Native Sanskrit speakers

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

I wish to know if there are any native Sanskrit speakers whose speech is in accordance with the rules of sandhi as laid out by the shastras.

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमस्ते श्रीमन् उज्ज्वल-राजपूत-महोदय !

There are said to be some places, one in Karnataka, one in Madhya Pradesh, one in Rajasthan, where everyone is said to be speaking Sanskrit. If we consider people there to be native Sanskrit speakers, one needs to visit there and investigate there.

One motto of संस्कृतभारती has been to spread Sanskrit speaking. Success rate of "native speakers" trained by संस्कृतभारती about the grammatical accuracy of speech of these native speakers can also be a part of the investigation implicit in your question. 

Before undertaking any such investigation, should one set Research objectives ? One objective can be to find whether "native Sanskrit speech" really promotes good Sanskrit or not. If investigation would reveal that promotion of good Sanskrit is not really happening, corollary objective would be to find, what good work can be said as being done by organizations such as संस्कृतभारती ? 

As far as rules of संधि are concerned, to my mind, the rules of संधि even in शास्त्र-s do take cognizance of how the pronunciations happen natively. That can be the only reason/logic for there being चोः कुः in one rule, and yet कुहोश्चुः in another or in शिक्षा - यथा सौराष्ट्रिका नारी तक्रँ इत्यभिभाषते 

My great worry is that promotion of native Sanskrit speech should not so emerge that, that would require rewriting the rules. If that would become the case, what Sanskrit has prevailed for thousands of years would no more be The Sanskrit, which Sanskrit-lovers such as myself love and respect. I guess, there would be many, who share my anxiety. By that, another objective of the investigation can be "Whither Sanskrit by promotion of native Sanskrit speech ?" 

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

नमस्ते श्रीपादमहोदय।

I have seen several videos showing conversation among people from the Sanskrit-speaking villages. But in what I saw, I did not find sandhi happening properly.

Sanskrit Bharati teaches spoken Sanskrit without sandhi (in most places). However, I feel that allowing sandhi to happen can make speaking Sanskrit easier and faster. Sandhi should not be something that is supposed to be learned only when one becomes a scholar. Probably, kids who see elders speaking with sandhi will learn it right from their very first utterances and sandhi might become very natural for them and bring an ease in overall language learning. On the other hand, we can't expect kids to do sandhi when they are used to hearing to discrete words, because while learning language children try to imitate elders as closely as they can, however difficult it may be.

These are just my assumptions and please inform me if I am wrong somewhere.

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

Also, I don't think that promoting native Sanskrit can be a problem in itself. Perhaps, methods can be improved. Anyway, it is already much better than promoting native English among Indians.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

What is the alphabet of Sanskrit? Devnagari is the script  not the alphabet.  Native Sanskrit speakers speak Sanskrit by aligning it with their native tongues.  Thus one can easily make out the native tongue while one is speaking Sanskrit just as one can make out the native tongue of a person when he is speaking English.

In short as on date there exists no native tongue in respect of Sanskrit.  If there was any it needs to be resurrected.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

On Nov 6, 2017 10:29 AM, "उज्ज्वल राजपूत" <ujjwal....@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, I don't think that promoting native Sanskrit can be a problem in itself. Perhaps, methods can be improved. Anyway, it is already much better than promoting native English among Indians.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

Achyut Karve ji, there are several incidences in various Sanskrit texts, including Vedic texts, that indicate that it has always been possible to make out the native place of a person based on how he spoke. So it is no surprise that we see influence of the regional language on Sanskrit or English spoken by the people.

But that should not mean there are no 'native' Sanskrit speakers today. There are many children whose first language is none other than Sanskrit.

The question is whether there are such people who speak Sanskrit since childhood with sandhi as described by Panini.

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमांसि अच्युत-कर्वे-उज्ज्वल-राजपूत-महोदयौ !

