3 ms·
I agree with the sentiment but ironically your transliteration of the name of that language reveals that it certainly has undergone at least some sound changes.
by KhoomeiK 5y ago
I agree with the sentiment but ironically your transliteration of the name of that language reveals that it certainly has undergone at least some sound changes. Why do people in the north pronounce the vocalic "r" as "ri" while in the south they use "ru"? Why do people in the north drop word final schwa but in the south they add a nasal bilabial?
While it's very easy to pronounce Samskrta in a way similar to what was likely used in classical times, there have definitely been sound changes to an extent.
- gpraghu 5y agoIn classical recitation, with ghanapatha and other techniques, I would expect that pronunciation is strict, meters are accounted for, and things have remained relatively unchanged in the way the Vedas and Upanishads are recited. Unfortunately, there is little exposure of the rigorous training in the Western world.
- fooker 5y agoExactly. This transliteration, in eastern India would be 'Shongskrito'. Which is no more right or wrong compared to saying 'Sanskrit'.
- gpraghu 5y agoSonguahkrito is not Samskruta but Bengali. So what’s your point?
- fooker 5y agoSure, and that's exactly why pronunciation has changed over the last few thousand years. People are always going to speak how they want and eventually the 'correct' version isn't the majority. None of the many thousand people who have learnt Sanskrit in the eastern part of India would pronunce the name as 'Samskruta'. You could argue all day about how they are all wrong, that doesn't really change the fact.