Talk:Sanskrit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Possible Restructuring of the Article?

Is there a reason why this page contains an extensive description of Sanskrit grammar when such information could be moved to a different article? Having a separate Sanskrit grammar article would be in consonance with most of the other Wikipedia articles on major languages, and would allow us to present complete nominal and verbal inflectional paradigms. We could even have separate articles for the Sanskrit noun and the Sanskrit verb, if we choose to follow the pattern for German grammar. Apologies if this has been discussed before. Gokulmadhavan 08:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is not the nationwide language dears

Hello fellow wikipedians,

Understand the wikipedia project to provide authentic sources alone.This article features sanskrit is speaken nationwide in India . mm . This is a dead language dears. and u r giving as much hype to make it alive. - what is your problem with comprehension? Nowhere the article says it is " speaken nationwide in India" . It says Sanskrit is used ofr liturgical and religious purposes and has lots of prestige, which is true.

Please provide some useful or if u dare give REAL facts about sanskrit.There are a bunch of blog entries to defame sanskrit than that of its promoters. No false info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.36.96 (talk • contribs) February 21, 2006.

Hellø feller 59.92.36.96? Zø whæt længuaigzhe ærest thøu spaekin'? Nøt B1FFian isit? Rursus 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is one of the "scheduled languages" by definition of the "Official Language Commission", not by virtue of being "alive" in any way. dab (ᛏ) 18:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Explanation against thy argument

(By User:Bsskchaitanya)

My dear brother, i wish to atleast to satify ur question by the explansion given by me. I dont believe in what others feel and talk unless i get a conslusion by myself about believing it.

Sanskrit had been to Hindus and Ancient India like a divine language. Each word is considered as divine with some deeper meaning existing in it. Anyway that was feeling of those people like the people who still think that a person who died 2000 years ago has arisen and will again visit earth. So, lets stick to a rational and impartial discussion about that language.

Sanskrit is nothing more than a language. People according to their understanding and ideologies comment on it. Before the advent of Panini sanskrit was just an ordinary natural language which was changed along with time. Thats why we see lot of words and sentences used in vedic sanskrit deviating from the existing grammar rules. Presence of accents, letters like "f" and "q" and "retroflex fricative". But with passage of time they disappeared.

[edit] Advent of Panini

Panini had tried to analyse (qualitative and quantitative) sanskrit language just as an "language". This made him to think about gender, tense, mood, verb, noun etc., He wrote in his book about the grammar on sanskrit giving rule for almost all types of linguistic usage. Some exceptions existed in Vedic sanskrit literature with his grammar, so he called it as Ārsha Sāmpradāya. Next great person was patanjali who wrote an elaborate commentary on Panini's work. Aftermath him came bhartrihari who wrote Vakyapadiya. That person perceived Sanskrit as a means of expressing & understanding. These three works made revolutionary changes in the so called great divine language which was nothing but an normal vernacular language subjected to significant changes.

[edit] Aftermath Panini

From that time, Sanskrit sticked to the rules without subjecting to significant changes.
An Example quoted in Vakyapadiya:
In Vedic Sanskrit, the verb To bear - Grbhnāti
But in classical one it became - Grhnāti (Even after 2000 years it is same)

Now for an sanskrit learner the former one will sense as a nonsense and distorted version of the later one. Though later one was the distorted one of the former.
No language or dialect is superior to other. It is the qualitative literature and vernacular usage that makes it significant.
With the work of Panini, Sanskrit learners got knowledge of Structural linguistics, descriptive linguistics and generative linguistics. That made it a very power language in means of expression of the inner feelings.
Since it sticked completely to grammar rules rather than vernacular usage obviously the usage of people drastically reduced. Means the distorted dialects considered as outside the so called pure and divine sanskrit whom later developed into different languages such as hindi, bengali, marathi etc.

[edit] Reasons "for" the official status

Though India was nothing but a cluster of provinces and kingdoms, it was the feelings that,

All belong to same nation called bharatavarsha.
All langauges came from the mother Sanskrit.

These two feelings were mixed in the Indian blood throughout the ages though there was a drastical diversity in culture, language, way of life, religion etc.

Because of above reason, In Independant India, some leaders thought of keeping Sanskrit as national langauge though it considered nothing more than a mere dead language. The reasons are,

All kinds pujas and mantras are in Sanskrit, which makes every hindu (80% in India) to atleast think about sanskrit.
Though sanskrit is dead language, it has profound undeniable indirect impact on,
- Hindi
- Marathi
- Bengali
- Oriya
- Kashmiri
- Nepali
- Telugu
- Kannada
- Malayalam

Kashmiri must be removed from the list since it is no more a hindu language and also hindu brahmins of kashmir like to see influence of sanskrit on kashmiri. Kashmiri is not descended from sanskrit. It is descended from indo-aryan proper but is essentially dardic language and is not sanskritic language like other languages in the list. Indo-Aryan proper = Proto Vedic Sanskrit + Proto Dardic

[edit] Reasons against the official status

Because of some presence of muslim population in India, it was decided that if Hindi was made as official one, then even urdu speakers can enjoy the benifits by being just like a different dialect. So, Sanskrit was made as one of the official languages of India. Nothing was there to say that it was classical language by default.
Moreover it was used as a medium to prove the superiority by some section of people (so called upper castes), so it looked as symbol of oppression for peoples of some other castes, muslims and christians.

