Talk:Vedic Sanskrit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] references
what is "Mallory and Mair 2000"? How about providing bibliographic details (and page) once you are citing sources? dab (ᛏ) 12:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I did a quick JSTOR search, and managed to find a reference to 'Mallory, J.P. and Victor H. Mair. 2000. The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West. London: Thames & Hudson.' This book seems somewhat far afield from Vedic Sanskrit, so I'm not going to put it into the main page. If anyone else is more confident or manages to track down a copy, here is the reference. Mrgah 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also, Mallory 1989 would likely be 'Mallory, J.P. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. New York: Thames & Hudson.' Bryant 2001 is anyone's guess. Mrgah 06:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Injunctive?
Someone who knows what the injunctive mood implies, and whether it exists in other languages?
- it's not really a mood, it's a morphological remnant from before there were moods. dab (ᛏ) 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 19th century scholarship
Max Müller was an important scholar, but his works (as most 19th century scholarship) are obsolete and no longer relevant excepting from a history of archeology point-of-view. Mueller used in his works the data he had available at the time, but since then a lot of things were discovered and ignoring them is not a good idea.
Also, Mallory is not just a professor, he's the editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies and he has been one of the most important experts in the field for the last couple of decades. bogdan 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not quite, I don't believe that works of history from the times of Muller need to be rejected at once. The works of Muller are himself disputed in India, where people put the Vedas to 1700BC at least. Like him or not Muller is the authority on the subject. While Mallory might have mentioned it, alongwith Mummies from China and Irish Chariots, his work simply does not qualify to substitute Muller's when it comes to Veads. Freedom skies 20:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- This isn't a matter of trying to pitch Mallory. I'd support the citation of any respected, consensus-representing contemporary scholar here. But it's clear that Freedom_skies idolizes Muller in this case, and won't be happy until he's cited, no matter how superseded portions of his work may be. And as for Indian scholars, I would not object to the citation of scholars who have submitted their work to peer review and publish in international fora, just as Mallory and others have done. CRCulver 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Actually this is a matter of trying to pitch Mallory. I offered you additional references which you declined. You left me with Muller alone then you claimed that the objective of my actions was to prove the alleged supremacy of Muller. How ironic ?? A few of the citations have been mentioned in the article. I have about a dozen more if you'd like to extend a request for them. Good day. Freedom skies 22:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About e and o
The vowels e (ए) and o (ओ) were actually realized in Vedic Sanskrit as diphthongs /ai/ and /au/, but they became pure monophthongs /eː/ and /oː/ in Classical Sanskrit.
I doesn't agree to this, because there had be also intermediate diphthongs /ei/ and /ou/ between /ai/ > /ē/ and /au/ > /ō/. So in the Classic Sanskrit ए and ओ) had to be pronounced as /ei/ and /ou/. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roberts7 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
- Could someone please cite a specific book that may be helpful in studying this interesting question? What is the source? Buddhipriya 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
