Talk:Sanskrit/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

How to improve Sanskrit Wikipedia?

The state of Sanskrit Wikipedia is far from acceptable. The content is very limited, full of grammatical errors and more often than not contains text in Marathi language.

I propose that we take the help of university professors to provide a better translation and to expand the its scope. I am willing to provide offline as well as online support for it.

I know that this could be done and but I know not about the wikipedia procedures. Somebody kindly tell me what am I supposed to do to get Wikipedia's approval and guidelines for such an activity.

Prateek Mishra

creativelipi.prateek @ gmail .com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.125.158 (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't. This is an encyclopedia, not a translation service. There are many other places on the web where such activities are welcome. Best to shift this discussion there. David Spector (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

He was asking about Sanskrit Wikipedia. While the talk page of the Sanskrit article on the English Wikipedia is perhaps not the best place to ask, it is well within the scope of "an encyclopedia" — probably some page on meta.wikimedia is the right (though not necessarily best) place to ask. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstood. All thinking is an illusion, anyway... David Spector (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit Featured Article Group

I would like to invite those interested to join me in improving the standard of this article to featured article levels of objectivity and presentation. I see a lot of places where improvements are possible. Its protected status will be an aid to those who fear wanton acts of sabotage, cruft and edit warring that this article has attracted in the past. To start with, let us identify the sections which can be trimmed down, and those that need better clarification. Eventually all references should point at (hopefully peer reviewed) academic sources. Volunteers may kindly register here over the next 1-2 weeks and we can plan how to move forward. Please do not make significant changes to the article before they are discussed and agreed upon by the group. Thanks. Srkris (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

While I don't have the time or expertise to improve the article, I do see a number of small mistakes and omissions (one omission is a discussion of Sanskrit calligraphy, using a pen with a special-cut nib, which is the basis of the morphology of devanagari); I would be willing to help review specific changes. David Spector (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

classicity

I see the "classical language" thing has come up again. Please note that Classical Sanskrit is a classical language, as opposed to Vedic Sanskrit or Epic Sanskrit, which are pre-classical.

"Sanskrit" otoh is a "Classical language of India", which is just some label the government of India slapped on a couple of languages since 2004 in order to pacify the communalists.

There is a difference between the two uses of the term "classical". --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

saṃskṛtabhāṣā

saṃskṛtabhāṣā would be a compound. saṃskṛtā bhāṣā would be an adjective plus a noun. The point is that no reference is cited for either.

I don't know why people will insist on changing things around based on no evidence at all. Monier-Williams says that bhasa is used specifically of "low" language, non-Vedic or non-Sanskrit vernaculars. vac means "speech", i.e. the speech act.

I suppose it is not impossible to say saṃskṛtabhāṣā, but until we have a reference where exactly this expression was attested, I am removing it. --dab (𒁳) 10:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

See the following site: Samskrutam.com starts with संस्कृतभाषा (saṃskṛtabhāṣā) भारतीय परम्परा ...

This site is in sanskrit. In Hindi the word saṃskṛtabhāṣā is not a compound one, it appears as two संस्कृत भाषा (saṃskṛt bhāṣā). But in Sanskirt, the word संस्कृतभाषा (saṃskṛtabhāṣā) is a compound one. --Naveen Sankar (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In a way you have a point, of course, in that Sanskrit remains a living language that is used actively. In general, however, we should consider Sanskrit a historical language, which saw its peak in the classical period of say 300 to 900 CE.

It would be intersting to examine when the compound saṃskṛtabhāṣā is first attested, but it does not appear to exist in the classical period. If I may say so, saṃskṛtabhāṣā is itself not very good Sanskrit, it appears to be a karmadharaya or "nominative-tatpurusha" compound (like "maharaja"). I cannot dispute that it is grammatical, though. The difference between a compound or non-compound is not the space character ("saṃskṛta bhāṣā" vs "saṃskṛtabhāṣā"), it is the agreement of adjective and noun (saṃskṛta-bhāṣā vs saṃskṛtā bhāṣā). The formation of these compounds is mostly due to people being uncertain about inflecting adjectives, i.e. a cheap way to form correct Sanskrit.

