Saṃskṛta is not a 'language'
Eddie Hadley
Upendra Watwe
1. a body of words and (Y) the systems for their use common to a people [Y/N- yes to all scholars- of ANY discipline but not to all 100% of the people of an area] who are of the same community [N- It was not at all necessary for all Samskrita speakers to belong to ONE community ]or nation[N- I would avoid commenting on this as "nation" is a western thought brought about in the 18th to 21st century. Til then all over the world, it was always either geographical association or by people ruled by a king or under an empire.], the same geographical area[Y- the Indiuan Subcontinent from UpagaNastan - through to Kaamroop and down to Sri Lanka - samskrita was spoken], or the same cultural tradition[Y- Yes all belonged to the cultural tradition which is now known as Hindu Traditions]: the two languages of Belgium; a Bantu language; the French language; the Yiddish language.2. communication by voice in the distinctively human manner[Y- All the samskrita speech and texts are distinctively in a human manner ], using arbitrary sounds in conventional ways with conventional meanings[Y- As against the way one letter can represent ANY number of sounds in languages using the roman /cyrillic alphabet..the sounds of each alphabet in samskrita AND also in all prakrit languages are precisely thought of and accurately followed ]; speech[Y- Vedic Samskrita was definitely a language of speech before it became a written language].3. the system of linguistic signs or symbols considered in the abstract (opposed to speech)[N-Though this defjnition of a language isn't acceptable, samskrita language isn't a language of concepts being represented by sounds/ symbols[hieroglyphics or modern day chinese/japanese korean lanaguegs fall in this category]. Each sound in samkrita has a matching symbol and vice versa. ].4. any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion [Y- very true- all symbols are used EXACTLY for the same meaning and sound ]by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly [Y- yes all the communication in samskrita is definitekly intelligible]with one another.
Upendra Watwe
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः ।
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
संस्कृताध्ययनम् ।http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://study1geetaa2sanskrit.wordpress.com
उपनिषदध्ययनम् http://upanishat.wordpress.com
http://slez-musings.blogspot.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
Aditya B.S.A
2human
noun--
Arvind_Kolhatkar
I am not comfortable with Condition No 1. 'The same geographical
area' could have relevance in the primitive days when languages were
being created or lost. I believe we have now reached a stage of
stability of the existing set of languages and many of them reach far
beyond their original geographical confines without losing their
'languageness'.
That apart, you have not explained why or how Sanskrit does not stand
this four-fold test. More discussion will be possible after you take
a position.
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, January 19, 2012.
Eddie Hadley
But first, to intelligibly communicate, we must ensure to use the ‘same set of symbols’.
The symbol X, may indeed be commonly understood, amongst other things, as ‘one that marks the spot’.
However, that still leaves the small matter as to which ‘spot’ the X so marks, for there often be a number of such.
I therefore enumerate four such given symbols, complete with associated spots, duly described.
Such sets of symbols, at least when impartially provided, should be fairly comprehensive.
I justify my assertion, via the use of italics:
I quote the synonyms verbatim:
—Syn. 2. See speech. 4, 9. tongue; terminology; lingo, lingua franca.
धनंजय वैद्य <deejayvaidya@yahoo.com>
sorry that I could not guess where they were, either.
In any case, I do not understand Webster's definition (quoted at the
beginning of the thread) in terms of their exemplars: Yiddish or
French or English.
> 1. a body of words and the systems for their use
> common to a people who are of the same community or nation,
> the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition:
> the two languages of Belgium; a Bantu language; the French language; the Yiddish language.
Jews: But they don't all speak Yiddish. German Jews: Do these even
exist nowadays? Yiddish was spoken more in New York than Germany after
WW2. Is the nation the nation-state of Israel: hardly anyone there
speaks Yiddish. Other than that there never was a nation-state using
Yiddish. Similar questions may be asked regarding French. What of
Francophone African French speakers?
Neither Yiddish nor French is spoken in a contiguous geographical
area. What is this "cultural tradition"? If it is the culture of
speaking Yiddish (or French) that is a circular definition. Other than
that, people speaking Yiddish were from heterogenous cultures, and
much more so with French.
So how come Webster gives Yiddish and French as examples?
