vocal)
              >>>ikSuka = ekshuka (vocal)
              >>>and also, ikSvAku?
              >>>And, what is the meaning of ikSvAka based on this then?
              >>>Will appreciate.
              >>>The response to the rest of the contents will be addressed appropriately,
              >>> but let this item be concluded, first.
              >>>Thanks,
              >>>Ram
              >>>--- On Tue, 3/5/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
              >>>
              >>>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
              >>>>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
              >>>> Mesopotamian
              >>>> seal
              >>>>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.comIndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
              >>>>Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013, 11:41 AM
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>Dear Mr R Varmha, Reading the quality response received from you, made
              >>>> me
              >>>> to think kind of adverse effect Wiki-Curry can have on life of
              >>>> scholars,
              >>>> I found, the source of your fantastic script on Munda is nothing but
              >>>> the
              >>>> a Wiki- Curry, However, you pasted a different link instead of the
              >>>> below
              >>>> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit Just have a
              >>>> look at it, a replica of your original argument:
              >>>>// Wiki Content without references/evidences
              >>>>
              >>>>Dravidian
              >>>>There are an estimated thirty to forty Dravidian loanwords in Vedic.,
              >>>> Those for which Dravidian etymologies are certain include kulāya
              >>>> "nest",
              >>>> kulpha "ankle", daṇḍa "stick", kūla "slope", bila "hollow", khala
              >>>> "threshing floor"
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>//
              >>>>Now, Responses to your Arguments :
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>1.) R Varmha (RV): "Iksha" (eekSa = ) does not appear to be the root to
              >>>> "ikshu" Sugar-cane. The words for sugar-cane are: ikSav:, ikSu and
              >>>> ikSuka, with "i" for "e" - not "ee" as in "Iksha". Please clarify what
              >>>> you mean?
              >>>>Lalit Mishra (LM) : Looks you have some difficulty in understanding
              >>>> pronunciation of the Sanskrit Terms, It's notikSav, ikSu and ikSuka as
              >>>> you understood but ikShav, ikShu and ikShuka.
              >>>>2.) Lalit Mishra ( LM) : Can you pls also tell us asto how such a
              >>>> fantastic script is made that Asura mentioned in the Devasur sangram
              >>>> are
              >>>> Munda people, Do you have some
              >>>> historical/scriptural/archaeological/genetic findings to back this
              >>>> script.You have providednothing on the fantastic script except the
              >>>> assertion that Munda are the Asura, Don't you think that your assertion
              >>>> is exactly like imagining UFOs, both afantastic specimen of human
              >>>> imagination.
              >>>>
              >>>>Regards, Lalit Mishra
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>________________________________
              >>>>From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
              >>>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
              >>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:58 PM
              >>>>Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
              >>>> Mesopotamian seal
              >>>>
              >>>>Dear Mr. Mishra,
              >>>>1. << Now, with the enough clarity provided on root "Iksha" which means
              >>>> "to see" or "view" in Sanskrit and having explained how it has given
              >>>> name
              >>>> to "Sugarcane", If any chance, confusion still remains at your end, Pls
              >>>> search "Ikshan" in any sanskrit dictionary available to you and your
              >>>> doubt is removed by yourself. >>
              >>>> "Iksha" (eekSa = ) does not appear to be the root to "ikshu"
              >>>> Sugar-cane.
              >>>> The words for sugar-cane are: ikSav:, ikSu and ikSuka, with "i" for "e"
              >>>> -
              >>>> not "ee" as in "Iksha".
              >>>>Please clarify what you mean?
              >>>>2. << Also, need to examine if the idea that if a term doesn't have a
              >>>> cognate in same language or in same family of languages than the only
              >>>> conclusion that can be derived without question is that very term is
              >>>> borrowed from some other language, I don't think it so simple. >>
              >>>>I do not think it is as simple either. But, a pretty good conclusion may
              >>>> be derived given the situation. If not explain.
              >>>>3. << Truly, I liked the fantastic script that Munda people are the
              >>>> Asura
              >>>> who participated in Devasur war, however, Let me correct you that Munda
              >>>> tribe is not the Asura, If you are interested for a debate on it, find
              >>>> me
              >>>> available, I have lived in Korab-Ranchi area during my schooling and I
              >>>> know the reality on ground. >>
              >>>>It would seem that the word A'Sura was used in Vedic or early Sanskrit
              >>>> to
              >>>> freely to indicate people of non-Sura groups. These may have been
              >>>> referenced as demons as well. With names such as Chanda and Munda it is
              >>>> quite plausable that the Asuras/Demons depicted in the Devi Mahathmyam
              >>>> were in fact of some Munda tribe.
              >>>>In all these descriptions of the batles between the Vedic Gods and
              >>>> A'Suras, the depiction may be between the Indo-Aryan Vedics and the
              >>>> local
              >>>> inhabitants of the land, termed, by then as Asuras or demons. I do not
              >>>> see this as a negative affront on the Vedics or the local non-Indo
              >>>> Aryan
              >>>> folks. It may in all probability be just a normal consequence of
              >>>> animosity existing between people of different cultures liivng in the
              >>>> same geographical location.
              >>>><< I have lived in Korab-Ranchi area during my schooling and I know the
              >>>> reality on ground. >>
              >>>>With due respect, I do not find this a qualification of sufficient
              >>>> intensity to be an expert on Ancient Indian History. What was then and
              >>>> what is now are matters of wide margins. Better to ignore this, it
              >>>> leads
              >>>> to no where.
              >>>>4. << I w'd further request you to overcome the very idea that we people
              >>>> do favor Sanskrit over other Indian leanguages, No, it's not the case,
              >>>> We
              >>>> only urge to not to propagate false theories having potential to impact
              >>>> the integrity and collective framework of any culture/country, luckily,
              >>>> we have enough resources available to refute all such theories if
              >>>> impacting the sanctity of Indian history. >>
              >>>>I do not know who the WE PEOPLE are? It is unnecessary to draw
              >>>> distinctions between WE and YOU when discussing matters related to
              >>>> Indian
              >>>> history. We are all in this together! So, let us approach it from that
              >>>> direction. There may be others, but I am not, nor have I propogated,
              >>>> intentionally, false theories on North vs South or Aryans vs Dravidian
              >>>> or
              >>>> Mundas etc. So, please cut off all that rhetorics. It is not useful.
              >>>>5. << We are for true findings and against the fallacies only, we are
              >>>> not
              >>>> against any language, gender, race or religion, since we know and
              >>>> practice the ancient wisdom of "Vasudha-Eva-Kutumbakam" whose modern
              >>>> interpretition is "Global Village". >>
              >>>>Again that WE is troublesome. It will make greater acceptance if the WE
              >>>> is
              >>>> changed to I. Let us all stay as permanent residenants of that
              >>>> "Vasudha-Eva-Kutumbakam".
              >>>>So, let us proceed with discussions with an open mind and a clear
              >>>> approach. Take into mind, that such discussions are open to
              >>>> disagreement
              >>>> even by established experts. Differing views exist; different
              >>>> understandings exist; different explananations are possible -
              >>>> especially
              >>>> when dealing with topics on ancient India where detailed historical
              >>>> documentations are sparse, and much of what is available is of
              >>>> semi-historical values as found mostly in Vedas, Epics and Puranas
              >>>> which
              >>>> are wonderful religious books, but not fully understood and found
              >>>> self-contridictory at times, by even those who have spent a life time
              >>>> trying to understand the subject matter, let alone by students of
              >>>> history
              >>>> living in the present.
              >>>>With Regards,
              >>>>Ram --- On Sat, 2/23/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
              >>>>
              >>>>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
              >>>>>Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
              >>>>> Mesopotamian seal
              >>>>>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.comIndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
              >>>>>Cc:
              >>>>> "shobhan_ganji@..._ganji@...@yahoo.comlitsol@...>
              >>>>>Date: Saturday, February 23, 2013, 1:50 PM
              >>>>>
              >>>>>
              >>>>>Dear Mr R Varmha,
              >> Now, with the enough clarity provided on root "Iksha" which means "to
              >> see"
              >> or "view" in Sanskrit and having explained how it has given name to
              >> "Sugarcane", If any chance, confusion still remains at your end, Pls
              >> search
              >> "Ikshan" in any sanskrit dictionary available to you and your doubt is
              >> removed by yourself.
              >>>>>
              >>>>>
              >>>>>Can you also pls let's know who is the great scholar who made
              >>>>> scintillating discovery that Sanskrit terms daNda and kUla etc doesn't
              >>>>> have their cognates, Let's examine the very basis of this finding as
              >>>>> well, Also, need to examine if the idea that if a term doesn't have a
              >>>>> cognate in same language or in same family of languages than the only
              >>>>> conclusion that can be derived without question is that very term is
              >>>>> borrowed from some other language, I don't think it so simple.
              >> Truly, I liked the fantastic script that Munda people are the Asura who
              >> participated in Devasur war, however, Let me correct you that Munda tribe
              >> is
              >> not the Asura, If you are interested for a debate on it, find me
              >> available,
              >> I have lived in Korab-Ranchi area during my schooling and I know the
              >> reality
              >> on ground. Can you pls also tell us asto how such a fantastic script is
              >> made
              >> that Asura mentioned in the Devasur sangram are Munda people, Do you have
              >> some historical/scriptural/archaeological/genetic findings to back this
              >> script, Well, If Munda tribe is Asura, and then the onus comes on you to
              >> tell us who are the "Deva" participated in that Devasur sangram, There is
              >> an
              >> additional request to kindly let's know the time and place of Devasur
              >> sangram pls if you are so confirmed. I w'd further request you to
              >> overcome
              >> the very idea that we people do favor Sanskrit over other Indian
              >> leanguages,
              >> No, it's not the case, We only urge to not to propagate false theories
              >> having potential to impact the integrity and collective framework of any
              >> culture/country, luckily, we have enough resources available to refute
              >> all
              >> such theories if impacting the sanctity of Indian history. We are for
              >> true
              >> findings and against the fallacies only, we are not against any language,
              >> gender, race or religion, since we know and practice the ancient wisdom
              >> of
              >> "Vasudha-Eva-Kutumbakam" whose modern interpretition is "Global Village".
              >> Regards, Lalit Mishra
              >>>>>
              >>>>>________________________________
              >>>>>From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
              >>>>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
              >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:09 PM
              >>>>>Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
              >>>>> Mesopotamian seal
              >>>>>
              >>>>>Dear Mishra,
              >>>>><< The wiki link given by you has no relevance, I fount not a single
              >>>>> term
              >>>>> that you mentioned ( kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick",
              >>>>> kUla
              >>>>> "slope") in your post are there in that wiki page. >>
              >>>>>I did not give a Wiki link for the above words! I do not think you
              >>>>> understood my post properly. You may want to re-read my referenced
              >>>>> post,
              >>>>> again.
              >>>>>Vedic/Sanskrit is a branch of the Indo-European family. If there are
              >>>>> words in Vedic/Sanskrit and cognates of which are not found in the
              >>>>> Indo-European language base, then those words are borrowed from other
              >>>>> languages or influenced by external languages. There is nothing to be
              >>>>> bashful about it. Languages borrow from other languages all the time.
              >>>>> It
              >>>>> does not belittle any particular language or enhance the value of
              >>>>> another. It is as simple as that.
              >>>>>Can you find cognates for such words as, kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle",
              >>>>> daNḍa "stick", kUla "slope, in the Indo-European family of languages?
              >>>>> If
              >>>>> so please produce. In this case, Dravidian and Munda are likely
              >>>>> candidates for these words.
              >>>>>Can you deny that the Asura names given in the devotional Devi
              >>>>> Mahathmyam, and which I have quoted, are not Munda names?
              >>>>>tathRAsUraiRmahavErai devasaynyam parajitham,
              >>>>>jithvA ca sakalAn devAn indrOabhUnMahishasura.
              >>>>>"In that war, the powerful Asuras defeated the Devas and Mahishasura
              >>>>> becomes (takes over) from Indra". (Translation mine).
              >>>>>This is a description of the outcome of a battle between the Devas
              >>>>> (Vedics?) and Asuras (Mundas). The Book says that the Asuras/Mundas
              >>>>> defeated the Devas/Vedic and Mahisha takes over the functions of
              >>>>> Indra!
              >>>>> Given such an opening, how can any one disregard the co-existance of
              >>>>> Vedic Aryans along side of the Mundas in the North? Of course there
              >>>>> were
              >>>>> interaction between the Indo Aryans and the Mundas and perhaps
              >>>>> Dravidians and other inhabitants of that larger area, in the hoary
              >>>>> past.
              >>>>> It is a given. If there were such contacts, then it is logical that
              >>>>> they
              >>>>> interchanged ideas, concepts and words. It is a normal and logical
              >>>>> event
              >>>>> to have happened.
              >>>>>Now, if you do not believe that Vedic/Sanskrit is part of the Greater
              >>>>> Indo-European family of languages then you ought to do some serious
              >>>>> research in that area. This fact has been pretty much established and
              >>>>> if
              >>>>> you are opposed to that then you need to concentrate on deeper
              >>>>> research,
              >>>>> and prove it other wise.
              >>>>>Regarding the Ikshvaku line of argument please give us your
              >>>>> interprtation
              >>>>> of the name and how he came to be the patriarch of the Solar Dynasty?
              >>>>>With due regards.
              >>>>>Ram
              >>>>>--- On Mon, 2/18/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
              >>>>>
              >>>>>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
              >>>>>>Subject: Re: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
              >>>>>> Mesopotamian seal
              >>>>>>To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.comIndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
              >>>>>>Cc: "litsol@...@...>
              >>>>>>Date: Monday, February 18, 2013, 1:57 PM
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>>Dear Mr R Varmha,
              >>>>>>I understand what are Aryan people however on point of Vedic Sanskrit
              >>>>>> having borrowed it's terms from Munda/Tamil etc., It w'd have been
              >>>>>> better for you to produce supporting evidences, in lack of such
              >>>>>> evidences, all that you trying to convey shows you are into making
              >>>>>> sort
              >>>>>> of speculations out here.
              >>>>>>You are given yet another opportunity to prove your claims, however,
              >>>>>> in
              >>>>>> the context, a sincere advise for you is to look into best of
              >>>>>> etymological resources available to you to understand how the term
              >>>>>> "Ikshvaku" itself is formed, w'd be good for you to concentrate on
              >>>>>> "Iksh" of "Ikshvaku" at first place.
              >>>>>>The wiki link given by you has no relevance, I fount not a single term
              >>>>>> that you mentioned ( kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick",
              >>>>>> kUla
              >>>>>> "slope") in your post are there in that wiki page.
              >>>>>>Thanks for your time,
              >>>>>>Lalit Mishra
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>>________________________________
              >>>>>>From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
              >>>>>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
              >>>>>>Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:56 PM
              >>>>>>Subject: Fw: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
              >>>>>> Mesopotamian seal
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>>Dear Mr. Mishra,
              >>>>>>Sorry, but your post is quite rambling and I'm not sure where to
              >>>>>> begin?
              >>>>>>1. There are number of words in Vedic which are borrowed from both Old
              >>>>>> Dravidian and
              >>>>>>Munda and perhaps other languages which have gone obsolete, which
              >>>>>> existed in the vicinity of the Vedic Aryan settlement in upper India.
              >>>>>> This does not make the sanctity or the antiquity or the
              >>>>>>verity of the Vedas any less or any more. You should learn to look at
              >>>>>> these topics realistically.
              >>>>>>The Vedic Aryans were not divine people. They were probably just like
              >>>>>> you and me, living in a different period of time.
              >>>>>>Words from neighboring linguistic cultures get borrowed and loaned to
              >>>>>> close by establishments. It does not make the giver or taker of
              >>>>>> linguistic words in any way superior or inferior.
              >>>>>>Words such as, kulAya "nest", kulpha "ankle", daNḍa "stick", kUla
              >>>>>> "slope", and few others
              >>>>>>are all established to be proto-Dravidian words. Mayur "peacock" has
              >>>>>> Dravidian origin -
              >>>>>>Mayil in Tamil. There are many others as well.
              >>>>>>Some probable Munda substrates in Skt: are Kasava, son of a slave
              >>>>>> girl;
              >>>>>> Shambara, Chieftain of an enemy; Kulitara, a chieftain;
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>>I am quite certain that the names of the Asuras in Devi Mahathmyam are
              >>>>>> Munda names -
              >>>>>>Mahisha, Madhu, Kaidabha, Dhoomra, Nisumba, Sumba, Chanda, Munda,
              >>>>>> (hence
              >>>>>> Chamunda).
              >>>>>>River names such as Ganga, Gandaki may have come from Munda:
              >>>>>> *gad/gand.
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>>Kabul and Kurram rivers is most certainly, Kubba and Krumu in Munda.
              >>>>>> There are many others to speak of.
              >>>>>>Sugar
              >>>>>>through Old French sucre, Italian zucchero, Medieval Latin succarum,
              >>>>>> Arabic: سكر sukkar and Persian: شکر shakar ultimately from Sanskrit
              >>>>>> शर्करा sharkara which means "ground or candied sugar" (originally
              >>>>>> "grit" or "gravel"), from proto-Dravidian.
              >>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Sanskrit_origin#cite_note-133
              >>>>>>Also, Burrows and Emeneau - A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary:
              >>>>>>2. 2354 Ta. caracara (-pp-, -tt-): (page 207)
              >>>>>>curacura (-pp-,-tt-) to be rough, have a rough surface; curacurappu
              >>>>>> roughness as of woollen cloth. Ma. caral, carakkallu gravel. Ka.
              >>>>>> (Hav.)
              >>>>>> caralu small rounded pebbles. Tu. caraṭè what is coarse, leavings or
              >>>>>> stalks; jari grit, granule, sand. Kui srogu a rough surface, coarse
              >>>>>> sand or pebbles; rough, coarse, uneven; jrogu rough, gravelly; srogu
              >>>>>> srogu inba to be rough, coarse, uneven, pebbly; srāmbu gravel. Cf.
              >>>>>> 3097
              >>>>>> Ta. taricu. DED 1945.
              >>>>>>>These are far more antiquated words than "zarkara" found in Sanskrit.
              >>>>>>>http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/search3advanced?dbname=burrow&query=grit&matchtype=exact&display=utf8
              >>>>>>>Now, there is the discussion on Ikshvaku. Ikshu = sugar cane. Why
              >>>>>>> does
              >>>>>>> the name of the first King from the Surya Vamsha have a name related
              >>>>>>> to sugar cane? I do not know, but I have a supposition regarding
              >>>>>>> this.
              >>>>>>> I think the story of Surya Vamsha is allegorical. The sun is
              >>>>>>> associated with the East. We may understand then that the Surya
              >>>>>>> Vamsha
              >>>>>>> kings came from the East since Surya is synonomous with the Eastern
              >>>>>>> regions of India. It is therefore possible that the Solar Dynasty
              >>>>>>> was
              >>>>>>> started by a King named Ikshvaku who came from the East or South
              >>>>>>> East.
              >>>>>>> This could very well be from the ancient Andhra region. Andhras are
              >>>>>>> of
              >>>>>>> the Dravidian stock and there was a dynasty named after an Iksvaku
              >>>>>>> king . But, what is still intriguing is why the first Solar Dynasty
              >>>>>>> (Eastern Dynasty) king has a name connected with sugar-cane? We do
              >>>>>>> not
              >>>>>>> know that - yet.
              >>>>>>>Regards,
              >>>>>>>Ram
              >>>>>>Ram
              >>>>>>--- On Sat, 2/2/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>>>From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
              >>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
              >>>>>>> Mesopotamian seal
              >>>>>>>To:
              >>>>>>> "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.comIndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.comlitsol@...@...>
              >>>>>>>Date: Saturday, February 2, 2013, 1:27 AM
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>Dear Mr Ram Varmha,
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>Knowing that a few members, for lack of right knowledge�in matters of
              >>>>>>> ancient literature like etymology, could give rise to incorrect idea
              >>>>>>> that Sharkara is a non Sanskrit term borrowed from some other
              >>>>>>> language, It was deliberately not revealed earlier that Sharakara is
              >>>>>>> a
              >>>>>>> term found right from Rigveda to ancient Brahaman scriptures, now,
              >>>>>>> anybody who plays around the�apparent�fallacy that Sharakara is a
              >>>>>>> non
              >>>>>>> Vedic Term has to establish which are the scriptures in other
              >>>>>>> language
              >>>>>>> existed before Rigveda and how the Vedic Sages borrowed it from
              >>>>>>> that,
              >>>>>>> what has been the connection since same group also makes stories
              >>>>>>> that
              >>>>>>> Aryans were different from Dravidians, whereas, now, you propose
              >>>>>>> that
              >>>>>>> both lived�together,�
              >>>>>>>�Which is self contradictory, We notice that whole�exercise
              >>>>>>> is�maneuvered to showcase Dravida is different as well as more
              >>>>>>> ancient
              >>>>>>> than Vedas, We have noticed same set of wise members are also very
              >>>>>>> quick to produce the irrelevant logic that a culture's being ancient
              >>>>>>> doesn't matter at all just because USA is not that old. In that way,
              >>>>>>> History and Archaeology is useless since it's look into past, it
              >>>>>>> doesn't add value to our earnings that take home every month, What's
              >>>>>>> the relevance all such ideas has got .... ?
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>Anyways, Another tricky question, rather funny is that Loga, You and
              >>>>>>> and a few other members are relying, reading too much the story of
              >>>>>>> Ishvakyu inventing Sugar Making process based on some imaginary
              >>>>>>> fairy
              >>>>>>> tail,�whereas, Ishvakyu�in all the means following same fairy tail
              >>>>>>> existed much later after Rigveda was composed, So, if we believe the
              >>>>>>> unbelievable,�still, no way it can be established that Rigvedic
              >>>>>>> sages
              >>>>>>> borrowed the term "Sharkara" from Ishvakyu who came to world after
              >>>>>>> ages.
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>Don't we know counting properly that what comes first and what comes
              >>>>>>> later ?
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>Best Regards,
              >>>>>>>Lalit Mishra
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>________________________________
              >>>>>>>From: Ram Varmha
              >>>>>>>To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
              >>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:19 AM
              >>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Vedic sharkara / Indus scripts on
              >>>>>>> Mesopotamian seal
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>�
              >>>>>>>When in doubt on a Sanskrit word, go to Apte.
              >>>>>>>�
              >>>>>>>According to Apte's Dictionary:
              >>>>>>>Zarkara = Candied sugar, a pebble, gravel etc.
              >>>>>>>Many Sanskrit words have multi meanings.
              >>>>>>>In English for example, "box" is a prismatic container. It could be a
              >>>>>>> punch by a person's
              >>>>>>>fist. It could be a seating location in a theater. Such words are
              >>>>>>> called homonyms. There
              >>>>>>>are no relationship between the meanings, the commonality exists in
              >>>>>>> the
              >>>>>>> word.�
              >>>>>>>�
              >>>>>>>Since Zarkara is also a name for candied sugar in Sanskrit and occurs
              >>>>>>> in Dravidian
              >>>>>>>(Malayalam = zarkara, Tamil = chakkara) it is obvious that the word
              >>>>>>> for
              >>>>>>> sugar or candy is common in both Sanskrit and Dravidian. The
              >>>>>>> question
              >>>>>>> is who borrowed from whom?�It is
              >>>>>>>likely that the word was a borrow from Dravidian into Vedic and hence
              >>>>>>> to Sanskrit. Both
              >>>>>>>these languages lived side by side for many centuries and one often
              >>>>>>> borrowed from the
              >>>>>>>other. This does not mean one language is superior to the other -
              >>>>>>> just
              >>>>>>> that the two cultures,
              >>>>>>>speaking different languages, co-existed in the general area - just
              >>>>>>> as
              >>>>>>> the French and
              >>>>>>>English speaking people live in Canada!
              >>>>>>>�
              >>>>>>>Regards,
              >>>>>>>Ram��
              >>>>>>>�
              >>>>>>>--- On Tue, 1/15/13, Rajan Menon wrote:
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>>
              >>
              >
              >
            • Vishnu Khare
              I think the later Vedic drams ,the Graeco-Roman drachma and the Arabic dirham are more closely related than the dinar .If I am not mistaken,Latin has
              Message 6 of 18 , Mar 26, 2013
                I think the later Vedic "drams",the Graeco-Roman "drachma" and the Arabic "dirham" are more closely related than the "dinar".If I am not mistaken,Latin has "dinarius" as well.



