SANSKRIT - THE MOST SYSTEMATIC LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD
Y.K. Malaiya
> From Walker's Encyclopedia of Hinduism:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Because of its extremely complicated grammar it is highly improbable
> that Sanskrit was ever a widely spoken language, current among the
> general populace, and some scholars are inclined to think that literary
> works in Sanskrit never had any real life at all, but were altogether
> scholastic productions.
> The man in the street did not understand Sanskrit, and those who wished
> to reach the common people resorted to the Praakrit vernaculars. When
> Buddha preached his doctrine he advocated the use of dialects of the
> common folk. Asoka used the language and scripts current in his
> domains to spread the Gospel of the Good Law.
Actually, Buddha's language and Ashoka's language both called Pali,
were very close to Sanskrit. Pali/Prakrits and Sanskrit were dialects
of each other. Pali is basically a simplified form of Sanskrit.
The formal Sanskrit was the dialect of NW India (now Pakistan/
Afghanistan), where Panini lived and taught. In some valleys of rivers
feeding Indus, the illitrate tribals still use some Sanskrit words like
"gram: for village. The Buddhists in this region used to use a
Sanskritized Prakrit.
Sanskrit has a very unusual history. A very large volume of Sanskrit
literature was composed when it had already ceased to be spoken by
common people. In this sense Sanskrit has overcome death and achieved
immortality.
Yashwant
Sid Harth
"Y.K. Malaiya" wrote:
My dear Yashwant,
As usual, neither here nor there kind of argument about Sanskrit. Good
for little kids, not for grown ups. Now that you are in the business of
selling Sanskrit books, thanks to Amazon's amazing guys, why don't you buy
few of them and correct your knowledge about Sanskrit? I know for you
jingoistic dingo dogs, everything that is Indian looks gorgeous. The facts
are otherwise. Sweeping statements like, "Sanskrit has overcome death and
achieved immortality," display your crass ignorance than studious opinion.
Next time, being a doctor and all, not that you are a Sanskrit doctor or
anything of that nature, a computer doctor is not that bad. Please quote the
sources, you know the thing they do to substantiate one's findings in
scientific journals? The kind of attitude and rhetoric such as yours has made
Sanskrit study, education and research a laughing stock. If you bozos ever
pick a Sanskrit book, a book on Sanskrit, a history book on Sanskrit, an
average book on Indology, a Sanskrit dictionary, an English article, not
written by a Brahmin, on the status of Sanskrit, you would not be able to
make such patently false statements about Sanskrit being immortal and all.
For all practical purposes, Sanskrit is a dead language, as if it was
ever alive on the streets of any country at any time of the history. It was a
private, parochial lingo of few smart people, among them, most of them were
Brahmins or Brahmin wannabes. With the influence Brahmins had in those days,
this small clique managed to produce Sanskrit secular literature for the
benefit of the club members with all the help they could get from the powers
that be. Period. That is the short and sweet history of Sanskrit. Yashwant,
you have a bad habit of leaving discussion in the middle. This time I shall
hound you till the end of the earth. I need satisfaction. I call you an
idiot, a nincompoop, a stupid street urchin, a brainwashed don's dummy.
Come out and defend yourself. Get any help you can, anywhere you can,
anyhow you can, you are free to do that but you must defend your idiotic
thesis. This you have to do by yourself and in your good name, don't throw
your dongo dog, bulldogs at me, I know them all. Have a nice day, as much as
possible. Don't commit suicide or anything, this is only a discussion.
Sid
Neeraj Kale
there is no doubt that sanskrit was used by people in their everyday
life,
otherwise it would not have developed so much.
nobody can develop any language when just a handful of people are using
it in their home, in that case sanskrit would have been dead years
before and you won't have heard that there is a language called sanskrit
in the first place.
it is ample proof, that there is still literature of sanskrit, that it
was a language of common man.
there is no point using slangs,
if you want to talk seriously, you can do so without using slangs.
using slangs only shows that you don't have any points to defend
yourself.
Sid Harth
As they say on the street, using slang, show me your dick, I have shown you
mine already. Throw some weight around your own or if you are defending my brother,
Yashwant, some authoritative, respected quotes. I know you are a Brahmin dickhead,
start with some Poona Brahmins who agree with you. We shall take from there. As far
as Yashwant is concerned, I shall not spare your head or your dickhead, if you run
away from the fight. You have misspoken one too many time for my good taste. As for
you Neeraj, two idiots don't make one smart dude. You both are useless piece of
Hindu shit, mere worms in a wet cow patty. I have done this long enough to know who
is my equal, sir, I know them all by their personal names, you are not in the list.
Sid
Neeraj Kale wrote:
Neeraj Kale
my heartiest congratulations to you for knowing so many slangs.
live long with your slangs..
The Hawk
you want slang? you mother-fucking son-of-a-bitch, you want your fucking mouth up your
mother-fucking ass? dickhead, fucking around with some dickless dildos that ejaculate
some fucked up words does not mean you got the slang, you bitch.
How's that for starters? Get off the slang band-wagon, sonny, and get back to the
baa.bha. thread.
troll.
The Hawk
yash...@my-dejanews.com
Sid Harth <gautama...@malexcite.com> wrote:
> My dear Yashwant,
>
> As usual, neither here nor there kind of argument about Sanskrit. Good
> for little kids, not for grown ups. Now that you are in the business of
> selling Sanskrit books, thanks to Amazon's amazing guys, why don't you buy
> few of them and correct your knowledge about Sanskrit?
Actually I did buy a few books & Cds from "Sanskrit Grantha Ratnakara"
(http://members.tripod.com/~malaiya/sanskrit.html) to verify the
process. I found that amazon.com's service is indeed fast.
I already had a copy of Coulson's book, which includes a brief
history of Sanskrit. Incidentally I had paid full price, whereas
one can buy it at IANC's "Sanskrit Grantha Ratnakara" at a
discounted price.
