The Aryan Invention Theory was first proposed by scholars in the 19th century, most notably by a German philologist and orientalist Named Max Müller. Müller suggested that the Aryans, an ancient Indo-European-speaking group, migrated from Central Asia and played a crucial role in the development of ancient Indian civilization.
Aryan Invention Theory has been subject to extensive criticism and reevaluation in modern scholarship. Present studies from Harappa and Rakhigadi indicate that the theory was highly politocized and lacks substantial evidence to support its claim is debatable. Müllar wrote in His Book - The Science of Language:
There is a certain uniformity in the history of most sciences. If we read such works as Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences or Humboldt's Cosmos, we find that the origin, the progress, the causes of failure and success have been the same for almost every branch of human knowledge. There are three marked periods or stages in the history of every one of them, which we may call the Empirical, the Classificatory, and the Theoretical. However humiliating it may sound, every one of our sciences, however grand their present titles, can be traced back to the most humble and homely occupations of half-savage tribes. -Max Müller (Catholic intellectual)
The phrase "their origins can be traced back to the humble beginnings of early human societies" means that the foundations or roots of various scientific disciplines can be found in the early stages of human civilization. It suggests that even the most advanced and complex fields of study today have their origins in the basic knowledge and activities of ancient human communities.
The author is highlighting the idea that scientific knowledge is not detached from the everyday experiences and practical needs of early societies. The early humans, despite lacking the sophisticated tools and technologies we have today, engaged in activities that laid the groundwork for scientific exploration. These activities may have included basic observations of nature, attempts to understand and predict natural phenomena, and the development of rudimentary classifications or systems to make sense of their surroundings.
By tracing the history of scientific disciplines, one can observe that they have evolved and progressed over time, building upon the knowledge and experiences of preceding generations. The author's point is to emphasize that no matter how complex or advanced a scientific discipline may become, it is ultimately rooted in the fundamental curiosity and practical concerns of early human societies.
He also begins by challenging the notion that "Natural History," which classifies objects based on their permanent and universal properties, excludes all historical aspects. The author argues that language, with its multitude of dialects and variations, undergoes significant changes over time, unlike the more static characteristics of objects studied in natural history.
The author highlights the diverse linguistic landscape by mentioning the evolution of Latin into various Romance languages and the emergence of different language families such as the Indo-European (or Aryan), Semitic, and Turanian languages. They suggest that these language families originated from a common ancestral language. The author observes that languages like Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac are variations of the same Semitic language, while the Aryan and Turanian language families display similar patterns.
The passage suggests that language has an inherent historical life, influenced by the will of humans and the passage of time. While the substance of language may remain intact, its form undergoes changes. The author compares the historical changes in language to the unchanging nature of minerals, plants, and animals studied in natural science.
Furthermore, the author addresses the challenge of reconciling the historical changes in language with the principles of physical science. They note that languages can transform significantly within a thousand years, making it difficult to understand older forms of the same language. The example of Old English, like that of Alfred the Great, being incomprehensible to contemporary English speakers is provided. The author argues that historical changes in language are universal and occur in all countries and at all times, affecting both ancient and modern languages.
The passage concludes by mentioning that the changes in language are even more rapid and pronounced among illiterate and tribal communities. Despite the challenges of studying such languages due to the absence of written records, the author suggests that careful observations reveal significant transformations in the dialects of these communities within a few generations.
The author highlights how phonetic changes can significantly alter the surface of a language, making it difficult to recognize the common elements in related words.
The passage offers examples from French, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit to illustrate this phenomenon. For instance, the French word "vingt" (twenty) shares the same elements as "deux" (two) and "dix" (ten). The final "-te" in "trente" (thirty) originally derived from the Latin "ginta" in "triginta" (thirty) and can be traced back to the Sanskrit "da'sa" or "da'sati" (ten). These examples demonstrate how phonetic changes occurred throughout history, impacting the forms of words.
The author suggests that the process of phonetic change extends far back in time, as demonstrated by the evolution of words like "vingt" in French, "veinte" in Spanish, and "venti" in Italian from the Latin "viginti." The Latin "viginti" and its equivalents in Greek and Sanskrit (eikati and vin'sati) indicate the existence of an earlier language from which these words were derived. The author proposes that this earlier language may have featured a compound form, such as "dvi-ginti," combining the ancient Aryan words for two (dvi) and ten (da'sati).
The excerpt further exemplifies the extent of phonetic change by pointing out various transformations. It highlights how words like "sister" evolved into "cho" in Pehlvi and Ossetian, and "daughter" reduced to "dci" in Bohemian. The passage also presents surprising connections, such as "tear" and "larme" having a common origin, and the Latin "même" being linked to "semetipsissimus." Additionally, it mentions the French word "aujourd'hui," which contains the Latin word "dies" twice.
The author emphasizes that despite the significant changes brought about by phonetic shifts, languages can still share common origins and reveal connections through careful analysis. They point out that even though certain words may appear vastly different, linguistic similarities can be identified and reconstructed.
Lectures on "The Science of Language" Delivered At The Royal Institution of Great Britain In April, May, and June, 1861.By Max Müller in Lecture IX. The Theoretical Stage, And The Origin Of Language
He discusses the approach to understanding the origin of language and emphasizes the importance of explaining natural phenomena through natural causes rather than resorting to miraculous explanations. It suggests that while it may be impossible to determine the exact steps by which a particular language formed, it is valuable to demonstrate how its various components could have gradually emerged based on the known principles of human nature.
The author refers to an eminent Scottish philosopher who advises students of language science to adopt this approach. By showing how language could have developed naturally, the mind is partially satisfied, and it prevents the tendency to attribute unexplained phenomena in the natural and moral realms to miracles.
The passage acknowledges that even in its simplest form, the origin of language remains a challenging problem that is difficult for human understanding to grasp. It suggests that while the study of language has made progress in demystifying the issue, the complexity and intricacy of language origins still pose a significant challenge.
0 Comments: