Muslims demand independent Islamic state in Britian

[IsaacNewton]

It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.

Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.

That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.

 

[Vikrant]

That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.

In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups. The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.

Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.

BJP revisionism ------

You are an illiterate.

try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS) The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking. Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world "independently" India did not INVENT IT. Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes. Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there (are you worried about semantics?) -------but Dravidians or "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY

I do not mean to be malicious but you sound like one of those people from religious ghettos that get educated in religious schools. No body is saying that all languages were invented in India. Sanskrit which is the origin of all Indo - European languages was invented in India. This is not coming from me. This is accepted all over the world including the U.S. Hebrew and Arabic are not part of Indo - European family. Another example would be Chinese which too is not part of Indo - European family. So, you can see that not all languages have ties with Sanskrit.

Try to understand what is being said before replying to it.

Also, for your information, Aryan history dates back to 10K years in ancient India. They started writing books like Vedas, Puranas more than 6K years ago in ancient India.

This tells you very clearly that Germans are not Aryans. They got their language from Aryans but they are not Aryans. They assumed a wrong identity by ignorance which was partly contributed by writings of Max Muller.

you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES have their origin
in India--------ain't necessarily so. Your assumption that my education was in some
parochial school is even more way off. I had NO schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
in all human groups-------and HUMANS move.
and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations) and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE. ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON. Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE . Eventually----just about all become literate---
even if they never pick up writing from "the first" literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP

I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.

Let me try again:

Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.

Let me summarize it for you:

Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.

Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?

 

[irosie91]

It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.

Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.

That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.

leave Vik alone-----it happened to India in 1948 ---and may happen again-----the BENGALI people WANT OUT

 

[Vikrant]

It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.

Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.

That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.

leave Vik alone-----it happened to India in 1948 ---and may happen again-----the BENGALI people WANT OUT

What strain are you smoking? I really want to know

 

[irosie91]

BJP revisionism ------

You are an illiterate.

try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS) The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking. Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world "independently" India did not INVENT IT. Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes. Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there (are you worried about semantics?) -------but Dravidians or "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY

I do not mean to be malicious but you sound like one of those people from religious ghettos that get educated in religious schools. No body is saying that all languages were invented in India. Sanskrit which is the origin of all Indo - European languages was invented in India. This is not coming from me. This is accepted all over the world including the U.S. Hebrew and Arabic are not part of Indo - European family. Another example would be Chinese which too is not part of Indo - European family. So, you can see that not all languages have ties with Sanskrit.

Try to understand what is being said before replying to it.

Also, for your information, Aryan history dates back to 10K years in ancient India. They started writing books like Vedas, Puranas more than 6K years ago in ancient India.

This tells you very clearly that Germans are not Aryans. They got their language from Aryans but they are not Aryans. They assumed a wrong identity by ignorance which was partly contributed by writings of Max Muller.

you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES have their origin
in India--------ain't necessarily so. Your assumption that my education was in some
parochial school is even more way off. I had NO schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
in all human groups-------and HUMANS move.
and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations) and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE. ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON. Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE . Eventually----just about all become literate---
even if they never pick up writing from "the first" literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP

I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.

Let me try again:

Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.

Let me summarize it for you:

Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.

Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?

it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
You are wrong. LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains. All groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE. THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
periods of time. Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true. The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand

 

[Vikrant]

It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.

Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.

That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.

Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. They are akin to native people now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.

 

[irosie91]

It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.

Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.

That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.

Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.

of course -----just like it was for hindus and muslims in 1948.

 

[Vikrant]

You are an illiterate.

try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS) The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking. Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world "independently" India did not INVENT IT. Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes. Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there (are you worried about semantics?) -------but Dravidians or "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY

I do not mean to be malicious but you sound like one of those people from religious ghettos that get educated in religious schools. No body is saying that all languages were invented in India. Sanskrit which is the origin of all Indo - European languages was invented in India. This is not coming from me. This is accepted all over the world including the U.S. Hebrew and Arabic are not part of Indo - European family. Another example would be Chinese which too is not part of Indo - European family. So, you can see that not all languages have ties with Sanskrit.

Try to understand what is being said before replying to it.

Also, for your information, Aryan history dates back to 10K years in ancient India. They started writing books like Vedas, Puranas more than 6K years ago in ancient India.

This tells you very clearly that Germans are not Aryans. They got their language from Aryans but they are not Aryans. They assumed a wrong identity by ignorance which was partly contributed by writings of Max Muller.

you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES have their origin
in India--------ain't necessarily so. Your assumption that my education was in some
parochial school is even more way off. I had NO schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
in all human groups-------and HUMANS move.
and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations) and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE. ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON. Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE . Eventually----just about all become literate---
even if they never pick up writing from "the first" literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP

I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.

Let me try again:

Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.

Let me summarize it for you:

Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.

Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?

it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
You are wrong. LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains. All groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE. THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
periods of time. Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true. The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand

I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other

 

[irosie91]

try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS) The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking. Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world "independently" India did not INVENT IT. Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes. Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there (are you worried about semantics?) -------but Dravidians or "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY

I do not mean to be malicious but you sound like one of those people from religious ghettos that get educated in religious schools. No body is saying that all languages were invented in India. Sanskrit which is the origin of all Indo - European languages was invented in India. This is not coming from me. This is accepted all over the world including the U.S. Hebrew and Arabic are not part of Indo - European family. Another example would be Chinese which too is not part of Indo - European family. So, you can see that not all languages have ties with Sanskrit.

Try to understand what is being said before replying to it.

Also, for your information, Aryan history dates back to 10K years in ancient India. They started writing books like Vedas, Puranas more than 6K years ago in ancient India.

This tells you very clearly that Germans are not Aryans. They got their language from Aryans but they are not Aryans. They assumed a wrong identity by ignorance which was partly contributed by writings of Max Muller.

you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES have their origin
in India--------ain't necessarily so. Your assumption that my education was in some
parochial school is even more way off. I had NO schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
in all human groups-------and HUMANS move.
and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations) and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE. ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON. Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE . Eventually----just about all become literate---
even if they never pick up writing from "the first" literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP

I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.

Let me try again:

Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.

Let me summarize it for you:

Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.

Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?

it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
You are wrong. LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains. All groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE. THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
periods of time. Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true. The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand

I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other

While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing) people.
Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
HAPPENS. The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
scholars in or from India. Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic. The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent. Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
there are some words in Hebrew that have
Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root. For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
or Aramaic---it developed separately. Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN. Some day you will understand

 

[irosie91]

It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.

Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.

That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.

Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. They are akin to native people now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.

Muslims are AKIN TO NATIVE PEOPLE in
Great Britain? just how AKIN are they?
How long does it take to BECOME NATIVE?

 

[Vikrant]

I do not mean to be malicious but you sound like one of those people from religious ghettos that get educated in religious schools. No body is saying that all languages were invented in India. Sanskrit which is the origin of all Indo - European languages was invented in India. This is not coming from me. This is accepted all over the world including the U.S. Hebrew and Arabic are not part of Indo - European family. Another example would be Chinese which too is not part of Indo - European family. So, you can see that not all languages have ties with Sanskrit.

Try to understand what is being said before replying to it.

Also, for your information, Aryan history dates back to 10K years in ancient India. They started writing books like Vedas, Puranas more than 6K years ago in ancient India.

This tells you very clearly that Germans are not Aryans. They got their language from Aryans but they are not Aryans. They assumed a wrong identity by ignorance which was partly contributed by writings of Max Muller.

you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES have their origin
in India--------ain't necessarily so. Your assumption that my education was in some
parochial school is even more way off. I had NO schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
in all human groups-------and HUMANS move.
and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations) and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE. ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON. Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE . Eventually----just about all become literate---
even if they never pick up writing from "the first" literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP

I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.

Let me try again:

Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.

Let me summarize it for you:

Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.

Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?

it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
You are wrong. LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains. All groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE. THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
periods of time. Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true. The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand

I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other

While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing) people.
Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
HAPPENS. The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
scholars in or from India. Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic. The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent. Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
there are some words in Hebrew that have
Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root. For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
or Aramaic---it developed separately. Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN. Some day you will understand

I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.

 

[Vikrant]

It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.

Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.

That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.

Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. They are akin to native people now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.

Muslims are AKIN TO NATIVE PEOPLE in
Great Britain? just how AKIN are they?
How long does it take to BECOME NATIVE?

You tell us

 

[irosie91]

you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES have their origin
in India--------ain't necessarily so. Your assumption that my education was in some
parochial school is even more way off. I had NO schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
in all human groups-------and HUMANS move.
and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations) and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE. ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON. Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE . Eventually----just about all become literate---
even if they never pick up writing from "the first" literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP

I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.

Let me try again:

Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.

Let me summarize it for you:

Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.

Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?

it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
You are wrong. LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains. All groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE. THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
periods of time. Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true. The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand

I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other

While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing) people.
Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
HAPPENS. The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
scholars in or from India. Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic. The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent. Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
there are some words in Hebrew that have
Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root. For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
or Aramaic---it developed separately. Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN. Some day you will understand

I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.

you are truly a disgusting lump of excrement-----you lie continuously. At no time did I suggest that HEBREW does not come from an African origin you shit mouth racist pig. In FACT--its prototype is AMHARIC ---the origin of which is ----the area today called ETHIOPIA. -----btw---Ethiopia is in the CONTINENT---AFRICA you ignorant Nazi DOG.

 

[irosie91]

It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.

Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.

That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.

Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. They are akin to native people now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.

Muslims are AKIN TO NATIVE PEOPLE in
Great Britain? just how AKIN are they?
How long does it take to BECOME NATIVE?

You tell us

how many of you are there?

 

[Vikrant]

I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.

Let me try again:

Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.

Let me summarize it for you:

Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.

Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?

it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
You are wrong. LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains. All groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE. THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
periods of time. Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true. The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand

I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other

While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing) people.
Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
HAPPENS. The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
scholars in or from India. Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic. The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent. Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
there are some words in Hebrew that have
Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root. For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
or Aramaic---it developed separately. Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN. Some day you will understand

I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.

you are truly a disgusting lump of excrement-----you lie continuously. At no time did I suggest that HEBREW does not come from an African origin you shit mouth racist pig. In FACT--its prototype is AMHARIC ---the origin of which is ----the area today called ETHIOPIA. -----btw---Ethiopia is in the CONTINENT---AFRICA you ignorant Nazi DOG.

First you disagree then you agree and then you call names. Take your medication and go to bed. You are not capable of holding a discussion.

 

[Vikrant]

It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.

Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.

That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.

Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. They are akin to native people now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.

Muslims are AKIN TO NATIVE PEOPLE in
Great Britain? just how AKIN are they?
How long does it take to BECOME NATIVE?

You tell us

how many of you are there?

Hopefully more than you

 

[irosie91]

it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
You are wrong. LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains. All groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE. THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
periods of time. Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true. The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand

I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other

While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing) people.
Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
HAPPENS. The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
scholars in or from India. Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic. The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent. Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
there are some words in Hebrew that have
Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root. For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
or Aramaic---it developed separately. Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN. Some day you will understand

I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.

you are truly a disgusting lump of excrement-----you lie continuously. At no time did I suggest that HEBREW does not come from an African origin you shit mouth racist pig. In FACT--its prototype is AMHARIC ---the origin of which is ----the area today called ETHIOPIA. -----btw---Ethiopia is in the CONTINENT---AFRICA you ignorant Nazi DOG.

First you disagree then you agree and then you call names. Take your medication and go to bed. You are not capable of holding a discussion.

more lies from the nazi dog----where was the "FIRST DISAGREE THEN AGREE"? you are SO SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE OUTCLASSED-----that you have resorted to PROJECTING that which makes you feel a bit guilty-----that BJP nationalism. There is nothing wrong with a bit of BJP---especially considering the current world situation. If you want to claim that
INDIAN HINDUS INVENTED LANGUAGE.
fine with me------Pierre Paul Broca would be
fascinated.

 

[irosie91]

Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.

That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.

Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. They are akin to native people now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.

Muslims are AKIN TO NATIVE PEOPLE in
Great Britain? just how AKIN are they?
How long does it take to BECOME NATIVE?

You tell us

how many of you are there?

Hopefully more than you

more than ONE?

 

[Vikrant]

I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other

While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing) people.
Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
HAPPENS. The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
scholars in or from India. Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic. The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent. Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
there are some words in Hebrew that have
Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root. For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
or Aramaic---it developed separately. Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN. Some day you will understand

I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.

you are truly a disgusting lump of excrement-----you lie continuously. At no time did I suggest that HEBREW does not come from an African origin you shit mouth racist pig. In FACT--its prototype is AMHARIC ---the origin of which is ----the area today called ETHIOPIA. -----btw---Ethiopia is in the CONTINENT---AFRICA you ignorant Nazi DOG.

First you disagree then you agree and then you call names. Take your medication and go to bed. You are not capable of holding a discussion.

more lies from the nazi dog----where was the "FIRST DISAGREE THEN AGREE"? you are SO SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE OUTCLASSED-----that you have resorted to PROJECTING that which makes you feel a bit guilty-----that BJP nationalism. There is nothing wrong with a bit of BJP---especially considering the current world situation. If you want to claim that
INDIAN HINDUS INVENTED LANGUAGE.
fine with me------Pierre Paul Broca would be
fascinated.

Quite a bit of your problems will go away, if you just learn to read

 

[irosie91]

While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing) people.
Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
HAPPENS. The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
scholars in or from India. Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic. The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent. Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
there are some words in Hebrew that have
Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root. For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
or Aramaic---it developed separately. Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN. Some day you will understand

I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.

you are truly a disgusting lump of excrement-----you lie continuously. At no time did I suggest that HEBREW does not come from an African origin you shit mouth racist pig. In FACT--its prototype is AMHARIC ---the origin of which is ----the area today called ETHIOPIA. -----btw---Ethiopia is in the CONTINENT---AFRICA you ignorant Nazi DOG.

First you disagree then you agree and then you call names. Take your medication and go to bed. You are not capable of holding a discussion.

more lies from the nazi dog----where was the "FIRST DISAGREE THEN AGREE"? you are SO SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE OUTCLASSED-----that you have resorted to PROJECTING that which makes you feel a bit guilty-----that BJP nationalism. There is nothing wrong with a bit of BJP---especially considering the current world situation. If you want to claim that
INDIAN HINDUS INVENTED LANGUAGE.
fine with me------Pierre Paul Broca would be
fascinated.

Quite a bit of your problems will go away, if you just learn to read

your problem will never go away----sociopathy IS FOREVER