From your second email we have the definition and example:
pattern of which people? Of which race? There seem to be many peoples
and races among those who claim to be native English speakers.
I am sorry I do not understand the examplars that Websters give for
their definitions. That leaves me puzzled about how to apply their
definition and check if saMskRta is a language or not.
I have no strong interest in deciding whether saMskRta is a language
or not, until someone tells me what difference it makes. I will
continue to use the same sort of techniques that are used to study
other so-called languages to study and describe saMskRta: i.e.,
phonology, syntax, semantics, literary criticism, etc. If someone
convinces me that my study and understanding can be improved by
studying saMskRta abandoning language-like techniques and using non-
language techniques, I am not too proud to accept their help.
Dhananjay
On Jan 19, 1:15 pm, "Eddie Hadley" <EddieHad...@Ontology.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Eddie Hadley
Eddie Hadley
I am seeing italics, in both
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/samskrita/
and In my local e-mail - "Windows Live Mail.
I see them also in others postings, such as Upendra's.
have a work-around, but I have a feeling you couldn't care less.
The distinctions lay with the attributes of 'language'.
LANGUAGE "general"
DIALECT "form of"
JARGON "artificial"
VERNACULAR "natural"
As an exercise, one may entertain oneself by positioning "Saṃskṛta" in one
or more, or even none of these places.
Then try Yiddish, French, or what you will . . .
There are those that would have us understand Saṃskṛta is not of this world
at all, but there is no label of the 'super natural' category.
Perhaps we should appraise Webster's of this deficiency.
Personally, I always find it useful to know the nature of the material that
I'm presented with.
If it's fiction, then I can switch of the critical faculty and enjoy.
If it's factual, the reverse is appropriate.
The real amusement comes with every day matters, where to decisions as
whether, to trust or not to trust, have to be based on rather scanty
information.
You can find the understanding of such word as you seek, fully explained in
the self-same lexicon, but there comes a time when one must put down ones
lexicon and gaze in wonder at the real word . . .
Words are ever but ink stains on a page, or a noise in the ears.
Understanding is a function or the inner organ.
The classification is of language itself, and is entirely independent of
particular peoples or races.
In context:
LANGUAGE is applied to the "general pattern" of a people or race: the
English language.
DIALECT is applied to "certain forms" or "varieties of" a language, often
those that provincial communities or special groups retain (or develop) even
after a standard has been established: Scottish dialect.
A JARGON is either an "artificial pattern" used by a particular (usually
occupational) group within a community or a special pattern created for
communication in business or trade between members of the groups speaking
different languages: the jargon of the theater; the Chinook jargon.
A VERNACULAR is the authentic "natural pattern" of speech, now usually on
the informal level, used by persons indigenous to a certain community, large
or small.
I don't even know if I'm supposed to say 'Saṃskṛta', without a doted m, but
while I'm not dotting my m's, there's a beautiful rainbow to be gazed upon
outside of my window.
Eddie
Hnbhat B.R.
Origin of LANGUAGE
Definition of SANSKRIT
See Origin of SANSKRIT
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,
Arvind_Kolhatkar
I do not want to trivialize what you are trying to convey but it is
going over our - or let me say my - head.
I suspect that deciding whether a particular way of expression is a
language or not should not require so much learned debate. If it does,
it is a sure sign that we are discussing a non-issue.
In such situations why not apply the famous - and usually unfailing -
'duck test'? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks
like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
(Whether we write the word as ' 'Saṃskṛta' or as 'Sanskrit' or in any
other way is really not the test of its languageness at all. That is
a spin-off of the irrelevant fact that the Roman script has 26 letters
and cannot represent all sounds correctly to pronounce the word
संस्कृत. None in Canada can really pronounce my last name as it
should be pronounced but that does not render me a non-person.)
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः
सस्नेहम्
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः ।
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
संस्कृताध्ययनम् ।http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://study1geetaa2sanskrit.wordpress.com
उपनिषदध्ययनम् http://upanishat.wordpress.com
http://slez-musings.blogspot.com
Naresh Cuntoor
The notions of samadhi, nirvikalpa etc. have certain meaning in yogashastra. Whether one understands the concepts, or agrees with how well-defined it is, is besides the point. Outside of yogashastra, one might employ these terms without regard for precision - and that is fine as far as we understand that we are talking outside the confines of the shastra.