                From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
                To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com" <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013 12:13 PM
                Subject: [Ind-Arch] Origin of "Dinar"

                 
                Dear Group Members,
                 
                Req to give light on origin and historicity of "Dinar" the currency used in MEA countries, I am aware that the term "Dinar" is derived from "Drams" the term used in later Vedic Period which got prevailed in MEA and Eastern Europe, Pls let me know what's there recorded on pages of history and archaeology.
                 
                Regards,
                Lalit Mishra
                 
                 


              • Francesco Brighenti
                ... There is no later Vedic term drams. Indeed, dram (of which drams is the plural form) is an *English* term designating a unit of weight. Originally
                Message 7 of 18 , Mar 30, 2013
                  Lalit Mishra wrote:

                  > > ...to give light on origin and historicity of "dinar", the
                  > > currency used in MEA countries, I am aware that the term "dinar"
                  > > is derived from "drams" the term used in later Vedic Period which
                  > > got prevailed in MEA and Eastern Europe; pls let me know what's
                  > > there recorded on pages of history and archaeology.

                  Vishnu Khare replied:

                  > I think the later Vedic "drams", the Graeco-Roman "drachma" and the
                  > Arabic "dirham" are more closely related than the "dinar". If I am
                  > not mistaken, Latin has "dinarius" as well.

                  There is no later Vedic term "drams." Indeed, "dram" (of which "drams" is the plural form) is an *English* term designating a unit of weight. Originally (15th century) the term meant "a small weight of apothecary's measure." It derives from Anglo-Latin dragma, from Old French drame, from Late Latin dragma, from Latin drachma 'drachm/drachma', from Greek drakhmÄ", 'measure of weight', also, 'a coin made of silver', literally 'a handful, as much as one can hold in the hand'. Why "a handful"? Because that Greek silver coin was worth six (= a handful of) obols -- Greek oboloi, plural form of obolos, literally 'spit, iron rod'. In early Greece, long thin metal rods, oboloi, were used as currency. They represented small ingots of copper or bronze of standardized weight, and were traded as such. A drakhmÄ" was, thus, originally a "handful" of six such metal rods; later, the term obolos was used for a coin that was one-sixth of a drachma. See at:

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_drachma

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obolus

                  Greek drakhmÄ", in turn, derives from the verb drassomai 'to lay hold of, grasp with the hand', possibly deriving from a Proto-Indo-European verbal root *dergh- 'to grasp'. The same word with the meaning of 'handle' (something which is grasped with the hand) is found in the form DO-KA-MA in Linear B tablets of the Mycenean Pylos (second half of the second millennium BCE). The term here designates the wooden handles that would have been used for javelins. Phonetically, DO-KA-MA stands for Mycenaean Greek *dorkhma = *drakhma. Therefore, this word seemingly dates from the Mycenaean period.