> For all practical purposes, Sanskrit is a dead language, as if it was
> ever alive on the streets of any country at any time of the history.
It indeed ceased to be spoken long time ago. Even when Kalidasa was
composing your favourite Kumarasambhava, it was no longer spoken.
However people continue to study it, people still compose new literature
in it, and many like me enjoy knowing a little bit of it.
>It was a
> private, parochial lingo of few smart people, among them, most of them were
> Brahmins or Brahmin wannabes.
It is true that Brahmins have had special affection for Sanskrit.
Many of the Buddhist and Jain Sanskrit texts were also composed
by Brahmins following those religions. However many authors were
not Brahmin-
Amarasimha (Amarakosha)
Bhartrhari (the Shatakas)
Bhoja, the king of Dhara (SamaraangaNa-sutradhaara etc.)
Hemachandra (Shabdaanushasana etc)
etc.
You suggest that Sanskrit was never spoken. What is the basis?
Yashwant
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Balaji Gadhiraju
>
> In article <363D8F30...@malexcite.com>,
> Sid Harth <gautama...@malexcite.com> wrote:
> > My dear Yashwant,
[Deleted]
> >It was a
> > private, parochial lingo of few smart people, among them, most of them were
> > Brahmins or Brahmin wannabes.
>
> It is true that Brahmins have had special affection for Sanskrit.
> Many of the Buddhist and Jain Sanskrit texts were also composed
> by Brahmins following those religions. However many authors were
> not Brahmin-
>
> Amarasimha (Amarakosha)
> Bhartrhari (the Shatakas)
> Bhoja, the king of Dhara (SamaraangaNa-sutradhaara etc.)
> Hemachandra (Shabdaanushasana etc)
> etc.
>
> You suggest that Sanskrit was never spoken. What is the basis?
Was it ever the language of common people? By common people i mean
people living in villages: not associated with kings, poets associated
with them like court poets. To be more specific ancestors of the
people who don't belong to three upper casts Brahmin, Kshatriya etc.
--
balaji.
>
> Yashwant
Raghu Seshadri
>>
>> You suggest that Sanskrit was never spoken. What is the basis?
> Was it ever the language of common people? By common people i mean
> people living in villages: not associated with kings, poets associated
> with them like court poets. To be more specific ancestors of the
> people who don't belong to three upper casts Brahmin, Kshatriya etc.
For one thing, the great majority of the
"upper" castes were common people too.
While Sanskrit is unlikely to have been spoken in
its pure form by the laboring classes, they spoke
close variants of it. The modern northern languages
are descendants of these variants.
RS
P Dwivedi
On 10 Nov 1998, Atul Narkhede wrote:
> In article <364784CE...@vennela.2kweb.net>,
> Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> While Sanskrit is unlikely to have been spoken in
> >> its pure form by the laboring classes, they spoke
> >> close variants of it. The modern northern languages
> >> are descendants of these variants.
> >
> >By modern northern languages i guess you are referring to
> >languages like Hindi, Marathi, Bengali, Gujarathi, Oriya etc.
> >I really don't know about these languages. Can somebody
> >who is really famililar with these languages tell whether
> >these languges evolved from Sanskrit or took lot of words and grammar
> >from Sanakrit.
>
> Yes, atleast Marathi and Hindi have borrowed a lot of
> words from Sanskrit. Many of the grammatical structures are very
> similar (with the exception of gender-dependent verbs in these
> languages). Numbers and the ways of saying them, alankaars, chhandas,
> are exactly as in Sanskrit. And this is not the case only in urban
> areas, but in rural areas too. For example, although water is called
> paNii in most of the areas, it is called udaka (a pure Sanskrit word)
> in some villages.
>
> - Atul
Actually, Bengali, Asami and Oriya are hugely influenced by Sanskrit--more
than Hindi. In fact, Bengali, by many linguistics, is considered the
closest to Sanskrit. Some other northern Indian languages/dialects such
as Bhojpuri, Avadhi, and Braj have unbelivable similarities with Sanskrit.
Balaji Gadhiraju
>
> In soc.culture.indian Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> You suggest that Sanskrit was never spoken. What is the basis?
>
> > Was it ever the language of common people? By common people i mean
> > people living in villages: not associated with kings, poets associated
> > with them like court poets. To be more specific ancestors of the
> > people who don't belong to three upper casts Brahmin, Kshatriya etc.
>
> For one thing, the great majority of the
> "upper" castes were common people too.
>
> its pure form by the laboring classes, they spoke
> close variants of it. The modern northern languages
> are descendants of these variants.
>
Atul Narkhede
>> its pure form by the laboring classes, they spoke
>> close variants of it. The modern northern languages
>> are descendants of these variants.
>
>languages like Hindi, Marathi, Bengali, Gujarathi, Oriya etc.
>I really don't know about these languages. Can somebody
>who is really famililar with these languages tell whether
>these languges evolved from Sanskrit or took lot of words and grammar
>from Sanakrit.
Yes, atleast Marathi and Hindi have borrowed a lot of
Dr. Axel Bergmann
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
> In soc.culture.indian Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> You suggest that Sanskrit was never spoken. What is the basis?
>
> > Was it ever the language of common people? By common people i mean
> > people living in villages: not associated with kings, poets associated
> > with them like court poets. To be more specific ancestors of the
> > people who don't belong to three upper casts Brahmin, Kshatriya etc.
>
> For one thing, the great majority of the
> "upper" castes were common people too.
>
> While Sanskrit is unlikely to have been spoken in
> its pure form by the laboring classes, they spoke
> close variants of it. The modern northern languages
> are descendants of these variants.
>
> RS
Seduced by their anti-Hindu motives some contributors to this list are
willing to make us believe that Sanskrit has been "invented by Brahmins as a
private language". One of the best arguments against this culture-killing
propaganda is that Sanskrit is a descendant of Proto-Indo-European (PIE).
