Talk:Vedic Sanskrit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Text Removed
I removed the following text for its being innacurate:
"and still comparatively similar (being removed by maybe 1500 years) to the Proto-Indo-European language".
In the first place we have but a slight idea of what the PIE language looked like, and our knowledge is mainly confined to its morphology and vocabulary, and from this point of view at least Vedic is more distant from PIE than Greek or Latin, as it had already undergone satemization and simplification of the vowel system in front of velar consonants.
Lastly, 1500 years (despite being just a guess) is not a short period of time for language change, as it seems to be implied. One has just to consider that it was roughly the time span necessary to go from Latin to the Romance languages.
Robskin (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[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)
- There is an article by Paul Kiparsky on injunctive both summarizing major previous treatments and proposing new view of its semantics - see http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/injunctive.article.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.244.109.165 (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2007 (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)
[edit] Re: Upadhmaniya and Jihvamuliya
The current text reads:
"...upadhmaniya occurs before p and ph, jihvamuliya before k and kh."
This is a bit misleading: one gets the impression that the two are to be pronounced along with p/ph and k/kh respectively. If I'm reading this correctly, what the text means to say is that when the (historically late) grapheme for Visarjanīya (:) appears before k/kh or p/ph, Upadhmānīya or Jihvāmūlīya respectively are to be understood. If you read texts with the 'proper' graphemes (actually, there are different graphemes for these depending upon the particular corpus tradition) for each, k/kh and p/ph do not appear at all. Unless someone has an objection here, I'm going to change the text accordingly. Aryaman (☼) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
