4 ms·

>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

by 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.

by tty 13y ago

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.