Now you’re spinning crank shit.
Ok well if you’re not a Hindu nationalist and if you’re not confusing this all with Aryanism in some well intentioned misguided way…
If you’re saying you think Jupiter had a Semitic origin then you’ve been smoking too much strong weed while watching shitty YouTube videos that’s the only explanation left. Fucking crank shit.
Don’t YouTube while smoking strong weed.
Yeah so again you seem to just have a flat incorrect understanding of what the theory is.
It’s not based on extrapolating back from European myths. That’s just not what it’s based on.
Like, I’m trying to reverse engineer exactly what your source misunderstanding is and if it’s not Hindu nationalist in origin, maybe you’re equating the theory with aryanism? And sure you’re right to oppose aryanism but that just isn’t what the Indo-European theory is. Not at all.
The Indo-European theory just isn’t Eurocentric. You seem to think it is but it’s really not. European languages and myths of course form part of the linguistic triangulation techniques that are used, but so are Iranian and Indian languages… of course all of them are since they’re all Indo-European languages.
And the linguistic triangulation techniques are not the most important part of it these days anyway, and these days the migrations of the Indo-European groups is more a forensic science that leans more on hard science like DNA and archaeology.
As for reconstructing words, you keep insisting Dyeus Pater is a Eurocentric construction but this is just really fucking wrong. I don’t even understand why you keep insisting it. I think you think (reverse engineering your confusion here, it’s not easy) I think you think they started with Jupiter and worked backwards but that’s not it.
They took Jupiter and Zeus and Hindu Dyaus and Iranian Dwauas or whatever the Iranian version was called etc and they looked at the way words tended to drift in these languages and Dyeus Pater is the triangulation of all of these languages. It’s not Eurocentric. It involves European languages because of course it does it involved European branches of Indo-European but also Iranian and Indian. They’re all Indo-European. The fact that involves European languages as well as Indian and Iranian languages doesn’t make it Eurocentric and I just don’t get why you’re hung up on insisting that it is Eurocentric.
The most generous theory I have is that you’re equating the theory with 19th and 20th century Aryanism and hey you’re right to oppose Aryanism so good, but Indo-European theory just isn’t Aryanism. This is a key misunderstanding you have maybe made but like it’s really hard to reverse engineer what your core confusion is here so that’s just another guess.
It isn’t Aryanism, at all, and it isn’t Eurocentric. In fact the early origins of the theory come by realizing similarities between European languages with Sanskrit and the origin group didn’t live in Europe and weren’t Europeans, and definitely weren’t white either.
Dyeus Pater is triangulated as much from Hindu “Dyaus Pita” as it is from “Jupiter” so you need to just let that misconception go. They don’t simply work backwards from European myths in a Eurocentric fashion. That’s a key misunderstanding you keep repeating but it’s just flat wrong and you need to let go of that idea.
I don’t know it seems to go too deep man.
Which is why I suggested you simply start again with the topic.
And you didn’t answer my question. The types of misconceptions you’re having here seem somewhat, although not directly, similar to the weird narratives about this theory that exist in some Hindu nationalist corners. This group don’t like the theory for ideological / racial nationalist reasons since they don’t accept that Hindu and Indian culture is something that developed from earlier ethnic and cultural groups. Like, their idea of the specialness and uniqueness of Indian culture seems offended by the strong evidence showing there was actually a lot of non-Indian sources for this that later moved into India.
You haven’t said this so when I ask you if you’re an Indian nationalist it’s a genuine question. Maybe you aren’t. But if you are then it would explain why your understanding of this topic seems so messed up, because this group well they dint understand the theory to begin with since they’re viewing it through their Hindu nationalist lens, and they make these weird arguments against it that don’t actually relate to the theory itself at all or are profound misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what the theory really is.
Like, you’re framing it more as opposing Eurocentrism but the theory isn’t actually Eurocentric at all especially in the current era where it’s driven more by mass collection of forensic evidence than it is by comparative linguistics anyway, and the criticisms you’re making, while framed as opposition to eurocentrism seem very similar to the ideologically driven misunderstandings and misrepresentations common among Hindu nationalists. I see echoes of that but I could be wrong.
Which is why I asked you: are you a Hindu nationalist? Overall I think you’re probably not? Probably. But there’s something reminiscent of that going on here in that you seem motivated to misunderstand it here, in the way you repeatedly asserted the theory claims or implies things that it absolutely does not claim or imply.
