4 ms·

I understand that, but language that doesn't really exisit within the population anymore? Sigh. Perhaps it's analogous to Latin I that case.

jaldhar 9y ago
Is a language only a language if it is spoken? Sanskrit has a lot of cultural significance to Indians and it forms the basis of the vocabulary of the modern Indian languages (even the Dravidian ones.) So it is somewhat like Latin but perhaps a better analogy for what the Indian nationalists want from it is Hebrew. That was also a language no one except specialists spoke. Until they did.
- reallymental 9y ago
  Apologies for the late reply, I was driving. > "Is a language only a language if it is spoken?" --Certainly not, like you point out. > "Sanskrit has a lot of cultural significance to Indians and it forms the basis of the vocabulary of the modern Indian languages (even the Dravidian ones.)" Why do you measure the significance of a language by the effect it has as the basis of current languages, or even by the effect it has on the culture of those people? I find it quite the opposite. I would argue the significance of the language has been lost due to its evolution into different, better versions of itself. "Thy truth, then, be thy dower" -- nobody speaks like that anymore, because it's more tedious to do so, and I have no time to express my thoughts in such a vague manner. It's evolved, its significance has been lost to its more friendlier, quicker and (controversially) easier version. I would argue that the culture shapes language, rather than the other way round. Texting on my phone doesn't look like full sentences, for instance. I speak better here than I do on Reddit, where my chats can be reduced to "lol" and bad puns. If I followed your [language -->(leads to)-->culture] statement, I would have to ask the question, who's culture?I know, it's quite well woven into the culture of the practising Hindu's (I cannot find any numbers on practising vs non-practising to argue further into it), I know that the most Muslims in India have literate knowledge Arabic/Urdu that extends as a tangent to their culture(none into Sanskrit for sure)... I don't know enough about the roots of Christianity in India to speak about it publicly (I suspect the British certainly had some hand in it). But again the population ratios are heavily skewed towards Hindu's so you can argue that their momentum drives the culture. But I think my first point stands, the language has been dragged through the mud to appease convoluted political interests, and this language serves no more modern purpose. > "perhaps a better analogy for what the Indian nationalists want from it is Hebrew. That was also a language no one except specialists spoke. Until they did." Ah the Hindu Nationalists, how many remember how they ran through the streets cutting the Muslims up[0]. It instantly normalised all religious thoughts in my head. We're all just disguising our issues into a "My Dad is much stronger than Your Dad" fight. Nobody is better. It took a world war for the Israeli's to get their own land, and they guard their's almost too fiercely. These Nationalists have their land (Hindustan), and yet they incite violence and stir the pot, under the pretence of being the white blood cells of the country. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_riots PS: Thank you for bringing up such good points btw, It's been a while since a thread made me stay up late to reply to. It's not often I think about these subjects, it was a good change of thought.

jaldhar 9y ago

Is a language only a language if it is spoken? Sanskrit has a lot of cultural significance to Indians and it forms the basis of the vocabulary of the modern Indian languages (even the Dravidian ones.) So it is somewhat like Latin but perhaps a better analogy for what the Indian nationalists want from it is Hebrew. That was also a language no one except specialists spoke. Until they did.

reallymental 9y ago
Apologies for the late reply, I was driving. > "Is a language only a language if it is spoken?" --Certainly not, like you point out. > "Sanskrit has a lot of cultural significance to Indians and it forms the basis of the vocabulary of the modern Indian languages (even the Dravidian ones.)" Why do you measure the significance of a language by the effect it has as the basis of current languages, or even by the effect it has on the culture of those people? I find it quite the opposite. I would argue the significance of the language has been lost due to its evolution into different, better versions of itself. "Thy truth, then, be thy dower" -- nobody speaks like that anymore, because it's more tedious to do so, and I have no time to express my thoughts in such a vague manner. It's evolved, its significance has been lost to its more friendlier, quicker and (controversially) easier version. I would argue that the culture shapes language, rather than the other way round. Texting on my phone doesn't look like full sentences, for instance. I speak better here than I do on Reddit, where my chats can be reduced to "lol" and bad puns. If I followed your [language -->(leads to)-->culture] statement, I would have to ask the question, who's culture?I know, it's quite well woven into the culture of the practising Hindu's (I cannot find any numbers on practising vs non-practising to argue further into it), I know that the most Muslims in India have literate knowledge Arabic/Urdu that extends as a tangent to their culture(none into Sanskrit for sure)... I don't know enough about the roots of Christianity in India to speak about it publicly (I suspect the British certainly had some hand in it). But again the population ratios are heavily skewed towards Hindu's so you can argue that their momentum drives the culture. But I think my first point stands, the language has been dragged through the mud to appease convoluted political interests, and this language serves no more modern purpose. > "perhaps a better analogy for what the Indian nationalists want from it is Hebrew. That was also a language no one except specialists spoke. Until they did." Ah the Hindu Nationalists, how many remember how they ran through the streets cutting the Muslims up[0]. It instantly normalised all religious thoughts in my head. We're all just disguising our issues into a "My Dad is much stronger than Your Dad" fight. Nobody is better. It took a world war for the Israeli's to get their own land, and they guard their's almost too fiercely. These Nationalists have their land (Hindustan), and yet they incite violence and stir the pot, under the pretence of being the white blood cells of the country. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_riots PS: Thank you for bringing up such good points btw, It's been a while since a thread made me stay up late to reply to. It's not often I think about these subjects, it was a good change of thought.