[edit] Alternative for its Status

Many attempts were made by government for revival of sanskrit. To perfectly say for survival of it. For futher info, refer the article.
It was given official status in the list of scheduled official languages.

[edit] Conclusion

Every body will have their own opinion, so we should atleast respect though we may not accept it.
I think you concentrated on sanskrit only. I suggest you to go through some other great Indian languages like Tamil. Then you can find how they became into a great language through grammar and literature.
Through some light on historical linguistics, sociolinguistics and comparative linguistics. Then you can have a much clear-cut idea about Sanskrit.
It for Constitution of India, like Latin and Greek for the western world. The Constitution of India-Part III Article 24 Fundamental Rights clearly mentions, "Any community that has a language and a script of its own has the right to conserve and develop them". We Indians ought to obey and follow our constitution. If you are a foreigner then atleast you have to respect the longest written constitution of any independent nation in the world, containing 444 articles and 12 schedules, as well as numerous amendments, for a total of 117,369 words in the English language version. I think Sanskrit clearly suffices the above criteria.
Government of India uses the Standard Hindi which derived much of its formal and technical vocabulary from Sanskrit as means of communication. The motto of World's largest democracy Indian Republic is a sanskrit sentence, Satyam Eva Jayate (Truth alone triumphs). Every seal bearing the Coat of Arms of India will have that.
For Indians, sanskrit lives throught out India
- Whenever people utter the words from the languages derived from it.
- Whenever people use hindi which was the Sole Official Language of Indian Republic (The Constitution of India, adopted in January 26, 1950, declares Hindi in the Devanagari script as the "official language (rājabhāṣā) of the Union" (Article 343(1)).)
- Whenever people go indian literature and Indian History.
- Whenever they discuss Indian philosophy.

-User:Bsskchaitanya 15.45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the above user is aware of the contributions of several grammarians before and after Panini. People like Yaska, Shaunaka, Patanjali, Katyayana, Bratrihari, Sakatayana, Pingala, Gargeya come to mind immediately. So Panini was not the "creator" of classical sanskrit, although he was definitely one of its most important grammarians. Sanskrit existed all the way from the Vedas and even before that in the Indo-European form as one of its most important branches. All this is however irrelevant to trolls and vandals who dont know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity--> ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 10:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is considered a personal attack. Please assume good faith. Comment on content not on the contributor. Thanks - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 11:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolls are to be called trolls. I meant trolls and I used the word trolls. There is no contributor I am talking of. --ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 11:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What is this section even about? Sanskrit is a "scheduled language" in India. The definition of this lies with the Indian govenment, not with Wikipedia, and we're merely reporting the fact. Sanskrit is the topic on this page, so of course it is concentrating on Sanskrit (wth?) -- if you want to discuss the relative notability of languages of India, you are looking for languages of India. dab (ᛏ) 11:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, that's the same thing I'm saying. Why feed trolls? And what do the claims have to do with the article in question? -- ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 04:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronouncing Vowels

In section Sanskrit#Vowels, it is mentioned that IAST /a/ is equiv. to English schwa. Isn't it a little closer a short IPA /ɑː/ ? Also, as noted in section Sanskrit#Phonology, is IPA /ŗ/ pronounced /ri/ in modern Sanskrit? I have heard /ŗg/ being said as it is in the name of the veda, and, in Malayalam, the name of Christ pronounced /kŗsθu/. Kummini 16:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, IAST /a/ is NOT the short form of IPA /ɑː/ . It is a central vowel, and it is pronounced as schwa (the open-mid central vowel). Yes, for sandhi purposes, the ancient Sanskrit grammarians agree that a + a = IPA /ɑː/ . And the Pandits of modern India are no longer to speak vowel-like /ŗ/ , they approximate it as /ri/. Exceptions are always there, though. Cygnus_hansa 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Most Sanskrit pandits from Tamil Nadu across pronounce /ŗ/ as r. Lay speakers of Telugu pronounce it /ru/, while the /ri/ pronounciation from what I understand is dominant in the North. I've tried to clarify this, but feel free to change the wording. Ambarish 05:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

-I will try to clarify your doubt. Telugu people name it as "aru". In pronunciation of that vowel you need to know the following

Place of origin: Cerebral (Mūrdhanya) [Touch your tip of the tongue to the alveola inside mouth]
Now narrow your mouth (i.e., it is a tensed vowel) and try to pronounce the consonant "ra".
The pronunciation will be inbetween ra, ri and ru.

User:Bsskchaitanya 13.57 14 November 2006.