PIE was a language very similar to (vedic) Sanskrit, and PIE was spoken by
everybody in a society that did NOT know Brahmins or any advanced
philosophy. It may be added that PIE is the ancestral language not only of
Sanskrit, but also of Ancient Greek and Latin, of Modern English and German,
and of many other modern and ancient languages. Sid's contributions to this
NG remind me of similar propaganda made by "progressive" students in the
Germany of, say, the year 1968: "Latinum in latrinam !" (by which they
intended to say "The compulsory Ancient Latin examination to be stood by all
university students must be put into the W.C. [i.e. must be abolished] !").
But NO one of these guys, even in 1968, was ever so bold to invent the
belief that *Ancient Latin has been invented by some mediaeval Roman
Catholic bishops as their private language*.
Best wishes,
Axel
Sid Harth
As your name indicates, be successful in your quest to know Sanskrit. A long
and arduous journey starts with one single step. Bon Voyage, if you prefer,
Sanskrit, "shubhaaste pa.nthaanaH."
No. I am not going to prove that Sanskrit was ever spoken. I don't go for
that kind of clap-trap. The issue is, should anybody, or for that matter,
everybody speak Sanskrit in this day and age where practically all other
languages are subordinated by the fast and ferociously growing world language,
English, if you prefer, for the sake of accuracy, American cousin of Queen's
English.
Moreover, I have fallen in this trap, gap, one too many times, already. Did
not do me any good. Are you trying me to prove which does not need any proof?
Like, for instance, proving to an average sighted person that sun rises in the
east and sets in the west. I could do that by pointing my index finger of the
right hand in the general direction of the east and simultaneously pointing my
index finger of the left hand at the general direction of the west. Proof, good
enough.
I have been writing on this topic, Sanskrit, for good four years, now. I have
exhausted all my talent by arguing and illustrating with or without any published
sources, the point that does not lodge in the thick skulls of you and yours, you
know who they are. Not that I am averse to quoting published sources. I have done
series on Sanskrit, its origins and its regeneration at the hands of British
administrators, Jones and company.
I have written nearly seven to eight hundred articles on Sanskrit, including
Sanskrit language itself. Some of those articles can be easily accessed with the
help of Dejanews archives. All others can be accessed thru the courtesy of
Sanskrit Digest. I wrote a series on Philology, a budding new scientific endeavor
started by European linguists of highest caliber. Those articles can be read by
anyone who cares, the link is provided for your convenience.
I have respect for all those who want Sanskrit to be a viable language, if
not the national language of India. I have nothing against anyone trying to
hustle and get this process rolling, starting with their own, individual,
unflagging, total immersion into learning the language, at any stage, at any
level, as some had a sprinkling knowledge of it thru their own Brahminic heritage
and their scholastic work.
If I find anyone who is so endowed, that is having gone thru the motions
himself, with total devotion, personal commitment, respectable investment of time
talent and acquiring requisite resources to continue in the most dreary and dumb
pursuit, I shall encourage him or her in that harrowing adventure. On account of
such fanatic forces, mostly RSS or closet RSS goons', positive attempts, I am
learning as much Sanskrit as I physically can. I am grateful to RSS goons with
heads screwed right for this gift to me.
My beef against this witless vigilantes is not on whether Sanskrit be studied
or not, it is their spin doctoring, hiding the truth of Sanskrit origins, lack of
sufficient expertise in commenting on Sanskrit, proprietary attitudes, mixing
Hindu religion with Sanskrit language, associating Sanskrit with the current
geographic entity called India and such fun and funny notions. Baseless,
groundless, idiotic notions. Unsubstantiated, uncouth, uncommon, unscientific
fascists' farts, in my typical language.
Being of the nature that Sanskrit is, a dead language of distinction, like
Latin, held together with fanatic zeal by very few but powerful, sectarian,
cabalistic religious orders and cults, the truth of its origin shall never come
for an open discussion among this small but elite group.
The low level discussion cum controversy erupts again and again on the
internet with practically same individuals expressing their same opinions ad
nauseum, yours truly is as much guilty as the others. My opinions, if they are
treated as such, just one man's opinions, are based on lot of extraneous reading.
I cannot say that for my professional detractors, you Yashwant and Atul narkhede
included.
I spend lot of my personal time and tons of money for this fruitless search,
giving the benefit of doubt to my detractors. I am not going to argue this case,
like fighting a boxing title, with anyone who has not gone thru the same route
that I have gone, lot of sweat, tears, and yeah, blood on my hands and nose. Show
me a champion and I shall fight with him or her. My dear sir, Yashwant Malaiya,
doctor of computer science and a Hindu fanatic of some disrepute, you are not
that candidate, I am sad to declare.
There is this trick the Sanskrit proponents play on the unsuspecting crowd.
Quote Sanskrit words, verses or books to prove Sanskrit. It is like relying the
elaborate statistics presented by your local chapters of such and similar social
organizations as Rotary Clubs, Zonta Clubs, Sons or Daughters of America,
Chambers of Commerce and Industry, all partisan all goo goo and gaa gaa about
their claims but none telling the truth, not even partial truth.
The truth of finding Sanskrit and restoring it to its present day glory goes
to those middle level British administrators, Jesuits, Roman Catholics, French,
Russian and German linguists and Chinese, and Japanese Buddhists religious
researchers, not the jingoistic dingo dogs of RSS, fascists fucked up
fundamentalists. These Brahmin goons have resisted, at every single step of the
process not helped it.
Now, when Sanskrit has gained sufficient respectability in the hallowed halls
of western academia, these goons are taking all the credit to themselves. Such a
shame. The tragedy of all this is, like you and I, we learned Sanskrit thru a non
Indian language, English. There are hundreds of Indian Sanskrit scholars who had
to do this and other heroic efforts. First learn a foreign language to learn
Sanskrit.
One of the notable Brahmin Indologist, RR Devekar, had to go to Paris, learn
French to do research on Sanskrit, which he taught to himself. The answers are
not in Sanskrit, they are in French, Russian, German, Polish, Italian, Japanese,
Korean, Chinese, Arabic, Farsi, Yiddish, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and English.
