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
--
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.
--
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.
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
--
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. |
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.
--
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.
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.
Saṃskṛta isnot ‘general’not ‘DIALECTnot “natural”IS “artificial”
--
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.
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
So in Sanskrit itself, there are hints to be found that all other human languages are natural/mortal/human/unrefined, while Sanskrit is not.
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
"अथ यो ऽवाग्योगविद् अज्ञानं तस्य शरणम् |"