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

Re: [Ind-Arch] Conclusions on ikSvAku and "Ikshvakyu"

Expand Messages
  • Rajan Menon
    Vowels Simple अ *but इ*pit उ*put ऋ*fr.chambre(retroflex r with shwa, not ri as pronounced nowadays in India) ऌ*little (not lri) Long आ*market
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 6 11:41 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      Vowels

      Simple

       अ *but इ*pit उ*put ऋ*fr.chambre(retroflex r with shwa, not ri as pronounced nowadays in India) ऌ*little (not lri) 

      Long 

         आ*market ई*seen ऊ*shoot ऋ

      Dipthongs

       ए*gate ऐ*mine ओ*rote औ*aula 

      Hope this helps in settling this debate on vowels. Please advise if any corrections are to be made.

      Thanks.

      Rajan Menon



      On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Ram Varmha <varmha@...> wrote:
       

      Mr. Mishra,
       
      If there is a flaw in my logic that the name iksvAku came from ikSu as stated in the referenced
      dictionaries, then kindly tell us what is the meaning of the name as per your argument - that the name is based on the linguistic root "iks"? 
      The word you meant  - to look, to see, to behold etc, is "IkS", with the long "ee". (You seem to be still confused with the "e" and the "ee" in Devanagari scripts transferred to "i" and "I" by the H-K convention).
      The word "IkS" ("eekS......to look, to see, to behold etc ), as being parental to the word "ikSu" or "ikSvAku", is not acceptable.  (By the way the referenced dictionaries, I mentioned are accounting the "i" as the short "e").
      Any way, what does the word ikSvAku mean, according to what ever you say, rightly or wrongly? 
      Please explain?
      Regards,
      Ram 
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

      --- On Sat, 3/23/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:

      From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
      Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Conclusions on ikSvAku and "Ikshvakyu"
      To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com" <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013, 11:40 AM

       
      Dear Mr Varmha,

      Typo in my mail is not a defense to flaws in your argument, Pls check your initial logic that ikSvAku and ikSu do have one common connection which is sugarcane ( based on the fairy tales known to you ), when we shown you the connection is not so called sugarcane but the linguistic root ( ikS ) , you drifted the stand and started saying ikSu is different since it gets long ee, which is not true.

      You referred to various dictionaries, Had you taken care to look into those dictionaries how ikSvAku and ikSu are spelled in Devanagri, You could understand flaws in your logic.

      Thanks for sharing the Jaina legend, But what's the significance it has got if Surya Vamsha - ikSvAku doesn't acknowledge that Rishabha - ikSvAku is one and same, who has established so.

      Feel free to leave the argument, it's your choice and I have no issues on it.

      Regards,
      Lalit Mishra


      From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
      To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:55 PM
      Subject: Fw: [Ind-Arch] Conclusions on ikSvAku and "Ikshvakyu"

       
      Mr. Mishra,
      I think you are tripping over your own words and getting all confused over the spelling and understanding of the referenced words. You now have a new word "Ikshvakyu". What is the meaning of this word? I do not see this word in any Sanskrit dictionary. Is this the word that is supposed to be the root for ikSvaku?  
       
      If you care to look up the word ikSu in The Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon, you will find the word is translated as: ikSu = Sugar-cane, ..and...... Name of a King (VP). 
      The name of the "King in VP", (viSNu purANa), is none other than ikSvAku. So the relationship to ikSu is established. You can see the same in Monier Williams' Sanskrit to English Advanced Dictionary as well.
       
      How the noun ikSu becomes the adjective ikSvAku is a matter of syntax.
       
      Now, you claim that it is I who am creating fairy tales! I would have liked to take that honour, but, I will have to defer that to others more ancient than I. Is it a fairy tale or not that Lord Surya came down to earth to sire mortal beings and establish a sUrya vaMza? 
       
      Furthermore, it is not mine, but what you find in the Jaina epics that the first tIrthaMkara,
      Saint R'Sabha, is believed to be, by the Jains, none other than ikSvAku, the ancestor of the sUrya vaMza. The story according to Jaina belief is that once Saint R'Shabha went on a six month fast and he broke his fast by taking sugar-cane juice (ikSu-rasa) and he and his family dynasty came to be known as ikSvAku, and sUrya vaMza, respectively.
      R'Sabha/ikSvAhu is also said to have been involved in agriculture and taught his subjects farming technology. I am not certain if sugar-cane was one of the items he was involved in teaching his people to plant?
       
      If you wish to know more about these legends then I suggest you read the Jaina AdipurANa and or the uttara purANa - a set of two or three book volumes.
       
      Also, I have reached a state when spending my important time on correcting and educating various members of this august Group is beyond my time well-spent! I have the option to pick and choose my discussion points and I have clearly reached the end of my
      conversation with you. Thank you for your contribution. God Bless!
       
      Regards,
      Ram
        

       
       
       

      --- On Tue, 3/12/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:

      From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
      Subject: [Ind-Arch] Conclusions on ikSvAku and "Ikshvakyu"
      To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com" <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013, 3:17 PM

       
      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.
      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 .... ?