It would explain a lot here but maybe you’re not. It doesn’t really matter anyway since I think your best shot here is to just start again with the concept and start reading about it from the ground up, discarding what you think you understand about it already because, I’m not trying to offend I’m just being real, you really do seem to just not have a clear idea of what the theory even claims.
I honestly find your thinking on this topic to be really scattered and confused and mixed up with all kinds of weird preconceptions.
Are you a Hindu nationalist by any chance?
thats what you are imрlying.
No it’s really fucking not. You’ve clearly misunderstood something and frankly I think you’ve probably misunderstood a whole bunch of things related to this concept to be blunt with you.
Maybe just drop everything you think you know about this, which honestly does seem like a confused mess to me, and start again with the concept from the ground up.
Thats what you are claimg in you other рost with extra steрs.
No it’s not. I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood a bunch of things that are critical to this theory and it makes your objections to it seem simply confused.
Worst case scenario you get to live abroad for a while. That sounds great.
If you’re an asshole to everyone, eventually you’ll be right.
Also going from deus рater to juрiter to deus рater again sems so convinient and forced.
Wut. This isn’t at all the theory. Where did you get this idea from? It didn’t go back and forth like that what are you even talking about?
The evidence is overwhelming. No one serious really questions it, in fact the only group who really do argue against the theory these days are some hardline Hindu nationalists who want to insist on some kind of cultural purity concept that doesn’t accept being a cultural evolution from earlier groups.
Arent you ske р tical at all that the ancestral indoeuroрean religion had a single god called deus рater in their language. And that haрens to coincidentaly be the religion of those reconstructing said language.
Dyeus Pater / Jupiter / Zeus / Thor doesnt only survive in the European branches of the Indo-European linguistic group though, he also persists in Hinduism as Dyaus.
The best way of approximating what the OG Indo-Europeans believed is to triangulate it and when it’s present in both the European and Indian branches of Indo-European with remarkably similar attributes as a god and remarkably similar names or names that are clearly derived from Dyeus Pater then the clearest explanation for that is the shared linguistic origin and its cultural baggage.
Also the DNA evidence is very strong for Reichs work, he has a tens of thousands of ancient DNA samples which gives a pretty good idea of the movement of people, and it’s the movement of people that spreads languages.
He has had astounding success even predicting the existence of a not-yet-identified Northern Eurasian culture based on gene flows he identified and archaeologists then found evidence of the culture in the area he predicted they would be. When science has not just explanatory power but also predictive power then you can’t just shrug it off and stick to your preferred speculations.
When DNA evidence aligns with linguistic triangulation techniques and further aligns with archaeological evidence then, like, that means it’s true.
Edit: I recounted my memory of what David Reich hypothesized about India and the spread of Indo-European languages there, but it was from memory and I might have got some details wrong so I’m including the lecture I’m referencing here, which I am also going to listen to again to refresh my memory and because his work is very interesting https://youtu.be/pra7YZWVc-s
David Reich is a genetic researcher who I find very interesting, his thing is to recover samples of ancient DNA and use it to map migration patterns and he compares this with other data, eg linguistic and cultural connections.
I remember watching one lecture he gave, on YouTube, about Sanskrit and he found that the ancient people who lived where Sanskrit developed were basically not genetic descendants of the Indo-Europeans, leading him to hypothesize the language spread through the region as a trade language and he argued against the hypothesis that it was a ruling caste or a conquest.
Now if the language spread it’s plausible that other cultural practices spread alongside the language but it’s also very plausible, especially if it was a trade language rather than a high status language of rulers like Reich hypothesizes, that the spread of the language didn’t necessarily carry much other cultural baggage with it.
And even if it religious and cultural practices did spread alongside the language, the evidence of ancient DNA samples shows it spread among a number of ethnically diverse groups groups who presumably also had diverse cultural and religious practices so there’s no reason to think ancient Indian religion of 5000 years ago more resembles the original indo-European religion of 10,000 years ago when compared to Greek, Latin, Norse, etc, religion of 1,2,3000 years ago.
Like we can see that written Sanskrit remained remarkably unchanged for 5000 years which is very interesting but my point is you just can’t extrapolate back from that. Being very unchanged for 5000 years doesn’t actually imply being very unchanged for 8-10,000 years.
Fucking crank shit bro start again with all of this and don’t be high this time