4 ms·

For context of non-Indians and Indians: Sanskrit is used to refer to several different languages. It's often ambiguous which one people are referring to when t

For context of non-Indians and Indians: Sanskrit is used to refer to several different languages. It's often ambiguous which one people are referring to when they say Sanskrit. Classical Sanskrit is the only one which wasn't spoken as a common language. Classical Sanskrit -- the language codified by amongst other Panini, around the 5th century BC, which was used for religious and secular purposes for high culture and amongst the political elites. At this time, some of the other languages now called Sanskrit had turned into the "Middle Indo-Aryan languages", including Pali, and the Prakrits, whose descendents now include the modern Indo-Aryan languages of northern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. Vedic Sanskrit -- the language of the Vedas (1700BC-600BC, approximately), believed in its earliest forms to be the common languages which then became some of the modern north Indian languages. Classical Sanskrit is a codification of Vedic Sanskrit. Broadly -- any Old Indo-Aryan language, including the pieces of Mitanni Aryan attested in inscriptions in northern Iraq/Syria/Turkey embedded in other language texts including Kikkuli's Horse training manual (mostly in Hittite, except where he uses "Mitanni Aryan" words in glosses and defines them), and king names in the Hurrian language, which are meaningful when interpreted as Sanskrit.

jimsimmons 5y ago
> its earliest forms to be the common languages which then became some of the modern north Indian languages. Baseless claim. Sanskrit is not a special ancestor to North Indian languages and there’s nothing that separates North Indian languages from southern ones. Tamil has far more influence on northern Indian languages and other Indian languages including Sanskrit than Sanskrit.
- govg 5y ago
  What do you mean by "there's nothing that separates North Indian languages from southern ones"? They're from two distinct language families, aren't they?
  - jimsimmons 5y ago
    Based on what? You can’t just say so because of geographic or racial reasons.
    - govg 5y ago
      Based on linguistics. People have studied the grammar and vocabulary of languages all over the world and classified them into families based on common origins / evolution and characteristics. You can check it out here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages - the family that most South Indian languages belong to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages - the family that most North Indian languages belong to. In addition, there are languages spoken in India that don't fit into these categories, and are part of other families : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_languages - Part of the Austroasiatic language family. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzongkha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzongkha - Part of the Sino-Tibetan family, spoken by a sparse population in West Bengal. None of this classification is based on "geographic" or "racial" reasons. They're classified and studied as a science.
      - jimsimmons 5y ago
        The truth is a lot more complex than these binary characterisations. All Indian languages have loanwords (tatsama, tadbhava). One interpretation is that Sanskrit is like bones of the linguistic body while other Prakrit languages provide it with muscle and mass. Sanskrit in it’s abstract form is very hard to use conversationally. Finally Hindi which is the dominant language in the north came from Hindustani which itself has heavy influence of Persian/Urdu. Linguists have abounded these simplistic trees of ancestry a while back. Truth is all these languages interacted and improved one another. For example it’s likely that Dravidian languages were spoken in the Indus Valley civilization. That would make them the greatest ancestor. Sanskrit was formed much later and was likely influenced by it. Indo Aryan itself is a racially rooted theory started by Europeans to extract familiar parts of Indian culture and define a collective identity. Reality is far more complex
bravenous 5y ago
Sanskrit is one language not many different. It is like saying Bavarian German aka High German is different language from Hamburg German - they are both German. So there is and will be difference between regular speakers with good grammar vs occasional speakers with poor grammar. I run in these issues when I speak basic Sanskrit with Gurukul based students. The source of Sanskrit and Sanskrit influence is the Saraswat Valley civilisation around 6000 BC. Some recent books have done radio carbon, Sanskrit literature, astronomical charts, climatic events and genomics to validate the time line. The central Asian language influence is migration out of India to Central Europe & Volga referred to as Uttar Kuru.
- jimsimmons 5y ago
  Bavarian and other Germans are actually different. 20th century nationalism in Europe merged them into one blob. Same with Italian. In fact many dialects of italian aren’t even mutually intelligible. Lol at your out of India theory which literally has no basis in any of what you describe
- kranner 5y ago
  Please list these books and sources. An 8000 year old timeline is quite a leap over the current consensus which is 3500 years (the Rigveda, whose earliest inscriptions are found way outside the subcontinent all the way over in Syria). Also what is the Saraswat Valley Civilisation? Are you referring to the Indus Valley Civilisation? I’m sorry but the Out of India hypothesis is not accepted in the scientific and linguistic consensus in any way. The migration is believed to be in the other direction. Also, Panini himself distinguished between different forms of Sanskrit as I understand.
- gumby 5y ago
  > Bavarian German aka High German Bavarian German (Bayerische) is quite different from High German (Hochdeutsche) and people from Bavaria would not appreciate this mix up.

