3 ms·

There's clear linguistic evidence that Sanskrit (as well as Avestan/Persian, Latin, etc.) is derived from the Indo-European family. This is apparent even today

There's clear linguistic evidence that Sanskrit (as well as Avestan/Persian, Latin, etc.) is derived from the Indo-European family. This is apparent even today by comparing modern languages such as Hindi and English. This, as you probably know, does not apply to South Indian languages that appear to be linguistically distinct. However, this of course does not say anything about the ethnicity. In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term.

shripadk 10y ago
No. Sanskrit is not derived from Indo-European family. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Nor do South Indian languages appear linguistically distinct. I'm a Kannadiga and many Kannada words are directly derived from Sanskrit. My mother is a Tamilian and a lot of Tamil words are also derived from Sanskrit. This falsehood was spread by the British. > In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term. It doesn't matter because India was also called Āryāvarta (Abode of the Aryans) in the Ancient days. This was way before Iran got it's name (possibly in the 3rd century A.D). Iran was called Persia in the olden days. The word Aryan itself has multiple meanings. The definition of Proto-European Aryan is different from Indo-Aryans of India.
- vinay427 10y ago
  You are confusing loanwords with actual linguistic relationships. I understand Kannada fluently and it's quite plausible that the commonalities with Sanskrit are loanwords compared to more structural or fundamental similarities between Sanskrit and Persian, Latin, etc. Consider the basic articles (I, you, etc.) or many fundamental verbs, for instance, which at least modern Kannada almost surely does not share. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula
shripadk 10y ago
> There's clear linguistic evidence that Sanskrit (as well as Avestan/Persian, Latin, etc.) is derived from the Indo-European family Infact the article I linked to suggests otherwise (http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.pdf http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia....): "An invasion of India from the outside around 1,500 B. C. did not occur. Recent scholarship does not deny that the people in India had relations with other Indo-European people in Asia and Europe. There was a belt stretching from India to the Mediterranean inhabited by a people who spoke related languages, known as the Indo-European languages. Sanskrit is the oldest known language in this family and may appropriately be called as the Mother of Indo-European languages. English is an Indo-European language." How can Sanskrit be called as the "Mother of Indo-European languages" and still be "derived" from the Indo-European family? > This is apparent even today by comparing modern languages such as Hindi and English. This, as you probably know, does not apply to South Indian languages that appear to be linguistically distinct. Again the article I linked to clearly explains this falsehood/whitewashing done by the West: "Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950), a scholar of Latin and Greek as well as of Sanskrit, debunked this theory of the North-South racial divide in India. He disagreed with the theory that the languages of North and South India are unrelated. Sri Aurobindo’s study of the Tamil led him to discover that the original connection between the Sanskrit and Tamil languages was “far closer and more extensive than is usually supposed.” These languages are “two divergent families derived from one lost primitive tongue.” And, “My first study of Tamil words had brought me to what seemed a clue to the very origins and structure of the ancient Sanskrit tongue.” –See The Secret of the Veda, V 10, the Centenary Edition, p 36, 46. Sri Aurobindo also noted that a large part of the vocabulary of the South Indian languages (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam) is common with Sanskrit."
- vinay427 10y ago
  > How can Sanskrit be called as the "Mother of Indo-European languages" and still be "derived" from the Indo-European family? Because a language does not pop out of nowhere. A language is simply a relatively standardized register. I'm not asserting that Sanskrit is derived from a Western language (far from it) but that the roots of Sanskrit are shared with roots of various Western languages, which is quite clear. > Sri Aurobindo also noted that a large part of the vocabulary of the South Indian languages (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam) is common with Sanskrit. Vocabulary is not very indicative as these can easily be loanwords. As in my other sibling (cousin?) comment consider basic articles and fundamental verbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula

shripadk 10y ago

No. Sanskrit is not derived from Indo-European family. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Nor do South Indian languages appear linguistically distinct. I'm a Kannadiga and many Kannada words are directly derived from Sanskrit. My mother is a Tamilian and a lot of Tamil words are also derived from Sanskrit. This falsehood was spread by the British. > In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term. It doesn't matter because India was also called Āryāvarta (Abode of the Aryans) in the Ancient days. This was way before Iran got it's name (possibly in the 3rd century A.D). Iran was called Persia in the olden days. The word Aryan itself has multiple meanings. The definition of Proto-European Aryan is different from Indo-Aryans of India.

vinay427 10y ago
You are confusing loanwords with actual linguistic relationships. I understand Kannada fluently and it's quite plausible that the commonalities with Sanskrit are loanwords compared to more structural or fundamental similarities between Sanskrit and Persian, Latin, etc. Consider the basic articles (I, you, etc.) or many fundamental verbs, for instance, which at least modern Kannada almost surely does not share. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula

shripadk 10y ago

> There's clear linguistic evidence that Sanskrit (as well as Avestan/Persian, Latin, etc.) is derived from the Indo-European family Infact the article I linked to suggests otherwise (http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.pdf http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia....): "An invasion of India from the outside around 1,500 B. C. did not occur. Recent scholarship does not deny that the people in India had relations with other Indo-European people in Asia and Europe. There was a belt stretching from India to the Mediterranean inhabited by a people who spoke related languages, known as the Indo-European languages. Sanskrit is the oldest known language in this family and may appropriately be called as the Mother of Indo-European languages. English is an Indo-European language." How can Sanskrit be called as the "Mother of Indo-European languages" and still be "derived" from the Indo-European family? > This is apparent even today by comparing modern languages such as Hindi and English. This, as you probably know, does not apply to South Indian languages that appear to be linguistically distinct. Again the article I linked to clearly explains this falsehood/whitewashing done by the West: "Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950), a scholar of Latin and Greek as well as of Sanskrit, debunked this theory of the North-South racial divide in India. He disagreed with the theory that the languages of North and South India are unrelated. Sri Aurobindo’s study of the Tamil led him to discover that the original connection between the Sanskrit and Tamil languages was “far closer and more extensive than is usually supposed.” These languages are “two divergent families derived from one lost primitive tongue.” And, “My first study of Tamil words had brought me to what seemed a clue to the very origins and structure of the ancient Sanskrit tongue.” –See The Secret of the Veda, V 10, the Centenary Edition, p 36, 46. Sri Aurobindo also noted that a large part of the vocabulary of the South Indian languages (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam) is common with Sanskrit."

vinay427 10y ago
> How can Sanskrit be called as the "Mother of Indo-European languages" and still be "derived" from the Indo-European family? Because a language does not pop out of nowhere. A language is simply a relatively standardized register. I'm not asserting that Sanskrit is derived from a Western language (far from it) but that the roots of Sanskrit are shared with roots of various Western languages, which is quite clear. > Sri Aurobindo also noted that a large part of the vocabulary of the South Indian languages (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam) is common with Sanskrit. Vocabulary is not very indicative as these can easily be loanwords. As in my other sibling (cousin?) comment consider basic articles and fundamental verbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula