7 ms·

So there are several things in this article that are flat out wrong: (1) "No wonder so many languages are derived from it." Not sure what he is referring to

by Jd 13y ago

So there are several things in this article that are flat out wrong: (1) "No wonder so many languages are derived from it." Not sure what he is referring to exactly, but Sanskrit itself is a descendent of proto Indo-European, from which many other Western languages were derived. So it is a near cousin to the original language of the Indo-European people, but not the direct ancestor of Western languages (this was a misconception of the 19th century linguists that "discovered" Sanskrit). (2) "It is more expressive" I assume by this he means you can do more with less. To a certain extent this is true. (3) Very systematic This is only true to a certain degree. Classical Sanskrit is itself not the original language, and probably the largest single pain point is the "sandhi" rules, in which words are combined together. Although someone eventually wrote down a large number of rules that shows how these changed together, they are more the product of slurring of speech over time, rather than "design" per se. (4) "Excellent grammar" Is a lot of grammar "excellent grammar" ? In Sanskrit, it does allow certain structures that are not available elsewhere (like the existence of a dual case), which presumably facilitate density, and, consequently, presumably also facilitates efficiency. If so, one could argue that the grammar of Attic Greek is more "excellent" than that of English. However, to me "excellence" is something that depends more on the specific use case -- a language that someone can speak and use is better than one that one cannot.

pavanky 13y ago
> Not sure what he is referring to exactly, but Sanskrit itself is a descendent of proto Indo-European, from which many other Western languages were derived. So it is a near cousin to the original language of the Indo-European people, but not the direct ancestor of Western languages (this was a misconception of the 19th century linguists that "discovered" Sanskrit). OP never says Western Languages descended from Sanskrit, you are making that part up. The fact is that many Indian languages descended from it (or rather from the natural form, Prakrit, as opposed to the classical form). This is similar to how Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian and Portugese) evolved from Vulgar Latin.
- tty 13y ago
  >OP never says Western Languages descended from Sanskrit, you are making that part up. The fact is that many Indian languages descended from it (or rather from the natural form, Prakrit, as opposed to the classical form). This is similar to how Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian and Portugese) evolved from Vulgar Latin. He's not necessarily :making it up_. It's quite common for Indians, and even Indian linguists to spread ridiculous ideas about Sanskrit, including it being "perfect", "better than other languages", "holy", and quite commonly "all other languages descending from it" as well as the claim of Sanskrit being "the first language". There's a lot of things in that blogpost that would make most linguists facepalm (especially the part about Sanskrit being "more expressive" and "more systematic"). The idea that Sanskrit is an ancestor language for other languages (far away from the Indo-Aryan group) goes quite hand in hand with these ridiculous notions.
  - bandy 13y ago
    To be honest, he sounds just like the other parents trying to justify why their children should spend years learning Latin. (This was a snooty private school, not a parochial school.)
  - parennoob 13y ago
    I think you're being paranoid, and he's just comparing it to other Indian languages, and saying that a bunch of Indian languages descended from it (as they did, by way of Prakrit.) While it may be common for some Indian people to "spread ridiculous ideas about Sanskrit", a lot of people who have studied Sanskrit do come away with the feeling that, compared to modern languages in general (English, and other European or Indian languages), Sanskrit manages to pack a wealth of meaning into a few words. I don't see why a layperson saying that should be labeled as "ridiculous" and such.
  - pavanky 13y ago
    > There's a lot of things in that blogpost that would make most linguists facepalm (especially the part about Sanskrit being "more expressive" and "more systematic"). The idea that Sanskrit is an ancestor language for other languages (far away from the Indo-Aryan group) goes quite hand in hand with these ridiculous notions. There is a reason I have not addressed the other points you raised. > It's quite common for Indians, and even Indian linguists to spread ridiculous ideas about Sanskrit, including it being "perfect", "better than other languages", "holy", and quite commonly "all other languages descending from it" as well as the claim of Sanskrit being "the first language". You'll have to back up those claims. Southern Indians (> 25% of Indian population) would have a HUGE problem with anyone saying that. Just because a few quacks are saying it does not mean many Indian believe it.
hannibal5 13y ago
The reason why Sanskrit seems so interesting for programmers is that it was first language to have formal rules for grammar over 2400 years ago. Panini defined Sanskrit grammar using Bakus-Naur rules and meta rules. http://mathomathis.blogspot.in/2010/08/backus-naur-form-panini.html http://mathomathis.blogspot.in/2010/08/backus-naur-form-pani...
- Jd 13y ago
  This is very true, although one minor nitpick is that you should say "formal written rules" for grammar. The rules appear in fact appear to be more formal and consistent in the centuries before Panini, and the need to write them down (including the aforementioned sandhi rules) was partially due to inconsistencies derived from the evolution of the language.
gngeal 13y ago
To sum it up, the writer probably has the mentality of William Jones: sort of romantic, but essentially flawed.
amalag 13y ago
The imaginary "proto indo-european" language is a very deep seated racist brother of the Aryan invasion theory. You can read the wikipedia article and the start of this mythical language construct with Sir William Jones who wanted to make his study of Sanskrit fit within his Christian worldview. He found the Sanskrit, Latin and Greek related and decided that there is some mythical imaginary language that preceded them. How could well educated Britishers and Europeans come to the conclusion that Sanskrit was indeed the ancestor of Greek and Latin.
- crux 13y ago
  You seem to agree with the linguistic consensus that Sanskrit, Latin and Greek are all related. You seem to depart from the consensus with the conclusion that because they are all related, they must share an ancestor. If that's so, how do you account for the relation between Sanskrit, Latin and Greek (and Russian, and English...)? Or do you deny the relation altogether? Do you have a competing theory that you could point me to?
  - amalag 13y ago
    You want me to compete with a theory that made up an imaginary language?
    - crux 13y ago
      ...Yeah? I mean, if the PIE theory is obviously wrong, then what's the right answer?
    - gngeal 13y ago
      How come that "the theory that made up an imaginary language" correctly predicted the existence of laryngeal phonemes in the Hittite language before the Hittite language was even known to exist? Stroke of luck, that a group of unknown consonants from an "imaginary language" appeared in a real language in exactly the right place in the right words? Also, the notion that the PIE reconstructions describe a "language" in the sense that we usually understand it (a vernacular tongue of a group of people in a single time and place) is a false one: even though the reconstructions with very high likelihood represent individual IE language features in an old form thereof, it would be a folly to try to slap them together and say "this is a language that someone spoke", for the same reason you can't reconstruct individual genes from the tree of mammals, slap them together and say "this was the first mammal". It doesn't work like that. What you get is a constrained probability function over possible languages, not a single solution with 100% probability.
X4 13y ago
Language Complexity that you speak against here is a good thing! But only when the rules are simple, yes even when you have many similar rules. The language would still be more efficient than a language with much less rules. The other thing you criticize is your notice about the evolution of the language. That makes only sense when you just wanted to be accurate, but then it shouldn't look like critics. If a language evolved, it means it was successful.
voidlogic 13y ago
(1) "No wonder so many languages are derived from it." >Not sure what he is referring to exactly, but Sanskrit itself is a descendent of proto Indo-European, from which many other Western languages were derived. So it is a near cousin to the original language of the Indo-European people, but not the direct ancestor of Western languages (this was a misconception of the 19th century linguists that "discovered" Sanskrit). This misconception is very much like that of creationists when propose that evolution means "people came from monkeys"; when in fact we simply share increasingly recent common ancestors as you move from primitive primates to the other great apes.