Having read your responses, I would like to respond as follows =>

1. Because of its long-established and comprehensively detailed grammar, Sanskrit has become a language with zero tolerance for deviations, even for spoken Sanskrit. In fact, that single fact distinguishes Sanskrit from any other language. For most other languages, spoken tongue can be much different from the literary tongue. Once when speaking to an English gentleman, I was surprised to learn that an Irishman may just not understand what a Scot is speaking, though both consider that what language they speak is English. It is also well-known that American English has become much different than British English. 
2. Having said as above, I must also acknowledge that some regional variations have crept into Sanskrit, especially when pronouncing words like ज्ञानम्. In North India they would pronounce it as ग्यानम्, in Western India they pronounce it as द्न्यानम्, though the actual syllabic composition is ज्-ञ्-आ-नम्. Despite these pronunciation-differences, the written word will always be ज्ञानम्. In all dictionaries it will always be found as a conjunct of ज्-ञ्-आ. 
1. In North India they tend to pronounce a letter like स्त्री as इस्त्री. 
2. Many such deviations have come to be tolerated. But note, these are only tolerated, not accepted by changing rules of grammar.
3. Having said so, one does find Sanskrit dramas with chaste Sanskrit spoken by select characters and lesser characters speaking अर्धमागधी. All such dramas are not Sanskrit dramas per sé, but bilinguals. 
1. Such tradition seems to be universal. For example I just now used the French phrase per sé which translates into English as "for itself". 
2. e.g. is the abbreviation of the Latin phrase 'exempli gratia,' meaning 'for example.'
   
4. About use of संधि-s in spoken Sanskrit, the rule is clear, regarding when संधि is compulsory and when it is optional. The rule is well versified, so that one can easily etch it in one's memory => संहितैकपदे नित्या, नित्या धातूपसर्गयोः / नित्या समासे, वाक्ये तु सा विवक्षामपेक्षते // The rule applies to all Sanskrit, spoken or written. Even though it is the rule, the rule itself grants use of discretion or choice विवक्षा, which is akin to "T&C apply" 

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Ujjwalji,

"The question is whether there are such people who speak Sanskrit since childhood with sandhi as described by Panini."

Why should we not ask the question to ourselves as to why do those who speak Sanskrit from childhood not speak with sandhi?  Is speaking with sandhi natural to Sanskrit or an elitist view of Sanskrit speech?

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

--

[Ramaratnam S.]

The question is why to pinpoint sandhi alone? The idea could be  - ...................who speak Sanskrit since childhood with rules of Grammar as prescribed by Panini.

[Suhas Mahesh]

I have had interest in this matter from quite some time, as I find the unsandhied visarga ('aha,' as we karṇātas do it) extremely awkward and want to purge it from my own speech. I don't believe being a native speaker has anything to do with sandhied speech. We just pick up whatever we hear— sandhied or unsandhied. I know a few native speakers, the most prominent being Udayana Hegde (also on this list). However, I have not seen any of them (or indeed, anyone in my life) consistently performing अपृथग्यत्ननिर्वृत्त sandhi in real time. Vowel sandhis are more natural, and scholars sometimes make them. However, inexplicably, even 'easy' visarga sandhis are often ignored. For instance, H.V. Nagaraj Rao who often manages to spin out complex लुङ् forms in real time, says सः instead of स.  Sri Bharati Tirtha Swamiji produces (inconsistenly) almost all the common sandhis in an extempore speech on Youtube. I think it is reasonable to believe sandhied Sanskrit is no longer transmitted from mouth to mouth anywhere. However, if anyone is interested in reviving a reasonably sandhied form of Sanskrit, I am all for it.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

patrick mccartney via INDOLOGY

Please allow me to share with you a recent publication on a "Sanskrit-speaking" village that has been published. I have also made some short films about it this village called Jhiri, which is in MP. They are available on YouTube "Imagining Sanskrit land".

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jsall.2017.4.issue-2/jsall-2017-0007/jsall-2017-0007.xml

Nagaraj Paturi's reply:

The attempt to recreate day to day Sanskrit speaking seems to be leading to a new day to day Prakrit speaking .

Patrick's response:

Nagaraj

This exacting echoes my own thoughts on the matter!

Nagaraj's reply:

Unwittingly this seems to be working out as an experiment on the possible ways in which ancient sociology of Sanskrit-Prakrit might have emerged by 'recreating' Sanskrit speaking in a certain Social class and Prakrit speaking in the other ones. Prakrit 'revival' is a bonus to Sanskrit 'revival'. 

Prof. Madhav Deshpande's response:

Dear Nagarajji,

Your comments are absolutely on the dot.  The propogated home Sanskrit is a wonderful experiment in detecting the interaction between the actual mother-tongue like Hindi or Kannada, and the acquired second language like Sanskrit.  A Marathi friend of mine who tries to speak Sanskrit once said: "स: परस्परं गत:" with the intended meaning "He went directly [without stopping here]."  This usage became possible because the word परस्पर in Marathi has that meaning, though Sanskrit does not classically have this meaning for this expression. 

Nagaraj's response:

Thanks Madhavji, for appreciating the view. You are the expert on the sociology of Sanskrit-Prakrit. Among the simultaneously equally valid views of 1. Sanskrit as the refined version of Prakrit and 2. Prakrit as the rustic version of Sanskrit, your example supports #1, Patrick-ji's observation supports #2. #1 is supported by the etymologies of the names Sanskrit and Prakrit. #2 is what is opined by Bhartrihari and others in verses such as ambāmbēti yathā bālah.  

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

Achyut Karve ji, as I have already speculated in a previous post (the third in thread), children who listen to Sanskrit without sandhi will try their best not to do sandhi. This is how we are wired.

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

Ramaratnam ji, sandhi is a phenomenon that is not intended to add meaning to a sentence. So people are more likely to ignore sandhi as compared to other grammatical rules. Also, sandhi is expected to pervade Sanskrit speech quite uniformly so I found it more important to discuss it.

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

1. About use of संधि-s in spoken Sanskrit, the rule is clear, regarding when संधि is compulsory and when it is optional. The rule is well versified, so that one can easily etch it in one's memory => संहितैकपदे नित्या, नित्या धातूपसर्गयोः / नित्या समासे, वाक्ये तु सा विवक्षामपेक्षते // The rule applies to all Sanskrit, spoken or written. Even though it is the rule, the rule itself grants use of discretion or choice विवक्षा, which is akin to "T&C apply" 

नमस्ते महोदय। यद्भवता पद्यमुदाहृतं तत्साधु। परः सन्निकर्षः संहितेति ज्ञातं भवता। परंत्वद्य वयं पश्यामो यज्जना निरंतरं पदानि ब्रुवाणाः परे सन्निकर्षे सत्यपि संहितायामित्यधिकारसूत्रविषये निर्दिष्टानि सूत्राणि नानुपालयंति। अयमेवार्थो मे प्रश्नादिकारणम्।

[hnbhat]

Not only rules of Sandhi, but other grammar rules, are not expected to be learnt for a native speaker of Sanskrit, if learnt from native speakers. Nor  languages spoken from childhood, are seen to be learnt by learning grammar of the language. Why specifically for Sanskrit the  rules of Sandhi? In native speakers of any language is using Sandhi rules naturally applicable to the language spoken. We learn grammar in schools only and not for speaking the language.

On 6 November 2017, at 18:50, उज्ज्वल राजपूत <ujjwal....@gmail.com> wrote:

Ramaratnam ji, sandhi is a phenomenon that is not intended to add meaning to a sentence. So people are more likely to ignore sandhi as compared to other grammatical rules. Also, sandhi is expected to pervade Sanskrit speech quite uniformly so I found it more important to discuss it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

The following HNBhatji's comments echoes a well known English dictum
"Grammar does not a man make."

"Not only rules of Sandhi, but other grammar rules, are not expected to be learnt for a native speaker of Sanskrit, if learnt from native speakers. Nor  languages spoken from childhood, are seen to be learnt by learning grammar of the language. Why specifically for Sanskrit the  rules of Sandhi? In native speakers of any language is using Sandhi rules naturally applicable to the language spoken. We learn grammar in schools only and not for speaking the language."

But does the above dictum apply to Sanskrit?  Does not Patanjali in the first anhik not list the benefits of learning  grammar and the curse that would ensue if one does not study it?

With regards,
Achyut Karve

On Nov 6, 2017 7:47 PM, "hnbhat" <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not only rules of Sandhi, but other grammar rules, are not expected to be learnt for a native speaker of Sanskrit, if learnt from native speakers. Nor  languages spoken from childhood, are seen to be learnt by learning grammar of the language. Why specifically for Sanskrit the  rules of Sandhi? In native speakers of any language is using Sandhi rules naturally applicable to the language spoken. We learn grammar in schools only and not for speaking the language.

On 6 November 2017, at 18:50, उज्ज्वल राजपूत <ujjwal....@gmail.com> wrote:

Ramaratnam ji, sandhi is a phenomenon that is not intended to add meaning to a sentence. So people are more likely to ignore sandhi as compared to other grammatical rules. Also, sandhi is expected to pervade Sanskrit speech quite uniformly so I found it more important to discuss it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Ujjwalji,

Each language has an inertia which can popularly be called a flow of words.  Children tend to capture this flow of words and speak.  We find that in virtually all languages the world over a meaningful sentence is made up discreet words and is spoken so too. 

