6 ms·

> Modern (north Indian) Sanskrit pronunciation uses Hindi/Urdu style of pronouncing vowels which was significantly influenced by Arabic and Persian. This has t

> Modern (north Indian) Sanskrit pronunciation uses Hindi/Urdu style of pronouncing vowels which was significantly influenced by Arabic and Persian. This has to be the most far-fetched and absurd claim I’ve heard so far. Sanskrit has been orally transmitted since several millennia and there’s no change in its pronunciation and grammar since days of Panini. That robust oral tradition is well researched and proven to be fool proof.

AbrahamParangi 5y ago
That would make it the only language in the world to be passed down unmodified, which seems... unlikely.
- FlyingSnake 5y ago
  I understand it comes across as jingoistic, but truly Sanskrit grammar and pronunciation hasn’t changed since Pānini. The word Sanskrit itself means “constructed” and there was a rigorous effort to prevent ambiguity.
  - fooker 5y ago
    Grammar hasn't. Pronunciation has, a lot.
    - gpraghu 5y ago
      You are almost completely wrong. How do you account for the precision of Panini as the previous commenter pointed out? How do you know to postulate that? There is NO other formalized grammar akin to Panini, so don’t judge Samskruta by other so called Indo European standards!
  - hawk_ 5y ago
    there are no recordings from panini's times and panini's texts pertain to grammar. they don't prescribe pronunciation - like precise position of tongue lips etc...
    - ummonk 5y ago
      What are you talking about? Panini did detail the pronunciation of each character. And the actual pronunciation (i.e. accounting for things like assimilation) is then encoded in the writing via Sandhi. Likewise, we have older information on pronunciation as well in the Pratishakhyas. Ancient Indians cared a lot about accurate pronunciation, especially for mantras where the thinking was that without correct pronunciation, the mantra would not work. Picture the Harry Potter "wingardium leviosa" scene. Modern don’t actually hew to the prescribed pronunciation for certain letters, but it’s certainly specified by Panini.
    - prox 5y ago
      That’s actually the first thing you learn and it’s quite rigorous where to vocalize and how.
      - fooker 5y ago
        Yeah, and it differs based on where you're from!
  - gpraghu 5y ago
    It is NOT Sanskrit, which was foisted on the world by the british. Please be respectful and call it by it real name, given by Panini which literally codified and formalized it.
    - fooker 5y ago
      Maybe if more people learnt the language instead of crusading on about it's supposed heritage, it would have been the official language of India.
fooker 5y ago
I mean, you could listen to samveda chants from different parts of India and see the pronunciations are very audibly different... Your kind of hot take about Sanskrit is somewhat common.
- schoen 5y ago
  I once went to a wedding involving academic linguists and Hindu prayers. A Hindu priest chanted a prayer in Sanskrit and then an academic linguist followed up by chanting the same prayer with his view of what it would have anciently sounded like. Notwithstanding the priest's own view of his Sanskrit as an ancient language, his pronunciation didn't match up with the academic linguist's view of the historical pronunciation. Relatedly, I went to a spoken Latin event where I (an American) spoke Latin with an Italian man. His pronunciation and mine were wildly different, although we could understand each other. Neither was all that similar to the academic linguists' view of what our conversation would have sounded like thousands of years ago, though I guess his vowels were generally closer and my consonants were generally closer. People retaining ancient languages for liturgical and scholarly uses are generally not that great at preventing the pronunciation from shifting, and I think that's true across the board. ("Atque memento, nulli adsunt Romanorum qui locutionem tuam corrigant." -- Henry Beard.)
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    "There are no more Romans to correct your speech"?
    - schoen 5y ago
      "And remember, there are no Romans around to correct your pronunciation."
      - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
        Cheers. Yeah, I let the "remember" bit drop :)
  - 5y ago

AbrahamParangi 5y ago

That would make it the only language in the world to be passed down unmodified, which seems... unlikely.

FlyingSnake 5y ago
I understand it comes across as jingoistic, but truly Sanskrit grammar and pronunciation hasn’t changed since Pānini. The word Sanskrit itself means “constructed” and there was a rigorous effort to prevent ambiguity.
- fooker 5y ago
  Grammar hasn't. Pronunciation has, a lot.
  - gpraghu 5y ago
    You are almost completely wrong. How do you account for the precision of Panini as the previous commenter pointed out? How do you know to postulate that? There is NO other formalized grammar akin to Panini, so don’t judge Samskruta by other so called Indo European standards!
- hawk_ 5y ago
  there are no recordings from panini's times and panini's texts pertain to grammar. they don't prescribe pronunciation - like precise position of tongue lips etc...
  - ummonk 5y ago
    What are you talking about? Panini did detail the pronunciation of each character. And the actual pronunciation (i.e. accounting for things like assimilation) is then encoded in the writing via Sandhi. Likewise, we have older information on pronunciation as well in the Pratishakhyas. Ancient Indians cared a lot about accurate pronunciation, especially for mantras where the thinking was that without correct pronunciation, the mantra would not work. Picture the Harry Potter "wingardium leviosa" scene. Modern don’t actually hew to the prescribed pronunciation for certain letters, but it’s certainly specified by Panini.
  - prox 5y ago
    That’s actually the first thing you learn and it’s quite rigorous where to vocalize and how.
    - fooker 5y ago
      Yeah, and it differs based on where you're from!
- gpraghu 5y ago
  It is NOT Sanskrit, which was foisted on the world by the british. Please be respectful and call it by it real name, given by Panini which literally codified and formalized it.
  - fooker 5y ago
    Maybe if more people learnt the language instead of crusading on about it's supposed heritage, it would have been the official language of India.

fooker 5y ago

I mean, you could listen to samveda chants from different parts of India and see the pronunciations are very audibly different... Your kind of hot take about Sanskrit is somewhat common.

schoen 5y ago
I once went to a wedding involving academic linguists and Hindu prayers. A Hindu priest chanted a prayer in Sanskrit and then an academic linguist followed up by chanting the same prayer with his view of what it would have anciently sounded like. Notwithstanding the priest's own view of his Sanskrit as an ancient language, his pronunciation didn't match up with the academic linguist's view of the historical pronunciation. Relatedly, I went to a spoken Latin event where I (an American) spoke Latin with an Italian man. His pronunciation and mine were wildly different, although we could understand each other. Neither was all that similar to the academic linguists' view of what our conversation would have sounded like thousands of years ago, though I guess his vowels were generally closer and my consonants were generally closer. People retaining ancient languages for liturgical and scholarly uses are generally not that great at preventing the pronunciation from shifting, and I think that's true across the board. ("Atque memento, nulli adsunt Romanorum qui locutionem tuam corrigant." -- Henry Beard.)
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  "There are no more Romans to correct your speech"?
  - schoen 5y ago
    "And remember, there are no Romans around to correct your pronunciation."
    - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
      Cheers. Yeah, I let the "remember" bit drop :)
- 5y ago