by Jd 13y ago

pavanky 13y ago

> Not sure what he is referring to exactly, but Sanskrit itself is a descendent of proto Indo-European, from which many other Western languages were derived. So it is a near cousin to the original language of the Indo-European people, but not the direct ancestor of Western languages (this was a misconception of the 19th century linguists that "discovered" Sanskrit). OP never says Western Languages descended from Sanskrit, you are making that part up. The fact is that many Indian languages descended from it (or rather from the natural form, Prakrit, as opposed to the classical form). This is similar to how Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian and Portugese) evolved from Vulgar Latin.

tty 13y ago
>OP never says Western Languages descended from Sanskrit, you are making that part up. The fact is that many Indian languages descended from it (or rather from the natural form, Prakrit, as opposed to the classical form). This is similar to how Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian and Portugese) evolved from Vulgar Latin. He's not necessarily :making it up_. It's quite common for Indians, and even Indian linguists to spread ridiculous ideas about Sanskrit, including it being "perfect", "better than other languages", "holy", and quite commonly "all other languages descending from it" as well as the claim of Sanskrit being "the first language". There's a lot of things in that blogpost that would make most linguists facepalm (especially the part about Sanskrit being "more expressive" and "more systematic"). The idea that Sanskrit is an ancestor language for other languages (far away from the Indo-Aryan group) goes quite hand in hand with these ridiculous notions.
- bandy 13y ago
  To be honest, he sounds just like the other parents trying to justify why their children should spend years learning Latin. (This was a snooty private school, not a parochial school.)
- parennoob 13y ago
  I think you're being paranoid, and he's just comparing it to other Indian languages, and saying that a bunch of Indian languages descended from it (as they did, by way of Prakrit.) While it may be common for some Indian people to "spread ridiculous ideas about Sanskrit", a lot of people who have studied Sanskrit do come away with the feeling that, compared to modern languages in general (English, and other European or Indian languages), Sanskrit manages to pack a wealth of meaning into a few words. I don't see why a layperson saying that should be labeled as "ridiculous" and such.
- pavanky 13y ago
  > There's a lot of things in that blogpost that would make most linguists facepalm (especially the part about Sanskrit being "more expressive" and "more systematic"). The idea that Sanskrit is an ancestor language for other languages (far away from the Indo-Aryan group) goes quite hand in hand with these ridiculous notions. There is a reason I have not addressed the other points you raised. > It's quite common for Indians, and even Indian linguists to spread ridiculous ideas about Sanskrit, including it being "perfect", "better than other languages", "holy", and quite commonly "all other languages descending from it" as well as the claim of Sanskrit being "the first language". You'll have to back up those claims. Southern Indians (> 25% of Indian population) would have a HUGE problem with anyone saying that. Just because a few quacks are saying it does not mean many Indian believe it.

hannibal5 13y ago

The reason why Sanskrit seems so interesting for programmers is that it was first language to have formal rules for grammar over 2400 years ago. Panini defined Sanskrit grammar using Bakus-Naur rules and meta rules. http://mathomathis.blogspot.in/2010/08/backus-naur-form-panini.html http://mathomathis.blogspot.in/2010/08/backus-naur-form-pani...

Jd 13y ago
This is very true, although one minor nitpick is that you should say "formal written rules" for grammar. The rules appear in fact appear to be more formal and consistent in the centuries before Panini, and the need to write them down (including the aforementioned sandhi rules) was partially due to inconsistencies derived from the evolution of the language.

gngeal 13y ago

To sum it up, the writer probably has the mentality of William Jones: sort of romantic, but essentially flawed.

amalag 13y ago

The imaginary "proto indo-european" language is a very deep seated racist brother of the Aryan invasion theory. You can read the wikipedia article and the start of this mythical language construct with Sir William Jones who wanted to make his study of Sanskrit fit within his Christian worldview. He found the Sanskrit, Latin and Greek related and decided that there is some mythical imaginary language that preceded them. How could well educated Britishers and Europeans come to the conclusion that Sanskrit was indeed the ancestor of Greek and Latin.

crux 13y ago
You seem to agree with the linguistic consensus that Sanskrit, Latin and Greek are all related. You seem to depart from the consensus with the conclusion that because they are all related, they must share an ancestor. If that's so, how do you account for the relation between Sanskrit, Latin and Greek (and Russian, and English...)? Or do you deny the relation altogether? Do you have a competing theory that you could point me to?
- amalag 13y ago
  You want me to compete with a theory that made up an imaginary language?
  - crux 13y ago
    ...Yeah? I mean, if the PIE theory is obviously wrong, then what's the right answer?
  - gngeal 13y ago
    How come that "the theory that made up an imaginary language" correctly predicted the existence of laryngeal phonemes in the Hittite language before the Hittite language was even known to exist? Stroke of luck, that a group of unknown consonants from an "imaginary language" appeared in a real language in exactly the right place in the right words? Also, the notion that the PIE reconstructions describe a "language" in the sense that we usually understand it (a vernacular tongue of a group of people in a single time and place) is a false one: even though the reconstructions with very high likelihood represent individual IE language features in an old form thereof, it would be a folly to try to slap them together and say "this is a language that someone spoke", for the same reason you can't reconstruct individual genes from the tree of mammals, slap them together and say "this was the first mammal". It doesn't work like that. What you get is a constrained probability function over possible languages, not a single solution with 100% probability.

X4 13y ago

Language Complexity that you speak against here is a good thing! But only when the rules are simple, yes even when you have many similar rules. The language would still be more efficient than a language with much less rules. The other thing you criticize is your notice about the evolution of the language. That makes only sense when you just wanted to be accurate, but then it shouldn't look like critics. If a language evolved, it means it was successful.

voidlogic 13y ago

(1) "No wonder so many languages are derived from it." >Not sure what he is referring to exactly, but Sanskrit itself is a descendent of proto Indo-European, from which many other Western languages were derived. So it is a near cousin to the original language of the Indo-European people, but not the direct ancestor of Western languages (this was a misconception of the 19th century linguists that "discovered" Sanskrit). This misconception is very much like that of creationists when propose that evolution means "people came from monkeys"; when in fact we simply share increasingly recent common ancestors as you move from primitive primates to the other great apes.