In the case of Sanskrit on account of vedic literature which is recited in Samhita form it is expected that words in a sentence also should be spoken in Samhita form that is with sandhi.

My question is whether non usage of sandhi renders the words (पद) in a sentence discreet.  If they don't then using sandhi rules in speech need not be mandatory.

Further in many recitations we find that reciting strictly according to print (where in some cases the words are joined by applying sandhi rules or where the words are separately written) in fact not only affects but in some cases distorts the padas.

However there is a tendency in spoken (non formal) languages to join words in speech. 

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

On Nov 6, 2017 6:45 PM, "उज्ज्वल राजपूत" <ujjwal....@gmail.com> wrote:

Achyut Karve ji, as I have already speculated in a previous post (the third in thread), children who listen to Sanskrit without sandhi will try their best not to do sandhi. This is how we are wired.

--

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

Was Sanskrit ever a mother tongue of a people?  Is there any evidence to the affect?

In my opinion it was never a mother tongue.  Any effort to make it one would obviously lead to corrupting the language resulting in a new apabhransh tongue.

"of. Madhav Deshpande's response:

Dear Nagarajji,

Your comments are absolutely on the dot.  The propogated home Sanskrit is a wonderful experiment in detecting the interaction between the actual mother-tongue like Hindi or Kannada, and the acquired second language like Sanskrit.  A Marathi friend of mine who tries to speak Sanskrit once said: "स: परस्परं गत:" with the intended meaning "He went directly [without stopping here]."  This usage became possible because the word परस्पर in Marathi has that meaning, though Sanskrit does not classically have this meaning for this expression. "
 

The above is the product of over enthusiasm in speaking Sanskrit without regard to the nuances of its Grammar.

Sanskrit to my belief is a language crafted for protecting knowledge through an oral tradition.  Therefore non adherence to Grammar rules has the likelihood of rendering all the literature it contains useless in the future.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

On Nov 6, 2017 7:47 PM, "hnbhat" <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not only rules of Sandhi, but other grammar rules, are not expected to be learnt for a native speaker of Sanskrit, if learnt from native speakers. Nor  languages spoken from childhood, are seen to be learnt by learning grammar of the language. Why specifically for Sanskrit the  rules of Sandhi? In native speakers of any language is using Sandhi rules naturally applicable to the language spoken. We learn grammar in schools only and not for speaking the language.

On 6 November 2017, at 18:50, उज्ज्वल राजपूत <ujjwal....@gmail.com> wrote:

Ramaratnam ji, sandhi is a phenomenon that is not intended to add meaning to a sentence. So people are more likely to ignore sandhi as compared to other grammatical rules. Also, sandhi is expected to pervade Sanskrit speech quite uniformly so I found it more important to discuss it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-September/044262.html

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-September/044265.html

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-September/044276.html

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-September/044277.html

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-September/044278.html

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-September/044283.html

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-September/044284.html

[Nagaraj Paturi]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/sandhi$20visandhi%7Csort:date/bvparishat/W6K6HlycG1k/nmdPawxpHwAJ

[Nagaraj Paturi]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/sandhi$20visandhi%7Csort:date/bvparishat/69maR5wwmKw/LRtuQQm_BwAJ

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

I thank all the scholars for their various inputs that have increased my understanding of more or less related topics of which the thread on writing style of devanagari was greatly interesting and knowledge-enhancing.

श्रीपादमहोदयाय वयस्याय सुहासाय च विशेषतो धन्यवादो याभ्यामुपस्थितस्य संदेहस्यापकरणं प्रति पदक्षेपो विहितः।

तथाप्याबाल्यादपृथग्यत्ननिर्वृत्तसंधि संस्कृतं भाषितॄणां स्थितेः संभावना तु विद्यत एव। कुतो वयमवधारयामो यन्न केनापि विपश्चिता कश्चिद्बाल एवं शिक्षितः। तावद्वयमपि सम्यग्भाषावगमने प्रयत्नरताः स्मः।

[Ramakrishnan]

Achyut Karve ji,

I answered a similar question elsewhere recently.

Sanskrit was not (contrary to popular misinformed opinion) a single dialect. It was the grammatically and phonetically standardized form of spoken late-Vedic. 