The composition is only one half of the problem, though, the other is that bhāṣā wasn't really used of Sanskrit in the first place. Again, I am perfectly willing to submit to proper references. I find it unlikely that such a term was formed in the Vedic or even the Mauryan period, but I will happily accept it if it can be shown to date to the medieval period at least. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Here I find evidence that the term "samskrta vak" is found in the Grhyasutras at least. Your term "Samskrtabhasa" appears to be in use especially in the context of Sanskrit revival.[1]  Perhaps it is a loan-and-loan-back situation with Hindi. I can show it has been in use in the 1970s[2], but I don't know if it is already medieval. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Originally saṃskṛta was not a language (bhāṣā) distinct from prākṛta, the former was the grammatical high register, the latter represented the natural (vulgar) dialects. Hence it would be hard to find references to "saṃskṛta bhāṣā" in ancient literature, it would always be referred to as "saṃskṛta vāk". Today Sanskrit is seen as a language by itself (since the vulgar "Prakrit" dialects are long extinct) and may therefore be called saṃskṛta bhāṣā.Srkris (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if there's no classical source that uses "saṃskṛtā bhāṣā" (or "saṃskṛtabhāṣā"), there's no need for us to mention the term on this page. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, to use the term saṃskṛtabhāṣā, it is not necessary to examine when the word is first attested. Presently, in India saṃskṛtabhāṣā is the term used to denote this language. The term 'bhāṣā' is used for 'language', still in almost all Indian languages, where as the term 'vak' is commonly used for 'word'. I agree with user Srkris. bhāṣā = language; prākṛta- = natural; saṃskṛta = perfected. Please do not search in English books or translations for authenticity of this word. --Naveen Sankar (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No Naveen, there's no reason to use an artificial longer form in the article, when Sanskrit is most commonly referred to as just संस्कृत(म्) — in all classical sources, and even in modern reliable sources. Our article on Hindi doesn't say "Hindi bhasha" for example, even though "bhasha" is used for Hindi unlike for Sanskrit. There are no reliable sources that use saṃskṛtabhāṣā, only some ungrammatical websites. The article is fine as it is, this is not worth wasting time over. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Naveen, saṃskṛt(a)bhāṣā is the term presently used for Sanskrit in Hindi. This doesn't mean it is a genuinely Sanskrit term. True, both saṃskṛt and bhāṣā are loanwords from Sanskrit in Hindi. But claiming from this that the compound is itself Sanskrit would be like claiming that ars martialis is the Roman term for martial art (while the English term "martial art" in fact translates Japanese budo. It just so happens to use two Latin loanwords for the purpose). bhāṣā may be the straightforward translation of "language" in Hindi, but this doesn't mean that the Sanskrit term bhāṣā means the same thing. The term saṃskṛtabhāṣā imho is an artefact due to Hindi speakers. According to Monier-Williams, the Sanskrit word bhāṣā means

"speech , language, esp. common or vernacular speech , as opposed to Vedic or in later times to Sanskrit"

My claim would be that to a Sanskrit speaker of the classical era, the compound saṃskṛtabhāṣā would sound jarringly like an oxymoron.

Again, I remain open to references that show that the compound has actually existed in classical literature. In fact, this is probably an interesting avenue of research for the purposes of the Sanskrit revival article. I would be interested when the term saṃskṛtabhāṣā first appears, and I would also be interested how "revived Sanskrit" is affected by other such false friends from Hindi. --dab (𒁳) 09:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the last bit: One could probably add vaidika bhāṣā to that list. --Aryaman (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Aorist

The article Aorist is in need of editors who can help develop it, both in general and particularly the Sanskrit section. If there's anyone who watches this page who can spare some time, your input would be much appreciated. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dating of Rigveda

I always see that Rigveda is as old as 1500 BC, I don't think anyone in India where Rigveda belongs have claimed that it is 1500 BC, I mean why westerners claim something which not even native people of India know. It should be simply stated that when Rigveda was composed is unknown because indian people never kept any date associated with its composition. I am really fed up of this speculation of 1500 BC for rigveda even in this modern scientific age. It is totally unknown when Rigveda was composed and to tag any kind of year with its composition is kind of unscientific and unethical and BS. 