The answers are not at Kashi, Poona, Madras or Delhi, they are at Harvard,
University of Michigan, Unversity of Chicago, Yale, University of Pennsylvania,
Penn State, Edinborough University, Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne and Bonn.
My dear Yashwant, I love you like my brother, get real, act brotherly and
behave. "badatamiijh kahii.n kaa." As for you, Atul, get busy not be a busybody.
previous tread material is snipped for convenience.
Sid harth..."The discussion, if at all, on Sanskrit should focussed on, not its
origins but its genes, its power, its future, its regeneration."
http://www.comebackkid.com/views.html
tm_ingj...@my-dejanews.com
Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
>
> Was it ever the language of common people? By common people i mean
> people living in villages: not associated with kings, poets associated
> with them like court poets. To be more specific ancestors of the
> people who don't belong to three upper casts Brahmin, Kshatriya etc.
>
> --
> balaji.
>
I've heard there would be in India at least one village of a couple
of hundred people who speak Sanskrit as their mother tongue.
Huck Finn, Finland
----------
Tat Savitur vareniam bhargo devasya dhiimahi
Dr. Axel Bergmann
> expressing their same opinions ad
> nauseum,
Are we to assume that this Sid Harthian "nauseum", which must be an acc. sg. of either an *...o-*stem *nauseo-* or an *...u-*stem *nauseu-*, is one of the great improvements Philology owes to Sid Harth? The problem, my dear Sid, is that your *nauseus* or *nauseum* or *nauseu* (which would be the nom. sg. to your
*nauseum*) is not attested by any Latin text ..... *nausea* being a Greek loan word: Lat. *nausea* or *nausia* < Gk. *nausi'a*.
> My dear sir, Yashwant Malaiya,
> doctor of computer science and a Hindu fanatic of some disrepute,
Your field of fanaticism, my dear Sid, is sufficiently shown by your NG writings. What is your major field of post-B.A. academic studies?
Sincerely Yours,
Axel Bergmann
C.R. Selvakumar
Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
>Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>>
>> In soc.culture.indian Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You suggest that Sanskrit was never spoken. What is the basis?
>>
>> > people living in villages: not associated with kings, poets associated
>> > with them like court poets. To be more specific ancestors of the
>> > people who don't belong to three upper casts Brahmin, Kshatriya etc.
>>
>> "upper" castes were common people too.
>>
>> While Sanskrit is unlikely to have been spoken in
>> its pure form by the laboring classes, they spoke
>> close variants of it. The modern northern languages
>> are descendants of these variants.
>>
>> RS
>
>languages like Hindi, Marathi, Bengali, Gujarathi, Oriya etc.
>I really don't know about these languages. Can somebody
>who is really famililar with these languages tell whether
>these languges evolved from Sanskrit or took lot of words and grammar
>from Sanakrit.
Both north indian languages and south indian languages
evolved from the dravidian-munda languages (the substratum);
the main difference between them is that the north indian
languages have more of the Indo-Iranian/Indo-european
influences, mostly due to numerous incursions in the north-west.
Lingusitic scholars treat the north indian languages as
Indo-aryan rather than indo-dravidio-aryan inspite of the
fact that numerous aspects in syntax, phraseology, vocabulary etc.
are overwhelmingly dravidian. Discerning indologists concede
that even north indian languages are essentially dravidian, except
for the fact that they have absorbed more of indo-iranian-indo-european
lingusitic features.
Marathi was considered as one of the 'panja dravida'
languages even by sanskrit works, but today the Poonaite Marathi
dominated Marathi is more like a daughter of Sanskrit. But still
the syntax, which is much harder to change (unlike absorbing
words), is dravidian. Almost any sentence in most of the
indian languages can be easily translated from one language
to the other with the least amount of loss of nuance.
This can not be said of translations between european langauges
and indian languages.
There are some indologists who think that Sanskrit was so much
influenced by dravidian (like Tamil) that it is almost a dravidian
language in the later years (in the period between 400-800AD and even
later)
selvaa
Dr. Axel Bergmann
> [.......] *nauseu* (which would be the nom. sg. to your
> *nauseum*) [.......]
....... with an additional change of genus, of course, in the nom. sg. *nauseu* which will be ntr. .....
Best wishes,
Axel
Sid Harth
"C.R. Selvakumar" wrote:
My dear Selvakumar,
I have a feeling that I invited you to speak up on Sanskrit Digest. Alas!
You ignored my invitation. Selva speaks the truth that Poona Brahmin clique so
steadfastly deny for all these years.
Apart from the racial differences, Aryans and the native Indians, owners of
the Indian sub continent, previously called British Raj, including the current
Kashmir and Afghanistan were lands of Santhal, Mundari, Ho, Korwa Korku, Bhil,
basically linguistic groups of so called Austrics races of Kol and Munda. They
were peaceful as much as any tribes could be called peaceful, not entirely
devoid of conflicts among them.
When marauding white Aryans came to India with evil intentions, there was
plenty of virgin land available for them to settle, these peaceful tribes did
not have will to fight and/or war mentality, machinery and manpower to meet with
organized, vicious, inhuman warmongering heinous Aryan tribes. Several wars
ensued but in the end Aryan managed to annihilate the native, splintered forces,
owners of their own lands and territories.
Some of the words taken by the white Aryans from the local languages
mentioned above:
Austric/Sanskrit Sanskrit/Marathi
undaru u.ndaru/u.ndiira
kadalii kadalii/keLa
karpaasa karpaasa/kaapusa
taaMbula taaMbula/paana
mariicha mariichaM/mirii
laa.ngala laa.ngalaM/naa.ngara
sarshhapa sarshhapa/raaii/moharii
naarikela naarikela/naaraLa
guvaaka guvaaka/supaarii
haridraa haridraa/haLada
Ganges river, "big river for the natives, "ga.ngaa," for Hindu fascists and
fanatics, is a native word, not a Sanskrit.
