Sanskrit and the Greek Language

The relationship between the Greek and Sanskrit languages
is due to historical relationship between Indians and Greeks.
Sanskrit is a lingua franca used to unite the diverse peoples
who lived in ancient India.

It is interesting that the known European
invanders to enter India were the Greeks and Saka. And
that the I-E languages closest to the Indian group are
not Iranian, but Greek.

The fact that the Greeks had settled in India
seems to explain the close relationship between the
European languages and India languages. Moreover,
since many of the Prakrits were written after the
Greek invansion some Greek terms may have entered
Indian languages, or the mercenaries employed by
Alexander may have taken Greek terms back home once
they returned to Europe.

Also, you have to understand that the
Proto-Dravidian people setlled many parts of Europe
after 2500 BC. As a result you will find a Dravidian
(and/or African) substratum in many European languages


The Sanskrit was a lingua franca. As a result,
since many of the events recorded in this lingua
franca took place in the east, where there are
numerous AustroAsiatic speakers explains the identity
of many alleged AustroAsiatic items in the "language".
The fact that many of the terms relate to Greek, but
not Iranian make it clear that the "language" was
created after the Greeks had entered the Indus area.
Morever, the fact that Loga has made it clear that
Sanskrit is closely related to Sumero-Tamil make the
ideas of Elst groundless.


It is interesting that the Prakrits, Sanskrit and
Tocharian all served as lingua francas with Tamil as a
base.



It was in Pakistan that the Greek language was
probably corporated into Sanskrit. Many of the rules for
Sanskrit were codified by Panini, who was born in Salatura, in Northwest
Pakistan. Panini's grammar contains 4000 rules.

When Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, it was
spoken by the elites in the area. Greek was also popular when
Panini wrote the Sanskrit grammar. The Greeks were called Yunani or
Yavana. Thus we learn from Agrawala (1953) that the Yavanani lipi
(edict) was well known in Gandahara, and even Panini mentions the
Yavana in his grammar

The term Yauna meant Ionian (Woodcock, 1966).The
history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting.
When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327
B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By
180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline,the Greek
Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and
Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander
(d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila.
The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda
near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).

Just as Greek terms entered Hinduism, it was also
during this period that the extreme caste system,
which strickly divided the people along socio-economic
lines was probably introduced. Under this
Eurocentric-Hindu view you could accept the fact that
one group could be doomed to suffer, until rebirth
changed his condition. This was the perfect system for
the EGO-centered man of Greece, and was readily
adopted by many Indians as they became acculturated
to Greek rule, because it allowed one to ignore his
fellow man while he satiated his personal desires and
lust without fear of being punished.

We know that this could not have been the original
state of Dravidian people, because the TiruKural,
Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Sumerian religious
text make it clear you can not become part of the
BE-ING, unless you were pure and clean from miss-using
your fellow man. These ancient text made it clear that
you must take control of your Ego because it can
deceive you; and that one can not have a social system
that allows you to watch your fellow man suffer and
die in abject poverty and expect to attain BE-ING with
your Creator no matter the name you give it or Icon to
represent it.


Achaemenid records make it clear that by 559 BC,
Persian speakers were ruling the Hindus. Given the
fact that their is historical evidence of Persians
ruling Hindus can explain the relationship between the
speakers of these languages instead of the
Indo-European hypothesis. These Persians also ruled
the Greeks and the Dravidian speaking Lycians in
Europe.

The Achaeminids spoke Persian and Elamite. Since
they were rulers of the Indians would have been
natural for the Hindus to adopt many Persian terms
and vice versa during a period of bilingualism in
North India. Since the Elamite and Dravidian speakers
spoke genetic languages there was little need for a
lingua franca to allow communication between the
diverse groups under Achaeminid rule.
Darius later conquered Macedonia. This led to
Achaeminid people speaking Elamite and Persian may
have contributed lexical items to ancient Ionian
(Greek). Since we have historical evidence of a close
relationship between Hindus and Persians by the 6th
Century BC, there is no need to claim that the
relationship between Indo-Iranian began in 1200 BC,
when the historical evidence indicates interaction
between these groups by 589 BC, not 1200 BC. As a
result of the Persians living in Iran, up until the
Achaeminid Empire, there is no way anyone can claim
that the Indo-Iranian homeland was in India. There was
no Indo-Iranian homeland, the relationship between
these languages id probably the result of the
Achaeminid rule of India.