                  In Sanskrit there is the term dramma (not "dram"!), meaning a type of coin. It is first attested in the Pañcatantra, placed by the current scholarly consensus around 300 CE. Therefore, this term is not "later Vedic" as erroneously stated in Lalit Mishra's post. Check out various occurrences of the word "dramma" in Indian epigraphy as reported by D.C. Sircar (who observes: "dramma... originally derived from Greek drachma [i.e. drakhmÄ" -- FB]"):

                  http://tinyurl.com/cunojet

                  As a currency unit, the drakhmÄ" is found in many of Alexander's successor states and South-West Asian kingdoms (including the Parthian Empire) during the Hellenistic era. Both Sanskrit dramma (with its Prakrit derivatives) and Arabic dirham come from Greek drakhmÄ" through the Middle Persian (borrowed) form draxm.

                  On the contrary, Arabic dÄ«nār 'gold coin' was borrowed from Syriac dÄ«narā, in turn borrowed from Greek dÄ"narion, in turn borrowed from Latin dÄ"nārius, the name of the most common coin circulating within the Roman Empire. Latin dÄ"nārius was originally an adjective meaning 'containing ten' (from dÄ"nÄ« [pl.adj.] 'ten at a time, ten each' < decem 'ten'), because when the dÄ"nārius was created it was worth ten āsses (Latin ās: a copper coin). Thus, contrary to what Lalit Mishra writes, the Arabic term dÄ«nār has nothing to do with Sanskrit dramma (< Greek drakhmÄ").

                  Kind regards,
                  Francesco
                • radha_canada
                  ... hold of, grasp with the hand , possibly deriving from a Proto-Indo-European verbal root *dergh- to grasp . The same word with the meaning of handle
                  Message 8 of 18 , Apr 2, 2013
                    --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...> wrote:
                    >

                    > Greek drakhm�", in turn, derives from the verb drassomai 'to lay hold of, grasp with the hand', possibly deriving from a Proto-Indo-European verbal root *dergh- 'to grasp'. The same word with the meaning of 'handle' (something which is grasped with the hand) is found in the form DO-KA-MA in Linear B tablets of the Mycenean Pylos (second half of the second millennium BCE). The term here designates the wooden handles that would have been used for javelins. Phonetically, DO-KA-MA stands for Mycenaean Greek *dorkhma = *drakhma. Therefore, this word seemingly dates from the Mycenaean period.
                    >

                    This is interesting.  As an aside, what would have been the pronunciation of PIE 'gh'?  Would it have been a voiced aspirate like the Indian 'gh' (घ) as in ghee (molten butter) or a voiced velar/uvular fricative (or approximant) as in the pronunciation of the Perso-Arabic character 'ghain' (ﻍ)?  Was PIE and old Greek 'kh' ever pronounced like the 'kh' (ख) in Hindi khaanaa (food) or always similar to the Perso Arabic khe (ﺥ) ?

                    Thanks and regards,
                    Radhakrishna Warrier
                  • Vishnu Khare
                    Dear Francesco, I wanted to,but forgot,to use double inverted commas for Lalit Mishra s term later Vedic .Sorry. Vishnu Khare ________________________________
                    Message 9 of 18 , Apr 3, 2013
                      Dear Francesco,

                      I wanted to,but forgot,to use double inverted commas for Lalit Mishra's term "later Vedic".Sorry.

                      Vishnu Khare



                      From: Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...>
                      To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013 11:45 PM
                      Subject: [Ind-Arch] Re: Origin of "Dinar"

                       


                      Lalit Mishra wrote:

                      > > ...to give light on origin and historicity of "dinar", the
                      > > currency used in MEA countries, I am aware that the term "dinar"
                      > > is derived from "drams" the term used in later Vedic Period which
                      > > got prevailed in MEA and Eastern Europe; pls let me know what's
                      > > there recorded on pages of history and archaeology.

                      Vishnu Khare replied:

                      > I think the later Vedic "drams", the Graeco-Roman "drachma" and the
                      > Arabic "dirham" are more closely related than the "dinar". If I am
                      > not mistaken, Latin has "dinarius" as well.

                      There is no later Vedic term "drams." Indeed, "dram" (of which "drams" is the plural form) is an *English* term designating a unit of weight. Originally (15th century) the term meant "a small weight of apothecary's measure." It derives from Anglo-Latin dragma, from Old French drame, from Late Latin dragma, from Latin drachma 'drachm/drachma', from Greek drakhmÄ", 'measure of weight', also, 'a coin made of silver', literally 'a handful, as much as one can hold in the hand'. Why "a handful"? Because that Greek silver coin was worth six (= a handful of) obols -- Greek oboloi, plural form of obolos, literally 'spit, iron rod'. In early Greece, long thin metal rods, oboloi, were used as currency. They represented small ingots of copper or bronze of standardized weight, and were traded as such. A drakhmÄ" was, thus, originally a "handful" of six such metal rods; later, the term obolos was used for a coin that was one-sixth of a drachma. See at:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_drachma

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obolus

                      Greek drakhmÄ", in turn, derives from the verb drassomai 'to lay hold of, grasp with the hand', possibly deriving from a Proto-Indo-European verbal root *dergh- 'to grasp'. The same word with the meaning of 'handle' (something which is grasped with the hand) is found in the form DO-KA-MA in Linear B tablets of the Mycenean Pylos (second half of the second millennium BCE). The term here designates the wooden handles that would have been used for javelins. Phonetically, DO-KA-MA stands for Mycenaean Greek *dorkhma = *drakhma. Therefore, this word seemingly dates from the Mycenaean period.

                      In Sanskrit there is the term dramma (not "dram"!), meaning a type of coin. It is first attested in the Pañcatantra, placed by the current scholarly consensus around 300 CE. Therefore, this term is not "later Vedic" as erroneously stated in Lalit Mishra's post. Check out various occurrences of the word "dramma" in Indian epigraphy as reported by D.C. Sircar (who observes: "dramma... originally derived from Greek drachma [i.e. drakhmÄ" -- FB]"):

                      http://tinyurl.com/cunojet

                      As a currency unit, the drakhmÄ" is found in many of Alexander's successor states and South-West Asian kingdoms (including the Parthian Empire) during the Hellenistic era. Both Sanskrit dramma (with its Prakrit derivatives) and Arabic dirham come from Greek drakhmÄ" through the Middle Persian (borrowed) form draxm.

                      On the contrary, Arabic dÄ«nÄ�r 'gold coin' was borrowed from Syriac dÄ«narÄ�, in turn borrowed from Greek dÄ"narion, in turn borrowed from Latin dÄ"nÄ�rius, the name of the most common coin circulating within the Roman Empire. Latin dÄ"nÄ�rius was originally an adjective meaning 'containing ten' (from dÄ"nÄ« [pl.adj.] 'ten at a time, ten each' < decem 'ten'), because when the dÄ"nÄ�rius was created it was worth ten Ä�sses (Latin Ä�s: a copper coin). Thus, contrary to what Lalit Mishra writes, the Arabic term dÄ«nÄ�r has nothing to do with Sanskrit dramma (< Greek drakhmÄ").

                      Kind regards,
                      Francesco



                    • Francesco Brighenti
                      ... In the traditional Proto-Indo-European system, the phoneme *gh is reconstructed as a plain velar voiced aspirate (yes, like the ‘gh’ in Indic ghee).
                      Message 10 of 18 , Apr 4, 2013
                        --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "radha_canada" <radha_canada@...> wrote:

                        > What would have been the pronunciation of PIE 'gh'? Would it have
                        > been a voiced aspirate like > the Indian 'gh' (घ) as in ghee
                        > (molten butter) or a voiced velar/uvular fricative (or approximant)
                        > as in the pronunciation of the Perso-Arabic character 'ghain' (ﻍ)?
                        > Was PIE and old Greek 'kh' ever pronounced like the 'kh' (ख) in
                        > Hindi khaanaa (food) or always similar to the Perso Arabic khe (ﺥ) ?


                        In the traditional Proto-Indo-European system, the phoneme *gh is reconstructed as a plain velar voiced aspirate (yes, like the ‘gh’ in Indic ghee). PIE voiced aspirates were voiced stops followed by a puff of breath or a brief period of breathy voice. Indic is the only sub-branch of the IE language family that preserved them intact into the historical period; they are still found in many modern languages descended from Sanskrit, such as Hindi, Bengali, etc.

                        In Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s Glottalic theory of PIE, however, the presence of aspiration is held to be non-distinctive, that is phonetically present but not a basic part of the phonological description of the sound. In this alternative system, traditional PIE *gh is written with a superscripted h which cannot be reproduced in this Yahoo!Group post -- let us, therefore, render it here as *g[h], where *[h] stands for a low-level phonetic feature called by some "breathy voice". To make it short, according to the two Soviet linguists PIE *g[h] would have had an allophone *g. Aspiration would, thus, have been a variable conditioned by external phonological factors; e.g., they posit a rule that prohibits more than one aspirate in the same PIE root. Perhaps Arnaud could explain this part of the Glottalic theory better than I can do?

                        Ancient Greek kh (the letter ‘chi’ of Greek alphabet, transliterated as kh) had the value of a plain velar voiceless aspirate (yes, like the ‘kh’ in Hindi khaanaa). It was the devoiced reflex of both PIE (traditional) *gh and *g^h, with the latter sound being reconstructed as a palatovelar voiced aspirate in the traditional PIE system. Therefore, the Greek 'chi' wasn't the reflex of PIE *kh. In Koine Greek and later dialects the ‘chi’ became a fricative (transliterated as x or ch -- cf. Latin drachma, the equivalent of Greek drakhme).

                        Regards,
                        Francesco
                      • Arnaud
                        ... *** to put it as simple as possible, the orthodox system for PIE with voiceless *T, voiced *D and voiced aspirate *DH is more or less taken from
                        Message 11 of 18 , Apr 7, 2013
                          Le 04/04/2013 12:02, Francesco Brighenti a écrit :
                          > > What would have been the pronunciation of PIE 'gh'? Would it have
                          > > been a voiced aspirate like > the Indian 'gh' (घ) as in ghee
                          > > (molten butter) or a voiced velar/uvular fricative (or approximant)
                          > > as in the pronunciation of the Perso-Arabic character 'ghain' (�)?
                          > > Was PIE and old Greek 'kh' ever pronounced like the 'kh' (ख) in
                          > > Hindi khaanaa (food) or always similar to the Perso Arabic khe (ﺥ) ?
                          >
                          > In the traditional Proto-Indo-European system, the phoneme *gh is
                          > reconstructed as a plain velar voiced aspirate (yes, like the ‘gh’
                          > in Indic ghee). PIE voiced aspirates were voiced stops followed by a
                          > puff of breath or a brief period of breathy voice. Indic is the only
                          > sub-branch of the IE language family that preserved them intact into
                          > the historical period; they are still found in many modern languages
                          > descended from Sanskrit, such as Hindi, Bengali, etc.
                          >
                          > In Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s Glottalic theory of PIE, however, the
                          > presence of aspiration is held to be non-distinctive, that is
                          > phonetically present but not a basic part of the phonological
                          > description of the sound. In this alternative system, traditional PIE
                          > *gh is written with a superscripted h which cannot be reproduced in
                          > this Yahoo!Group post -- let us, therefore, render it here as *g[h],
                          > where *[h] stands for a low-level phonetic feature called by some
                          > "breathy voice". To make it short, according to the two Soviet
                          > linguists PIE *g[h] would have had an allophone *g. Aspiration would,
                          > thus, have been a variable conditioned by external phonological
                          > factors; e.g., they posit a rule that prohibits more than one aspirate
                          > in the same PIE root. Perhaps Arnaud could explain this part of the
                          > Glottalic theory better than I can do?
                          ***

                          to put it as simple as possible,
                          the orthodox system for PIE with voiceless *T, voiced *D and voiced
                          aspirate *DH is more or less taken from Indo-Aryan. That's a kind of
                          historiographical relique.
                          At one point the orthodoxy also had voiceless aspirate *TH, but this
                          series was removed at the end of the 19th century after people realized
                          this series mostly involves central PIE languages and Germanic, and can
                          be analyzed as C+H. The system with these three series is unnatural and
                          considered impossible.

                          The Glottalic theory is an attempt to transform the traditional *names*
                          of the three series into reasonable and plausible features.
                          This can be considered to be a shift from a purely comparative approach
                          to a more reconstructionist approach.
                          In the new approach the voiceless consonants are still considered to be
                          voiceless.
                          the voiced consonants are changed into glottalized, and some people even
                          suggest pre-glottalized.
                          the voiced aspirate consonants are changed into voiced.

                          Some additional considerations of the Glottalic theory are a partial
                          explanation of the rarity of *b, and root constraints on consonant
                          cooccurences.

                          I tend to agree that the voiced aspirate consonants were most probably
                          just voiced, with no other feature in PIE.
                          This is shown but numerous loanwords where plain voiced consonants
                          surface as voiced aspirate consonants later on.

                          In all cases this shows that the voiced series of the traditional
                          orthodox cannot have been voiced, it must have been something else before.