Regards कर्मण्ये वाधिकारस्ते माँ फलेषु कदाचनन् मा् कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर् मा ते संग्वोअ्स्तवकर्मणि —Preceding

Just because there were no scripts does not mean that Sanskrit was non-existent till the Vedas were written down. They were passed down orally. Our great sages, knowing the fact that the memory power of homosapiens would dwindle with time, started writing it down. Let me ask you a question. What is this? - '5'. If you said it was five then you are wrong. It is the 'symbol' for number five. Similarly, Sanskrit was the oldest language and has only been written down recently. English even if we only speak, it still exists. The alphabets are only symols to represent the different syllables.

unsigned comment added by 122.173.222.249 (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an article about this. It's at Rigveda. You should read it, perhaps you will learn something. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Tansliteration from one language to another language

Back in 1987 my son was in his 2nd or so and we were trying to teach him to say “man - mn..(mind)” and he keep reading ‘man’ as man (male) in English. After a little discussion he suggested if I wrote “mon and in Monday … he can say man (mind). He suggested me to study Phonics, which I had never learned in India in the school when we were learning English. I do not know even if they teach phonics in India now a days. Any way after this experience, I did more research on the subject of why when Indian words ..Such as in Sanskrit, Hindi, Gujarati etc…. are transliterated in English did not retain the same or similar sound – pronunciation. I am not a scholar on any languages. But at the end I discovered that the problem was due to unequal alphabets in all languages, which made hard to transliterate. So I came out with a suggested system for transliteration for Sanskrit and it’s derived languages in 1988 and published a small booklet in 1988, which I distributed at no charge. Nothing ever happened after that and recently I see this phonetic table listed here and I felt may be I should send you a copy of my booklet. Keep in mind back in 1987, computers, software and internet etc. were not as advance as today. I do not know how my work can be useful, but I thought it should be publicized or enhanced to develop a better system and Standard system of Transliteration of all Languages along with a more developed International Phonetic standardized table for pronunciation symbols. I do not know how and where to send or post my booklet for this purpose, so if you can guide me my email address is girishapatel@hotmail.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.178.210 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested in reading IAST. Concerning an international system of pronunciation symbols, see IPA. I don't think there is a problem with any of these international standards, and therefore there is little or no incentive to adopt an alternative scheme. Concerning English, you may be interested in reading great vowel shift. --dab (𒁳) 12:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Where was Sanskrit actually born?

The literature I've read suggests that it was born somewhere around modern day Iran, and the speakers migrated towards modern day Afghanistan then towards India? Which theory is correct? This information is not specifically enunciated in the article...

It was born in India and the migration hypothesis to suggest an inward influence into the country and recently been proven wrong.

It was born in India. But the English started the theory of Aryan Invasion to discredit India of the origin. It has been proven wrong. It is needed that this theory is officialy stated to be a calculated game played by the British to get control over India.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.203.15 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC) 

It is of course utterly bizarre that the English would have invented the Aryan Invasion (or indeed Migration) theory to "discredit India". 19th century British were well aware of their own arrival in the British Isles via the Germanic migrations and the Germanic and Celtic presence in Europe itself via the Indo-European migrations. The Out-of-India theory of Sanskrit origins may be wrong for linguistic reasons, but all this conspiracy nonsense is just silly. -Ben (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

About Origin of Sanskrit

A group of people or more probably a Siberian tribe( do not expect this tribe to be homogeneous as far as colour of the skin is concerned),started migrating towards Asia and Europe because of may be natural calamities.Some of them settled in Europe,and some in Asia,Asia minor.these people spoke a language or dialects,which were crude and no standardized grammar.The dialects were kinda similar;this can be concluded from the fact that Sanskrit shows resemblance with many European Romance languages, especially Greek.later th people from Asia minor migrated to Iran and surrounding counties then.It is obvious that before advent of these people the original inhabitants of Iran and other countries where these people went spoke many different languages,which in turn influenced the dialects of these migrants.So thus a proto-Sanskrit was born.Again there was no standardized grammar of structure for these dialects.No such historical evidences have been found as almost all of these migrants were nomadic tribes.