​For there to exist a standardized form of the language, there should be multiple non-standard forms that are in use. The very existence of Pāṇini's grammatical standard is itself the most potent proof of there having been multiple dialects of spoken sanskrit in the late-vedic period.​

The spoken dialects for which sanskrit grammar was composed can all be called sanskrit even though they did not obviously 100% agree grammatically or phonetically to the standard language in practice. Vestiges of these pre-standardized Old-Indic dialects survive from Indo-Aryan literature composed throughout the vedic period, particularly from the 5th-2nd centuries BCE (when a profusion of grammatical and phonetics texts were composed to standardize the spoken language).

Vedic was not a single uniform dialect, it is the common name (umbrella term) given to several closely related spoken Indo-Iranian dialects of the Vedic period in South Asia (roughly 1500 BCE to 300 BCE).

If you mean to include all the Vedic (and vedic-derived) spoken dialects in the name ‘sanskrit’, then Sanskrit was the only spoken IE language (in the predominant sense)

​ in the India of the Pāṇinian era​

.

However, we know from evidence that on the western fringes of late-Vedic India (areas of Punjab and Sindh which are now part of Pakistan), some old-Iranian

​ ​

dialects were also spoken along with Sanskrit. It is likely that an archaic form of Tocharian was also spoken near Kashmir. In addition, we know that in the Mauryan period and slightly earlier, certain dialects of Greek (such as Yavana

​ i.e. Ionic​

) were also spoken due to the greek invasion of Persia and North-Western India. Old-vedic (the dialects of the Ṛgveda) may itself have originally been spoken as multiple closely related Indo-iranian languages (with the oldest vedic mantras possibly composed originally in the parent indo-iranian itself).

​Ṛgards,

Ram​

[Nagaraj Paturi]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/nBHM_GjLIBs/nY8bgHvzAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/nBHM_GjLIBs/gJvNOPv6AAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/nBHM_GjLIBs/2fOnrjwlAQAJ

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>  the usage of Sanskrit language is limited to a few scholars and was never the main language of the masses. Sanskrit language doesn't have the flexibility as does other languages have in terms of absorbing or coining of new words.

-------------- This misunderstanding about Sanskrit has been repeatedly discussed in this forum and elsewhere time and again. Thought, does not hurt to discuss it again here in this context.  

1. Standard dialect is the variety of a language that is used by a language group for the purposes common to all the speakers of the language across its various regions where it is spoken in the form of various regional dialects and across its various social strata where it is spoken as social dialects. For example, the variety of Kannada that is used by all the people of Kannada for the purposes such as use in print and electronic media, contemporary literary works, text books, official communication etc. is called standard Kannada. (standard not in the sense of respectable or authentic but in the sense of uniform and relatively slower in change than dialects ). Sanskrit was such a standard form and Prakrits were the regional dialects of the same language. 

2. Do we say Kannada is the main language of the masses; it has two forms : standard and the dialectal or do we say standard Kannada is never the main language of the masses only dialectal Kannada is the language of the masses? We say the first, i.e., Kannada is the main language of the masses; it has two forms : standard and the dialectal. Similarly, we should recognize that 'Sanskrit/ Prakrit' is a single , one and the same language, the main language of the masses with two forms: the standard called Sanskrit and the dialectal called Prakrit(s). 

3. Does standard Kannada absorb more non-Kannada words or the dialects borrow more non-Kannada words? standard Kannada has more Sanskrit and English borrowings than the regional dialects. Similarly, Sanskrit has more Greek and other borrowings than Prakrits. Does coinage of new terms happen more in standard Kannada or its regional dialects? It happens more in standard Kannada. In the same way coinage of new terms happened and has been happening more in Sanskrit

--------------------------------------------

>If one says Prakrit is 'Sanskrit/ Prakrit' is a single , one and the same language then one can say there exists only a few languages in India apart from Sanskrit. The answer is begging the question.

If you are looking at today's multiple Indian languages and are imagining that 'Sanskrit/Prakrit is a single language' is against this fact, the mistake is in bringing today's data as counter to the statement 'Sanskrit/Prakrit is a single language' which is about a situation many centuries older. 

Even during the period when the single language called Sanskrit/Prakrit was spoken, apart from this (single) language other vibhaashaas, dEs'abhaashaas, bhaashaas of the nishaada and other human groups which did not have genetic connection with the (single) language Sanskrit-Prakrit were spoken in India and were spoken of in ancient Sanskrit and Prakrit literature. In modern parlance, these bhaashaas may refer to the languages of Dravidian, Austroasiatic, Sinotibetan families and some other languages outside these families. 