                          So far in lack of absolutely conclusive information, most people have
                          stuck to the old orthodox approach, which is doubtless false but
                          convenient, especially when one remains within the IE perimeter.

                          The Glottalic theory is not the only possibility to get out of the
                          impossible T, D, DH system.
                          Personally I favor the idea that there was originally no distinction
                          between T and D series.
                          In this approach (Pre-)PIE therefore only had two series: a voiced one,
                          which was kept in all languages but Indo-Aryan which changed it to
                          voiced aspirate, and languages like Greek or Latin where similar
                          developments, and another series: voiceless which split into two series,
                          a series which remained voiceless and another one which formed a
                          secondary voiced series.

                          A.
                        • litsol
                          Dear Brighenti, My post had sense of an enquiry made into the issue, Although, I am thankful to you that you for provided good amount of information, My
                          Message 12 of 18 , Apr 21, 2013
                            Dear Brighenti,

                            My post had sense of an enquiry made into the issue, Although, I am
                            thankful to you that you for provided good amount of information, My
                            intention has indeed been finding out the channel between Sanskrit
                            "dramma" and greek or otherwise drakhm.

                            I think further research is required to resolve both the issues :

                            1. Origin of PIE "Dergh" that led to Greek "drakhma" as explained by
                            you, should be there in Sanskrit.

                            2. Since, knowledge of "Ten" is borrowed by Latin and Greek From Vedic
                            Sanskrit, It's too early to conclude that Latin "dinarius" is the orgin
                            of Dinar, We see "Dinar" getting used along with "Nisk" in Atharva Veda
                            Parishishta as well as in Baudhayana Sharuta Sutra although
                            independantly.

                            I remember having seen ""dramma" somewhere in Atharva Veda itself, but
                            missed noting the particular verse, I thought, somebody could have give
                            light on that but friend Vishnu Khare felt sorry after seeing your
                            response to this query.

                            Sincerely,
                            Lalit Mishra



                            --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Lalit Mishra wrote:
                            >
                            > > > ...to give light on origin and historicity of "dinar", the
                            > > > currency used in MEA countries, I am aware that the term "dinar"
                            > > > is derived from "drams" the term used in later Vedic Period which
                            > > > got prevailed in MEA and Eastern Europe; pls let me know what's
                            > > > there recorded on pages of history and archaeology.
                            >
                            > Vishnu Khare replied:
                            >
                            > > I think the later Vedic "drams", the Graeco-Roman "drachma" and the
                            > > Arabic "dirham" are more closely related than the "dinar". If I am
                            > > not mistaken, Latin has "dinarius" as well.
                            >
                            > There is no later Vedic term "drams." Indeed, "dram" (of which "drams"
                            is the plural form) is an *English* term designating a unit of weight.
                            Originally (15th century) the term meant "a small weight of apothecary's
                            measure." It derives from Anglo-Latin dragma, from Old French drame,
                            from Late Latin dragma, from Latin drachma 'drachm/drachma', from Greek
                            drakhm�", 'measure of weight', also, 'a coin made of silver',
                            literally 'a handful, as much as one can hold in the hand'. Why "a
                            handful"? Because that Greek silver coin was worth six (= a handful of)
                            obols -- Greek oboloi, plural form of obolos, literally 'spit, iron
                            rod'. In early Greece, long thin metal rods, oboloi, were used as
                            currency. They represented small ingots of copper or bronze of
                            standardized weight, and were traded as such. A drakhm�" was, thus,
                            originally a "handful" of six such metal rods; later, the term obolos
                            was used for a coin that was one-sixth of a drachma. See at:
                            >
                            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_drachma
                            >
                            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obolus
                            >
                            > Greek drakhm�", in turn, derives from the verb drassomai 'to lay
                            hold of, grasp with the hand', possibly deriving from a
                            Proto-Indo-European verbal root *dergh- 'to grasp'. The same word with
                            the meaning of 'handle' (something which is grasped with the hand) is
                            found in the form DO-KA-MA in Linear B tablets of the Mycenean Pylos
                            (second half of the second millennium BCE). The term here designates the
                            wooden handles that would have been used for javelins. Phonetically,
                            DO-KA-MA stands for Mycenaean Greek *dorkhma = *. Therefore, this word
                            seemingly dates from the Mycenaean period.
                            >
                            > In Sanskrit there is the term dramma (not "dram"!), meaning a type of
                            coin. It is first attested in the Pañcatantra, placed drakhmaby the
                            current scholarly consensus around 300 CE. Therefore, this term is not
                            "later Vedic" as erroneously stated in Lalit Mishra's post. Check out
                            various occurrences of the word "dramma" in Indian epigraphy as reported
                            by D.C. Sircar (who observes: "dramma... originally derived from Greek
                            drachma [i.e. drakhm�" -- FB]"):
                            >
                            > http://tinyurl.com/cunojet
                            >
                            > As a currency unit, the drakhm�" is found in many of Alexander's
                            successor states and South-West Asian kingdoms (including the Parthian
                            Empire) during the Hellenistic era. Both Sanskrit dramma (with its
                            Prakrit derivatives) and Arabic dirham come from Greek drakhm�"
                            through the Middle Persian (borrowed) form draxm.
                            >
                            > On the contrary, Arabic dīnār 'gold coin' was borrowed from
                            Syriac dīnarā, in turn borrowed from Greek d�"narion, in
                            turn borrowed from Latin d�"nārius, the name of the most
                            common coin circulating within the Roman Empire. Latin
                            d�"nārius was originally an adjective meaning 'containing ten'
                            (from d�"nī [pl.adj.] 'ten at a time, ten each' < decem 'ten'),
                            because when the d�"nārius was created it was worth ten
                            āsses (Latin ās: a copper coin). Thus, contrary to what Lalit
                            Mishra writes, the Arabic term dīnār has nothing to do with
                            Sanskrit dramma (< Greek drakhm�").
                            >
                            > Kind regards,
                            > Francesco
                            >
                          • Mandar
                            In Marathi dravya means money, wealth. Not to be confused with dravya meaning liquid. Is it a loanword from Greek drachma or of Indo-aryan origin? Regards,
                            Message 13 of 18 , Apr 24, 2013
                              In Marathi 'dravya' means money, wealth. Not to be confused with dravya meaning liquid.
                              Is it a loanword from Greek drachma or of Indo-aryan origin?

                              Regards,
                              Mandar

                              --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "litsol" <litsol@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > Dear Brighenti,
                              >
                              > My post had sense of an enquiry made into the issue, Although, I am
                              > thankful to you that you for provided good amount of information, My
                              > intention has indeed been finding out the channel between Sanskrit
                              > "dramma" and greek or otherwise drakhm.
                              >
                              > I think further research is required to resolve both the issues :
                              >
                              > 1. Origin of PIE "Dergh" that led to Greek "drakhma" as explained by
                              > you, should be there in Sanskrit.
                              >
                              > 2. Since, knowledge of "Ten" is borrowed by Latin and Greek From Vedic
                              > Sanskrit, It's too early to conclude that Latin "dinarius" is the orgin
                              > of Dinar, We see "Dinar" getting used along with "Nisk" in Atharva Veda
                              > Parishishta as well as in Baudhayana Sharuta Sutra although
                              > independantly.
                              >
                              > I remember having seen ""dramma" somewhere in Atharva Veda itself, but
                              > missed noting the particular verse, I thought, somebody could have give
                              > light on that but friend Vishnu Khare felt sorry after seeing your
                              > response to this query.
                              >
                              > Sincerely,
                              > Lalit Mishra
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Lalit Mishra wrote:
                              > >
                              > > > > ...to give light on origin and historicity of "dinar", the
                              > > > > currency used in MEA countries, I am aware that the term "dinar"
                              > > > > is derived from "drams" the term used in later Vedic Period which
                              > > > > got prevailed in MEA and Eastern Europe; pls let me know what's
                              > > > > there recorded on pages of history and archaeology.
                              > >
                              > > Vishnu Khare replied:
                              > >
                              > > > I think the later Vedic "drams", the Graeco-Roman "drachma" and the
                              > > > Arabic "dirham" are more closely related than the "dinar". If I am
                              > > > not mistaken, Latin has "dinarius" as well.
                              > >
                              > > There is no later Vedic term "drams." Indeed, "dram" (of which "drams"
                              > is the plural form) is an *English* term designating a unit of weight.
                              > Originally (15th century) the term meant "a small weight of apothecary's
                              > measure." It derives from Anglo-Latin dragma, from Old French drame,
                              > from Late Latin dragma, from Latin drachma 'drachm/drachma', from Greek
                              > drakhm�", 'measure of weight', also, 'a coin made of silver',
                              > literally 'a handful, as much as one can hold in the hand'. Why "a
                              > handful"? Because that Greek silver coin was worth six (= a handful of)
                              > obols -- Greek oboloi, plural form of obolos, literally 'spit, iron
                              > rod'. In early Greece, long thin metal rods, oboloi, were used as
                              > currency. They represented small ingots of copper or bronze of
                              > standardized weight, and were traded as such. A drakhm�" was, thus,
                              > originally a "handful" of six such metal rods; later, the term obolos
                              > was used for a coin that was one-sixth of a drachma. See at:
                              > >
                              > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_drachma
                              > >
                              > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obolus
                              > >
                              > > Greek drakhm�", in turn, derives from the verb drassomai 'to lay
                              > hold of, grasp with the hand', possibly deriving from a
                              > Proto-Indo-European verbal root *dergh- 'to grasp'. The same word with
                              > the meaning of 'handle' (something which is grasped with the hand) is
                              > found in the form DO-KA-MA in Linear B tablets of the Mycenean Pylos
                              > (second half of the second millennium BCE). The term here designates the
                              > wooden handles that would have been used for javelins. Phonetically,
                              > DO-KA-MA stands for Mycenaean Greek *dorkhma = *. Therefore, this word
                              > seemingly dates from the Mycenaean period.
                              > >
                              > > In Sanskrit there is the term dramma (not "dram"!), meaning a type of
                              > coin. It is first attested in the Pañcatantra, placed drakhmaby the
                              > current scholarly consensus around 300 CE. Therefore, this term is not
                              > "later Vedic" as erroneously stated in Lalit Mishra's post. Check out
                              > various occurrences of the word "dramma" in Indian epigraphy as reported
                              > by D.C. Sircar (who observes: "dramma... originally derived from Greek
                              > drachma [i.e. drakhm�" -- FB]"):
                              > >
                              > > http://tinyurl.com/cunojet
                              > >
                              > > As a currency unit, the drakhm�" is found in many of Alexander's
                              > successor states and South-West Asian kingdoms (including the Parthian
                              > Empire) during the Hellenistic era. Both Sanskrit dramma (with its
                              > Prakrit derivatives) and Arabic dirham come from Greek drakhm�"
                              > through the Middle Persian (borrowed) form draxm.
                              > >
                              > > On the contrary, Arabic dīnār 'gold coin' was borrowed from
                              > Syriac dīnarā, in turn borrowed from Greek d�"narion, in
                              > turn borrowed from Latin d�"nārius, the name of the most
                              > common coin circulating within the Roman Empire. Latin
                              > d�"nārius was originally an adjective meaning 'containing ten'
                              > (from d�"nī [pl.adj.] 'ten at a time, ten each' < decem 'ten'),
                              > because when the d�"nārius was created it was worth ten
                              > āsses (Latin ās: a copper coin). Thus, contrary to what Lalit
                              > Mishra writes, the Arabic term dīnār has nothing to do with
                              > Sanskrit dramma (< Greek drakhm�").
                              > >
                              > > Kind regards,
                              > > Francesco
                              > >
                              >
                            • Francesco Brighenti
                              ... Not all IE roots have reflexes in all or most of the branches of this language family. In this case, there seems to be no Indo-Iranian reflex for the root
                              Message 14 of 18 , Apr 25, 2013
                                --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "litsol" <litsol@...> wrote:

                                > Dear Brighenti,
                                >
                                > My post had sense of an enquiry made into the issue, although, I am
                                > thankful to you that you for provided good amount of information. My
                                > intention has indeed been finding out the channel between Sanskrit
                                > "dramma" and Greek or otherwise drakhm.
                                >
                                > I think further research is required to resolve both the issues :
                                >
                                > 1. Origin of PIE "dergh" that led to Greek "drakhma" as explained by
                                > you, should be there in Sanskrit.

                                Not all IE roots have reflexes in all or most of the branches of this language family. In this case, there seems to be no Indo-Iranian reflex for the root *dergh-.

                                I have taken the license to translate from German the entry *dergh- from Pokorny's PIE etymological dictionary. Here it is:

                                <<<<<< Root: *dergh- 'to grasp'

                                Armenian trcak `bundle of brushwood' (prob. from *turc-ak, with *turc- < *dorgh-so-);

                                Greek drassomai, Attic drattomai 'to take hold of, grasp with the hand', dragdên `take hold, catch hold', dragma `handful, sheaf', dragmeuô `to bind sheaves', drakhmê, Archaic Hellenic drakhma, Gortyn darkhna, `Drachm' (`*handful of metal rods, oboloi'), drax, -kos `hand', pl. darkes desmai;

                                Celtic: Middle Irish dremm, New Irish dream `troop, band, handful of people' (< *dr.gh-smo-), Breton dramm `bundle, sheaf';

                                Germanic: Old High German zarga `rim of a curved space, edge', Old Norse targa `round shield', Old English targe (Norse loanword) `small shield' (actually `shield rim'), Alsatian (kös-)zorg `a vessel, bowl standing on three feet' (= Greek drakh-).