[edit] translators needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation--D-Boy 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motto of the Indian Navy

The motto of the Indian Navy is 'Shano Varuna' - meaning 'May the Lord of the Oceans be Auspicious Unto Us' according to the Indian Navy site:[1]

I would like to know is it Shan No Varuna as stated in the Indian Navy page of wikipedia or is it Shan O Varuna. Which one is correct. Kindly help. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat 10:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's actually Sham No Varunah, or in Sanskrit transliteration, Śaṃ No Varuṇaḥ. The anusvãra at the end of the first word is often pronounced as a nasal belonging to the same class as the subsequent consonant, and so in this case it sounds like there is a double n sound. The second word is definitely No though, which is actually Naḥ transformed by sandhi rules; it's the dative plural form of the first person pronoun (i.e., the "Unto Us" part of the motto). Gokulmadhavan 06:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why vāk?

Wouldn't it be more Sanskritic to write भाषा instead of वाक्? In any case isn't contemporary Indian usage just to call the language संस्कृतम्? Vijñaptimātra 08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian subcontinent

Since IAF choose to defended his repeated revert on this page, I will copy-paste his arguments to this Talk:

I confirm unsourced reverts by certain elements of anything that might include or point to the existence of Pakistan or Pakistan territory, most probably to the purpose of edit warring on the subject. Unre4L made a correction and I have the impression this was enought to revert. I am hardly amused by this erroneous equalizing of the Indian Subcontinent to India and suspect malicious intentions, especially here, even creating redundancy subsequently abused as a pretext to further contextual romovals. Rokus01 10:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: So you are accusing User:Dbachmann of being an Indian nationalist? Talk about oxymorons. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Where do I say "Indian nationalists"? I hold Indian people in high esteem. I mention elements that create a culture of senseless reverting and editwarring within Wikipedia. Nationalists are many and all over, and it takes outstanding administration and excellent administrators to make the difference. Rokus01 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Indo-Aryan aspect of Sanskrit has been dealt with later in the article, as that Sanskrit is a proto-Indo-European language. It does not merit mention in the opening sentence at all. The opening line as I edited can be deemed fit according to norms.

Besides, your assertion about introduction of redundancy is wrong at the outset, because at the very next edit---in the space of just 3 minutes---I removed that reducndancy myself. In your excitement to prove a wrongdoing, you overlooked that fact.

The opening line speaks about what Sanskrit IS and not a> which familiy it belongs to, and b> where exactly were its origins i.e. the Indian-Sub continent. You could have added the part of Indian-subcontinent and/or Panini's base that lies in present-day Pakistan in the section of History. The opening line's context of Sanskrit being an Indian classical language is based upon its official Status in India presently. The Subcontinental encompassment need not be provided as it is not recognized officially by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. IAF

Mister IAF, for the sake of arbitration I don't have to explain about the principles of a good introduction. Rather invoke a third opinion, if the meaning of the word "introduction" is not clear to you and if you don't have the 15th edition of Britannica at hand to verify the edits you choose to revert. However, don't pretend such a degree of off-topic ignorance to contradict this evidence of introducing error for the sake of promoting the word "India", where in reality a much larger geographical area is involved. Rokus01 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Indo-Aryan language and Introduction

To concentrate on the current disagreement, I want to mention two reasons against this revert:

Being an introduction, this introduction should give a overview of the nature and the significance of Sanskrit. This significance involves (1) Sanskit being an old Indo-Aryan language, (2) Sanskrit being the classical literary language of the Hindus of India (this includes Sanskrit being a liturgical language of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism) and (3) Sanskrit being one of the official languages of India. The Indo-Aryan nature of Sanksrit being mentioned elsewhere in the article is not an argument to exclude this element from the introduction. Also, to Sanskit being an Old-Aryan language does not suffice the current geographic definition of India.
This introduction to the nature and significance of Sanskrit is sourced and according to the Britannica last (15th) edition.

Accordingly I will restore the sourced information. Rokus01 16:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

well, you are right, but "an old Indo-Aryan langauge from India" sounds silly and clumsy. The intro was fine as it was, if you're going to revert, revert to that. dab (𒁳) 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

An "old Indo-Aryan language" is the definition of Britannica. The addition "from India" is geographically incorrect, thus "from the Indian Subcontinent" was proposed instead. The introduction should be complete to avoid being as clumpsy and silly as you depict. Please give me a better reason for not restoring the sourced information, for essential information about the nature of Sanskrit is missing. Rokus01 14:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I said "clumsy", not "factually incorrect". Really, the intro is fine, thanks. Sanskrit can be said to be "from India" if you meet her sitting around an airport terminal somewhere. An introduction should not be "complete", it should be concise and polished. dab (𒁳) 14:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clumsy to your Swiss ears, maybe. However, "from" is perfectly correct to indicate the geographical origin. Thus phrases like "a language from Yanyuwa Country" or "a language from hell", or languages from wherever, are valid without implying those languages should come over to you first by any means of transport, by drilling a hole to hell or whatever. You say: an introduction should not be complete. According to WP:LEAD this is true to minor details popping up in the article that do not need an introduction. Also, it says an introduction should give an overview. You just don't have a general outline, this is an overview, without mentioning the most important characteristics to a subject. You should know very well the importance of Sanskrit in comparative linguistics, as much as I do. At the moment the introduction just gives an outline of the religious (Hindu) and political (official language) facts about Sanskrit. Can you please give me any reason why not to outline those very important linguistic facts? Also, making the difference between religious, political and linguistic facts, one should be concise about the related geographical information. According to the Britannica overview the use of Sanskrit within the Hindu religion is related, or even limited, to India, and generally spoken this might be more or less correct. The linguistic geography of Sanskrit however is completely different from the current religious and political geography. About being careful in changing long-standing and already evolved introductions: you should be equally careful about long-standing and already evolved old-fashioned information, like the proposed age of Sankskrit being from 1500BC, while nowadays 1800BC is generally accepted. Rokus01 15:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Deb, in answer to your remark on personal Talk: Here I copy relevant information concerning linguistics:

Linguistics is the scientific study of language.

Theoretical (or general) linguistics encompasses a number of sub-fields, such as the study of language structure (grammar), and meaning (semantics).

Linguistics compares languages (comparative linguistics) and explores their histories, in order to find universal properties of language and to account for its development and origins (historical linguistics).

The above has no bearing with Sanskrit being classical, liturgical or an official language. Linguistics do not follow from Sanskrit being a classical language. The opening sentence evades the information necessary to define the linguistic context. This linguistic context should be made clear by mentioning circumstantial facts about its classification, like saying (following the example of Britannica): and old Indo-Aryan language from the Indian subcontinent. Rokus01 17:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent that the Indo-Aryan-esque mania has crept up everywhere. What nonsense ! As another example, just look at the Urdu page. What is Indo-Aryan about urdu ?? It is an Indian as well as Pakistani language, because it is spoken in both nations, its recognized in both nations, and it originated in India. IAF

[edit] Name of the page?

Hi.

Should the name of this page be changed to "Sanskrit language", to conform with the titles of other language pages, like English language, French language, German language, Navajo language, Chinese language, Korean language, etc.? 74.38.35.171 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. — Athænara ✉ 03:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should comply with the emerging standard. For an example of why this matters, see the documentation on Template:DisplayTranslations which by default supports a pipe to a language page if the language has a page named Sanskrit_language (or Whatever_language). Buddhipriya 05:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason why the examples 74.38 gave have language at the end is because English, French etc. don't necessarily refer to the language. If you click the links, you will that notice that they are Disambiguation pages because they can refer to English people, English culture, English language ... The reason why Sanskrit and Hindi don't have language at the end is because they can only refer to the language, nothing else! Most languages are named after a particular ethnic group or culture and hence the name can have other meanings. To be honest, if standardisation helps the technical problems, I don't mind it being changed. But bear in mind that I have never someone say "I study Sanskrit language" whereas "I'm interested in the Punjabi and Spanish languages" sounds more familiar. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

DaGizzaji, could there not be "Sanskrit Literature", "Sanskrit drama", "Sanskrit Philosophy", "Sanskrit Poetry", etc.? Perhaps I did not understand what you meant. Buddhipriya 03:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

that's not the point. The correct designation is in fact "the Sanskrit language", and "Sanskrit" just by ellipsis. The title should be "Sanskrit language" for reasons of encyclopedicity; otherwise, it's a bit like having the article on Johann Wolfgang von Goethe reside at Goethe. dab (𒁳) 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just random thoughts, do we need to change the title of Esperanto to "Esperanto language"? Are there Sanskrit people, like French people, Navajo people, Chinese people, Korean people? Considering things like this, Sanskrit's naming case is a bit different than these other languages. We badly need French to be a disambig page, because it might be linked with sentences like "X was French" as well as "X is a book in French". This problem would never arise with links to Sanskrit. I don't know if this means the current article name is fine. deeptrivia (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

In this case, the main argument is about (correct me if I'm wrong) about whether information about Sanskrit being an Indo-Aryan language and about whether liturgical and classical uses should be included. My opinion is that the lead paragraph is meant to portray the overall importance of the article in question. Thus, there should be something to be said about how Sanskrit is used. If you take a look at Latin, for example, or Ancient Greek, both classical languages, there's something to be said about the legacy of these languages. In addition, linguistics can cover a wide variety of information. An example can be found in Geography, as geography not only studies the spatial layout of Earth's features, it also examines how humans interact with these. Similarly, one should mention about how this language is used.

In response to the Indo-Aryan question, I believe that it should be inducted into the current information. Adding "from India" is awkward, but there should be some clarification on the exact country of origin. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

um, the genetic classification of the langauge is right there, in the info-box. If we're going to stash "Indo-Aryan" into the intro, we should mention it next to where we say it's one of the earliest attested IE languages, saying that Vedic Sanskrit is the earliest attested IA langauge. dab (𒁳) 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, this just doesn't make sense. Why don't you accept a third opinion on this? Just compare the immediate linguistic introductions to Latin or Greek:

Latin is an ancient Indo-European language originally spoken in Latium, the region immediately surrounding Rome.