Please remember that different languages of the same language family are believed /theorized to be once dialects of the same language which in course of evolution develop into mutually unintelligible entities and as a result, turn out to be /are called as different languages. 

The same happened to the dialects of the (single) language Sanskrit -Prakrit. The dialects called Prakrits of this language, in course of evolution, changed into several mutually unintelligible entities and thus became different languages which are the ancient forms of the older versions of the contemporary north Indian languages. 

' Sanskrit is fixed ' etc. are naive understandings of nature of languages. No language is fixed. 

Books like "Evolution of the Sanskrit language from Pāṇini to Patañjali " by Sureshachandra Dnyaneshwar Laddu and many similar works provide evidence for evolution of Sanskrit from time to time. 

Apart from this, Sanskrit expressions getting rusticized into Prakrit expressions and Prakrit expressions getting 'refined' into Sanskrit expressions was a perpetual  two way process. As such, one of them changing/evolving, the other not changing/evolving is improbable and even impossible. 

Modern researchers talk of substrata of other languages in Rigveda itself and talk more freely of such substrata in laukika Sanskrita. Viewing Sanskrit as some insulated entity, retaining its 'pure' uninflunced and uninfluencable form is considered to be against the spirit of modern research.  

------------------------------------------

> This is a possible theory that has been proposed that There was only one language in India (leaving south India and may smaller regions of out )  that was Sanskrit and that language evolved to many languages that India has. 

-- That can be better worded as follows:

There was a period in Indian history when major geographical area of the Indic subcontinent, particularly its northern part had speakers of one single language,  standard variety of which is (today being) called Sanskrit and the dialects of which are (today being) called Prakrits. The dialects of this language evolved into different languages that are being spoken in the northern parts of the Indic subcontinent. 

> This is a good theory which is highly debatable and problematic.

-- This is not a theory but a fact staring into the observer's face. Evidences:

1. If the language situation reflected in Sanskrit plays, viz., Sanskrit speaker speaking to Prakrit speaker and vice versa with mutual intelligibility and Prakrit used there always being suited to Sanskrit chaayaa with a small change of sounds, was not the reality at any part of Indian history, the plays would not have been received by their readers /audience as reflecting sociolinguistic reality. If there is a reality of that kind, the two forms of language can not be considered as two different languages. 

2. Books like Vakyapadiyam dealing with language issue always treated the two as different versions of the same language. 

> When one asks the question how did that one Language became many 

--- That question is not asked because researchers do not move from that one language to the many languages. They start from the many different languages of north India and trace their history. When they keep moving backwards into the various stages through which these many different languages evolved, they are bound to reach a stage where the ancestral forms of these languages were nothing but the Prakrits, the dialects of a language, standard form of which was Sanskrit.Since no one is saying that it is Sanskrit, the standard form which evolved into many language, since what is being said is that it is the different dialects of that language which evolved into many different languages, there is no scope for such a question. 

> why that one language remained fixed and remained static all the time. 

-- That one language is not just the standard form called Sanskrit but its dialects called Prakrits too. So that one language remained fixed is not a fact. 

Even if one understands your statement as 'the standard form of that language called Sanskrit remained fixed, it is not a correct understanding. All standard forms of all languages are slow in their change compared to their dialects. This slowness in change may give the impression of no change. But it is just a false impression. Not a fact. 

It is this impression/claim of no change in the literary or classical variety of languages such as Telugu and Kannada,that was contested and countered by the leaders of the spoken language movements that arose during the advent of modern period. Those who opposed the spoken language movements and advocated the continuance of the literary variety, (at least in the case of Telugu ) argued that the greatness of the literary variety was that it remained static /unchanged through the course of centuries of history. The leaders of the spoken language movement (at least in Telugu) published well argued and well substantiated pieces establishing that the literary variety underwent change at every stage of its history. This awareness that languages , even their literary varieties, can not remain static and to understand the histories of languages was considered to be the gift of modern research to humanity. 

In the same spirit, to consider that Sanskrit remained static can be viewed as contrary to the spirit of modern research. 

What is ironical is that the understanding of those of the modern researchers who consider Sanskrit to have remained without change, make the same claim as the target of ridicule, viz., traditional Sanskrit scholars who consider remaining unchanged as the greatness of Sanskrit achieved thanks to the power of anus'aasana of Panini's grammar. 

