Levina
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2013
- Messages
- 15,278
- Reaction score
- 59
- Country
- Location
Its true that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but how would you react to Anglicization of names? By anglicization i mean change of non-English-language names to spellings nearer English sounds. Each name has a meaning which often corresponds to its history, for the same reason I've refrained from using anglicized versions of "Indian" names.
Before we proceed, the usage of word hindu in the conversation has nothing to do with the religion but the hindu way of living or the civilization as such.
Often on this forum i've seen people using Taxilla, instead of the original Taksasila or Takshashila. Here's an example:
@Kaptaan : Given what happened this song has got even more of ethereal quality about it. I think that is 3,000 year old ruins of Taxila in the background. [1]
Levina: Dont mind me correcting you but the word is TAKSHASHILA or TAKSASILA.
Shila means a mount or a huge rock in sanskrit. To hindus, the word Taksh means serpents.(Taksh means severed head to buddhists). It also happens to be Shri Rama's nephew's name after whom the city was named...or so hindus believe.
Takshashila as you might already know was the hub of Buddhism.
Sorry for the off topic. But misspelt Indian names evoke this kinda reaction from me. [2]
Kaptaan: 2000 years ago London was called 'Londonium'. We call it London today. Russians call their capital Москва. We call it Moscow. Cue: Names change.
And what sort of manifestation of silliness are you? If you insist calling Taksasila and want to be historically accurate why do you abandon that authenticity when in the same sentance your corrupt it by using 'Indian' when you know 2,000 years ago the word 'India' did NOT even exist?
At least if you use Taxsasila then use a authentic term to designate the region.
Levina: Europeans could not pronounce most of the south asian names and ergo preferred to change it to words which would end up meaning nothing. But many countries have switched back to their original names like Burma changed its name to Myanmar. Beijing was called Peking by the Britishers, Chinese made it a point to switch back to the city's original name once European countries lost their influence over China. Similarly Ceylon was European colonial name bestowed upon Sri lanka by the Portuguese, which the Sri lankans have got rid off. i can give you more examples like Constantinople to Istanbul.
Afterall who would want to live with a colonial stamp on them forever?
Now that you've "requested" me to use names according to the era, let me correct what i had posted earlier. It was Taksasila,Gandhara region, under the Mauryan empire. This is how the city was called for most part of its history. [3]
Kaptaan: That at least is accurate - unlike your other fiddling and darn outright deciet. where you insist on one leg to be authentic by calling it Taxsasila and then on other leg go full on fraud by using India when both terms did not EXIST contemperonously.
As regards Mauryan Empire that was only for some time - Gandhara was separate for most period of it's existance. Mauryan Empire lasted exactly 137 years and it's rule on Gandhara was even less. But still Mauryan is more accurate then calling it 'Indian' and just to calm your horses down South India was not even part of it.
And we are seriously off topic. Open another thread if you want to fence with me - if you are a glutton for punishment because you shall lose.
Ps. I am happy to call it Taxsasila as long as you don't use that as some grubby attempt to gain historical heritage out of it by using the term 'India' from the other side of the continent.
contd...
******************************
I surprised at the selective memory that you display. India/Hindustan/Hindu are terms which have been used historically to describe a geographical region- the Indian subcontinent, or a civilization. Different terms were used to describe the region in different eras, but the meaning remained same.
No, I'm not trying to claim anything there. We do not have a habit of eyeing other's property you see. But let me be very clear about the people who made Takshashila the place it is known for. It was under the reign of Mauryans,that Takshashila gained importance as university.
[R1]
This is evident from the excavations >>>
@WAJsal I entrust you with this thread.
Rgds
Before we proceed, the usage of word hindu in the conversation has nothing to do with the religion but the hindu way of living or the civilization as such.
Often on this forum i've seen people using Taxilla, instead of the original Taksasila or Takshashila. Here's an example:
@Kaptaan : Given what happened this song has got even more of ethereal quality about it. I think that is 3,000 year old ruins of Taxila in the background. [1]
Levina: Dont mind me correcting you but the word is TAKSHASHILA or TAKSASILA.
Shila means a mount or a huge rock in sanskrit. To hindus, the word Taksh means serpents.(Taksh means severed head to buddhists). It also happens to be Shri Rama's nephew's name after whom the city was named...or so hindus believe.
Takshashila as you might already know was the hub of Buddhism.
Sorry for the off topic. But misspelt Indian names evoke this kinda reaction from me. [2]
Kaptaan: 2000 years ago London was called 'Londonium'. We call it London today. Russians call their capital Москва. We call it Moscow. Cue: Names change.
And what sort of manifestation of silliness are you? If you insist calling Taksasila and want to be historically accurate why do you abandon that authenticity when in the same sentance your corrupt it by using 'Indian' when you know 2,000 years ago the word 'India' did NOT even exist?
At least if you use Taxsasila then use a authentic term to designate the region.
Levina: Europeans could not pronounce most of the south asian names and ergo preferred to change it to words which would end up meaning nothing. But many countries have switched back to their original names like Burma changed its name to Myanmar. Beijing was called Peking by the Britishers, Chinese made it a point to switch back to the city's original name once European countries lost their influence over China. Similarly Ceylon was European colonial name bestowed upon Sri lanka by the Portuguese, which the Sri lankans have got rid off. i can give you more examples like Constantinople to Istanbul.
Afterall who would want to live with a colonial stamp on them forever?
Exactly my thoughts when i read some of your posts.Kaptaan said:
Now that you've "requested" me to use names according to the era, let me correct what i had posted earlier. It was Taksasila,Gandhara region, under the Mauryan empire. This is how the city was called for most part of its history. [3]
Kaptaan: That at least is accurate - unlike your other fiddling and darn outright deciet. where you insist on one leg to be authentic by calling it Taxsasila and then on other leg go full on fraud by using India when both terms did not EXIST contemperonously.
As regards Mauryan Empire that was only for some time - Gandhara was separate for most period of it's existance. Mauryan Empire lasted exactly 137 years and it's rule on Gandhara was even less. But still Mauryan is more accurate then calling it 'Indian' and just to calm your horses down South India was not even part of it.
And we are seriously off topic. Open another thread if you want to fence with me - if you are a glutton for punishment because you shall lose.
Ps. I am happy to call it Taxsasila as long as you don't use that as some grubby attempt to gain historical heritage out of it by using the term 'India' from the other side of the continent.
contd...
******************************
Sir,
I surprised at the selective memory that you display. India/Hindustan/Hindu are terms which have been used historically to describe a geographical region- the Indian subcontinent, or a civilization. Different terms were used to describe the region in different eras, but the meaning remained same.
No, I'm not trying to claim anything there. We do not have a habit of eyeing other's property you see. But let me be very clear about the people who made Takshashila the place it is known for. It was under the reign of Mauryans,that Takshashila gained importance as university.
[R1]
This is evident from the excavations >>>
This part of your quote holds no significance.Kaptaan said:
Just so you know, south India for most of its history has remained independent.Kaptaan said:
@WAJsal I entrust you with this thread.
Rgds
....
