4 ms·

> Do you see the same thing happening in India, or are they managing to preserve local tradition alongside the mainstream? It is complex! Some dialects are dyi

by shas3 11y ago

> Do you see the same thing happening in India, or are they managing to preserve local tradition alongside the mainstream? It is complex! Some dialects are dying out, but the regions seem to be clustering around the 22 'scheduled languages'. In Karnataka (population ~ 60 million) for example, there are at least 4 dialects of Kannada. With the proliferation of social media, TV, and cinema, two things are happening: (1) the non-majority dialects are losing out to a 'standardized' mean similar to the Wisconsin-mean in the US, (2) paradoxically, non-standard dialects are gaining popularity because of their quirks. This is similar to how Irish dialects are highlighted in movies like Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, In Bruges, etc. giving them more visibility than it would otherwise get. Another analogy is how we all know about Minnesotan 'dialects' and Californian dude-isms from Coen brothers' explorations of these themes. The primary bulwark against the disappearance of dialects and languages in India is just the largeness of the masses of people who speak these languages. For example, Bhojpuri, a dialect that is different from standardized movie/TV 'Hindi' has tens of millions of speakers. Somehow standardized languages seem to co-exist with dialects in much of India. It is nearly impossible that any of the 22 languages will die out in the next few centuries. Even most dialects will survive because of the strength in numbers. (Note, the 22 languages includes Sanskrit, which like Latin and classical Greek has in some sense 'died out'. But the masses never 'spoke' Sanskrit, it was more of a formalized language for literature and administration.) Edit: By Wisconsin-mean, I mean General American https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_American https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_American

lake99 11y ago
> But the masses never 'spoke' Sanskrit, it was more of a formalized language for literature and administration. That's a strange thing to say. Panini formalized it, but the language was in widespread use for a long time before that, quite like Latin and classical Greek were. Why else would people start using it for literature and administration? Of course, using it for these two purposes gave it a certain degree of prestige and made the language live on long after it was spoken by the masses.
- shas3 11y ago
  The common people spoke 'Prakrit's and Dravidian languages, basically ancestors of modern languages. The word 'sanskrit' itself comes from the same root as 'samskara'. One of the meanings of 'samskara' is 'purification (rite)'. In all likelihood, only Brahmins and other scholars 'spoke' Sanskrit [1]. It is also likely that all Sanskrit speakers were bilingual. This exclusivity of Sanskrit learning is also one of the likely reasons why Buddhist teachings are in Prakrits (dharma = dhamma, etc.). [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=QYxpvZLg4hAC&pg=PA19&dq=sanskrit+spoken+language+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI_KyP6ouLyAIVB5aICh1FeQHK#v=onepage&q=sanskrit%20spoken%20language%20history&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=QYxpvZLg4hAC&pg=PA19&dq=sa...
  - lake99 11y ago
    Same book page 21: "But there are evidences to show that to all intents and purposes, Sanskrit was a living language and view that it was spoken by at least a large section of the people." The author then writes a more nuanced answer. > This exclusivity of Sanskrit learning is also one of the likely reasons why Buddhist teachings are in Prakrits (dharma = dhamma, etc.). This, while possibly true, is misleading in this context. All it means is that Sanskrit was on its way out by that time period, and in that region. It does not square with your previous claim that Sanskrit was never spoken by the masses. As another factor of note, we are talking about a large geographic region and a large time period. I am not even sure what qualifies as "Prakrit". If it just means "vernacular", it would still qualify as Sanskrit. As you mentioned previously, Kannada has at least four dialects. Raichur Kannada sounds quite different from the Kannada of textbooks or news reports. But it's still considered Kannada. Can we use a similar approach to consider Prakrit as just a dialect of Sanskrit? I don't know. I am neither a linguist, nor a Sanskrit historian.
    - shas3 11y ago
      Prakrit is not one language. I was careful to use it as 'Prakrits'. Given the formality of Sanskrit, I seriously doubt Prakrits can be considered its dialects. In fact, the relationship probably goes the other way- Sanskrit is a formalized version of the Prakrits that people spoke. In fact, the names are descriptive and are indicative of the relationship: Prakrit has the same root as 'prakriti' = 'nature', Sanskrit means 'refined'. Sanskrit and Prakrits are different enough to not be dialects. It is perhaps a relationship more like literary Kannada and Tulu, which are wholly different languages with many similarities. (A relationship also shared by (Kannada, Tamil, Tulu, Telugu, Malayalam) and (Oriya, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi) which are all wholly different languages belonging to two families (Dravidian former, Indo-Aryan latter), with similar roots, but do not share a 'dialect' relationship between each other or with any other extant languages) Buddhism definitely had egalitarian pan-caste aspirations compared to Vedic doctrine. It is only natural that Buddha and others preached in colloquial languages, rather than literary. It is true at the same time, that later Buddhist scholars wrote many works in literary Sanskrit. Edit: Also, I did not claim that Brahmins were not numerous. They were probably the same percentage of the population as today, which is about 5-10%, which is still a 'large section', but far from the majority.