Those of the modern researchers who take pride in being historicists or historical researchers of language take pride in disproving the claim of the traditional scholars that Panini could bring in unchangeability to Sanskrit. 

Grammars like all other tools of language standardization do certainly contribute to slowing the change in the standard form but they can never completely arrest the change in that language. Panini's grammar is no exception to this.    

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Shri Ramakrishnan,

     Thank you for your beautiful summary of a very complicated situation of Sanskrit, variety of forms of Sanskrit, and other co-existing languages/dialects.  The standardization of Sanskrit, following the Pāṇinian norm, is somewhat like the standardization of languages like Marathi with the beginning of standardized textbooks that began to be produced during the British period.  Such efforts at standardization hide the reality of actual language variation.  There is of course variation build in the Pāṇinian description of Sanskrit itself.  Those interested may consult Paul Kiparsky's book: Pāṇini as a Variationist.  The best single publication on language/dialect variation in Indo-Aryan (including Sanskrit and Vedic) is the volume titled "Dialectes dans les Littératures Indo-Aryennes," a collection of conference papers edited by Colette Caillat, published in Paris in 1989.  With best wishes,

Madhav Deshpande

Campbell, California, USA

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Ramkrishnanji,

You have addressed the problematic of the origin of Sanskrit in a very comprehensive manner.

If I am not wrong

"For there to exist a standardized form of the language, there should be multiple non-standard forms that are in use. The very existence of Pāṇini's grammatical standard is itself the most potent proof of there having been multiple dialects of spoken sanskrit in the late-vedic period.​"

the above passage means that till the time of Panini there was a process of crystallization taking place in the usage of Sanskrit which Panini has addressed through his Ashtadhyayi.  Is it also true that in the period immediately after Panini Sanskrit experienced a process of decadence which is evident in the later commentaries which prefer to differ from the views of Panini.

Such type of crystallization and decadence is also to be seen in the arts where no sooner a particular art form reaches its zenith it begins to degenerates.

This has also happened with the tabla of which I am a student.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[vishal jaiswal]

Can someone please enumerate (or point me to a resource/thread that lists) the entire set of differences between simplified Sanskrit (as propagated by samskrita bharati in written/spoken forms) and real Sanskrit as it exists (in written form).

I am not asking about the reasons for the same, I just want a list of the differences from the perspective of grammar. 

Thanks,

Vishal

[उदयनः]

Namaste 

You can find the Policy Document here - http://www.sanskrit.nic.in/sss.php

Kindly note that this is NOT simplified Samskrit as u claimed. It is the Simple form of Samskrit. (Point 1.5, Page 6)

Dhanyavada 

- Udayana 

---------------------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKTyUKLk1s87yUJiY2fYvjL7CUhRF4ErL4Qa2eXMt1vuFMq8Kg%40mail.gmail.com.

[vishal jaiswal]

Thanks for the link to the paper.

I am not well versed to be able to read it, so it would be nice if someone can list the differences from the perspective of grammar, either in english or hindi.

And thank you for correcting my error, it's simple Sanskrit not simplified.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALZ_gBfwQm7AVjQ-s3YqreBxV3v1z2day9TVdgbFG%2BW6%3DWXhqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Aravinda Rao]

Dear Vishal ji, 

I have acquaintance with the Samskrita Bharathi almost right from its inception. I should confess that I answered my grammar paper in my M.A Skt examination mainly with the help of the booklets published by Samskrita Bharathi. As pointed out by Sri Udayana, it is simple Sanskrit which is used and it is in perfect conformity with the grammar of Panini. I have seen their latest books too, and they are a marvellous improvement on the earlier books. 

Some modicum of mastery of Sanskrit idiom can be achieved only after a regular study of the books published by them in addition to study of classical texts.

Regards,

Aravinda Rao 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKTyUKLOPmYth-XHZzw2TTjGCD8vBgjK%3DG6PT2AYqLMP9W3A9w%40mail.gmail.com.

[vishal jaiswal]

Thank you for sharing your learning experience, Aravinda ji.

But my question still remains.

Hopefully, some scholar on here will take out a few minutes from their previous time to pen an answer.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 22:35 Aravinda Rao <karav...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Vishal ji, 

I have acquaintance with the Samskrita Bharathi almost right from its inception. I should confess that I answered my grammar paper in my M.A Skt examination mainly with the help of the booklets published by Samskrita Bharathi. As pointed out by Sri Udayana, it is simple Sanskrit which is used and it is in perfect conformity with the grammar of Panini. I have seen their latest books too, and they are a marvellous improvement on the earlier books. 