                                References: WP. I 807. Pages: 212-213. >>>>>

                                > 2. Since, knowledge of "Ten" is borrowed by Latin and Greek from
                                > Vedic Sanskrit,

                                Sorry?

                                > it's too early to conclude that Latin "dinarius" is the orgin
                                > of dinar, we see "Dinar" getting used along with "Nisk" in Atharva
                                > Veda Parishishta as well as in Baudhayana Sharuta Sutra although
                                > independantly.

                                As I wrote earlier, the Skt. word dInAra 'a gold coin or a certain weight of gold; a gold ornament' is ultimately a loan from Latin denarius. Usage of this term is post-Vedic, for which reason it is impossible to find it attested in Vedic texts like the Atharva Veda Parishishta or the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra. Can you provide any textual references for the above?

                                Latin denarius, Greek denarion as names for the most common coin circulating in the Roman Empire, were probably introduced into India via the international trade in the first centuries of the Roman Empire; either of these foreign words was locally Sanskritized as dInAra.

                                > I remember having seen "dramma" somewhere in Atharva Veda itself,
                                > but missed noting the particular verse,

                                Skt. dramma 'a type of coin' is first attested in the Pancatantra (ca. 300 CE); this is what dictionaries say. Therefore, this term cannot be Vedic.

                                > I thought, somebody could have give light on that but friend Vishnu
                                > Khare felt sorry after seeing your response to this query.

                                ???

                                Regards,
                                Francesco



                                > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Lalit Mishra wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > > ...to give light on origin and historicity of "dinar", the
                                > > > > currency used in MEA countries, I am aware that the term "dinar"
                                > > > > is derived from "drams" the term used in later Vedic Period which
                                > > > > got prevailed in MEA and Eastern Europe; pls let me know what's
                                > > > > there recorded on pages of history and archaeology.
                                > >
                                > > Vishnu Khare replied:
                                > >
                                > > > I think the later Vedic "drams", the Graeco-Roman "drachma" and the
                                > > > Arabic "dirham" are more closely related than the "dinar". If I am
                                > > > not mistaken, Latin has "dinarius" as well.
                                > >
                                > > There is no later Vedic term "drams." Indeed, "dram" (of which "drams"
                                > is the plural form) is an *English* term designating a unit of weight.
                                > Originally (15th century) the term meant "a small weight of apothecary's
                                > measure." It derives from Anglo-Latin dragma, from Old French drame,
                                > from Late Latin dragma, from Latin drachma 'drachm/drachma', from Greek
                                > drakhm�", 'measure of weight', also, 'a coin made of silver',
                                > literally 'a handful, as much as one can hold in the hand'. Why "a
                                > handful"? Because that Greek silver coin was worth six (= a handful of)
                                > obols -- Greek oboloi, plural form of obolos, literally 'spit, iron
                                > rod'. In early Greece, long thin metal rods, oboloi, were used as
                                > currency. They represented small ingots of copper or bronze of
                                > standardized weight, and were traded as such. A drakhm�" was, thus,
                                > originally a "handful" of six such metal rods; later, the term obolos
                                > was used for a coin that was one-sixth of a drachma. See at:
                                > >
                                > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_drachma
                                > >
                                > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obolus
                                > >
                                > > Greek drakhm�", in turn, derives from the verb drassomai 'to lay
                                > hold of, grasp with the hand', possibly deriving from a
                                > Proto-Indo-European verbal root *dergh- 'to grasp'. The same word with
                                > the meaning of 'handle' (something which is grasped with the hand) is
                                > found in the form DO-KA-MA in Linear B tablets of the Mycenean Pylos
                                > (second half of the second millennium BCE). The term here designates the
                                > wooden handles that would have been used for javelins. Phonetically,
                                > DO-KA-MA stands for Mycenaean Greek *dorkhma = *. Therefore, this word
                                > seemingly dates from the Mycenaean period.
                                > >
                                > > In Sanskrit there is the term dramma (not "dram"!), meaning a type of
                                > coin. It is first attested in the Pañcatantra, placed drakhmaby the
                                > current scholarly consensus around 300 CE. Therefore, this term is not
                                > "later Vedic" as erroneously stated in Lalit Mishra's post. Check out
                                > various occurrences of the word "dramma" in Indian epigraphy as reported
                                > by D.C. Sircar (who observes: "dramma... originally derived from Greek
                                > drachma [i.e. drakhm�" -- FB]"):
                                > >
                                > > http://tinyurl.com/cunojet
                                > >
                                > > As a currency unit, the drakhm�" is found in many of Alexander's
                                > successor states and South-West Asian kingdoms (including the Parthian
                                > Empire) during the Hellenistic era. Both Sanskrit dramma (with its
                                > Prakrit derivatives) and Arabic dirham come from Greek drakhm�"
                                > through the Middle Persian (borrowed) form draxm.
                                > >
                                > > On the contrary, Arabic dīnār 'gold coin' was borrowed from
                                > Syriac dīnarā, in turn borrowed from Greek d�"narion, in
                                > turn borrowed from Latin d�"nārius, the name of the most
                                > common coin circulating within the Roman Empire. Latin
                                > d�"nārius was originally an adjective meaning 'containing ten'
                                > (from d�"nī [pl.adj.] 'ten at a time, ten each' < decem 'ten'),
                                > because when the d�"nārius was created it was worth ten
                                > āsses (Latin ās: a copper coin). Thus, contrary to what Lalit
                                > Mishra writes, the Arabic term dīnār has nothing to do with
                                > Sanskrit dramma (< Greek drakhm�").
                                > >
                                > > Kind regards,
                                > > Francesco
                                > >
                                >
                              • Francesco Brighenti
                                ... It is a Sanskrit word: Skt. dravya substance (Upanisads) -- property (Mahabharata). FB
                                Message 15 of 18 , Apr 28, 2013
                                  --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Mandar" <ayachitman@...> wrote:

                                  > In Marathi 'dravya' means money, wealth. Not to be confused with
                                  > dravya meaning liquid. Is it a loanword from Greek drachma or of
                                  > Indo-aryan origin?

                                  It is a Sanskrit word: Skt. dravya 'substance' (Upanisads) --> 'property' (Mahabharata).

                                  FB


                                  > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "litsol" <litsol@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Dear Brighenti,
                                  > >
                                  > > My post had sense of an enquiry made into the issue, Although, I am
                                  > > thankful to you that you for provided good amount of information, My
                                  > > intention has indeed been finding out the channel between Sanskrit
                                  > > "dramma" and greek or otherwise drakhm.
                                  > >
                                  > > I think further research is required to resolve both the issues :
                                  > >
                                  > > 1. Origin of PIE "Dergh" that led to Greek "drakhma" as explained by
                                  > > you, should be there in Sanskrit.
                                  > >
                                  > > 2. Since, knowledge of "Ten" is borrowed by Latin and Greek From Vedic
                                  > > Sanskrit, It's too early to conclude that Latin "dinarius" is the orgin
                                  > > of Dinar, We see "Dinar" getting used along with "Nisk" in Atharva Veda
                                  > > Parishishta as well as in Baudhayana Sharuta Sutra although
                                  > > independantly.
                                  > >
                                  > > I remember having seen ""dramma" somewhere in Atharva Veda itself, but
                                  > > missed noting the particular verse, I thought, somebody could have give
                                  > > light on that but friend Vishnu Khare felt sorry after seeing your
                                  > > response to this query.
                                  > >
                                  > > Sincerely,
                                  > > Lalit Mishra
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Lalit Mishra wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > > ...to give light on origin and historicity of "dinar", the
                                  > > > > > currency used in MEA countries, I am aware that the term "dinar"
                                  > > > > > is derived from "drams" the term used in later Vedic Period which
                                  > > > > > got prevailed in MEA and Eastern Europe; pls let me know what's
                                  > > > > > there recorded on pages of history and archaeology.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Vishnu Khare replied:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > I think the later Vedic "drams", the Graeco-Roman "drachma" and the
                                  > > > > Arabic "dirham" are more closely related than the "dinar". If I am
                                  > > > > not mistaken, Latin has "dinarius" as well.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > There is no later Vedic term "drams." Indeed, "dram" (of which "drams"
                                  > > is the plural form) is an *English* term designating a unit of weight.
                                  > > Originally (15th century) the term meant "a small weight of apothecary's
                                  > > measure." It derives from Anglo-Latin dragma, from Old French drame,
                                  > > from Late Latin dragma, from Latin drachma 'drachm/drachma', from Greek
                                  > > drakhm�", 'measure of weight', also, 'a coin made of silver',
                                  > > literally 'a handful, as much as one can hold in the hand'. Why "a
                                  > > handful"? Because that Greek silver coin was worth six (= a handful of)
                                  > > obols -- Greek oboloi, plural form of obolos, literally 'spit, iron
                                  > > rod'. In early Greece, long thin metal rods, oboloi, were used as
                                  > > currency. They represented small ingots of copper or bronze of
                                  > > standardized weight, and were traded as such. A drakhm�" was, thus,
                                  > > originally a "handful" of six such metal rods; later, the term obolos
                                  > > was used for a coin that was one-sixth of a drachma. See at:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_drachma
                                  > > >
                                  > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obolus
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Greek drakhm�", in turn, derives from the verb drassomai 'to lay
                                  > > hold of, grasp with the hand', possibly deriving from a
                                  > > Proto-Indo-European verbal root *dergh- 'to grasp'. The same word with
                                  > > the meaning of 'handle' (something which is grasped with the hand) is
                                  > > found in the form DO-KA-MA in Linear B tablets of the Mycenean Pylos
                                  > > (second half of the second millennium BCE). The term here designates the
                                  > > wooden handles that would have been used for javelins. Phonetically,
                                  > > DO-KA-MA stands for Mycenaean Greek *dorkhma = *. Therefore, this word
                                  > > seemingly dates from the Mycenaean period.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > In Sanskrit there is the term dramma (not "dram"!), meaning a type of
                                  > > coin. It is first attested in the Pañcatantra, placed drakhmaby the
                                  > > current scholarly consensus around 300 CE. Therefore, this term is not
                                  > > "later Vedic" as erroneously stated in Lalit Mishra's post. Check out
                                  > > various occurrences of the word "dramma" in Indian epigraphy as reported
                                  > > by D.C. Sircar (who observes: "dramma... originally derived from Greek
                                  > > drachma [i.e. drakhm�" -- FB]"):
                                  > > >
                                  > > > http://tinyurl.com/cunojet
                                  > > >
                                  > > > As a currency unit, the drakhm�" is found in many of Alexander's
                                  > > successor states and South-West Asian kingdoms (including the Parthian
                                  > > Empire) during the Hellenistic era. Both Sanskrit dramma (with its
                                  > > Prakrit derivatives) and Arabic dirham come from Greek drakhm�"
                                  > > through the Middle Persian (borrowed) form draxm.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > On the contrary, Arabic dīnār 'gold coin' was borrowed from
                                  > > Syriac dīnarā, in turn borrowed from Greek d�"narion, in
                                  > > turn borrowed from Latin d�"nārius, the name of the most
                                  > > common coin circulating within the Roman Empire. Latin
                                  > > d�"nārius was originally an adjective meaning 'containing ten'
                                  > > (from d�"nī [pl.adj.] 'ten at a time, ten each' < decem 'ten'),
                                  > > because when the d�"nārius was created it was worth ten
                                  > > āsses (Latin ās: a copper coin). Thus, contrary to what Lalit
                                  > > Mishra writes, the Arabic term dīnār has nothing to do with
                                  > > Sanskrit dramma (< Greek drakhm�").
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Kind regards,
                                  > > > Francesco
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • Lalit Mishra
                                  Francesco,     No further update coming from your end on the matter shows that your are stuck with obsolete ideas that Dinar is of Greek origin and can t be
                                  Message 16 of 18 , May 19, 2013
                                    Francesco,
                                     
                                     
                                    No further update coming from your end on the matter shows that your are stuck with obsolete ideas that Dinar is of Greek origin and can't be attested in later vedic period scriptures, this is wrong.
                                    I hereby provide references to Dinar found in scriptures of later vedic period.
                                     
                                    Origin of Dinar :
                                    1. Apastamba Shraut Sutra ( 23.11)
                                    2. Mahabhashya (4.1)
                                    3. Atharva Veda Parishishtas (36.26.3)
                                     
                                    D.C. Sircar's view that Dramma is derived from Greek drachma needs review, that what you did write below for has got graps.
                                     
                                    What's root of "dergh" by the way, insn't it burrowed from Vedic "darbha" ( Note that I am not using Transliteration) that means to grasp, a type of grass is also called Darbha (दर्भ) who is said to have good grasping quality.
                                     
                                    You do write -
                                     
                                    [ As a currency unit, the drakhm" is found in many of Alexander's successor states ]
                                     
                                    Above statements of yours shows that Alexander's successors got to know about drakhm at some other place external to Roma therefore it's found in many of Alexander's successor states and not in the Greek world itself before Alexander's period, Can you pls clarify it.
                                     