by shas3 11y ago

lake99 11y ago

> But the masses never 'spoke' Sanskrit, it was more of a formalized language for literature and administration. That's a strange thing to say. Panini formalized it, but the language was in widespread use for a long time before that, quite like Latin and classical Greek were. Why else would people start using it for literature and administration? Of course, using it for these two purposes gave it a certain degree of prestige and made the language live on long after it was spoken by the masses.

shas3 11y ago
The common people spoke 'Prakrit's and Dravidian languages, basically ancestors of modern languages. The word 'sanskrit' itself comes from the same root as 'samskara'. One of the meanings of 'samskara' is 'purification (rite)'. In all likelihood, only Brahmins and other scholars 'spoke' Sanskrit [1]. It is also likely that all Sanskrit speakers were bilingual. This exclusivity of Sanskrit learning is also one of the likely reasons why Buddhist teachings are in Prakrits (dharma = dhamma, etc.). [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=QYxpvZLg4hAC&pg=PA19&dq=sanskrit+spoken+language+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI_KyP6ouLyAIVB5aICh1FeQHK#v=onepage&q=sanskrit%20spoken%20language%20history&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=QYxpvZLg4hAC&pg=PA19&dq=sa...
- lake99 11y ago
  Same book page 21: "But there are evidences to show that to all intents and purposes, Sanskrit was a living language and view that it was spoken by at least a large section of the people." The author then writes a more nuanced answer. > This exclusivity of Sanskrit learning is also one of the likely reasons why Buddhist teachings are in Prakrits (dharma = dhamma, etc.). This, while possibly true, is misleading in this context. All it means is that Sanskrit was on its way out by that time period, and in that region. It does not square with your previous claim that Sanskrit was never spoken by the masses. As another factor of note, we are talking about a large geographic region and a large time period. I am not even sure what qualifies as "Prakrit". If it just means "vernacular", it would still qualify as Sanskrit. As you mentioned previously, Kannada has at least four dialects. Raichur Kannada sounds quite different from the Kannada of textbooks or news reports. But it's still considered Kannada. Can we use a similar approach to consider Prakrit as just a dialect of Sanskrit? I don't know. I am neither a linguist, nor a Sanskrit historian.
  - shas3 11y ago
    Prakrit is not one language. I was careful to use it as 'Prakrits'. Given the formality of Sanskrit, I seriously doubt Prakrits can be considered its dialects. In fact, the relationship probably goes the other way- Sanskrit is a formalized version of the Prakrits that people spoke. In fact, the names are descriptive and are indicative of the relationship: Prakrit has the same root as 'prakriti' = 'nature', Sanskrit means 'refined'. Sanskrit and Prakrits are different enough to not be dialects. It is perhaps a relationship more like literary Kannada and Tulu, which are wholly different languages with many similarities. (A relationship also shared by (Kannada, Tamil, Tulu, Telugu, Malayalam) and (Oriya, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi) which are all wholly different languages belonging to two families (Dravidian former, Indo-Aryan latter), with similar roots, but do not share a 'dialect' relationship between each other or with any other extant languages) Buddhism definitely had egalitarian pan-caste aspirations compared to Vedic doctrine. It is only natural that Buddha and others preached in colloquial languages, rather than literary. It is true at the same time, that later Buddhist scholars wrote many works in literary Sanskrit. Edit: Also, I did not claim that Brahmins were not numerous. They were probably the same percentage of the population as today, which is about 5-10%, which is still a 'large section', but far from the majority.