Dravid languages not mentioned above contributed heavily to Sanskrit
vocabulary.
anal(agnii)
alasa(alasii)
ulukhala(uukhaLa)
kajjala(kaajaLa)
kaTu(tikhaTa)
kaThina(kaThiiNa)
kalushha(gaDhuLa)
kaaka(kaavaLaa)
kaanana(araNya)
kaala(kaaLaa)
kTiila(vakra)
ku.nDu(khaLagaa)
ku.nDala(ku.nDala)
ku.ntala(kuntala)
kuvalaya(kamaLa)
ketaka(kevaDaa)
koTara(koTara)
koNa(kona)
khala(khala)
ga.nDa(ga.nDa)
chatura(chatura)
cha.ndana(cha.ndana)
chikkana(chikkaNa)
cha.nbu(cha.nbu)
chuuDaa(chuuDaa)
da.nDa(da.nDa)
nakra(nakra/susara)
nibiDa(nibiDa)
niira(niira)
pa.Dita(pa.nDita)
pi.nDa(pi.nDa)
baka(baka)
bala(bala)
bila(biLa)
bilva(bilva)
mayura(mayura)
mallikaa(mallikaa/mogaraa)
mashhi(shaaii)mahilaa(mahilaa)
miina(miina/maasaa)
mukuTa(mukuTa)
mukula(mukula/kaLii)
muktaa(muktaa/motii)
laalaa(laabha)
valaya(valaya)
vallii(vallii)
shakala(shakala)
shaTha(shaTha)
shava(shava)
shuurpa(shuurpa/suupa)
keechaka is Chinese word for bamboo, so is musaara/masaara, "ratna, neelamaNii."
shaya, paper in Sanskrit is a Chinese word. si.nduura, tasara(tessor) describing
a kind of silk fabric are Chinese words. lipi a Sanskrit word describing a
script is from Iranian/Farsii/Zend language word. khaliina(horse reins),
suru.ngaa(underground tunnel,) kramelaka(camel) are from Greek language.
lava.nga(cloves) is Indonesian word.
Sid
Y.K. Malaiya
>Was it ever the language of common people? By common people i mean
>people living in villages: not associated with kings, poets associated
>with them like court poets. To be more specific ancestors of the
>people who don't belong to three upper casts Brahmin, Kshatriya etc.
Yes.
And I can convince you.
Let us see if you identify the speakers of the language X (below).
I will give you a clue. Practically all speakers of this language
are illiterate.
The transliteration is not done by me, there may be some
small errors in the transliteration scheme.
Yashwant
--------------
English Language X
head shish
bone athi
urine mutra
village grom
rope rajuk
smoke thum
oil tel
meat mos
dog shua
ant pililak
son putr
boy purushguek
girl shtrizhaguek
long driga
eight asht
broken chhina
kill nash
--------
Mo
lsk...@hotmail.com
In article <91070879...@watserv4.uwaterloo.ca>,
selv...@valluvar.uwaterloo.ca (C.R. Selvakumar) wrote:
> In article <364784CE...@vennela.2kweb.net>,
> Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
> >Raghu Seshadri wrote:
> >>
> >> In soc.culture.indian Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> You suggest that Sanskrit was never spoken. What is the basis?
> >>
> >> > Was it ever the language of common people? By common people i mean
> >> > people living in villages: not associated with kings, poets associated
> >> > with them like court poets. To be more specific ancestors of the
> >> > people who don't belong to three upper casts Brahmin, Kshatriya etc.
> >>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
Thanks!
The problem is the obsession with labels... like 'liberal'/'progressive'
etc.,. and self-styled at that. And their own personal 'agendas'!
The result is to repeat a lie a million times because they time!
Aryan/Dravidian/Brahmin/Shudra/Dalit... ad infinitum they have something
or the other to rant and rave about... while making sure they live to
their sefl-ascribed labels couples with their agendas.
regards, --Ramakrishna.
Dr. Axel Bergmann (berg...@Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE) wrote:
: Raghu Seshadri wrote:
: > In soc.culture.indian Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
: > >>
: > >> You suggest that Sanskrit was never spoken. What is the basis?
: >
: > > Was it ever the language of common people? By common people i mean
: > > people living in villages: not associated with kings, poets associated
: > > with them like court poets. To be more specific ancestors of the
: > > people who don't belong to three upper casts Brahmin, Kshatriya etc.
: >
: > For one thing, the great majority of the
: > "upper" castes were common people too.
: >
: > While Sanskrit is unlikely to have been spoken in
: > its pure form by the laboring classes, they spoke
: > close variants of it. The modern northern languages
: > are descendants of these variants.
: >
: > RS
: Seduced by their anti-Hindu motives some contributors to this list are
Sid Harth
the sole use of transcribing their Brahminic, dogmatic, ritualistic, strict, self
serving, private, religious beliefs and practices. Panini, the grammarian is given
credit for its creation and not a living or a dead soul has taken objection to
this.
The very word Sanskrit, "something worked over and over till it became
perfect," exact, literal translation of the word Sanskrit, has been accepted, even
by Brahmins, the maintainers of Sanskrit. For Dr. Bergman to bring this doubt in a
discussion is below his dignity. The guy is a nincompoop, as far as Sanskrit is
concerned. He railed against me, without ever bothering to find out which side of
the fence I am. Axel shall be axed, exed, whatever.
That idiot Bergman is hereby forewarned, I leave only carcasses behind when
someone makes as rash, brash remarks about my positions and intentions. Looks like
one of those fake, Dr. Jai Maharaj type dingo dog doctor, this Bergman character.
Piece of shit, if you ask me.
Sid
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu wrote:
rathanam
tm_ingj...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
I've heard there would be in India at least one village of a couple of hundred people who speak Sanskrit as their mother tongue.