                                    You also state that 
                                     
                                    [
                                    Root: *dergh- 'to grasp' Armenian trcak `bundle of brushwood' (prob. from *turc-ak, with *turc- < *dorgh-so-); Greek drassomai, Attic drattomai 'to take hold of, grasp with the hand', dragdên `take hold, catch hold', dragma `handful, sheaf', dragmeuô `to bind sheaves', drakhmê, Archaic Hellenic drakhma, Gortyn darkhna, `Drachm' (`*handful of metal rods, oboloi'), drax, -kos `hand', pl. darkes desmai; Celtic: Middle Irish dremm
                                     
                                     
                                    With Best Regards,
                                     
                                    Lalit Mishra
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     

                                    From: Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...>
                                    To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:26 AM
                                    Subject: [Ind-Arch] Re: Origin of "Dinar"
                                     
                                    --- In mailto:IndiaArchaeology%40yahoogroups.com, "litsol" <litsol@...> wrote: > Dear Brighenti, > > My post had sense of an enquiry made into the issue, although, I am > thankful to you that you for provided good amount of information. My > intention has indeed been finding out the channel between Sanskrit > "dramma" and Greek or otherwise drakhm. > > I think further research is required to resolve both the issues : > > 1. Origin of PIE "dergh" that led to Greek "drakhma" as explained by > you, should be there in Sanskrit. Not all IE roots have reflexes in all or most of the branches of this language family. In this case, there seems to be no Indo-Iranian reflex for the root *dergh-. I have taken the license to translate from German the entry *dergh- from Pokorny's PIE etymological dictionary. Here it is: <<<<<< Root: *dergh- 'to grasp' Armenian trcak `bundle of brushwood' (prob. from *turc-ak, with *turc- < *dorgh-so-); Greek drassomai, Attic drattomai 'to take hold of, grasp with the hand', dragdên `take hold, catch hold', dragma `handful, sheaf', dragmeuô `to bind sheaves', drakhmê, Archaic Hellenic drakhma, Gortyn darkhna, `Drachm' (`*handful of metal rods, oboloi'), drax, -kos `hand', pl. darkes desmai; Celtic: Middle Irish dremm, New Irish dream `troop, band, handful of people' (< *dr.gh-smo-), Breton dramm `bundle, sheaf'; Germanic: Old High German zarga `rim of a curved space, edge', Old Norse targa `round shield', Old English targe (Norse loanword) `small shield' (actually `shield rim'), Alsatian (kös-)zorg `a vessel, bowl standing on three feet' (= Greek drakh-). References: WP. I 807. Pages: 212-213. >>>>> > 2. Since, knowledge of "Ten" is borrowed by Latin and Greek from > Vedic Sanskrit, Sorry? > it's too early to conclude that Latin "dinarius" is the orgin > of dinar, we see "Dinar" getting used along with "Nisk" in Atharva > Veda Parishishta as well as in Baudhayana Sharuta Sutra although > independantly. As I wrote earlier, the Skt. word dInAra 'a gold coin or a certain weight of gold; a gold ornament' is ultimately a loan from Latin denarius. Usage of this term is post-Vedic, for which reason it is impossible to find it attested in Vedic texts like the Atharva Veda Parishishta or the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra. Can you provide any textual references for the above? Latin denarius, Greek denarion as names for the most common coin circulating in the Roman Empire, were probably introduced into India via the international trade in the first centuries of the Roman Empire; either of these foreign words was locally Sanskritized as dInAra. > I remember having seen "dramma" somewhere in Atharva Veda itself, > but missed noting the particular verse, Skt. dramma 'a type of coin' is first attested in the Pancatantra (ca. 300 CE); this is what dictionaries say. Therefore, this term cannot be Vedic. > I thought, somebody could have give light on that but friend Vishnu > Khare felt sorry after seeing your response to this query. ??? Regards, Francesco > --- In mailto:IndiaArchaeology%40yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > Lalit Mishra wrote: > > > > > > ...to give light on origin and historicity of "dinar", the > > > > currency used in MEA countries, I am aware that the term "dinar" > > > > is derived from "drams" the term used in later Vedic Period which > > > > got prevailed in MEA and Eastern Europe; pls let me know what's > > > > there recorded on pages of history and archaeology. > > > > Vishnu Khare replied: > > > > > I think the later Vedic "drams", the Graeco-Roman "drachma" and the > > > Arabic "dirham" are more closely related than the "dinar". If I am > > > not mistaken, Latin has "dinarius" as well. > > > > There is no later Vedic term "drams." Indeed, "dram" (of which "drams" > is the plural form) is an *English* term designating a unit of weight. >
                                    Originally (15th century) the term meant "a small weight of apothecary's > measure." It derives from Anglo-Latin dragma, from Old French drame, > from Late Latin dragma, from Latin drachma 'drachm/drachma', from Greek > drakhm�", 'measure of weight', also, 'a coin made of silver', > literally 'a handful, as much as one can hold in the hand'. Why "a > handful"? Because that Greek silver coin was worth six (= a handful of) > obols -- Greek oboloi, plural form of obolos, literally 'spit, iron > rod'. In early Greece, long thin metal rods, oboloi, were used as > currency. They represented small ingots of copper or bronze of > standardized weight, and were traded as such. A drakhm�" was, thus, > originally a "handful" of six such metal rods; later, the term obolos > was used for a coin that was one-sixth of a drachma. See at: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_drachma > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obolus > > > > Greek drakhm�", in turn, derives from the verb drassomai 'to lay > hold of, grasp with the hand', possibly deriving from a > Proto-Indo-European verbal root *dergh- 'to grasp'. The same word with > the meaning of 'handle' (something which is grasped with the hand) is > found in the form DO-KA-MA in Linear B tablets of the Mycenean Pylos > (second half of the second millennium BCE). The term here designates the > wooden handles that would have been used for javelins. Phonetically, > DO-KA-MA stands for Mycenaean Greek *dorkhma = *. Therefore, this word > seemingly dates from the Mycenaean period. >
                                    > > > In Sanskrit there is the term dramma (not "dram"!), meaning a type of > coin. It is first attested in the Pañcatantra, placed drakhmaby the > current scholarly consensus around 300 CE. Therefore, this term is not > "later Vedic" as erroneously stated in Lalit Mishra's post. Check out > various occurrences of the word "dramma" in Indian epigraphy as reported > by D.C. Sircar (who observes: "dramma... originally derived from Greek > drachma [i.e. drakhm�" -- FB]"): > > > > http://tinyurl.com/cunojet > > > > As a currency unit, the drakhm�" is found in many of Alexander's > successor states and South-West Asian kingdoms (including the Parthian > Empire) during the Hellenistic era. Both Sanskrit dramma (with its > Prakrit derivatives) and Arabic dirham come from
                                    Greek drakhm�" > through the Middle Persian (borrowed) form draxm. > > > > On the contrary, Arabic dīnār 'gold coin' was borrowed from > Syriac dīnarā, in turn borrowed from Greek d�"narion, in > turn borrowed from Latin d�"nārius, the name of the most > common coin circulating within the Roman Empire. Latin > d�"nārius was originally an adjective meaning 'containing ten' > (from d�"nī [pl.adj.] 'ten at a time, ten each' < decem 'ten'), > because when the d�"nārius was created it was worth ten > āsses (Latin ās: a copper coin). Thus, contrary to what Lalit > Mishra writes, the Arabic term dīnār has nothing to do with > Sanskrit dramma (< Greek drakhm�"). > > > > Kind regards, > > Francesco > > >
                                  • Francesco Brighenti
                                    I am now persuaded that the “dInAra” problem is more complex than I thought before, but I see no reason to change what I wrote initially � i.e., that
                                    Message 17 of 18 , May 20, 2013
                                      I am now persuaded that the “dInAra” problem is more complex than I thought before, but I see no reason to change what I wrote initially â€" i.e., that dInAra, in the sense of a coin circulating mostly during the pre-Gupta and Gupta ages, is a loan word (ultimately from Latin denarius). What I could now admit is that *perhaps* an older Indo-Aryan word dInAra meaning ‘a gold ornament, a piece of gold’ was independently in use in India before the beginning of the circulation of “dInAra” coins. However, the etymology given by ancient Indian grammarians, from dIna- ‘poor’ and R- to go’, i.e. ‘what goes or is given to the poor’, cannot be relied upon.

                                      After further research, I would summarize the problem as follows.

                                      The word dInAra does not occur in the mahAbhArata, which may indicate that the final redaction of this epic is anterior to the introduction of the word dInAra in India as the designation of a coin. The occurrence of the word dInAra in Apastamba-zrautasUtra (23.11.2) and mahA-bhAsya (4.1.19) is asserted by B.R. Modak (The Ancillary Literature of the Atharva-Veda, New Delhi, Rashtriya Veda Vidya Pratishthan, 1993, p. 471); yet, neither of Modak’s references can be verified, in the available editions, as old attestations (cf. P. Bisschop & A. Griffiths, ‘The practice involving the uccus.mas (atharvavedapariziSTa 36),' Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 24 (2007) [published 2008], p. 35 n. 159). In which edition of, respectively, the Apastamba-zrautasUtra and Patanjali’s mahA-bhAsya is this word, dInAra, attested? (N.B. I have already made a search on the critical editions of these two works available online, and the word is attested in neither of them.)

                                      The sUtra in the pre-Paninian unAdisUtras in which the Skt. term dInAra occurs was rejected by Max Mueller as spurious and a late interpolation on the ground that Ujjivaladatta, a commentator on the work, noted as follows in his comment on the sUtra in which the name dInAra is found: “dInAra means a gold ornament, but this sUtra is not to be found in the sUtravRtti, and devavRtti (sUtramidam sUtravRttau devavRttau ca na dRzyate).”

                                      So we are left with the atharvaveda-pariziSTa (36.26.3), a work in which, contrary to my previous assumption, the term dInAra does occur (and, most importantly, in a critical edition). In the above cited book of his on the atharvaveda-pariziSTa, B.R. Modak cites this reference as a possible continuation of the use of the word dInAra which, as he states, would occur, still prior to this Atharvanic attestation, in Apastamba-zrautasUtra (23.11.2) and mahA-bhAsya (4.1.19). Yet, the latter two references could be spurious as I mentioned above. Moreover, Keith in a series of notes published on the JRAS points out that the assumption that Indian dInAras can scarcely be older than the 2nd century A.D is wrong, and discusses linguistic evidence showing that the introduction of dInAras (i.e. the coins) into India need not be later than the beginning of the Christian era, around which time India could have borrowed the (originally) Latin word denarius via the Hellenistic trade network. The oldest Indian pieces corresponding in weight to the Roman denarius were struck by Indo-Scythian kings who reigned from the first century A.D. (see A.B. Keith, The Denarius as a Proof of Date, JRAS [1915],pp. 504-505).

                                      In an earlier note on dInAra Keith had written:

                                      “It would be indeed surprising if Roman coins had not found their way to India, even before the conquest of Alexandria in B.C. 47 brought Rome into more direct touch with the Eastern trade. The word dInAra, then, probably was known in India before the beginning of the Christian era, but it seems only to have become popular through the widening of the trade under the early empire” (A.B. Keith, Denarius and the Date of the Harivamsa, JRAS [1907], p. 682).

                                      Since the atharvaveda-pariziSTa is now considered a multi-layered texts with many known interpolations (even medieval ones!), the reference to dInAra contained in it could, thus, date from about the turn of the current era. Keith’s thesis holds good in spite of the fact, pointed out by archaeologists, that the golden dInAras most numerously found in India belong to the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., the time at which trade links between India and the Roman Empire were the strongest. And this is why the linguistic loan denarius --> dInAra was thought to have occurred after the 2nd century A.D. before Keith wrote his articles.

                                      Even some smRti-writers of that period, like the pANiniyas (cf. dInAra spuriously attested in the unAdisUtras), could not be free from the influence which the commercial condition of their time had exerted on them. Hence it is that they are found to make use of the dInAra and its sub-divisions in their rituals instead of the Vedic currency, which by the turn of the current era had long been extinct. So we can explain in the same way the attestation of dInAra in some later layers of the unAdisUtras and the atharvaveda-pariziSTa.

                                      Regarding the etymology of Proto-Indo-European *dergh- ‘to grasp’, which is usually regarded as the root of Greek drakhme, but which you would instead derive from Sanskrit darbha ‘a type of grass’ just because the latter has a good grasping quality (!), here is what Indo-Europeanists state:


                                      Pokorny’s dictionary (pp. 211-212).