Now lets look at our India.The ancient Indians,the proto-Australoids,Negritos and the Mediterranean people and also group of so called proto-Aryans or the tribes from Iran had already settled in India.And they had mastered the art of farming rearing animals and many other things.Nothing is known much about their language.But let us now concentrate on eh region where the Sanskrit language arrived first.Not to forget many groups of proto-aryans who spoke languages similar to vedic Sanskritic had already migrated to India.

The Indus valley people spoke a language which most of the historians ascertain to be of Dravidian.They did not really have any script but had pictographs.When the nomadic tribes from Iran started migrating,they started accepting new ideas from the new people,and in-turn their language was influenced by the original inhabitants.They borrowed thousands of words from their language.Many historians even say that this nomads destroyed Indus cities to some extent and lated intermingled with them and settled there on the banks of Saraswati,Drishadvati or Ghaggar Hakra.

May be thus the vedic Sanskrit was born our of confluence of all those nomadic Sanskrit like dialects and the native Indus dialects.The Language then was not referred to as Sanskrit.It was a liturgical language and not spoken by the masses.Common people irrespective of their varna spoke dialects akin to Pali.

Again Sanskrit has borrowed many words or ideas from so called Dravidian languages. Especially those related to agriculture,architecture.Eg: Narikela,Tandula,Godhuma,Gopura.

Specially the proto-Australoid tribes whose language was akin to Mundari has played a major role in development of Sanaskrit then.

Nijgoykar (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What about when was the origin of Vedic Sanskrt? Saying it originated in 1500 BCE might be correct for the written version of Rg Veda, but Vedas were certainly propagated from teacher to students orally in a very structured way for an unknown and possibly very long time before the introduction of devanagari or other ancient writing systems. David Spector (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

True...According to astrologists, the position of the constellations in he Rig Veda corresponds to 4500 BCE. This means that those hymns were composed at that time and written down only in 1500 BCE. And Vedic Sanskrit was already advanced at that time. This leads us to a presumption that Sanskrit could have originated around 7000 BCE, though this is a very uncommon theory which is not supported by mainstream historians. Thelivinglegend (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit proper forms around 500 BC, out of the earlier liturgical dialect known as "Vedic Sanskrit".

The terminology is misleading. It would have been better to just call Classical Sanskrit "Middle Indo-Aryan" and Vedic Sanskrit "Old Indo-Aryan", because using the native term for the language opens up all sorts of sources for confusions as the meanings of terms shift over time. I doubt Vedic Sanskrit would even be called "Sanskrit" natively, Panini just calls it the "language of the hymns".

What is the "origin of Vedic Sanskrit", if that's the question intended? It's Rigvedic Sanskrit, spoken in the Punjab, in the period of ca. 1500 BCE to 1000 BCE. What is the origin of Rigvedic Sanskrit? It's the pre-Indo-Aryan languages spoken around 2000 BCE in The Hindukush and Central Asia. That's prehistory, and there are no records of that. Anything earlier than 2000 BCE isn't even Indo-Aryan, let alone Sanskrit, but just remote prehistoric predecessors of what would, among other things, later evlove into Sanskrit.

Your "astrological" date of 4500 BCE is nonsense pulled out of thin air. This is the deep Mesolithic in the entire Gangetic plain, and only Balochistan can be argued to have been in the Neolithic stage. The Rigveda reflects a Bronze Age culture, all of the other Vedic texts reflect the Iron Age.