Now for amusement, let us consider the four definitions quoted from Webster.
1. Dhananjay and others have already pointed out the problem with this. "Same community or nation", "same cultural tradition", "same geographical area" are all rather limiting definitions which fail to capture why English is a language.
Or, by this definition we have to agree to say that English is not a language. Ridiculous, that is.
Alternatively, community, nation, culture, geographical area, have to defined broadly.
Or we have to accept that English is not a language, but that Indian English, British English, American English are languages. Would that make New England English, Southern English, Midwestern English, etc. dialects? Fine, if it does!
2. communication by voice, speech etc. -- I don't see how this definition disqualifies Samskrit from being a language. Care to elaborate? Or do you propose to redefine human?
3. I don't understand how this is "opposed to speech".
4. Again, I don't see how this definition disqualifies Samskrit from being a language. Please elaborate.
Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com
--
Ajit Gargeshwari
One can look at the differences between Katyaya and Patanjali which shows the progress Sanskrit Language had made and can be explained if one assumes Sanskrit was a spoken language then.
The second aspect is " Sanskrit as a language" was it ever used as we use English, Kannada, French or Hindi in our daily speech and communications by a large section of a given population or geographical area is for scholars to decide. If the answer to this question is negative then one must accept Sanskrit was an artificial language but it still continues to be a language by an definition.
Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
Ajit Gargeshwari
Listed below are some primary aspects of language copied from various internet resources. From below it is very clear Sanskrit stands as a language Please read different sources from which i have documented this information. It may not related, I can rework and explain if required
Source 1
Language may refer either to the specifically
Human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, or to
a specific instance of such a system of complex communication. The scientific
study of language in any of its senses is called linguistics
Human language is unique in comparison to other forms of communication, such as
those used by animals, because it allows humans to produce an infinite set of
utterances from a finite set of elements, and because the symbols and
grammatical rules of any particular language are largely arbitrary, so that the
system can only be acquired through social interaction. The known systems of
communication used by animals, on the other hand, can only express a finite
number of utterances that are mostly genetically transmitted.Human language is
also unique in that its complex structure serves a much wider range of
functions than any other kinds of communication system.
The five characteristics of language include the fact that language is a
system, it is dynamic and it contains dialects, sociolects and idiolects. These
characteristics hold true for every language. Linguistics is the study of
language which allows humans to learn and communicate.Language is a system of communication that consists of oral and written language.
|
|
The sound of each of the 36 consonants and the 16 vowels of Sanskrit are fixed and precise since the very beginning. They were never changed, altered, improved or modified. All the words of the Sanskrit language always had the same pronunciation as they have today. There was no ‘sound shift,’ no change in the vowel system, and no addition was ever made in the grammar of the Sanskrit in relation to the formation of the words. The reason is its absolute perfection by its own nature and formation, because it was the first language of the world. |
|
2. |
The morphology of word formation is unique and of its own kind where a word is formed from a tiny seed root (called dhatu) in a precise grammatical order which has been the same since the very beginning. Any number of desired words could be created through its root words and the prefix and suffix system as detailed in the Ashtadhyayi of Panini. Furthermore, 90 forms of each verb and 21 forms of each noun or pronoun could be formed that could be used in any situation. |
|
3. |
There has never been any kind, class or nature of change in the science of Sanskrit grammar as seen in other languages of the world as they passed through one stage to another. |
|
4. |
The perfect form of the Vedic Sanskrit language had already existed thousands of years earlier even before the infancy of the earliest prime languages of the world like Greek, Hebrew and Latin etc. |
Source 2
Spoken language - (language) communication by word of mouth; "his speech was garbled"; "he uttered harsh language"; "he recorded the spoken language of the streets"
Oral communication, speech communication, spoken communication, voice communication, speech, language
language, linguistic communication - a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols; "he taught foreign languages"; "the language introduced is standard throughout the text"; "the speed with which a program can be executed depends on the language in which it is written"
Auditory communication - communication that relies on hearing
words - the words that are spoken; "I listened to his words very closely"
Orthoepy, pronunciation - the way a word or a language is customarily spoken; "the pronunciation of Chinese is difficult for foreigners"; "that is the correct pronunciation"
Conversation - the use of speech for informal exchange of views or ideas or information etc.