Greek (Ελληνικά, IPA: [eliniˈka] — "Hellenic") has a documented history of 3,500 years, the longest of any single language within the Indo-European family.

Not any reasonable justification exists to exclude the linguistic classification or geography from being mentioned in the opening sentence. Don't discredit yourself by using blunt power to flout other opinions without even trying to come to an agreement. Rokus01 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The viewpoints of Rockus are ALL wrong :

The Brittanica Encyclopedia is Not, was not and will never be a reference to be used to edit any information, presentation format and/or style, conventional nomenclatures, and moreover as a final arbitrator or even as an authority on articles written in Wikepedia---an encyclopedia that has absolutly No relation, does not share viewpoints and is not influenced or inspired by the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, that is independent of any previously established encyclopedia, regardless of the popularity of the latter.

I hope that all members, particularly Rockus01 (who has caused a ruckus here) realizes ithis. The sooner, the better.

Mr. Ruckus-01, Sanskrit was indeed developed and its liturgy composed within the territory that forms the Republic of India today. Sure, many parts in which the RigVedic Aryans developed Sanskrit, and wrote literary material in Sanskrit lies in modern-day Pakistan. But Pakistan/Pakistanis do not know, do not officially recognize, do not preserve and do not have any trace of their language in their country AT ALL.

The conventional introductions to articles must answer the questions--What, where, when, Why, how etc. and in the present tense whether SPATIALLY or TEMPORALLY. The origins, histories, changes, evolution and the corresponding spatial, temporal and causal records & reasons for the same merit due mention/explanation (depending upon the scope of the article) LATER IN THE ARTICLE ONLY and not stuffed in the opening line.

Therefore keeping the aforementioned points, we can arrive at a conclusion as follows :

The issue is NOT ONLY about how articles in encyclopediae begin, but whether Sanskrit is a classical language of India or not, whether it has been AND always been to date from the dawn of its creation, a liturgical language of India or not. The answers to these questions is YES.

Therefore, the introduction should be, "Sanskrit is a classical language of India......."

I also request a Vote on this matter from messrs DBachmann, Crculver, GourangaUK, Rudrasharman et al. My vote is for India instead of Indo-Aryan or Indian-Subcontinent IAF

I don't think I really see the problem here. As far as I am concerned, this is a question of how to polish the intro, not in any way a factual disagreement. It's about stylistics. Note how we don't say "Latin is an Italic Indo-European langauge from Italy"? See what I mean? We can work both "Indo-Aryan" and "India" into the intro, but for the love of Ganesha, let it be done by someone with some editorial skills. dab (𒁳) 19:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear IAF, you have to understand this issue has more than one perspective. Just like the Brazilian tropical rainforests are to the interest of mankind and liable to international protection with or without the landowners, just like the Buddha statues from the Bamiyan valley in Afghanistan were the cultural heritage to the whole world with or without the Taliban, I realy don't mind Sanskrit being your national pride, your liturgical language or one of your official languages still spoken by a minority. I don't think people like you really care what Sanskrit mean to the world and just want to abuse it to look taller. To me, and to most of the civilized world, Sanskrit is an old Aryan language of utter linguistic importance, a vehicle to ancient myths and an artifact of history and culture. It originates from ancient Pakistan, or ancient India, or whatever except one single nation claiming heritance at the cost of all the rest of the world. No, Sanskrit is not from India. Sanskrit is from mankind, so please be kind and cut this nonsense. Rokus01 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

what the hell are you on about? can you focus on the issue for a minute? of course Sanskrit is "from India", just like the Brazilian forest may be of worldwide significance and still be "from Brazil". How about you make a clean suggestion of what you want and we'll try to address it, instead of getting sidetracked by IAF's (admittedly eccentric) worldviews. dab (𒁳) 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I always agree to a concise and serious explanation.

To start with, the opening sentence should enumerate the most important points of interest. Do we agree on this?
Next I would say: the most important fields of interest are: linguistics, literature, religion and current use. Do we agree on this too?
Let us then first focus on "literature". This would be sufficiently defined by Sanskrit being a classical language. A classic language exceeds national and geographical boundaries. The only boundaries are cultural. Like Greek and Latin being classical languages of the Western World, not of Italy or Greece (Latin is a clasical language of Italy?? No way!) Sankrit is a classical language of the Hindu world, not of a single nation. Do we agree on this?
Next, Sanskrit being a classical language of the Hindu world does not imply linguistic classification. If we agree on this too, we can focus next on linguistics.
One way to give a linguistic classification is by defining the linguistic background. Sanskrit is an old Indo-Aryan language. You could say IE, but this is trivial. Sanskrit is also inflexional, this is a characteristic of Indo-Aryan and could be explained later. Saying "Indo-Aryan" implies more information than "inflexional" or IE. (do we agree on this too?)
Then, Indo-Aryan was historically confined by geographic boundaries. We have to define these boundaries. I would not rely on the name of a nation. Either would I rely on the use of India in a wider sense: does India include all of British India? Everything east of the river Sindh? I recall the East-Indies, West-Indies and even native Americans, all Indians to some. No, we have to define a geographic area. Really, I don't understand on logical grounds the rejection of "Indian subcontinent", or "Ancient Pakistan and India". Maybe somebody I can take serious could explain this neat and clean to me?
Anyway, to me the above yields to the following statement:

Sanskrit is an old Indo-Aryan language of the Indian subcontinent, a classical language of the Hindu world, a liturgical language of hinduism, buddhism and jainism and one of the 23 official languages of India.

