Talk:Sanskrit/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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. bibliomaniac15 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)

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)

Yah, you are right. The Grammar section must be restructured and moved to Sanskrit grammar. Further the declension section must be moved to Sanskrit declension, and conjugation section to Sanskrit conjugation. As also case order of nouns must be changed to traditional - Nom.Voc.Acc.Instr.Dat.Abl.Gen.Loc. Roberts7 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a few steps to create the new structure. I've created separate pages for Sanskrit verbs and Sanskrit compounds that lead off from this page. Currently these offshoots are essentially identical to the main Sanskrit page, as I'm wary of making large-scale changes to a well-regarded page. As for now, Sanskrit grammar redirects to a page describing traditional and modern grammarians, and I haven't made any changes to this yet. Gokulmadhavan 05:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised we have not seen more comment on this proposal, which seems rather reasonable to me. I have looked at the example of German grammar that you gave and it seems to me that having a similar approach to Sanskrit would be helpful in keeping the article length to a reasonable level. You are showing wisdom by hesitating to make major changes too rapidly, as the outcries may come only after some motion is perceived. My suggestion would be to test this in phases, simply creating the Sanskrit Grammar page first, and just doing a move of existing content. I would not make any other changes for a week. We just did a similar major reorganization of content on the Vedas article and I expected the roof to fall in, but it did not. At each stage we tried to do the move in chunks that could easily be reverted to a status quo ante. If I understand your proposal, basically you would just move the current section 4 on grammar to a new page. I think that the redirect of Sanskrit Grammar to Vyakarana that is taking place now could simply be removed, keeping Vyakarana unchanged. It is really about the grammatical tradition, not the grammar itself, so it is a separate topic. I do not agree with the proposal to create subpages for different aspects of Sanskrit Grammar at this stage. I think all that is now in section 4 should be kept together as part of phase 1 of any changes. Buddhipriya 05:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

contemporary Indian usage has nothing to do with it, this being the article on a language codified in 500 BC. dab (𒁳) 07:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For the kind information of those who fervently seek to dissociate ancient Indian languages and religions with current Indian culture, 'VAK' is very much in use in contemporary Indian languages of today. Its use does confirm to contemporary Indian usage. Indian_Air_Force

Agglutination

Could someone add something about Agglutination in Sanskrit? deeptrivia (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing the grammar manual

Hey, this is just to inform whoever might watch this page that I'm going to remove the grammatical paradigms. Maybe these might have a place in a more specific article. Rājagṛha 10:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rājagṛha, we're migrating grammatical paradigms to the various pages linked to from Sanskrit grammar in order to make the main page more informative and less technical. All paradigms that have been copied to the grammar pages can be removed from the main page. I think our goal should be to take out all paradigms from the main page and to put them away in other articles where they may be more relevant. Gokul Madhavan 15:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit Numerals

The numerals I have added are accurate and are from A Sanskrit Primer by Perry. Sanskrit does not use "sh" for a transliteration. Azalea pomp 00:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sapta is right and not sat or what you had posted. Indian_Air_Force

I've edited the numbers and this current list should now be accurate. ṣáṣ, ṣáṭ is Sanskrit for six, and sapta is seven. Gokul Madhavan 20:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help with a word here.

I know this amounts to misusing the talk page, but I'm desperate. :-O

Just a question to all you Sanskrit speakers:

Can the word "Anavasthā" be taken to mean "infinity"? I looked it up in a really good English-Sanskrit dictionary (spokensankrit.de) and the definition given was "absence of finality or conclusion", which seems to me to mean "infinity".

So, are "anavasthā" and "infinity" synonymous?

I hope a kind soul out there can help me out. I promise I'll delete this when I have an answer.

Thanks!

60.48.216.237 03:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanscrit is Not spoken in Nepal

Sanscrit is not spoken in Nepal. It is only spoken in a village in Karnataka. Princemathewalleppey 12:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Verification of possible Sanskrit word needed

Can someone please verify whether or not the following words originate from Sanskrit. I'm having a debate with another user who thinks they are probably Javanese but possibly originate from Sanskrit. I need a reference, too.

"Bhinneka Tunggal Ika"

Thanks, Glenn McGrew (Respond here or on my userpage) ReveurGAM 10:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Turangalîla-Symphonie

"The Turangalîla-Symphonie is a large-scale piece of orchestral music by Olivier Messiaen. ... He derived the title from two Sanskrit words, turanga and lîla, which roughly translate into English as "love song and hymn of joy, time, movement, rhythm, life, and death" ..." -- Uh, yeah? -- 201.53.4.206 11:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

IAF changes

User:IAF has made certain changes to the page that I dispute or that I call for sourcing for:
  1. Sanskrit is one of the oldest languages in existence in the the world dubious. Source it
  2. and the root of all Indian languages wrong. Certainly not Dravidian languages.
  3. It was developed for the most ... Sanskrit is not an artificial language.
  4. Changing When the term arose in India' to In India is a removal of information.
Also, in Standard English, twenty, divine, truth, and drive do not have retroflex plosives. There are no English equivalents for retroflex plosives. Indian dialects of English may have them (which I think is the source of the confusion) but most readers will be confused by the article saying that English t represents a retroflex plosive. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My changes are not only valid, but also accurate. I don't know what Retrofl Explosives are, but the word Divine can be faithfully reproduced in Sanskrit without ANY loss, deviation or distortion of pronunciation. The same is for Twenty or Truth and Drive. It can be done so by any child who has started to learn Sanskrit.