give-and-take, discussion, word - an exchange of views on some topic; "we had a good discussion"; "we had a word or two about it"
locution, saying, expression - a word or phrase that particular people use in particular situations; "pardon the expression"
non-standard speech - speech that differs from the usual accepted, easily recognizable speech of native adult members of a speech community
Idiolect - the language or speech of one individual at a particular period in life
Monologue - a long utterance by one person (especially one that prevents others from participating in the conversation)
magic spell, magical spell, charm, spell - a verbal formula believed to have magical force; "he whispered a spell as he moved his hands"; "inscribed around its base is a charm in Balinese"
Dictation - speech intended for reproduction in writing
monologue, soliloquy - speech you make to yourself
Source 3
Spoken language is based on a face-to-face encounter. One person directly addresses another or others. (The electronic media, such as radio and television are, of course, exceptions, but even there we can envision someone at a microphone imagining an audience to whom they direct their remarks.)
Within the face-to-face encounter of speech, communication is not limited to words. Speakers use a wide variety of extra-verbal devices, from emphasis and dramatic pauses to changes in tone or tempo. Speakers also use a broad range of non-verbal clues. They “talk” with their eyes and their bodies. They use hand gestures and facial expressions to convey ideas. And speakers respond to similar cues from their listeners—the nods and grunts that say, in effect, "I hear you," or the quizzical looks that say, "I don't understand."
As we learn a language, we also learn the non-verbal conventions of that language—the meaning of a shrug, a pout, or a smile. Speech thus often includes not only a face-to-face meeting, but also a meeting of the minds. "Conversation," Steven Pinker notes, "requires cooperation.
Listeners assume speakers are conveying information relevant to what they already know and what they want to know. That allows them to hear between the lines in order to pin down the meanings of vague and ambiguous words and to fill in the unsaid logical steps.
Speaker and listener are aware of each other's knowledge, interests, and
biases. They can interpret remarks within the common social setting in which
they find themselves. This mutual understanding, being "on the same
page" as it were, is frequently absent with written communication.
Information an author would like to assume the reader knows must be included
with a text. Writers must make their biases explicit to assure full
understanding by the critical reader, and readers, unable to read body
language, must
subject texts to close scrutiny to "read" attitudes or biases
underlying a text.
Source 3
I use the word language broadly to mean any system of communication; any system for transferring information from one party to another. This would include “body language” and mathematics, not simply the customary notion of speech or writing. Likewise, we won’t restrict the idea of communication only to humans; there are many examples of communication among animals, and also between humans and objects such as clocks or computers.
People use languages to express their experience. However, each language is uniquely adapted for expressing only certain parts of our experience and is less effective for describing other parts. We cannot completely describe a painting in words, or describe emotions with numbers. And because experiences differ widely from one culture to another, we cannot completely express the concepts and nuances of one culture in the languages of another. For example, the Ohlone Indians of the western United States, who had a stable population for 5,000 years before the Spanish arrived, had no word for “famine,” presumably because they had never experienced that condition.
To refine the notion of language further, we call symbolic a language that represents information in the abstract, outside of its immediate context. For example, we can understand the word “five” as a symbol for a group of ideas that have to do with quantity, size, order or appearance, regardless of whether we are counting, measuring, comparing or describing anything at the moment.
Symbolic languages can be multi-layered or interactive in complex ways. Consider the symbolic complexity of a system like Morse code, which is transmitted as auditory signals. The signals represent our alphabet and can be translated directly into letters or written down in Morse notation and translated later; the letters represent the sounds of spoken language, which can be combined to form words, which in turn stand for ideas; and so on. We will discuss symbols more specifically in the sections below, but for now the point is simply that using a symbolic language adds abstraction and extra dimensions when we express our experience.
धनंजय वैद्य <deejayvaidya@yahoo.com>
(QUOTED)
The ancient language of the Hindoos, long since obsolete in vernacular
use, but preserved to the present day as the literary and sacred
dialect of India. It is nearly allied to the Persian, and to the
principal languages of Europe, classical and modern, and by its more
perfect preservation of the roots and forms of the primitive language
from which they are all descended, is a most important assistance in
determining their history and relations.