No David Spector, the 1500 BCE date is not "the written version of Rg Veda". The Devanagari script was first invented in 1100 CE (note the lack of "B" before "CE"). The Rigveda was probably first written down around 500 CE or so. Before that, you have your "unknown and possibly very long time before the introduction of devanagari or other ancient writing systems", it is the 2000 years between 1500 BCE and 500 CE. I.e. the idea is that the "oral propagation from teacher to student" started out in 1500 BCE, it didn't end there. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because there were no scripts does not mean that Sanskrit was non-existent till the Vedas were written down. They were passed down orally. Our great sages, knowing the fact that the memory power of homosapiens would dwindle with time, started writing it down. Let me ask you a question. What is this? - '5'. If you said it was five then you are wrong. It is the 'symbol' for number five. Similarly, Sanskrit was the oldest language and has only been written down recently. English even if we only speak, it still exists. The alphabets are only symols to represent the different syllables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.250.212 (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit as artificial language....

In Italy there is an island called Sardinia where has existed a very particular civilisation. The same civilisation is evolved from Neolitic to Iron Age and ended with Carthage conquest. (5000 BCE – 500 BCE). Probably they are the famous Sherdens. During the bronze age they build very much see Nuragic civilisations. They sold bronze to other Mediterranean civilisation. The manufacts that we have, are on the same level of other contemporary Mediterranean civilisations like Phoenician and Greek-Mycenean, Ittits etc. But of this sophisticated culture we know nothing a part the manufacts and numerous ruins. They were surrounded from population that use writting system and traded with them. Infact we found a big abundace of Mycenean and Phoenician, Etruscan etc. reperts. The Phoenician themselves had colonies in Sardinia. But incredibly we don’t find nothing, nothing of written ! Why they didn’t use the writting system? They could use phoenician or greek alphabet ? or Better Why they didn’t want use any writting system ? We know about the existence of very strong teological cast and very close and segmented society.... Is it a case that the first written record in India is made from Asoka after he became Buddhist ?

If Asoka didn’t use the sanskrit in his edicts it is for two reasons? Sanskrit wasn’t common speak language or Sanskrit didn’t exist. The hypothesis that Sanskrit didn’t exist is obviously false. But the other hypothesis open a door. If sanskrit was a liturgical language like Latin today, when sanskrit was a spoken language ? The indoarians when arrived in India founded a unitary empire with a single burocracy or no ? if yes, we have found an important base of origin of sanskrit and Vedas. If no, there is a very interesting way .

Other knowing analogy is the German languages when they arrived in Western Europe during the crisis of Roman Empire. Germans didn’t speak a single language but every tribe spoke a German dialect and they formed states with different forms of mix with latin. The christian religion needed an international language and used the classic latin. The Germans didn’t have an unitary language. If the Arians didn’t create a unitary empire, while the religion was unitary, how the clergy of the different Arian tribes or states could communicate between them ? Are you sure that existed a unitary sanskrit ? In this second hypotesis there is only a possible answer.

Is it possible that the sanskrit is an artificial languages created from Brahmins cast when this was formed and based on different Indoarian dialects or languages ? And isn't it an evolution of a single dialect ? So the sanskrit is never existed as popular living language like latin or greek. So the born of sanskrit is linked with the born of cast system (created soon after Indoarian invasion and some century before the born of Buddhism and Jainism). Brahmins use this language for liturgy and initiatory transmission of the knowledge. Rig Veda was composed in different form and dialects and during the formation of the grammars it became unitary. This also explains the conservative caracteristics, the willness to maintain an oral code as garantee of a secret and initiatory language, and explain the obsession for sanskrit grammar that not exist in other indoarian languages.

not like Esperanto or Interlingua but as the Italian (language deliberately created in the XIII-XIV century by intellectuals as rational mixing of romance languages from different parts of the peninsula using a Tuscany base) with a political idea. The Italian became language of people only during XX century with pubblic school and national state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.75.72 (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In this article of wikipedia there is not hypotesis if sanskrit is a unitary imperial-burocracy language or a evolution of a indoarian dialect (in the ancient-greek, example Iliad was based on Ionia greek) existed similar variants in sanskrit ? I don’t know how to find this informations There are studied on this ? Is possible have more information about this ?