                                      PIE root *derbh- ‘to wind, twist, roll, compress’


                                      Germanic:
                                      Old Norse torf- ‘turf’, torfa- ‘turf clod’
                                      Old Frisian turf- ‘sod, turf’
                                      Old High German zurf-, zurba- ‘patch of grass’
                                      Old English tearflian ‘to roll’, turf (gen. tyrf) ‘slab of soil and grass, grassy surface on the earth’


                                      Slavic:
                                      Russian derba- ‘clearing, cleared woodland’, derbovatь‘clear from the grass’; with lengthened grade derebitь‘to pluck, rend’


                                      Armenian to/r/n- (/r/ = alveolar trill; probably from PIE *dorbh-n- or *dorbh-m-n-) ‘cord’


                                      Indo-Iranian:
                                      Sanskrit darbh- ‘to string, tie in a bundle’ (dRbhati ‘string together, tie in a bunch’, saMdRbdha ‘strung together, interwoven, bound or collected into a tuft or bunch’, darbha- ‘tuft or bunch of grass’)
                                      Avestan dr@bhdha- ‘bundle of muscles’


                                      Regards,
                                      Francesco







                                      --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:

                                      > Francesco,
                                      >  
                                      >  
                                      > No further update coming from your end on the matter shows that your are stuck with obsolete ideas that Dinar is of Greek origin and can't be attested in later vedic period scriptures, this is wrong.
                                      > I hereby provide references to Dinar found in scriptures of later vedic period.
                                      >  
                                      > Origin of Dinar :
                                      >
                                      > 1. Apastamba Shraut Sutra ( 23.11)
                                      > 2. Mahabhashya (4.1)
                                      > 3. Atharva Veda Parishishtas (36.26.3)
                                      >  
                                      > D.C. Sircar's view that Dramma is derived from Greek drachma needs review, that what you did write below for has got graps.
                                      >  
                                      > What's root of "dergh" by the way, insn't it burrowed from Vedic "darbha" ( Note that I am not using Transliteration) that means to grasp, a type of grass is also called Darbha (दर्भ) who is said to have good grasping quality.
                                      >  
                                      > You do write -
                                      >  
                                      > [ As a currency unit, the drakhm" is found in many of Alexander's successor states ]
                                      >  
                                      > Above statements of yours shows that Alexander's successors got to know about drakhm at some other place external to Roma therefore it's found in many of Alexander's successor states and not in the Greek world itself before Alexander's period, Can you pls clarify it.
                                      >  
                                      > You also state that 
                                      >  
                                      > [
                                      >
                                      > Root: *dergh- 'to grasp'Armenian trcak `bundle of brushwood' (prob. from *turc-ak, with *turc- < *dorgh-so-);Greek drassomai, Attic drattomai 'to take hold of, grasp with the hand', dragdên `take hold, catch hold', dragma `handful, sheaf', dragmeuô `to bind sheaves', drakhmê, Archaic Hellenic drakhma, Gortyn darkhna, `Drachm' (`*handful of metal rods, oboloi'), drax, -kos `hand', pl. darkes desmai;Celtic: Middle Irish dremm
                                      >
                                      > ] 
                                      >  
                                      >
                                      > With Best Regards,
                                      >
                                      > Lalit Mishra
                                      >  
                                      >  
                                      >  
                                      >  
                                      >  
                                      >  
                                      >  
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ________________________________
                                      > From: Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...>
                                      > To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:26 AM
                                      > Subject: [Ind-Arch] Re: Origin of "Dinar"
                                      >
                                      >  
                                      > --- In mailto:IndiaArchaeology%40yahoogroups.com, "litsol" <litsol@> wrote:> Dear Brighenti,> > My post had sense of an enquiry made into the issue, although, I am> thankful to you that you for provided good amount of information. My> intention has indeed been finding out the channel between Sanskrit> "dramma" and Greek or otherwise drakhm.> > I think further research is required to resolve both the issues :> > 1. Origin of PIE "dergh" that led to Greek "drakhma" as explained by> you, should be there in Sanskrit.Not all IE roots have reflexes in all or most of the branches of this language family. In this case, there seems to be no Indo-Iranian reflex for the root *dergh-.I have taken the license to translate from German the entry *dergh- from Pokorny's PIE etymological dictionary. Here it is:<<<<<< Root: *dergh- 'to grasp'Armenian trcak `bundle of brushwood' (prob. from *turc-ak, with *turc- < *dorgh-so-);Greek drassomai, Attic drattomai 'to take
                                      > hold of, grasp with the hand', dragdên `take hold, catch hold', dragma `handful, sheaf', dragmeuô `to bind sheaves', drakhmê, Archaic Hellenic drakhma, Gortyn darkhna, `Drachm' (`*handful of metal rods, oboloi'), drax, -kos `hand', pl. darkes desmai;Celtic: Middle Irish dremm, New Irish dream `troop, band, handful of people' (< *dr.gh-smo-), Breton dramm `bundle, sheaf'; Germanic: Old High German zarga `rim of a curved space, edge', Old Norse targa `round shield', Old English targe (Norse loanword) `small shield' (actually `shield rim'), Alsatian (kös-)zorg `a vessel, bowl standing on three feet' (= Greek drakh-).References: WP. I 807. Pages: 212-213. >>>>>> 2. Since, knowledge of "Ten" is borrowed by Latin and Greek from> Vedic Sanskrit,Sorry?> it's too early to conclude that Latin "dinarius" is the orgin> of dinar, we see "Dinar" getting used along with "Nisk" in Atharva> Veda Parishishta as well as in Baudhayana Sharuta Sutra although>
                                      > independantly.As I wrote earlier, the Skt. word dInAra 'a gold coin or a certain weight of gold; a gold ornament' is ultimately a loan from Latin denarius. Usage of this term is post-Vedic, for which reason it is impossible to find it attested in Vedic texts like the Atharva Veda Parishishta or the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra. Can you provide any textual references for the above?Latin denarius, Greek denarion as names for the most common coin circulating in the Roman Empire, were probably introduced into India via the international trade in the first centuries of the Roman Empire; either of these foreign words was locally Sanskritized as dInAra.> I remember having seen "dramma" somewhere in Atharva Veda itself,> but missed noting the particular verse, Skt. dramma 'a type of coin' is first attested in the Pancatantra (ca. 300 CE); this is what dictionaries say. Therefore, this term cannot be Vedic. > I thought, somebody could have give light on that but
                                      > friend Vishnu> Khare felt sorry after seeing your response to this query.???Regards,Francesco> --- In mailto:IndiaArchaeology%40yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" wrote:> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Lalit Mishra wrote:> >> > > > ...to give light on origin and historicity of "dinar", the> > > > currency used in MEA countries, I am aware that the term "dinar"> > > > is derived from "drams" the term used in later Vedic Period which> > > > got prevailed in MEA and Eastern Europe; pls let me know what's> > > > there recorded on pages of history and archaeology.> >> > Vishnu Khare replied:> >> > > I think the later Vedic "drams", the Graeco-Roman "drachma" and the> > > Arabic "dirham" are more closely related than the "dinar". If I am> > > not mistaken, Latin has "dinarius" as well.> >> > There is no later Vedic term "drams." Indeed, "dram" (of which "drams"> is the plural form) is an *English* term designating a unit of weight.> Originally (15th century) the
                                      > term meant "a small weight of apothecary's> measure." It derives from Anglo-Latin dragma, from Old French drame,> from Late Latin dragma, from Latin drachma 'drachm/drachma', from Greek> drakhm�", 'measure of weight', also, 'a coin made of silver',> literally 'a handful, as much as one can hold in the hand'. Why "a> handful"? Because that Greek silver coin was worth six (= a handful of)> obols -- Greek oboloi, plural form of obolos, literally 'spit, iron> rod'. In early Greece, long thin metal rods, oboloi, were used as> currency. They represented small ingots of copper or bronze of> standardized weight, and were traded as such. A drakhm�" was, thus,> originally a "handful" of six such metal rods; later, the term obolos> was used for a coin that was one-sixth of a drachma. See at:> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_drachma> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obolus> >> > Greek drakhm�", in turn, derives from the verb drassomai 'to lay> hold
                                      > of, grasp with the hand', possibly deriving from a> Proto-Indo-European verbal root *dergh- 'to grasp'. The same word with> the meaning of 'handle' (something which is grasped with the hand) is> found in the form DO-KA-MA in Linear B tablets of the Mycenean Pylos> (second half of the second millennium BCE). The term here designates the> wooden handles that would have been used for javelins. Phonetically,> DO-KA-MA stands for Mycenaean Greek *dorkhma = *. Therefore, this word> seemingly dates from the Mycenaean period.> >> > In Sanskrit there is the term dramma (not "dram"!), meaning a type of> coin. It is first attested in the Pañcatantra, placed drakhmaby the> current scholarly consensus around 300 CE. Therefore, this term is not> "later Vedic" as erroneously stated in Lalit Mishra's post. Check out> various occurrences of the word "dramma" in Indian epigraphy as reported> by D.C. Sircar (who observes: "dramma... originally derived from Greek> drachma
                                      > [i.e. drakhm�" -- FB]"):> >> > http://tinyurl.com/cunojet> >> > As a currency unit, the drakhm�" is found in many of Alexander's> successor states and South-West Asian kingdoms (including the Parthian> Empire) during the Hellenistic era. Both Sanskrit dramma (with its> Prakrit derivatives) and Arabic dirham come from Greek drakhm�"> through the Middle Persian (borrowed) form draxm.> >> > On the contrary, Arabic dīnār 'gold coin' was borrowed from> Syriac dīnarā, in turn borrowed from Greek d�"narion, in> turn borrowed from Latin d�"nārius, the name of the most> common coin circulating within the Roman Empire. Latin> d�"nārius was originally an adjective meaning 'containing ten'> (from d�"nī [pl.adj.] 'ten at a time, ten each' < decem 'ten'),> because when the d�"nārius was created it was worth ten> āsses (Latin ās: a copper coin). Thus, contrary to what Lalit> Mishra writes, the Arabic term dīnār has nothing to do with>
                                      > Sanskrit dramma (< Greek drakhm�").> >> > Kind regards,> > Francesco> >>
                                      >
                                    • litsol
                                      In the below post, you appear bit receptive, You have written - [ “It would be indeed surprising if Roman coins had not found their way to India, even before
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Jun 4, 2013
                                        In the below post, you appear bit receptive, You have written -

                                        [
                                        “It would be indeed surprising if Roman coins had not found their
                                        way to
                                        India, even before the conquest of Alexandria in B.C. 47 brought Rome
                                        into more
                                        direct touch with the Eastern trade. The word dInAra, then, probably was
                                        known
                                        in India before the beginning of the Christian era, but it seems only to
                                        have
                                        become popular through the widening of the trade under the early
                                        empire” (A.B.
                                        Keith, Denarius and the Date of the Harivamsa, JRAS [1907], p. 682).
                                        ]

                                        Why to not to explore the antiquity of Dinar in Greek history to how
                                        correct you are in this point,
                                        Can you give a few proofs in support of your argument.