I am not sure of the beauty of this, but it certainly is complete and correct. To me this is all that counts. Rokus01 10:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit isn't just any "old Indo-Aryan language", its position is rather special. I propose that my mentioning its IA classification next to IE is more elegant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbachmann (talk • contribs) 11:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Even like this, Sanskit is NOT a classical language of India. India is a national state, and now don't refer to Britannica for selecting just the words nationalists want to hear while leaving other definitions out. If this nationalistic question is so very difficult, why then not just leave India out altogether?

Sanskrit is a classical language, a liturgical language of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, and one of the 23 official languages of India.

Additional option, for "being too special" to be just IA, combine linguistics with being classic:

Sanskrit is a classical language of great linguistic importance, a liturgical language of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, and one of the 23 official languages of India.

By the way, may I also ask anybody to focus on my answers? Rokus01 12:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, everybody. Before the British left British India, the area that comprises Pakistan, Bangladesh & the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, was called India. This is similar to the deutche nations of Austria, Switzerland & Germany being unified many centuries earlier and called Deuche-Land or Germany.

I hope that this concept is clear to all.

British India was called India, because to give nomenclature to a culture that is settled in a particular area, that culture is tagged with the word derived from their geographic area itself.

So, Persians who saw the people living on the banks of the river Sindhu (now in Pakistan) called those people Hindus. Then the British came along and who called Sindhu as Indus (a corruption) and the associated people as Indians.

Today, the people living on the banks of the Sindhu in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are NOT Sanskrit-speaking, they probably have NOT even heard of Sanskrit and have NO linguistic, cultural association to it whatsoever.

Australia is called THE WEST, when half of it lies in the eastern-most part of the world. This therefore is a cultural tag, and NOT a geographic tag.

Similarly, Sanskrit is an Indian language and an Indian language only, and not a Pakistani one. Common World heritage, Our Human Race, One-World-One-Peace is all hogwash for speeches at UN Assemblies.IAF

Mister IAF, this definition of India is obsolete. If you want to make clear you don't mean the current definition, you have to specify. (if you don't want to make this clear you are a nationalist with a big problem) To specify "Ancient India" would probably be sufficient, to me this equals more or less to the "Indian subcontinent", or more specifically to the historic Indo-Aryan - Hindu area's on the subcontinent. "Hindu World" could be used if you mean to identify a cultural entity like the Western World, or the Arab World, or the Muslim World, or the Latin World, or whatever. Besides, used to anything else but the current national republic, India is a misnomer by definition, historically abused to anything exotic from east to west. I propose we just delete this inproper use of the word India until we come to an esthetical agreement to a comprehensive opening message that will be complete and correct. Rokus01 18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Ruckus01, who told you or whither from did you know :

That the "definition of India is obsolete" ?
That the use of the word India is "unethical" ?
That what you say alone is "correct and complete" ?

Merely mud-slinging me with tags like "Nationalist" etc. won't do.

You sir, to me apparently have :

Inadequate knowledge, which is clear when you say, "This definition of India is obsolete." Sure.
Are a vandal, coz you are tampering with an edit that was agreed upon for months. Currently too, you do not have any consensus on your PoV. From what I see, nobody agrees with you and DBachmann sort of agrees with me.
Are cloaking your vandalizing edits, by calling ME a "Nationalist" in turn !

I have answered all your queries. Here they are once-again :

Before the British left, India was the area that comprised present day Pakistan & Bangladesh also.

* But more importantly, the etymology of the word "India" is due to the unique and distinct culture of people that lived on the other side of the Sindhu river (not just on its banks). This region fell fairly deep into modern-day India as well.

The region where part of Sanskrit literature was composed, now falls in Pakistan, however India retained the name of "India" after it gained independence from the British. Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League actually wanted to have the name India for Pakistan, when negotiations were on with the British at the 11th hour of their rule in India !!

So the word "India", has not just been the name of a politically defined territory. It has been a name of a culture and of a civilization. It would also NOT be incorrect to call the present-day territory of India as the origin of Sanskrit of the Vedic civilization and of the Dharmic Faiths, because its just a mere 50-100 kms from the Sindhu river and besides, that culture and Sanskrit did originate & was advent largely in present-day India also. IAF

yes, (sigh), Ἰνδία is first and foremost the region of the Indus valley (viz., mostly modern Pakistan), and then of the entire Indian subcontinent (Greater India). The Republic of India hogged the name in 1947, but that is irrelevant for historical topics. India should really be the disambiguation page, or there will be no end of pointing this out to people, again and again.dab (𒁳) 10:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, you must have heard only about Harappa & Mohenjodaro. Do bother to read about Lothal and Dholavira also. Indus Valley sites stretch from Afghanistan and Iran to nearly central India. It's modern day Pakistan that happened to be in the thick of it all. Political developments 4 millenia later does not change what India stands for.