Sorry for the provocations but i want to know.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.58.66 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion of the subject. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the similarity between greek and sanskrit was limited to a few roots. I was wrong, the ancestral similarity is dizzy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.77.198 (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Court Ruling

I would like to anonymously point toward this court ruling cited here that claims that Sanskrit is not a dead language: http://www.englishforums.com/English/HighCourtRulesSanskritDead-Language/kvzpz/post.htm Trusted editors of this page, please use the ruling information as you see fit. 24.248.68.126 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

From the article, which purports to be a copy of a 1998 article in The Hindu: The judge pointed out that the Sanskrit Commission, in its report, had observed that "in Chennal itself, it (Commission) found that both in unrecognised schools and private classes, non- Brahmins and even a few Muslims and Christians, studied Sanskrit. In one of the high schools of Chidambaram, a Muslim student was reported to have stood first in Sanskrit and in another school, there were Harijans among Sanskrit students."

Right. And I studied Akkadian in school, so I guess it's not a dead language in this judge's eyes. -Ben (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In related news, the Bombay High Court has just ruled that Astrology is a science[3]. -Ben (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The court's ruling has nothing to do with the fact that Sanskrit still lives on in a small way (relatively speaking, compared to other Indian languages), not just among academics or as a liturgical language. Sanskrit is therefore not comparable to Akkadian or Aramaic or Latin, but it is comparable to Hebrew. Srkris (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The article's discussion of the status of Sanskrit should be based on respected secondary sources (including ones covering the revival movements), not court decisions. -Ben (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Johndawson45, 25 April 2011

Section: Usage in modern times The opera Satyagraha by Philip Glass uses texts from the Bhagavad Gita, sung in the original Sanskrit. See Wikipedia article Satyagraha (opera).

Johndawson45 (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Bility (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Proto Indo European

Sanskrit descended from a language called Proto Indo European, in the absence of a properly found name. It is not correct to assume that Sanskrit rose on its own accord, if it is wrong to believe that Tamil originated on its own accord. If a Proto Dravidian existed, so did Proto Indo European. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk • contribs)

That sounds reasonable, but what's your point? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is reasonable to add that to the article, but it can't be left as a blanket statement--since it is largely theoretical (albeit well-accepted by linguists), one would have to note how scholars have made progress reconstructing the language despite the fact that there is no written record of it, etc.; and that reconstruction has not produced so much as a single sentence. Doesn't have to be much detail as there is a separate Wikipedia page for PIE, but nonetheless something should be added in order to provide a balanced perspective. Beecher70 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you on about? Whole stories have been written in reconstructed PIE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.247.204 (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Linguists have tried to compose texts just to see what PIE might look like, but these aren't real texts, just educated approximations of how PIE might have appeared. Beecher70 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Gross Error

There is a gross error in the page -- and to my surprise the page could not be edited! Sanskrit is *not* the primary liturgical language of Buddhism, but only of Mahayana (includes Chan, Nichiren, Vajrayana, Pure Land, etc.) Buddhism, and even there it is mostly supplanted by local languages -- Tibetan, Japanese, Chinese, etc. To relegate Pali, the language of the Buddha, to a footnote is an error. It is no wonder that someone has surreptitiously found a way to disable editing -- that is the only way that such great errors could survive. 173.79.190.20 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Tharpa

Great errors are righted by Reliable Sources - do you have any to support your claims? HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