jimsimmons 5y ago

> its earliest forms to be the common languages which then became some of the modern north Indian languages. Baseless claim. Sanskrit is not a special ancestor to North Indian languages and there’s nothing that separates North Indian languages from southern ones. Tamil has far more influence on northern Indian languages and other Indian languages including Sanskrit than Sanskrit.

govg 5y ago
What do you mean by "there's nothing that separates North Indian languages from southern ones"? They're from two distinct language families, aren't they?
- jimsimmons 5y ago
  Based on what? You can’t just say so because of geographic or racial reasons.
  - govg 5y ago
    Based on linguistics. People have studied the grammar and vocabulary of languages all over the world and classified them into families based on common origins / evolution and characteristics. You can check it out here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages - the family that most South Indian languages belong to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages - the family that most North Indian languages belong to. In addition, there are languages spoken in India that don't fit into these categories, and are part of other families : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_languages - Part of the Austroasiatic language family. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzongkha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzongkha - Part of the Sino-Tibetan family, spoken by a sparse population in West Bengal. None of this classification is based on "geographic" or "racial" reasons. They're classified and studied as a science.
    - jimsimmons 5y ago
      The truth is a lot more complex than these binary characterisations. All Indian languages have loanwords (tatsama, tadbhava). One interpretation is that Sanskrit is like bones of the linguistic body while other Prakrit languages provide it with muscle and mass. Sanskrit in it’s abstract form is very hard to use conversationally. Finally Hindi which is the dominant language in the north came from Hindustani which itself has heavy influence of Persian/Urdu. Linguists have abounded these simplistic trees of ancestry a while back. Truth is all these languages interacted and improved one another. For example it’s likely that Dravidian languages were spoken in the Indus Valley civilization. That would make them the greatest ancestor. Sanskrit was formed much later and was likely influenced by it. Indo Aryan itself is a racially rooted theory started by Europeans to extract familiar parts of Indian culture and define a collective identity. Reality is far more complex

bravenous 5y ago

Sanskrit is one language not many different. It is like saying Bavarian German aka High German is different language from Hamburg German - they are both German. So there is and will be difference between regular speakers with good grammar vs occasional speakers with poor grammar. I run in these issues when I speak basic Sanskrit with Gurukul based students. The source of Sanskrit and Sanskrit influence is the Saraswat Valley civilisation around 6000 BC. Some recent books have done radio carbon, Sanskrit literature, astronomical charts, climatic events and genomics to validate the time line. The central Asian language influence is migration out of India to Central Europe & Volga referred to as Uttar Kuru.

jimsimmons 5y ago
Bavarian and other Germans are actually different. 20th century nationalism in Europe merged them into one blob. Same with Italian. In fact many dialects of italian aren’t even mutually intelligible. Lol at your out of India theory which literally has no basis in any of what you describe
kranner 5y ago
Please list these books and sources. An 8000 year old timeline is quite a leap over the current consensus which is 3500 years (the Rigveda, whose earliest inscriptions are found way outside the subcontinent all the way over in Syria). Also what is the Saraswat Valley Civilisation? Are you referring to the Indus Valley Civilisation? I’m sorry but the Out of India hypothesis is not accepted in the scientific and linguistic consensus in any way. The migration is believed to be in the other direction. Also, Panini himself distinguished between different forms of Sanskrit as I understand.
gumby 5y ago
> Bavarian German aka High German Bavarian German (Bayerische) is quite different from High German (Hochdeutsche) and people from Bavaria would not appreciate this mix up.