The Persians also ruled the Greeks. The Greeks
later conquered India, and Pannini mentions Greeks in
his grammar of Sanskrit. This suggest that Greeks
lived in large numbers in India at this time.The fact
that the Greeks, Hindus and Persians lived in intimate
contact for hundreds of years naturally led to the
adoption of many terms by the Greeks and Hindus of
Persian, and later the adoption of many Greek terms by
the Hindus. These states of bilingualism in North
India, explains why the Indo-Iranian languages form
one family , and are linked to the Indo-European
languages via Greek.

The Harappans spoke a Dravidian language,
Indo-Iranian probably originated after 589 BC. This is
made clear by Darius in the Behistun inscription where
he claims that he was the first to write in the Ariya
language.

Darius'- evidence for the first writing of Ariya,
indicates that the idea of the continuity of Hindu
civilization in India is a myth. The original
inhabitants of India spoke Dravidian languages. Over
time, the Dravidians were forced to adopt Hindi and
other Indo-Iranian languages, yet remnants of these
Dravidians in North India remain.
This is why we find no evidence of the Vedic
language until the Naga (Ethiopians) invented
Sanskrit. It also explains the variations in the Vedic
and Avestan manuscripts, which in the case of the
later group date back only to 1288 AD.

The tradition of writing in North India date to
the Achaeminids, and may explain the origin of Brahmi.
The fact that Brahmi has signs that relate to the
Harappan writing may be the result of the fact that
the Elamites of the Achaeminid Empire were familiar
with the writing system of the Dravidians, and the
Naga (Ethiopians) who used a system of writing similar
to Phonesian.

The Dravidians have their own tradition of
writing. It would appear that the Dravidians
introduced writing to the Indus Valley. They continued
to use this writing on their pottery in South India
and later punchmarked coins. This is supported by the
discovery of writing in South India dating back to
before 600 BC.

In summary India was not the home land of the
Indo-Iranian family of languages. The linguistic
relationship between Persian and Greek result from the
rule of these areas by the Achaeminid and later Greek
rulers of India. Attached are pictures that show that
the Nubians (of Africa), the Hindus and King Darius
probably belong to the same family.

Moreover, the fact that the Greeks were in India when
Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, explains the Greek
relationship with Sk.; and the Elamite speaking Achaemenids (and Persians)
also ruled India for years and thus placed Persian and
Elamite Arya and Hindi Arya in intimate contact for
hundreds of years.

The ability to explain the relationship of
Sanskrit to Greek, and the Indo-Iranian linguistic
relationship due to Persian/Elamite and Hindi contact,
resulting from the historical connections between the
speakers of these languages and bilingualism within
North-India and Afganistan. This hypothesis supports
the view that the Indo-European connection to Indian
languages goes back to the Greek rule of India, not
some hypothetical date millenia ago.

The history of contact between Iranian and Indian
speakers during Achaemenid rule , would explain the
Indo-Iranian relationship, not the existence of a
Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland in India. This history of
Turkic, Persian, Sumerian, Elamite, Tamil, Ethiopic
(/Naga)and Hindi speaking people living in diverse
North Indian communities, is the most logical
explanation of the relationships that exist between
and among these languages.

The history of linguistic contact between the
speakers of these languages make it clear that the
Harappans were not Indo-Aryan speakers. This would
place the origin of the major Vedic and Avestan text
back to maybe 800 BC, and more than likely 600-500 BC
not the 1200 BC or earlier date assigned these text
by some researchers. Let's not forget that some
researchers claim that most editions of the Aestan,
date back to an original copy of this text dating only
to 1200 AD.