Huck Finn, Finland
I think it is in Karnataka and perhaps the resident are brahmins.
rathanam
----------
Tat Savitur vareniam bhargo devasya dhiimahi
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Dr. Axel Bergmann
> Both Bergmann and Ramkrishna are wrong. Sanskrit is custom made by Brahmins for
> the sole use of transcribing their Brahminic, dogmatic, ritualistic, strict, self
> serving, private, religious beliefs and practices. Panini, the grammarian is given
> credit for its creation and not a living or a dead soul has taken objection to
> this.
> The very word Sanskrit, "something worked over and over till it became
> perfect," exact, literal translation of the word Sanskrit, has been accepted, even
> by Brahmins, the maintainers of Sanskrit.
Paninean Classical Sanskrit and (e.g. Rg-)Vedic Archaic Sanskrit differ from each
other *only* stylistically; they are, of course, one and the same language -- just in
the same way as Archaic (e.g. the language of the older Roman comedy), Classical (e.g.
Cicero), and Mediaeval (ca. 500 - 1500 CE) Latin are one and the same language -- and
just in the same manner as the artificially styl-ed (= *sanskr-ta* !) language of
Classical German literature (v. Goethe, v. Kleist, Zweig, Mann etc.) and the language
of today's German tabloid newspapers (e.g. the BILD-Zeitung) are one and the same. The
Modern Roman languages (Italian, French etc.) are descendants of some vulgarly styled
Latin of Late Antiquity; and this Vulgar Latin, in turn, descends from vulgarly styled
Archaic Latin and not from Ciceronian Classical Latin. Just in the same way, the
Modern languages of Northern India do NOT descend from Paninean Classical Sanskrit;
but, of course, they descend from Sanskrit.
> [........ deleted .......]
> That idiot Bergmann is hereby forewarned, I leave only carcasses behind when
> someone makes as rash, brash remarks about my positions and intentions. Looks like
> one of those fake, Dr. Jai Maharaj type dingo dog doctor, this Bergmann character.
> Piece of shit, if you ask me.
> Sid
Sid:
you use to write in this NG that you are hating (even ad nauseam) India and all of
classical Indian, "Brahminical", culture. The remarks you made, above, ad hominem
Bergmann show very clearly that you, furthermore, are in hatered against all of the
norms of philosophical and scientific discussion as accepted by cultivated women and
men (that is, by educated ladies and gentlemen, if you ever managed to come across
those words .....). Given these facts, you, imho, have NO right whatsoever to
encounter Sanskrit or generally IE philology.
Sincerely Yours,
Bergmann.
========================================================
> ramk...@imap3.asu.edu wrote:
>
> > Bergmann:
> >
> > Thanks!
> > The problem is the obsession with labels... like 'liberal'/'progressive'
> > etc.,. and self-styled at that. And their own personal 'agendas'!
> > The result is to repeat a lie a million times because they time!
> > Aryan/Dravidian/Brahmin/Shudra/Dalit... ad infinitum they have something
> > or the other to rant and rave about... while making sure they live to
> > their sefl-ascribed labels couples with their agendas.
> > regards, --Ramakrishna.
>>> [.............]
=======================================================
pardesi
Sanskrit should be learned by more people. Oddly enough, I know more westerners that
know Sanskrit than Indians. It is essential for Sanskrit to be more widespread to
counter the vice like grip on India's ancient texts by the few. Unfortunately, I say
all this even though I myself know no sanskrit at all.
Abc
Sid Harth wrote:
> Both Bergman and Ramkrishna are wrong. Sanskrit is custom made by Brahmins for
M.Ranganathan
C.R. Selvakumar <selv...@valluvar.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Discerning indologists concede
> that even north indian languages are essentially dravidian, except
> for the fact that they have absorbed more of indo-iranian-indo-european
> lingusitic features.
I have never heard this theory before. (I am not a linguist so
I dont mean to imply that this is necessarily wrong.)
Can you provide a reference?
> words), is dravidian. Almost any sentence in most of the
> indian languages can be easily translated from one language
> to the other with the least amount of loss of nuance.
Wow! That is a generalization. Nuance has so much to do with culture -
you cannot even translate from French to English without loss of nuance.
How could you translate from Hindi to Tamil without loss of Nuance? Let
me provide you a counter example.
For example, consider the Hindi expression:
"Laude ka baal"
Even the most extremist Dravida * Kazagamist will translate this as
"Lavade ka baalu"
rather than the much more succint
"Mayiru".
It just looses all meaning if you translate "Laude ka baal" as
"Mairu". They are two, completely different things you see. You get
the point about nuances I hope.
Ranga.
P.S. I say, incidentally, one more thing. Is "gdravid" a fine Dravidaa
specimen or do you disapprove of him? He seems to be quite obsessed
with procreation...
Balaji Gadhiraju
>
> Balaji asked:
>
> >Was it ever the language of common people? By common people i mean
> >people living in villages: not associated with kings, poets associated
> >with them like court poets. To be more specific ancestors of the
> >people who don't belong to three upper casts Brahmin, Kshatriya etc.
>
Hi Yashwant,
I really didn't get what you are trying to tell. But anyway the
words seem to be Sanskrit. But how does that answer my question.
--
balaji.
Balaji Gadhiraju
Are you referring to me. In that case, I have no personal agenda
in this and absolutely no need for me to lie. I don't know why
thought so.
--
balaji.
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu wrote:
>
> Dr.Bergman:
>
> Thanks!
>
> The problem is the obsession with labels... like 'liberal'/'progressive'
> etc.,. and self-styled at that. And their own personal 'agendas'!
> The result is to repeat a lie a million times because they time!
>
> Aryan/Dravidian/Brahmin/Shudra/Dalit... ad infinitum they have something
> or the other to rant and rave about... while making sure they live to
> their sefl-ascribed labels couples with their agendas.
>
> regards, --Ramakrishna.
>
> Dr. Axel Bergmann (berg...@Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE) wrote:
>
> : Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>
> : > In soc.culture.indian Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
> : > >>
> : > >> You suggest that Sanskrit was never spoken. What is the basis?