The biggest mistake that all of you are making is demarcating Pakistan 3 millenia ago, and even suggesting silly disambiguations. I shouldn't even be discussing all this. Today's politics was NOT for all time. The British India extended to all of Pakistan and Bangladesh too, and whose lineage was the one that descended right from the Persians' Sindhu-Hindu Indus-India; the one which recognized the Hindu people that lived yonder the Sindhu river.

Add up the populations of India, Pak & Bangladesh, and Hindus would still be in an absolute majority : 830 million vs. 450 mn Muslims. Add up other Dharmic adherents + Nepal and we get a few tens of millions more. In British India, this populace was more evenly distributed across, but now it is concentrated in India.

So this "claim" of the word India is not without substance. Before Islam came to the sub-con, India was what the Persians described : Territory where Hindus lived. This geographic definition (Sindhu and beyond) withstood the ravages of the Islamic invaders, all through the Mughals until finally the British codified and documented it.

After Mohammad Ali Jinnah & Co. got Pakistan much to the chagrin of Mahatma Gandhi, who wanted to maintain a unified India, India was well justified in retention of the name "India". I won't call it "hogging". The geographic parameter of India has an associate culture, a religion and a way of life tagged to it. That Islam's frontiers now swamp the Sindhu doesn't matter.

Even from a more nitty-gritty point of view, the Sindhu is not even a 100 kms from the Indo-Pak border at many places. Do you really think that the Vedic peoples had an inkling of things to come 4 millenia later and never set foot in present day India ? They did of course, as did their Indus-Valley predecessors, and they went far and deep into what is modern India.

So even if the argument of culture-association does not convince you, this argument surely should.

In fact, both arguments are in tandem with each other. Had history permitted only one to be valid today say for example Hindus being relegated to a small area near Myanmar, or Indians not being Hindus i.e. all Asians whether Persians, Arabs, Malays---or for that matter anybody who grew spices for the British---being called Indians, then I couldn't have had made this argument.

Like the Jews, Hindus too have had to struggle for not only a land but also for its very name. However, "Israel's" case for nomenclature against "Palestine" is weak, because what the Jews inhabit was and will always be Palestine by name. There was such an absence of any majority Jewish activity in the region for so many centuries, that Palestine bags the right of naming the territory.

However, there always has been majority Hindu activity around and beyond the Sindhu. Sure, some parts of it were chipped off to form Pakistan, but India remains (especially most of the "beyond the Sindhu" part).IAF

you very obviously didn't read my comment before embarking on "refuting" it, since you are essentially agreeing with me. The entire point is that "Pakistan" wasn't called "Pakistan" before 1947, it was called "India". dab (𒁳) 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab you are a (Personal attack removed) if there was not pakistan before 1947 for common people then was also no india for the people for the last 5000 years. If persians called anything beyond indus river india then who cares this is just a geographical classification not ethnic. Following this line if someone says that anything west of Ural mountains is russia then he will be also an (Personal attack removed) like you since on the west of urals many other cultures also exist like germanic, celtic, italic etc. You have to go deep into the west of urals to explore them. Similarly when persians called people east of indus rivers and hindus they used this term for geographic region because persians never went deep into india . I am sure if they would have gone deep into india they would also have called people near ganga river as fucking gangus etc. So the persians designation for hindus must be restricted either to the people dwelling indus river or dwelling in the nearest areas from indus river because this was there area of observation not your ganges(gand river) for the matter.

who said it was "ethnic"? I keep saying it's geographical. I appreciate that "Hindu" is a religious term today (since this is the English, not the Old Persian Wikipedia), but "India" happens to have kept the geographical sense it had in Hellenism). Yes ~~"Gangu"~~ "Ganga" would be the more appropriate term today, but I am afraid it's not very current. dab (𒁳) 10:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] javanese 50% assertion

"Old Javanese – English Dictionary", written by professor P.J. Zoetmulder in 1982. I dont have the info on the book thoughBaka man 02:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was Pāṇini the first to call Sanskrit "Sanskrit"?

