4 ms·

> and I have no idea where to begin explaining that it's nothing like that (I have studied Sanskrit and Hindi in school for multiple years, and can understand

by vram22 6y ago

> and I have no idea where to begin explaining that it's nothing like that (I have studied Sanskrit and Hindi in school for multiple years, and can understand a good amount of Marathi and Tamil.) You can say this - I think it is true, not quite verified (partly heard from older relatives, partly deduction based on observing similarities in the mentioned languages' vocabularies): Sanskrit came first - thousands of years ago. It is the language of the Vedas, 4 of India's most ancient scriptures. Many northern (including east and west) Indian languages are similar to Sanskrit and likely are descendants of it. Hindi, Gujarati, Marwari, Punjabi, Bengali, Oriya (not sure, but it sounds some like Bengali), Marathi, are some of these. Languages of Indian states further east than Bengal, called the North Eastern states, like Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, etc. may not show a lot of Sanskrit influence because they may have Oriental influence instead, such as from SE Asia, China, etc. Except Assamese may have some Sanskrit influence, also not sure of Manipuri. And of the southern states in the peninsula, Tamil has the least Sanskrit influence and is also said to be very ancient. The other three, Malayalam, Kannada and Telugu, have some Sanskrit influence. Caveat: I am not a language expert.

bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
Bengali is very much a descendent of Sanskrit. Assamese (and Oriya) is essentially a somewhat distant dialect of Bengali. Most languages of Asia that aren't part of the Chinese world (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and modern Vietnamese) have tons of Sanskrit or Pali (or both) in them. Tamil has lots of sanskrit in it (good examples are naka meaning finger nail, singa meaning lion, ampala from ambara meaning sky) it just has less than other dravidian languages, presumbaly because of its much older literary tradition. Literaly Malayalam looks literary Tamil, with all the words converted to Sanskrit. It's kind of funny!
- guruparan18 6y ago
  And Tamil have long tradition of resisting Sanskirt influence. With elaborate grammar rules dictating if you must use loan words when, where and how to use them. It is more true for literary setting and never true for day-today speaking. Also, Tamil words also made into Sanskrit, don't know what it means. Languages are basically for interchanging ideas. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
    I mean... Tamilians sort of dominated of dominated Sanskrit literature in 7th-10th centuries. Dandin, Kumarila, Shankara, Dharmakirti, Ramanujan and Madhva. Not to mention the Bhagavatapurana, which very quickly became probably the most important religious text in India! I wouldn't say Tamilians rejected sanskrit... they just kept the two seperate. There aren't very many tamilian words itself in sanskrit (mina meaning fish is the only one I can think of), but there are proto-dravidian loan words in Sanskrit.
    - valarauko 6y ago
      Most of the people in that list were likely not Tamilian - Shankara was likely Malayali, Kumarila & Dharmakirti are just as likely to have been from Assam, and Madhva was Tuluva. What about the Bhagavatapurana is Tamil?
      - bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
        It literally quotes the Azhvars... you're right about Malva, that was a mistake. I don't agree with a possible assamese origin of either Kumarila or Dharmakirti, and see no reason to doubt Taranatha, and in the 9th century, the distinction between Malayali and Tamil is academic.
- msaharia 6y ago
  Assamese is NOT a dialect of Bengali. It is older than Bengali and infact the first non-Sanskrit language to which Ramayana was translated to. The Assamese script itself is in a continuous development since 5th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umachal_rock_inscription https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umachal_rock_inscription
  - bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
    The earliest extent translation of the Ramayana is the Tamil Kampan Ramayana from the late 12th century. The might have been a Khmer translation earlier. The Assamese Kotha Ramayana is about two hundred years later. The Jain Ardhamagghadi Ramayana is very old, perhaps older than the Valmikiramayana! I stand corrected about Assamese's relationship with Bengali.
    - msaharia 6y ago
      No worries. I meant in the Indic language family, not Dravidian. The Tamil version definitely preceded that.
- vram22 6y ago
  > Bengali is very much a descendent of Sanskrit Yes, that is nearly same as what I said above, except I said "likely", because I was not sure, not being a language expert. And that "likely" applied to the other languages I mentioned too, in that sentence. Edit: Actually, I am (still anecdotally) pretty sure of it for at least Hindi and Marathi, because both of them have too many words which are the same as, or derived from Sanskrit, for it to be a mistake.

by vram22 6y ago

bodhiandpysics1 6y ago

Bengali is very much a descendent of Sanskrit. Assamese (and Oriya) is essentially a somewhat distant dialect of Bengali. Most languages of Asia that aren't part of the Chinese world (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and modern Vietnamese) have tons of Sanskrit or Pali (or both) in them. Tamil has lots of sanskrit in it (good examples are naka meaning finger nail, singa meaning lion, ampala from ambara meaning sky) it just has less than other dravidian languages, presumbaly because of its much older literary tradition. Literaly Malayalam looks literary Tamil, with all the words converted to Sanskrit. It's kind of funny!

guruparan18 6y ago
And Tamil have long tradition of resisting Sanskirt influence. With elaborate grammar rules dictating if you must use loan words when, where and how to use them. It is more true for literary setting and never true for day-today speaking. Also, Tamil words also made into Sanskrit, don't know what it means. Languages are basically for interchanging ideas. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
  I mean... Tamilians sort of dominated of dominated Sanskrit literature in 7th-10th centuries. Dandin, Kumarila, Shankara, Dharmakirti, Ramanujan and Madhva. Not to mention the Bhagavatapurana, which very quickly became probably the most important religious text in India! I wouldn't say Tamilians rejected sanskrit... they just kept the two seperate. There aren't very many tamilian words itself in sanskrit (mina meaning fish is the only one I can think of), but there are proto-dravidian loan words in Sanskrit.
  - valarauko 6y ago
    Most of the people in that list were likely not Tamilian - Shankara was likely Malayali, Kumarila & Dharmakirti are just as likely to have been from Assam, and Madhva was Tuluva. What about the Bhagavatapurana is Tamil?
    - bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
      It literally quotes the Azhvars... you're right about Malva, that was a mistake. I don't agree with a possible assamese origin of either Kumarila or Dharmakirti, and see no reason to doubt Taranatha, and in the 9th century, the distinction between Malayali and Tamil is academic.
msaharia 6y ago
Assamese is NOT a dialect of Bengali. It is older than Bengali and infact the first non-Sanskrit language to which Ramayana was translated to. The Assamese script itself is in a continuous development since 5th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umachal_rock_inscription https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umachal_rock_inscription
- bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
  The earliest extent translation of the Ramayana is the Tamil Kampan Ramayana from the late 12th century. The might have been a Khmer translation earlier. The Assamese Kotha Ramayana is about two hundred years later. The Jain Ardhamagghadi Ramayana is very old, perhaps older than the Valmikiramayana! I stand corrected about Assamese's relationship with Bengali.
  - msaharia 6y ago
    No worries. I meant in the Indic language family, not Dravidian. The Tamil version definitely preceded that.
vram22 6y ago
> Bengali is very much a descendent of Sanskrit Yes, that is nearly same as what I said above, except I said "likely", because I was not sure, not being a language expert. And that "likely" applied to the other languages I mentioned too, in that sentence. Edit: Actually, I am (still anecdotally) pretty sure of it for at least Hindi and Marathi, because both of them have too many words which are the same as, or derived from Sanskrit, for it to be a mistake.