> : >
> : > > Was it ever the language of common people? By common people i mean
> : > > people living in villages: not associated with kings, poets associated
> : > > with them like court poets. To be more specific ancestors of the
> : > > people who don't belong to three upper casts Brahmin, Kshatriya etc.
Balaji Gadhiraju
I am a Hindu. Why should i be anti-Hindu?
All i was asking was whether Sanskrit was a commoner language.
The question came up because BJP was trying to portray Sanskrit
is the tradition of India and Hinduism and trying to make it compulsory
for every Indian. So we need to find out whether it was every Indian's
heritage.
--
balaji.
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
berdened with it. I agree with the it should be a choice(not imposed)
line... but it is more easy to learn as a kid. Later lot things we want
to do but will not be able to because of 'time' and the choices we make!
regards, --Ramakrishna.
pardesi (par...@erols.com) wrote:
: Here, I find myself in complete agreement with Sid. I also agree with him in that
thiruna...@hotmail.com
now, is nothing but a combination of Sanskrit and Arabic with larger content
from Sanskrit. For Urdu it is just the reverse (with more effect from Arabic
and Sanskrit to a lesser extent). It is doubtful to me, whether Sanskrit had
any alphabets initially as there were no written documents till the time of
Vyasa(around 5,000 years before), when the documents were supposed to be
compiled in written form. Moreover Sanskrit gives lot of emphasis for
phonetics, and many of the present day languages even do not have equivalent
single alphabets to give out the sounds expressed in Sanskrit.
Also the letterings of the Indus Civilisation (2,500 years before) had not
been deciphered fully. The other independent language, "Tamizh", has got
TholKappiam, as its oldest available document. Eventhough there are
references to Agathiam in tholkappiam itself, that book is not available.
Incidentally these books define the Grammar/usage of the language. Hence it
is most likely that this language had been used only by people who were well
versed in the grammer of the language, and mostly for written
communication/documentation, and the commoner must had been speaking some
other chaste variation of this language or some other language.
The Tamizh language had adopted itself only recently, may be in the last two
or three centuries to make itself a broad based mass language easily
understood by all.
Coming back to Sanskrit, as there is no evidence of existance of any other
language, either by way of script or spoken variation, it was most likely that
Sanskrit had been the language of all the people of the Bharat, may be with
varying dialects from place to place, as is seen even today for various
languages.
When the need for a script was realised, another seperate language was
developed by a group of people, and that could possibly be the originating
point of Tamizh, and hence the creation of Grammer even before evolving of the
language.
N.B.: The views expressed are strictly my own/whatever I had discussed with
others.
In article <364CD299...@vennela.2kweb.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
yash...@my-dejanews.com
> Y.K. Malaiya wrote:
>
> > Let us see if you identify the speakers of the language X (below).
> > I will give you a clue. Practically all speakers of this language
> > are illiterate.
> >
> > The transliteration is not done by me, there may be some
> > small errors in the transliteration scheme.
> > English Language X
> >
> > head shish
> > bone athi
> > urine mutra
> > village grom
> > rope rajuk
> > smoke thum
> > oil tel
> > meat mos
> > dog shua
> > ant pililak
> > son putr
> > boy purushguek
> > girl shtrizhaguek
> > long driga
> > eight asht
> > broken chhina
> > kill nash
>
> Hi Yashwant,
>
> I really didn't get what you are trying to tell. But anyway the
> words seem to be Sanskrit. But how does that answer my question.
These words are used by the Kalash "Kafirs", a tribe in Northern
Pakistan. Practically all of them are illiterate. None of them,
as far as I know, has ever met a Brahmin or perhaps a even a
Hindu. The Pakistanis regard them as extremely backward and
ignorant.
The story of this tribe is very fascinating (and sad). But the
important point I want to make is this. These people live
in a couple of valleys upstream from the Indus river, not far
from where Panini lived. The Kafirs were fierce isolationists
for many centuries, thus they were able to preserve some very
old characteristics.
They are proof that Sanskrit, even though it is tongue twister
of most of us now, was indeed a spoken language of the common
people once.
Yashwant
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
Balaji Gadhiraju (bal...@vennela.2kweb.net) wrote:
: Ramakrishna,
Dear Balaji:
: Are you referring to me.
NO! My pereption is you are tyring to learn about things you don't know
by asking questions on this forum. Correct me if I am wrong. I do that
myself all the time.
: In that case, I have no personal agenda
: in this and absolutely no need for me to lie.
: I don't know why
: thought so.
Since I didn't think so to begin with, the above(your agenda/lies) part
is irrelevant. Just want to clarify.
I think I sort of 'loosely' identified the groups in my posting and from
your postings you don't quite belong to any of those groups. Again
correct me if I am wrong.
So far we had very decent communication(even when we disagreed0 and I am
absolultely confident we can in future too.
: balaji.
regards, --Ramakrishna.
: ramk...@imap3.asu.edu wrote:
: >
: > Dr.Bergman:
: >
: > Thanks!
: >
: > The problem is the obsession with labels... like 'liberal'/'progressive'
: > etc.,. and self-styled at that. And their own personal 'agendas'!
: > The result is to repeat a lie a million times because they time!
: >
: > Aryan/Dravidian/Brahmin/Shudra/Dalit... ad infinitum they have something
: > or the other to rant and rave about... while making sure they live to
: > their sefl-ascribed labels couples with their agendas.
: >
: > regards, --Ramakrishna.
: >
tm_ingj...@my-dejanews.com
yash...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
>
> They are proof that Sanskrit, even though it is tongue twister
> of most of us now, was indeed a spoken language of the common
> people once.
>
> Yashwant
>
Although Finnish, my mother tongue, has none of those tongue
twisting consonant clusters of Sanskrit, I find the latter
amazingly easy to pronounce compared for instance to English.
The Yoga Suutras flow out of my mouth without much effort.
Dr. Axel Bergmann
> Bergmann wrote:
> > Seduced by their anti-Hindu motives some contributors to this list [.....]