(ENDQUOTE)
The words "language", "dialect" and "vernacular" are used but the term
"jargon" is not used.
"ancient language"
"obsolete in vernacular"
"literary and sacred dialect"
Because this is a Webster's definition, it could be cross-referenced
with their definitions of language, dialect and vernacular:
> LANGUAGE is applied to the "general pattern" of a people or race
of the people or race of Hindoos
> DIALECT is applied to "certain forms" or "varieties of" a language, often
> those that provincial communities or special groups retain (or develop) even
> after a standard has been established:
form of a language, and these varieties have been retained or
developed even after a standard was established.
>A JARGON
(not mentioned in the definition of "sanskrit")
>A VERNACULAR is the authentic "natural pattern" of speech, now usually on
>the informal level, used by persons indigenous to a certain community, large
Webster (1913) states that Sanskrit is now obsolete as a natural
pattern of speech on an informal level in persons indigenous to any
community
Hope this may be helpful.
No rainbow outside my window this minute, but a rather pretty, if non-
supernatural, sunrise.
Dhananjay
nagendra kumar jha
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
--
nagendra/CSE/2000
Eddie Hadley
LANGUAGE "general"
DIALECT "form of"
JARGON "artificial"
VERNACULAR "natural"
As an exercise, one may entertain oneself by positioning "Saṃskṛta" in one
or more, or even none of these places.
Then try Yiddish, French, or what you will . . .
Naresh Cuntoor
Of course Saṃskṛta is a language!But that is not the issue.As duly provided in the post, the issue has a number of levels when read between the lines, as again some members have noticed.
Given that this *was* the subject of the thread, I see no point in prolonging this thread.
Saṃskṛta isnot ‘general’not ‘DIALECTnot “natural”IS “artificial”
And you say this based on?
Unless you provide facts to support your claims, let us stop this discussion here.
-Naresh
Nityanand Misra
I am probably the first person on the thread to agree with you, but only partly :).
First where I agree with you. Sanskrit is not just a language like any other human language in the world. The formal structure which it has (a context sensitive grammar), codified by the nearly 4000 Sutras of Panini, along with the appendices on Dhatus and Ganas, et cetera, make it a context sensitive (or recursively enumerable) language which can be recognized by a Turing Machine. Sanskrit [or a Sanskrit speaker] knows that it is different from a normal, natural, human language - this is evidenced by two words used in Sanskrit for "human" languages -
- प्राकृत, this literally means "natural", but a special meaning of the word is any other naturally spoken language apart from Sanskrit.
- भाषा, this word literally means "language", but a special meaning of the word is a Prakrit or natural language. That the term भाषा
Now where I differ. It is still a language in the sense of of all meanings in Webster, even though it may not be natural or mortal. Depending on your belief, you may call it an ideal language which was refined/designed/perfected over centuries (hence the name संस्कृत or संस्कृता वाक्), or you may call it a divine language which was revealed to some Rishis and Yogis in deep meditation (hence the names देवभाषा or गीर्वाणवाणी) as a स्फोट. It is very different from a natural human language, but still a language nevertheless. Finally, a jargon is restricted to a specific occupational community e.g. medical/computer/business jargon. But Sanskrit was used in texts of every occupation in India - be it philosophy, or medicine, or music, or metallurgy, or astronomy, or linguistics, or mathematics, or alchemy, or religion, or .... the list is endless.
Nityanand
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
--
Nityānanda Miśra
http://nmisra.googlepages.com
|| आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो ||
(Thou art from/for/of/in That Ātman, O Śvetaketu)
- Ṛṣi Uddālaka to his son, Chāndogyopaniṣad 6.8.7, The Sāma Veda
Naresh Cuntoor
First where I agree with you. Sanskrit is not just a language like any other human language in the world. The formal structure which it has (a context sensitive grammar), codified by the nearly 4000 Sutras of Panini, along with the appendices on Dhatus and Ganas, et cetera, make it a context sensitive (or recursively enumerable) language
Well, English has its grammar too. And etymology. And verbs. And prefixes. And suffixes. And thematic roles. And context-sensitive grammar. So by your reasoning, English is not just a language like any other human language in the world!
which can be recognized by a Turing Machine. Sanskrit [or a Sanskrit speaker] knows that it is different from a normal, natural, human language - this is evidenced by two words used in Sanskrit for "human" languages -
- प्राकृत, this literally means "natural", but a special meaning of the word is any other naturally spoken language apart from Sanskrit.
