This is a really dumb argument. First of all Sanskrit has a precise definition in Indian culture. It is Sanskrit ("perfected" or perhaps more appropriately "s

This is a really dumb argument. First of all Sanskrit has a precise definition in Indian culture. It is Sanskrit ("perfected" or perhaps more appropriately "systemized") as opposed to Prakrit ("natural") language because it is described in a descriptive grammar, the Ashtadhyayi ("eight chapters") of Panini. Paninis work was emended in some places by Katyayana in his Vartika and as both of these are in the terse, sutra format, they were explained more thoroughly by Patanjali in the Mahabhashya ("Great commentary.") These three works are the formal definition of Sanskrit. Today Brahmanas like me mostly do not study these but a 15th century reorganization called Siddhanta Kaumudi ("Moonlight of the Correct Principles") by Bhattoji Dikshita (or abridged versions thereof.) but nevertheless the formal grammar set by muni traya ("three sages") Panini, Katyayana, and Patanjali define what is Sanskrit. So there is no such thing as Rgvedic Sanskrit and proto-Indo-European is certainly not Sanskrit even though they are obviously antecedents of it. As an analogy take COBOL where you can have English-sounding text such as "ADD 1000000 TO BANK-ACCOUNT." Yet you would not sound very smart if you said "The first use of COBOL is in the Canterbury Tales." If you needed to lookup COBOL syntax you would not consult Shakespeare despite the fact that probably all of the words in COBOL already exist in early English literature. An ironic thing the author could have pointed out is that Panini's birthplace was near Lahore. So in "cultural nationalist" terms one could say Sanskrit is a Pakistani language! But this is really about politics not scholarship and unfortunately politics makes otherwise intelligent people deranged.