                                        sincerely,
                                        Lalit Mishra


                                        --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > I am now persuaded that the “dInAra” problem is more
                                        complex than I thought before, but I see no reason to change what I
                                        wrote initially â€" i.e., that dInAra, in the sense of a coin
                                        circulating mostly during the pre-Gupta and Gupta ages, is a loan word
                                        (ultimately from Latin denarius). What I could now admit is that
                                        *perhaps* an older Indo-Aryan word dInAra meaning ‘a gold
                                        ornament, a piece of gold’ was independently in use in India
                                        before the beginning of the circulation of “dInAra” coins.
                                        However, the etymology given by ancient Indian grammarians, from dIna-
                                        ‘poor’ and R- to go’, i.e. ‘what goes or is
                                        given to the poor’, cannot be relied upon.
                                        >
                                        > After further research, I would summarize the problem as follows.
                                        >
                                        > The word dInAra does not occur in the mahAbhArata, which may indicate
                                        that the final redaction of this epic is anterior to the introduction of
                                        the word dInAra in India as the designation of a coin. The occurrence of
                                        the word dInAra in Apastamba-zrautasUtra (23.11.2) and mahA-bhAsya
                                        (4.1.19) is asserted by B.R. Modak (The Ancillary Literature of the
                                        Atharva-Veda, New Delhi, Rashtriya Veda Vidya Pratishthan, 1993, p.
                                        471); yet, neither of Modak’s references can be verified, in the
                                        available editions, as old attestations (cf. P. Bisschop & A. Griffiths,
                                        ‘The practice involving the uccus.mas (atharvavedapariziSTa 36),'
                                        Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 24 (2007) [published 2008], p. 35 n.
                                        159). In which edition of, respectively, the Apastamba-zrautasUtra and
                                        Patanjali’s mahA-bhAsya is this word, dInAra, attested? (N.B. I
                                        have already made a search on the critical editions of these two works
                                        available online, and the word is attested in neither of them.)
                                        >
                                        > The sUtra in the pre-Paninian unAdisUtras in which the Skt. term
                                        dInAra occurs was rejected by Max Mueller as spurious and a late
                                        interpolation on the ground that Ujjivaladatta, a commentator on the
                                        work, noted as follows in his comment on the sUtra in which the name
                                        dInAra is found: “dInAra means a gold ornament, but this sUtra is
                                        not to be found in the sUtravRtti, and devavRtti (sUtramidam sUtravRttau
                                        devavRttau ca na dRzyate).”
                                        >
                                        > So we are left with the atharvaveda-pariziSTa (36.26.3), a work in
                                        which, contrary to my previous assumption, the term dInAra does occur
                                        (and, most importantly, in a critical edition). In the above cited book
                                        of his on the atharvaveda-pariziSTa, B.R. Modak cites this reference as
                                        a possible continuation of the use of the word dInAra which, as he
                                        states, would occur, still prior to this Atharvanic attestation, in
                                        Apastamba-zrautasUtra (23.11.2) and mahA-bhAsya (4.1.19). Yet, the
                                        latter two references could be spurious as I mentioned above. Moreover,
                                        Keith in a series of notes published on the JRAS points out that the
                                        assumption that Indian dInAras can scarcely be older than the 2nd
                                        century A.D is wrong, and discusses linguistic evidence showing that the
                                        introduction of dInAras (i.e. the coins) into India need not be later
                                        than the beginning of the Christian era, around which time India could
                                        have borrowed the (originally) Latin word denarius via the Hellenistic
                                        trade network. The oldest Indian pieces corresponding in weight to the
                                        Roman denarius were struck by Indo-Scythian kings who reigned from the
                                        first century A.D. (see A.B. Keith, The Denarius as a Proof of Date,
                                        JRAS [1915],pp. 504-505).
                                        >
                                        > In an earlier note on dInAra Keith had written:
                                        >
                                        > “It would be indeed surprising if Roman coins had not found
                                        their way to India, even before the conquest of Alexandria in B.C. 47
                                        brought Rome into more direct touch with the Eastern trade. The word
                                        dInAra, then, probably was known in India before the beginning of the
                                        Christian era, but it seems only to have become popular through the
                                        widening of the trade under the early empire” (A.B. Keith,
                                        Denarius and the Date of the Harivamsa, JRAS [1907], p. 682).
                                        >
                                        > Since the atharvaveda-pariziSTa is now considered a multi-layered
                                        texts with many known interpolations (even medieval ones!), the
                                        reference to dInAra contained in it could, thus, date from about the
                                        turn of the current era. Keith’s thesis holds good in spite of
                                        the fact, pointed out by archaeologists, that the golden dInAras most
                                        numerously found in India belong to the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., the
                                        time at which trade links between India and the Roman Empire were the
                                        strongest. And this is why the linguistic loan denarius --> dInAra was
                                        thought to have occurred after the 2nd century A.D. before Keith wrote
                                        his articles.
                                        >
                                        > Even some smRti-writers of that period, like the pANiniyas (cf. dInAra
                                        spuriously attested in the unAdisUtras), could not be free from the
                                        influence which the commercial condition of their time had exerted on
                                        them. Hence it is that they are found to make use of the dInAra and its
                                        sub-divisions in their rituals instead of the Vedic currency, which by
                                        the turn of the current era had long been extinct. So we can explain in
                                        the same way the attestation of dInAra in some later layers of the
                                        unAdisUtras and the atharvaveda-pariziSTa.
                                        >
                                        > Regarding the etymology of Proto-Indo-European *dergh- ‘to
                                        grasp’, which is usually regarded as the root of Greek drakhme,
                                        but which you would instead derive from Sanskrit darbha ‘a type
                                        of grass’ just because the latter has a good grasping quality
                                        (!), here is what Indo-Europeanists state:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Pokorny’s dictionary (pp. 211-212).
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > PIE root *derbh- ‘to wind, twist, roll, compress’
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Germanic:
                                        > Old Norse torf- ‘turf’, torfa- ‘turf clod’
                                        > Old Frisian turf- ‘sod, turf’
                                        > Old High German zurf-, zurba- ‘patch of grass’
                                        > Old English tearflian ‘to roll’, turf (gen. tyrf)
                                        ‘slab of soil and grass, grassy surface on the earth’
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Slavic:
                                        > Russian derba- ‘clearing, cleared woodland’,
                                        derbovatь‘clear from the grass’; with lengthened grade
                                        derebitь‘to pluck, rend’
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Armenian to/r/n- (/r/ = alveolar trill; probably from PIE *dorbh-n- or
                                        *dorbh-m-n-) ‘cord’
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Indo-Iranian:
                                        > Sanskrit darbh- ‘to string, tie in a bundle’ (dRbhati
                                        ‘string together, tie in a bunch’, saMdRbdha
                                        ‘strung together, interwoven, bound or collected into a tuft or
                                        bunch’, darbha- ‘tuft or bunch of grass’)
                                        > Avestan dr@bhdha- ‘bundle of muscles’
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Regards,
                                        > Francesco
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Lalit Mishra litsol@ wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > Francesco,
                                        > > Â
                                        > > Â
                                        > > No further update coming from your end on the matter shows that your
                                        are stuck with obsolete ideas that Dinar is of Greek origin and can't be
                                        attested in later vedic period scriptures, this is wrong.
                                        > > I hereby provide references to Dinar found in scriptures of later
                                        vedic period.
                                        > > Â
                                        > > Origin of Dinar :
                                        > >
                                        > > 1. Apastamba Shraut Sutra ( 23.11)
                                        > > 2. Mahabhashya (4.1)
                                        > > 3. Atharva Veda Parishishtas (36.26.3)
                                        > > Â
                                        > > D.C. Sircar's view that Dramma is derived from Greek drachmaÂ
                                        needs review, that what you did write below for has got graps.
                                        > > Â
                                        > > What's root of "dergh" by the way, insn't it burrowed from
                                        Vedic "darbha" ( Note that I am not using Transliteration) that means to
                                        grasp, a type of grass is also called Darbha (दर्भ) who
                                        is said to have good grasping quality.
                                        > > Â
                                        > > You do write -
                                        > > Â
                                        > > [ As a currency unit, the drakhm" is found in many of Alexander's
                                        successor states ]
                                        > > Â
                                        > > Above statements of yours shows that Alexander's successors got to
                                        know about drakhm at some other place external to Roma therefore it's
                                        found in many of Alexander's successor states and not in the Greek
                                        world itself before Alexander's period, Can you pls clarify it.
                                        > > Â
                                        > > You also state thatÂ
                                        > > Â
                                        > > [
                                        > >
                                        > > Root: *dergh- 'to grasp'Armenian trcak `bundle of brushwood' (prob.
                                        from *turc-ak, with *turc- < *dorgh-so-);Greek drassomai, Attic
                                        drattomai 'to take hold of, grasp with the hand', dragdên `take
                                        hold, catch hold', dragma `handful, sheaf', dragmeuô `to bind
                                        sheaves', drakhmê, Archaic Hellenic drakhma, Gortyn darkhna,
                                        `Drachm' (`*handful of metal rods, oboloi'), drax, -kos `hand', pl.
                                        darkes desmai;Celtic: Middle Irish dremm
                                        > >
                                        > > ]Â
                                        > > Â
                                        > >
                                        > > With Best Regards,
                                        > >
                                        > > Lalit Mishra
                                        > > Â
                                        > > Â
                                        > > Â
                                        > > Â
                                        > > Â
                                        > > Â
                                        > > Â
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > ________________________________
                                        > > From: Francesco Brighenti frabrig@
                                        > > To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
                                        > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:26 AM
                                        > > Subject: [Ind-Arch] Re: Origin of "Dinar"
                                        > >
                                        > > Â
                                        > > --- In mailto:IndiaArchaeology%40yahoogroups.com, "litsol" wrote:>
                                        Dear Brighenti,> > My post had sense of an enquiry made into the issue,
                                        although, I am> thankful to you that you for provided good amount of
                                        information. My> intention has indeed been finding out the channel
                                        between Sanskrit> "dramma" and Greek or otherwise drakhm.> > I think
                                        further research is required to resolve both the issues :> > 1. Origin
                                        of PIE "dergh" that led to Greek "drakhma" as explained by> you, should
                                        be there in Sanskrit.Not all IE roots have reflexes in all or most of
                                        the branches of this language family. In this case, there seems to be no
                                        Indo-Iranian reflex for the root *dergh-.I have taken the license to
                                        translate from German the entry *dergh- from Pokorny's PIE etymological
                                        dictionary. Here it is:<<<<<< Root: *dergh- 'to grasp'Armenian trcak
                                        `bundle of brushwood' (prob. from *turc-ak, with *turc- <
                                        *dorgh-so-);Greek drassomai, Attic drattomai 'to take
                                        > > hold of, grasp with the hand', dragdên `take hold, catch hold',
                                        dragma `handful, sheaf', dragmeuô `to bind sheaves', drakhmê,
                                        Archaic Hellenic drakhma, Gortyn darkhna, `Drachm' (`*handful of metal
                                        rods, oboloi'), drax, -kos `hand', pl. darkes desmai;Celtic: Middle
                                        Irish dremm, New Irish dream `troop, band, handful of people' (<
                                        *dr.gh-smo-), Breton dramm `bundle, sheaf'; Germanic: Old High German
                                        zarga `rim of a curved space, edge', Old Norse targa `round shield', Old
                                        English targe (Norse loanword) `small shield' (actually `shield rim'),
                                        Alsatian (kös-)zorg `a vessel, bowl standing on three feet' (= Greek
                                        drakh-).References: WP. I 807. Pages: 212-213. >>>>>> 2. Since,
                                        knowledge of "Ten" is borrowed by Latin and Greek from> Vedic
                                        Sanskrit,Sorry?> it's too early to conclude that Latin "dinarius" is the
                                        orgin> of dinar, we see "Dinar" getting used along with "Nisk" in
                                        Atharva> Veda Parishishta as well as in Baudhayana Sharuta Sutra
                                        although>
                                        > > independantly.As I wrote earlier, the Skt. word dInAra 'a gold coin
                                        or a certain weight of gold; a gold ornament' is ultimately a loan from
                                        Latin denarius. Usage of this term is post-Vedic, for which reason it is
                                        impossible to find it attested in Vedic texts like the Atharva Veda
                                        Parishishta or the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra. Can you provide any textual
                                        references for the above?Latin denarius, Greek denarion as names for the
                                        most common coin circulating in the Roman Empire, were probably
                                        introduced into India via the international trade in the first centuries
                                        of the Roman Empire; either of these foreign words was locally
                                        Sanskritized as dInAra.> I remember having seen "dramma" somewhere in
                                        Atharva Veda itself,> but missed noting the particular verse, Skt.
                                        dramma 'a type of coin' is first attested in the Pancatantra (ca. 300
                                        CE); this is what dictionaries say. Therefore, this term cannot be
                                        Vedic. > I thought, somebody could have give light on that but
                                        > > friend Vishnu> Khare felt sorry after seeing your response to this
                                        query.???Regards,Francesco> --- In
                                        mailto:IndiaArchaeology%40yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" wrote:>
                                        >> >> >> >> >> >> > Lalit Mishra wrote:> >> > > > ...to give light on
                                        origin and historicity of "dinar", the> > > > currency used in MEA
                                        countries, I am aware that the term "dinar"> > > > is derived from
                                        "drams" the term used in later Vedic Period which> > > > got prevailed
                                        in MEA and Eastern Europe; pls let me know what's> > > > there recorded
                                        on pages of history and archaeology.> >> > Vishnu Khare replied:> >> > >
                                        I think the later Vedic "drams", the Graeco-Roman "drachma" and the> > >
                                        Arabic "dirham" are more closely related than the "dinar". If I am> > >
                                        not mistaken, Latin has "dinarius" as well.> >> > There is no later
                                        Vedic term "drams." Indeed, "dram" (of which "drams"> is the plural
                                        form) is an *English* term designating a unit of weight.> Originally
                                        (15th century) the
                                        > > term meant "a small weight of apothecary's> measure." It derives
                                        from Anglo-Latin dragma, from Old French drame,> from Late Latin dragma,
                                        from Latin drachma 'drachm/drachma', from Greek> drakhm�", 'measure
                                        of weight', also, 'a coin made of silver',> literally 'a handful, as
                                        much as one can hold in the hand'. Why "a> handful"? Because that Greek
                                        silver coin was worth six (= a handful of)> obols -- Greek oboloi,
                                        plural form of obolos, literally 'spit, iron> rod'. In early Greece,
                                        long thin metal rods, oboloi, were used as> currency. They represented
                                        small ingots of copper or bronze of> standardized weight, and were
                                        traded as such. A drakhm�" was, thus,> originally a "handful" of
                                        six such metal rods; later, the term obolos> was used for a coin that
                                        was one-sixth of a drachma. See at:> >> >
                                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_drachma> >> >
                                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obolus> >> > Greek drakhm�", in turn,
                                        derives from the verb drassomai 'to lay> hold
                                        > > of, grasp with the hand', possibly deriving from a>
                                        Proto-Indo-European verbal root *dergh- 'to grasp'. The same word with>
                                        the meaning of 'handle' (something which is grasped with the hand) is>
                                        found in the form DO-KA-MA in Linear B tablets of the Mycenean Pylos>
                                        (second half of the second millennium BCE). The term here designates
                                        the> wooden handles that would have been used for javelins.
                                        Phonetically,> DO-KA-MA stands for Mycenaean Greek *dorkhma = *.
                                        Therefore, this word> seemingly dates from the Mycenaean period.> >> >
                                        In Sanskrit there is the term dramma (not "dram"!), meaning a type of>
                                        coin. It is first attested in the Pañcatantra, placed drakhmaby the>
                                        current scholarly consensus around 300 CE. Therefore, this term is not>
                                        "later Vedic" as erroneously stated in Lalit Mishra's post. Check out>
                                        various occurrences of the word "dramma" in Indian epigraphy as
                                        reported> by D.C. Sircar (who observes: "dramma... originally derived
                                        from Greek> drachma
                                        > > [i.e. drakhm�" -- FB]"):> >> > http://tinyurl.com/cunojet> >> >
                                        As a currency unit, the drakhm�" is found in many of Alexander's>
                                        successor states and South-West Asian kingdoms (including the Parthian>
                                        Empire) during the Hellenistic era. Both Sanskrit dramma (with its>
                                        Prakrit derivatives) and Arabic dirham come from Greek drakhm�">
                                        through the Middle Persian (borrowed) form draxm.> >> > On the contrary,
                                        Arabic dīnār 'gold coin' was borrowed from> Syriac
                                        dīnarā, in turn borrowed from Greek d�"narion, in> turn
                                        borrowed from Latin d�"nārius, the name of the most> common
                                        coin circulating within the Roman Empire. Latin> d�"nārius was
                                        originally an adjective meaning 'containing ten'> (from d�"nī
                                        [pl.adj.] 'ten at a time, ten each' < decem 'ten'),> because when the
                                        d�"nārius was created it was worth ten> āsses (Latin
                                        ās: a copper coin). Thus, contrary to what Lalit> Mishra writes,
                                        the Arabic term dīnār has nothing to do with>
                                        > > Sanskrit dramma (< Greek drakhm�").> >> > Kind regards,> >
                                        Francesco> >>
                                        > >
                                        >
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.