      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
    • Ram Varmha
      To. Mr. Mishra:     Will appreciate your answer.
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 7 6:32 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        To. Mr. Mishra:
         
        << Any way, what does the word ikSvAku mean, according to what ever you say, rightly or wrongly? >>
         
        Will appreciate your answer.
        Thanks.
        Regards,
        Ram
         

        --- On Sat, 4/6/13, Rajan Menon <vajradanta5@...> wrote:

        From: Rajan Menon <vajradanta5@...>
        Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Conclusions on ikSvAku and "Ikshvakyu"
        To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, April 6, 2013, 2:41 PM

         
        Vowels
        Simple
         अ *but इ*pit उ*put ऋ*fr.chambre(retroflex r with shwa, not ri as pronounced nowadays in India) ऌ*little (not lri) 
        Long 
           आ*market ई*seen ऊ*shoot ऋ
        Dipthongs
         ए*gate ऐ*mine ओ*rote औ*aula 
        Hope this helps in settling this debate on vowels. Please advise if any corrections are to be made.
        Thanks.
        Rajan Menon


        On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Ram Varmha <varmha@...> wrote:
         
        Mr. Mishra,
         
        If there is a flaw in my logic that the name iksvAku came from ikSu as stated in the referenced
        dictionaries, then kindly tell us what is the meaning of the name as per your argument - that the name is based on the linguistic root "iks"? 
        The word you meant  - to look, to see, to behold etc, is "IkS", with the long "ee". (You seem to be still confused with the "e" and the "ee" in Devanagari scripts transferred to "i" and "I" by the H-K convention).
        The word "IkS" ("eekS......to look, to see, to behold etc ), as being parental to the word "ikSu" or "ikSvAku", is not acceptable.  (By the way the referenced dictionaries, I mentioned are accounting the "i" as the short "e").
        Any way, what does the word ikSvAku mean, according to what ever you say, rightly or wrongly? 
        Please explain?
        Regards,
        Ram 
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         

        --- On Sat, 3/23/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:

        From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
        Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Conclusions on ikSvAku and "Ikshvakyu"
        To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com" <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013, 11:40 AM

         
        Dear Mr Varmha,

        Typo in my mail is not a defense to flaws in your argument, Pls check your initial logic that ikSvAku and ikSu do have one common connection which is sugarcane ( based on the fairy tales known to you ), when we shown you the connection is not so called sugarcane but the linguistic root ( ikS ) , you drifted the stand and started saying ikSu is different since it gets long ee, which is not true.

        You referred to various dictionaries, Had you taken care to look into those dictionaries how ikSvAku and ikSu are spelled in Devanagri, You could understand flaws in your logic.

        Thanks for sharing the Jaina legend, But what's the significance it has got if Surya Vamsha - ikSvAku doesn't acknowledge that Rishabha - ikSvAku is one and same, who has established so.

        Feel free to leave the argument, it's your choice and I have no issues on it.

        Regards,
        Lalit Mishra


        From: Ram Varmha <varmha@...>
        To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:55 PM
        Subject: Fw: [Ind-Arch] Conclusions on ikSvAku and "Ikshvakyu"

         
        Mr. Mishra,
        I think you are tripping over your own words and getting all confused over the spelling and understanding of the referenced words. You now have a new word "Ikshvakyu". What is the meaning of this word? I do not see this word in any Sanskrit dictionary. Is this the word that is supposed to be the root for ikSvaku?  
         
        If you care to look up the word ikSu in The Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon, you will find the word is translated as: ikSu = Sugar-cane, ..and...... Name of a King (VP). 
        The name of the "King in VP", (viSNu purANa), is none other than ikSvAku. So the relationship to ikSu is established. You can see the same in Monier Williams' Sanskrit to English Advanced Dictionary as well.
         
        How the noun ikSu becomes the adjective ikSvAku is a matter of syntax.
         
        Now, you claim that it is I who am creating fairy tales! I would have liked to take that honour, but, I will have to defer that to others more ancient than I. Is it a fairy tale or not that Lord Surya came down to earth to sire mortal beings and establish a sUrya vaMza? 
         
        Furthermore, it is not mine, but what you find in the Jaina epics that the first tIrthaMkara,
        Saint R'Sabha, is believed to be, by the Jains, none other than ikSvAku, the ancestor of the sUrya vaMza. The story according to Jaina belief is that once Saint R'Shabha went on a six month fast and he broke his fast by taking sugar-cane juice (ikSu-rasa) and he and his family dynasty came to be known as ikSvAku, and sUrya vaMza, respectively.
        R'Sabha/ikSvAhu is also said to have been involved in agriculture and taught his subjects farming technology. I am not certain if sugar-cane was one of the items he was involved in teaching his people to plant?
         
        If you wish to know more about these legends then I suggest you read the Jaina AdipurANa and or the uttara purANa - a set of two or three book volumes.
         
        Also, I have reached a state when spending my important time on correcting and educating various members of this august Group is beyond my time well-spent! I have the option to pick and choose my discussion points and I have clearly reached the end of my
        conversation with you. Thank you for your contribution. God Bless!
         
        Regards,
        Ram
          

         
         
         

        --- On Tue, 3/12/13, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:

        From: Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
        Subject: [Ind-Arch] Conclusions on ikSvAku and "Ikshvakyu"
        To: "IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com" <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013, 3:17 PM

         
        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.
        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" <
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.