  1. Sanskrit is one of the oldest languages in existence in the the world is NOT dubious. Sanskrit dates back to Vedic times, and hence like Latin or Greek, it is one of the oldest languages in existence.
  2. and the root of all Indian languages Except Tamil---all and I repeat all---Indian languages. Change it to ".....all Indian languages]], (except Tamil)."
  3. It was developed for the most ... Languages are developed (or evolved as you interpret it). NO language of those times was conciously developed like Afrikaans.
  4. Changing When the term arose in India' to In India is not a removal of information. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Latin and ancient Greek are no longer spoken natively. The current native speakers of Sanskrit are the result of a revival but if we count that then we must consider Hebrew... anyway, I'm asking for a source here. If it's so clear then it shouldn't be too difficult to find a reputable source that backs up your claim. I understand that it's a classical language but saying that it's one of the oldest languages in existence implies things that aren't true.
  2. Except Tamil, Allar, Badaga, Irula, Kannada, Kodava Takk, Kota, Kurumba, Malayalam, Paliyan, Toda, Tulu, Abujmaria, Gondi, Kui, Konda, Koya, Telugu, Kurux... should I continue?
  3. The word "developed" implies that it was consciously developed (which it wasn't). The word evolve is more accurate.
  4. Yes it is.
  5. Also, see retroflex consonant. Those sounds are not English sounds. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Regardless of the extent of the spoken Latin or Greek, they are in existence and are fully comprehensible and understood many times. Forget the a few thousand people in India whose OFFICIAL mother-tongue is registered as Sanskrit, there are hundreds of thousands of Pundits who conduct Hindu rituals while reciting the Vedas and other Sanskrit texts, right as you read this. Sanskrit is a full-fledged course in millions of schools..We have a Sanskrit News half-hour on National TV too. All this is not artificially revived like the recent fad for ancient Greek. There are languages (mere dialects) that are spoken by a highly restricted populace in very confined areas......some of the very ones which you have listed as having non-Sanskritic roots.
  2. Next, the 3 official widely spoken southern languages of Kannada, Telugu and Malayalam do borrow heavily from Sanskrit. They have Tamil influences also, as Robert Caldwell wrote of Malayalam in his book, "A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Languages" considers Malayalam to be an ancient off-shoot of Tamil, that over time, gained a large amount of Sanskrit vocabulary and lost the personal terminations of verbs." Especially formal Malayalam and Telugu and contemporary Kannada. All this can also be said of all the localized variants or dialects that you've mentioned. So, change it to "heavily influenced the southern languages other than Tamil."
  3. No the phrasing is appropriate.
  4. The last one is not for ट and ड, but for ठ and ढ respectively (pronounced while exhaling air). I will make the changes in the article. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Source it
  2. I think the way you've rephrased it works.
  3. ... The edit you've made is a removal of words and as it stands, it simply says "In India, Sanskrit was not thought of as a specific language set apart from other languages..." A reader may now ask "when? When was this the case?" Not now, since its use is past tense. The answer is "when the term arose in India." If you'd like to provide a different answer then that's appropriate but right now this sentence is incomplete. We can get a neutral third party to weigh in if it's that important to you.
  4. Look at English phonology, General American, and Received Pronunciation. /ʈ/ and /ɖ/ are not English sounds. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. No sources are needed for very well known facts like the Taj Mahal is in Agra, India.
  2. So that's settled.
  3. Sanskrit as a term did not "arise" or "emerge" at one instant. The case as I've put it, was always there.
  4. I'm afraid there has been a very serious misunderstanding here. टब (tub) and डल (dull) are faithful transliteral reproductions. ठग and ढोल cannot be reproduced in English. Even Buddha cannot be (westerners pronounce it as 'Booda'). Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia policy: "material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I am challenging your assertions that Sanskrit has always existed and that it is "one of the oldest languages in existence in the world." I've already shown you that retroflex sounds are not part of English so I'm not asking you to find sources that claim that since I know there aren't any. How much time do you need to verify this information with sourcing? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
IAF, I've removed most of the most tendentious material as not backed up by references to reliable sources. Here are some more specific comments:
  • Your use of English examples for the retroflex plosives is problematic. "Tub" may sound like टब for some (not all) speakers of Indian English: however it is not pronounced that way by English speakers from any other part of the world. So the example is pretty much useless: speakers of Indian English will presumably know how ट (or the equivalent in their local language) is pronounced anyway, and other speakers of English will just be confused by the example.
  • If you want to make a claim about Sanskrit's relative antiquity to other languages, please give a reference. I have no doubt that such claims are possible, but they need to be very carefully worded.
  • While Tamil and Malayalam may borrow from Sanskrit (Malayalam much more than Tamil) that does not mean they descended from Sanskrit. Hindi borrows heavily from Persian: does that mean it is descended from Persian? Grover cleveland (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, we are not talking about the stiff English upper lip, where T is pronounced as T.hee. Indians pronounce T as T only and not as ठी . I know westerners pronounce D somewhat as ढी or as they pronounce Bood.ha while pronouncing Buddha. But D is D and rightly corresponds to ड and not ढ, pronunciations of Britishers left aside.