I've read unsourced assertions that claim that Pāṇini was the first person to actually name the language Sanskrit as "Sanskrit." Is this true? If so, what did users call the language before Pāṇini came along to write his grammar? Patiwat 07:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

good question, but your unsourced assertion is mistaken. Panini didn't call Sanskrit Sanskrit. It is first so called in the Mahabharata. In the Vedas, there is just "language", "vak". "Sanskrit" is an adjective added to that, "samskrta vak" = "posh language". dab (𒁳) 08:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The old grammarians used the term bhāṣā, especially when distinguishing it from chandas, the term for "vedic" (cf. chandasi bahulam). rudra 12:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

that would be "spoken" as opposed to "hymnic" -- we shouldn't infer a sense of historical depth or language change here, but a distinction between different registers. I don't know any Vedic term for non-Indo-Aryan languages. Just as in Greece, foreign language wasn't even recognized as language proper. The ShBr has mleccha for any "barbarians" that aren't part of Vedic culture, including, of course, linguistically, but I am not aware that Vedic texts show any interest in such "barbarian" language at all. Interest in languages that aren't either your own, or your religion's liturgical language, only arises in the 16th-17th century as part of the European "Enlightenment" (the Jesuits seem to have begun it, starting with Athanasius Kircher, and possibly some Renaissance precursors. Before that, "grammar" always meant either "our grammar", or "the grammar of the language of the gods"). dab (𒁳) 13:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanskrit e and o, as also a before t.

I totally disagree with the current opinion that Sanskrit पे (IAST e) and पो (IAST o) are pronounced as long /eː/ and /oː/. The Old Prussian language shows, that theese characters have to be pronounciated and written as ei [ei] and ou [ou]. For example OP. deivs 'god', Skr. devaḥ, must be deivaḥ, OP. dātvei 'to give', Skr. dātave, must be dātavei, Latvian govs 'of cow', Skr. gos, must be gous etc.
The Skr. ai really comes from long diphthong āi, au from āu, so along theese changes the short diphthong ai turns into ei and au - into ou. e: and o: are later developments from ei and ou and can't be introduced in Classic Sanskrit!
And now abaut a before t. Indo-Iranian languages have the feature, that tautosyllabic n or m (ṃ) falls out in some cases before t and in the end of the word. And in order to preserve ethymology, such a(n)/a(m) have to be written in IAST by using character ą [aⁿ]. So the Skr. šata '100' must be written as śątą (<*čamtam 'hand', cf. Latvian cimds 'glove', čamdīt 'to fumble, to paw'), not śata!, nava as navą (<*navam 'new'), dataḥ 'tooth' as dątaḥ (<*adhantas 'eating') etc. Cognates Proto-Baltic čimtan/cimtan '100' and dantas 'thooth'. Roberts7 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The "e" and "o" are pronounced as long /eː/ and /oː/ though if what you are saying is valid, then the pronunciation may have been different in Vedic or an earlier form of Classical Sanskrit. The fact is nobody pronounces "e" and "o" as ei and ou anymore. Even ऐ and औ ([IAST]]: ai and au) are pronounced as either /əi/ and /əu/ by those well educated in Sanskrit but more commonly as /ɛː/ and /ɔː/ whenever Indians in the twenty-first century need to speak in Sanskrit. If you want to add your technical details on pronunciation, please add the rough dates of when that form of pronunciation died out. Thanks Gizza^Chat ^© 05:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The main question is why the pronounciation of Sanskrit पे and पो was defined from nowadays pronounciation? We are speaking about Classic Sanskrit not Hindi or other later language, which of course can have newer sound system. I think that pronounciation of पे and पो as ē and ō is only an assumption! Imho wrong assumption. The talk isn't about how somebody is pronouncing now theese sounds, but how they were pronounced in ages of Classical Sanskrit. Of course if we are speaking about nowadays, then in Latvian and Lithuanian Sanskrit पे and पो are pronounced as /ie/ and /uo/ (in some words still the oldest /ai,ei/ /au/ is preserved), e.g. Skr deivah, Old Prussian deivs, East Baltic dievas; Skr. roupāsa, Scyt. laupāsa, Latv. lapsa (<*laupusa<*laupāsa) engl.'fox', Latvian verb laupīt 'to rob, thieve' (fox is an thievish animal). So then why not to pronounce पे and पो as Baltic /ie/ and /uo/? E.g. Skr. devaḥ [dievaḥ], gos [guos] - Latvian guovs 'of cow'.
My opinion is that पे and पो couldn't be pronounced as [ē] and [ō], because even in nowadays in Baltic languages are preserved the pronunciation of पे and पो as /ai/ and /au/, then how the Sanskrit, which is older than Modern Baltic languages, could have newer sounds?!
So there is necessity to strictly separate Sanskrit pronounciation in nowadays and the Sanskrit pronounciation in the past. Imho Sanskrit with modern pronounciation is not Classic Sanskrit anymore, it's some dialect of Sanskrit and so must be defined! Roberts7 15:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

the monophtongic pronunciation is that given in the pratishakyas. It is anyone's guess when /ai/ and /au/ became monophtongs, and if the Rigvedic pronunciation might still have been diphtongic, we don't know, it's prehistory. They were monophtongs in 200 BC, and likely in 500 BC. That's well before the bulk of the Classical Sanskrit corpus. You are free to speculate about the proper historic pronunciation of Rigvedic Sanskrit, but it will be just that, speculation. dab (𒁳) 16:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone provide a book reference for these interesting issues? Buddhipriya 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

discussion continued on Talk:IAST. dab (𒁳) 21:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/n/Talk%7ESanskrit_c077.html"