- भाषा, this word literally means "language", but a special meaning of the word is a Prakrit or natural language. That the term भाषा
That Samskrit was a widely-spoken language is quite clear from Patanjali's preface to his commentary on Ashtadhyayi where he says "... keshAM shabdAnAm? laukikAnAM vaidikAnAM cha ..." (or something to that effect). Evidently, they did not use the label Samskrita back then. So what? After all Hindus did not use the label 'Hindu' for a long time!
I think we tend to get carried away by the parsing ease of Sanskrit and ascribe all kinds of unnecessary superlatives. English has its parsing engines too. Otherwise, Microsoft Word would not highlight mistakes of disagreeing verbs and subjects. Or red-flag bad constructions. So does this make English different from a normal, natural, human language?
So in Sanskrit itself, there are hints to be found that all other human languages are natural/mortal/human/unrefined, while Sanskrit is not.
Please elaborate. What are these hints?
Now where I differ. It is still a language in the sense of of all meanings in Webster, even though it may not be natural or mortal. Depending on your belief, you may call it an ideal language which was refined/designed/perfected over centuries (hence the name संस्कृत or संस्कृता वाक्), or you may call it a divine language which was revealed to some Rishis and Yogis in deep meditation (hence the names देवभाषा or गीर्वाणवाणी) as a स्फोट. It is very different from a natural human language, but still a language
This is exactly what I mean by the use of terms within and outside of a shastra context. Bhartrhari uses the term sphoTa in his theory of language in certain specific ways. Here you have brought in Rishis and Yogis in deep meditation and all that. sphoTa in sphoTa-vAda is not that.
Rishis may have had great insights because of their saadhana. They may have expressed their thoughts in Samskrit. That does not mean Samskrit itself is a divine revelation or whatever. Now if one were to claim that they came upon these great insights because they knew Samskrit, that would indeed be interesting -- iff one can substantiate that claim.
Naresh
Hnbhat B.R.
सा नो मन्द्रेषमूर्जं दुहाना धेनुर्वागस्मानुप सुष्टुतैतु ॥११॥
Naresh Cuntoor
एवं किं वयमपि संस्कृतं नाम दैवी वाक् इति अक्षरशः विश्वासं कुर्वाणाः तद्भावं विस्मराम ?
(The short English version of the above note- The Speaking tree column in today's (21st Jan) Times of India newspaper has an article that is relevant in the context of our discussion. It has an anecdote about mistaking letter for the spirit).
किंच सूत्र-वाक्य-भाष्यकारप्रभृतिभिः महर्षिभिः लौकिकं च वैदिकं च प्रयोगम् अन्वाख्यातं खलु व्याकरणे । प्रयोगशरणाः वैय्याकरणाः । केषामयं प्रयोगः ? जनानाम् । क्व ? लोके च वेदे च । न खलु पतञ्जलिरपि देवप्रयोगं प्रस्तौति !
That these maharshis had profound insights into language, its production, its philosophy, and other aspects is clear. They came up with clever ways to model grammar of both everyday speak (i.e., loka prayogaH) and the Vedic counterpart. Patanjali explains this in his introduction. He is not talking about a third usage - that of the devas!
Anyway, it looks like we have gone from "is it a language?" to "whose language"?!
Also, let us remember that though we use the term 'prAkRuta', there are several categories within itself. I use the term categories because I don't know they can be considered dialects or whether they are sufficiently distinct to be called languages.
Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com
Hnbhat B.R.
"यस्तु प्रयुङ्क्ते कुशलो विशेषे शब्दान् यथावद् व्यवहारकाले।
Hnbhat B.R.
वाग्योगविदेव | (दुष्यति चापशब्दैः)
"अथ यो ऽवाग्योगविद् अज्ञानं तस्य शरणम् |"