> 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 systema

> 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.