Some modicum of mastery of Sanskrit idiom can be achieved only after a regular study of the books published by them in addition to study of classical texts.

Regards,

Aravinda Rao .

[Aravinda Rao]

There is absolutely no difference Vishal ji, It is like the difference between the English of a high school student and the English of a post-graduate. I have also done my Ph.D in Vedanta and can say with some authority that there is no difference in syntax, rules of grammar etc. You may examine it for yourself and discover any flaws. 

I am not a spokesperson for Sanskrit Bharathi but I love the organization for all the service they are doing. 

Aravinda Rao

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKTyUK%2BcwV7tL2SXr4i_XnsQR7zLKBk3idqCw3OaTZAXLqFEgg%40mail.gmail.com.

[vishal jaiswal]

There is absolutely no difference Vishal ji, It is like the difference between the English of a high school student and the English of a post-graduate.

Arvind ji, thank you for the clarification. 

I never implied that there are any flaws. I know that simple Sanskrit is a proper subset of classical Sanskrit.

Let me make my question precise,

What grammatical constructs and features are missing in simple Sanskrit, that are of course present in classical Sanskrit.

Sandhi is one such feature.

I want to know about all the other ones that were kept aside to keep things simple.

Hope to hear on this.

Vishal

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Vishal-ji,

The difference is of two kinds :

1. Between the Sarala Samskritam taught for the beginners and the regular Samskritam that is the version where the student is introduced to all the features of the language.

2. Between the idiom of Sanskrit that is found among the scholars who speak Sanskrit from the traditional gurukula background and the idiom of the Samskrita Bharati trained speakers. Because it is the difference in the style or idiom of speaking, grammatical correctness is the same on both sides. 

Another difference probably is between the style of textual Sanskrit and the spoken Sanskrit. The differences under #2 above are within the spoken Sanskrit only. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKTyUKLN1Z%2B9-hXjsEdnzcBzudxjnyUAieZO2YK_9MvVn5KDwg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director, Indic Academy

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, Maharashtra

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru

BoS Rashtram School of Public Leadership

Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public Leadership

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

 

 

[vishal jaiswal]

Dhanyavaad Nagaraj ji,

I would like to know more about point #1 . 

Specifically, what grammatical constructs/features are not covered for beginners, 

As well as,

What grammatical constructs are not used in the written samskrita bharati publications, which are common otherwise.

I just know there are two such things, 

Sandhi and idioms.

[विश्वासो वासुकेयः]

It is all very clearly laid out here - https://vishvasa.github.io/sanskrit/registers/simple_standard/2_saralasaMskRtasya_svarUpam/2_3_saralamAnakasaMskRtasya_sAmAnyaniyamAH/ । I think that your hindI knowledge should suffice to follow it.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

'Spoken Sanskrit in India A Study of Sentence Patters by Aralikatti R.N. ' gives more information

Regards

Ajit Gargeshwari

[vishal jaiswal]

Thank you everyone for sharing more information.

Vishvas, I don't understand the page you shared completely, but I'll try asking someone who might help there. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1e186447-7c53-4470-a6e1-33ac3df0da1en%40googlegroups.com.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

The efforts to keep spoken Sanskrit alive vary in their intensity, scope and popularity. While committed groups have successfully kept spoken Sanskrit alive over the centuries, and are keeping it alive, living and vibrant today. Given the socio-political situation in India, making Sanskrit into a truly National Language may be a dream of a tall order .The spoken Sanskrit movement prefers a amore Sanskritic form Samskrita to using the westernized name Sanskrit.

Detailed studies of The spoken Sanskrit beyond popular reports like David which are rated on numerous websites and newspapers. Hastings provides detailed Linguistic and sociological studies. Sanskrit is promoted by Samskrita Bharati and practiced by many committed families.

See Saroja Bhates article Position of Sanskrit in Public Education and Scientific research in India

Stephen davids report on Sanskrit in Karnataka Village

Madav Despandes two articles

Hajme Nakumara A companion to Contemporary Sanskrit

Reports of Sanskrit commission

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

Web site Visit https://archive.org/details/@sri_gargeshwari_digital_foundation

https://archive.org/details/karnatakasamskritauniversity

न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/_w1ShqfczhY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1e186447-7c53-4470-a6e1-33ac3df0da1en%40googlegroups.com.