PDA

View Full Version : Some terminology clarification



TJRocks760
12-24-2016, 07:55 PM
Hey all,

This will be a quick one.

I've been reading up on my free time on geneology stuff. Basic searches such as Indo-European, Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, etc. One thing I'm not very clear on is when studies mention India do they mean India prior to the Pakistan-India divide? Are Pakistanis lumped in within these studies? I'll go out on a limb and say yes. The reason why I ask is because ethnically speaking I identify as Pakistani and not Indian. So, when I read these papers I wonder if they mean me as well. I think for the sake of history the researchers don't look at the 1947 divide due to such a long history of people living in that region.

For instance, this article: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/india-s-fragmented-society-was-once-melting-pot

Or this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/

Saetro
12-24-2016, 11:47 PM
One thing I'm not very clear on is when studies mention India do they mean India prior to the Pakistan-India divide?


Yes. In general, yes.

However, if you look at the map from the second paper, you will see that it specifically excludes Pakistan and Bangladesh.
So, not in this case. (And your first reference appears to be a news article about that paper, so not there either.)

TJRocks760
12-25-2016, 05:38 PM
Yes. In general, yes.

However, if you look at the map from the second paper, you will see that it specifically excludes Pakistan and Bangladesh.
So, not in this case. (And your first reference appears to be a news article about that paper, so not there either.)

Thanks. I probably shouldn't put so much stake in my own ethnicity when reading these papers because as long as they're referring to India in the historical sense I should still get some valuable information out of it. As long as they mean India in the South Asians sense including Pakistanis, Indians, Bengalis, etc. Is that a correct way to look at it?

parasar
01-02-2017, 07:24 PM
Thanks. I probably shouldn't put so much stake in my own ethnicity when reading these papers because as long as they're referring to India in the historical sense I should still get some valuable information out of it. As long as they mean India in the South Asians sense including Pakistanis, Indians, Bengalis, etc. Is that a correct way to look at it?

And historically modern Pakistan was the actual India - i.e. land of the seven rivers - Sapta Sindhu (Hapta Hindu), which name gradually came to be used for the rest of the subcontinent.

Kurd
01-03-2017, 04:03 AM
And historically modern Pakistan was the actual India - i.e. land of the seven rivers - Sapta Sindhu (Hapta Hindu), which name gradually came to be used for the rest of the subcontinent.

Seven:
Sapta --> Saat (Hindi, Urdu)
Hapta --> Haft (Kurdi, Farsi)

parasar
01-04-2017, 03:26 AM
Seven:
Sapta --> Saat (Hindi, Urdu)
Hapta --> Haft (Kurdi, Farsi)

Latin has the septum form and Greek has hepta, but most interestingly the Mitanni form is satta which also seen Hindi (cf. the movie satte pe satta).
satta-wartana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni-Aryan