Malayalam's evolution has been highly influenced and helped by Sanskrit. Truly, Tamil and Sanskrit are the only 2 original mutually exclusive, independent Indian languages. All others are direct descendents and hybrids of these two.

About Sankrit's relative antiquity, I've explained in the comments section of the article's history of edits. No source is needed for that. Look at Latin or Greek. Thus, the same principle applies to Sanskrit also. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Retroflexes

It seems that it should be noted both in the table in the Vowels section and also in the table in the Consonants section what kind of retroflexes are the sounds: laminal, apical or sub-apical. --Klimov 16:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hindi is apical, according to Ladefoged, as presumably are most of the Indic languages. Tamil and many of the Dravidian languages are sub-apical. Sanscrit is a different matter, because it isn't really an independent language anymore. I would guess that native Hindi speakers pronounce them apically, and that native Tamil speakers pronounce them sub-apically. kwami 20:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it too speculative to postulate that Sanskrit retroflexes were apical in Classical times? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You might want a source. I don't know that anyone knows. It's thought that pre-Sanskrit acquired retroflexes from the languages (presumably Dravidian) that it displaced and absorbed. But whether northern Dravidian was apical, the Aryans didn't fully master the sounds, or the Prakrits relaxed them is something that I'm not qualified to theorize about. kwami 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Canonical language: problem

The canonical language of Sikhism is not Sanskrit but rather Punjabi with a vocabulary balanced between Sanskrit and Arabic/Farsi words. Jainism's major Agama texts are written in Ardha-Magadhi Prakrit while many non-Agama texts find writings in all sorts of Prakrits, some Sanskrit, and apabhramsa and later tongues, so Sanskrit is really not the primary vehicle for Jain thought by a long shot. In reality, Sanskrit is most closely allied with the broader Vedist tradition while Buddhism is split between Sanskrit and Pali, though Pali ultimately won out. All of this should, in my opinion, be taken into account in the introductory paragraph. I know the attitude of regular editors on anons taking it upon themselves to edit major portions of text, so I've refrained from instituting the change myself until more people inveigh. --69.203.80.158 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I'd like to do a major edit on this portion of uncited text on the page titled "Sanskrit":

"Writing came relatively late to India, introduced from the Middle East by traders around the 5th century BCE[citation needed], according to a hypothesis by Rhys Davids and favored by the Persian administration of Gandhara and Sindh. Even after the introduction of writing, oral tradition and memorization of texts remained a prominent feature of Sanskrit literature."

This is CONTRADICTED by the CITED information located on the Wikipedia relating to the venerated Sankrit grammarian, a page titled "Panini":

"Writing first reappears in India (since the Indus script) in the form of the Brāhmī script from ca. the 6th century BC, though these early instances of the Brāhmī script are from Tamil Nadu in southern India...."

Also note in that same article on Panini: "He is known for his Sanskrit grammar, particularly for his formulation of the 3,959 rules of Sanskrit morphology in the grammar known as Ashtadhyayi (meaning "eight chapters"), the foundational text of the grammatical branch of the Vedanga, the auxiliary scholarly disciplines of Vedic religion."

"It is not certain whether Panini used writing for the composition of his work, though it is generally agreed that he did use a form of writing, based on references to words such as "script" and "scribe" in his Ashtadhyayi.[3] It is believed that a work of such complexity would have been very difficult to compile without written notes, though some have argued that he might have composed it with the help of a group of students whose memories served him as 'notepads'."

Given that "script and "scribe" appear in his work, and relate to, let's say scripts and the scribes who were doing the scripting, that while Panini lived, which would have been early as the 6th Century BCE, that writing ALREADY EXISTED IN INDIA, AND WAS NOT "introduced by the Middle East around the 5th century BCE" as the article erroneously states now.

Additionally, the article concerning Panini states:

"The Ashtadhyayi is the earliest known grammar of Sanskrit (though scholars agree it likely was built on earlier works), and the earliest known work on descriptive linguistics, generative linguistics, and together with the work of his immediate predecessors (Nirukta, Nighantu, Pratishakyas) stands at the beginning of the history of linguistics itself."

So, there were scribes and scripts well before Panini, since HE LIKELY BUILT ON EARLIER WORKS.

Also note, in Sanskrit itself, the language is called, SAMSKRIT, and not Sankrit.

YogiVasistha (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You've built up quite a case. So if it's not the fifth century, when was it? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)