The IP is basically correct. Although Pali was not exactly the language of the Buddha (who may have spoken a similar dialect that was more like Ardhamagadhi), it is the language of the Pāli Canon of Theravada Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism has some texts written in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, but most texts were either written in or survive in translations written in Chinese, Tibetan or Japanese. Sanskrit is likewise not the liturgical language of Jainism (whose primary texts are written in Ardhamagadhi). During the late centuries BCE when both of these religions came to prominence, Sanskrit had fallen out of favor because it was too archaic (and presumably too associated with the Vedic religion), and various Prakrits were used. It was only later that Sanskrit was resurrected as a literary language. I've fixed this. Benwing (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

edit request

Please change

Sanskrit (संस्कृतम् saṃskṛtam [sə̃skɹ̩t̪əm], originally संस्कृता वाक् saṃskṛtā vāk, "refined speech")

to

Sanskrit or Samskritam (संस्कृतम् saṃskṛtam [sə̃skɹ̩t̪əm], originally संस्कृता वाक् saṃskṛtā vāk, "refined speech") 117.201.244.36 (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this. Sanskrit is the normal word in English; few if any people in English say "Samskritam" or any other transcription. Benwing (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Usage shows that "Samskritam" is vanishingly rare. Ben (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 28 October 2011

In the section "Symbolic usage", please add following -

DAV Institutions Asato Maa Sadgamaya

This should be added because: DAV Educational institutions are one of the biggest private school institutions in India which has its foundations in Arya Samaaj and one of the schools which invests heavily in teaching Sanskrit to its pupils with Sanskrit tution being mandatory for couple of years at least during the 12-year curriculum.

It's motto - Asato Maa Sadgamaya - is in Sanskrit. It's literal meaning is: "I go from Falsehood towards the Truth". Philosphically, it means - "To actively seek for self, and for others, to recognise the Truth of Universe and Life. It means that knowledge and open mind assists in journey from lies and false beliefs to search for, and recognise, the truths of nature. Thus in one simple statement it highlights the importance of inquisitive mind, encourages the questions and reject any beliefs without any basis in fact and thus promotes the pursuit of Truth both Scientifically and Spiritually"

Source: There are lot of resources on web which tells the motto of DAV Institutions as given above in my request. Wikipedia itself has an entry of the same at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayanand_Anglo-Vedic_Schools_System

More Information: Phrase "Asato Ma Sadgamaya" is part of following hymn in one of the Vedas:

Asato Maa Sadgamaya Tamso Maa Jyotirgamaya Mrityorma Amritagamaya

Literally, above Sanskrit hymn means: "I go from Falsehood towards Truth, I go from Darkness towards Light, I go from Death towards Life"

Taken together, above hymn emphasizes the importance of pursuit of knowledge and truth.

170.148.215.157 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: This should be added to List of educational institutions which have Sanskrit phrases as their mottos. Please find a social institution with the motto as "Asato Ma Sadgamaya" to add it to the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

1500?

The McDonell 1900 (2004 is a reprint) seems to be a SLIGHTLY outdated source for the difficult question of dating. HJJHolm (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Masica

The often cited Masica is either mistakenly cited or no professional linguist. E.g. the Kentum-Satem division of the IE languages is by far outdated. Cf. e.g. M. Meier-Brügger L339. Further, Greek is NOT a Satem language. HJJHolm (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

liquids

Why is ऌ transcribed as retroflex but described as dental? Why is र transcribed as alveolar and described as retroflex? Why are ऋ and ऌ transcribed as CV but described as syllabic C? Is the latter a difference between Classical and Modern Sanskrit? — kwami (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I second your first question.

• This resource transcribes र as both an alveolar flap approximate (aka. liqid) [ɹ], and a retroflex flap [ɽ]. The resource is an approximation of the original pronunciation. (It has some other differences, but they are are different transcriptions for similar sounds.)

Currently, in the chart, it is transcribed, and included as a dental, however, in the next chart, further down (the Non-Plosive, Sonorants chart), it is retroflex. Either this duality should be mentioned, or a resource should be found which sets a standard. For the record, it is transcribed as a dental trill, for which I have seen no resource.

• And agree about the issue of the third question aswell.

Does anyone know where the transcriptions currently in the charts came from? There seem to be no citations?

I will temporarily change it to ɽ. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Supaiku (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Phonology: Consonants

I fixed the IAST script (it was incorrect) and added devangary for the consonant tables. Supaiku (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)