> I am a Hindu. Why should i be anti-Hindu?
> All i was asking was whether Sanskrit was a commoner language.
> The question came up because BJP was trying to portray Sanskrit
> is the tradition of India and Hinduism and trying to make it compulsory
> for every Indian. So we need to find out whether it was every Indian's
> heritage.
> --
> balaji.
Dear Balaji,
please accept my assurance that my remarks concerning "anti-Hindu motives" etc.
were in no way intended to point against you, and please accept my excuses if I
caused the wrong impression of you being included by those remarks. --- Your
questions, of which "was Sanskrit [at some place and time] a commoner language?"
must be discussed as the first, are very important, as they are not confined to
India but are problematic in the educational systems of all the old civilizations:
an *old civilization* can be defined, imo, as *a nation having inherited a
Classical, but foreign or "dead" Language*.
With my best wishes,
Axel
Mo
Rather puts paid to theories that Pakistan was always
separate from India .Persian shorn of Arabic words will also
be shown to have a Sanskrit base..
yash...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
They are proof that Sanskrit, even though it is tongue
twister
of most of us now, was indeed a spoken language of the
common
people once.
Yashwant
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
Sid Harth
yash...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
> > Y.K. Malaiya wrote:
> >
> > > Let us see if you identify the speakers of the language X (below).
> > > I will give you a clue. Practically all speakers of this language
> > > are illiterate.
> > >
> > > The transliteration is not done by me, there may be some
> > > small errors in the transliteration scheme.
My dear Yashwant,
Nice try. Your research is a fake and phony as that of celebrated
Brahmin dunce by the name, P N Oak, a Konkanastha Brahmin dunce of
unparallel stupidity, who, beyond anybody's wildest imagination, has
proven, beyond a shadw of doubt, that famous Taj mahal is a Shiva temple,
and Taj Mahal is a slightly misspelled "tejomahalaya," bright as a
lightening bolt Shiva's majestic abode.
You RSS rats don't give up on your proprietary stupidity, don't you?
yashwant, you are my brother, deny that and I shall chop your manhood,
you Hindu hoodlum. I have nothing but pure love and admiration for your
immense work, as a brother must have. No personal insults from me should
make you angry, that is my sole privilege. Tough love, that's what such
slapping of sibling is called.
You are not an expert in Sanskrit, you admit that fact. Thanks. You are
not any kind of linguist, except you know couple of Indo-European
languages. You are not an historian, not a sociologist, not an Indologist,
not a scientist, may be a computer scientist. You are not a writer,
speaker, orator, in any of these languages you may or may not be an expert.
You are a bozo who thinks he is a Tojo, passing judgments that are piece of
shit.
Let me help you out. Starting from the transliteration scheme of
Avinash Chopde, Sanskrit words and parallel Sanskrit words from your list.
>
>
> English/ Kafiri/ Sanskrit Other Sanskrit Marathi
>
> head shish shiras.h shirshhaM
> Doke/Doii
shiirshhakaM
mastakaM mastaka
mauli
varaangaM
uttamaangam
mu.nDaM mu.nDii
My smart ass brother, tell me which of the Marathi words looking
like Sanskrit, are, in fact Marathi words copied in Sanskrit. Let me give a
hint, it ain't the first two. Do you want me to sacrifice you, a fat sheep,
to my goddess, goddess of knowledge, Saraswati, my own mother?
Get smart, it pays.
> bone athi
Mo
Rather puts paid to theories that Pakistan was always
separate from India .Persian shorn of Arabic words will also
be shown to have a Sanskrit base..
yash...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
> Y.K. Malaiya wrote:
>
> > Let us see if you identify the speakers of the language X (below).
> > I will give you a clue. Practically all speakers of this language
> > are illiterate.
> >
> > The transliteration is not done by me, there may be some
> > small errors in the transliteration scheme.
> > --------------
> > English Language X
> >
> > head shish
Balakrishnan
> Both Bergman and Ramkrishna are wrong. Sanskrit is custom made by Brahmins for
>the sole use of transcribing their Brahminic, dogmatic, ritualistic, strict, self
>serving, private, religious beliefs and practices. Panini, the grammarian is given
>credit for its creation and not a living or a dead soul has taken objection to
>this.
>
other grammarians in his Ashtaadhyaayi. He claims to have only compiled
the wrok of others before him on the explanation of Sanskrit grammar.
That being the case, how could he have inented the language. In any case
is inventing a language such an easy task that one man could do it and
spread it?
> The very word Sanskrit, "something worked over and over till it became
>perfect," exact, literal translation of the word Sanskrit, has been accepted, even
>by Brahmins, the maintainers of Sanskrit. For Dr. Bergman to bring this doubt in a
>discussion is below his dignity. The guy is a nincompoop, as far as Sanskrit is
>concerned. He railed against me, without ever bothering to find out which side of
>the fence I am. Axel shall be axed, exed, whatever.
>
> That idiot Bergman is hereby forewarned, I leave only carcasses behind when
>someone makes as rash, brash remarks about my positions and intentions. Looks like
>one of those fake, Dr. Jai Maharaj type dingo dog doctor, this Bergman character.
>Piece of shit, if you ask me.
>
> Sid
>
Sid, now you are doing the same which you accuse Dr. Bergman of
(though I saw no evidence for the same from his post). I believe more
decorum is needed, at least when discussing "that which is cultured".
If you are capable of rebutting his arguments, do so by all means but
mud slinging will lead you nowhere.
Balakrishnan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALAKRISHNAN VISWANATHAN
vis...@omc.lan.mcgill.ca
bs...@musicb.mcgill.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarve janaah sukhino bhavantu
yash...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Nice try. Your research is a fake and phony as that of celebrated
> > urine mutra
> > village grom
> > rope rajuk
> > smoke thum
> > oil tel
Your skepticism is justified. It is too hard to to believe
that an illiterate tribe in Nortern Pakistan would use words
so close to Sanskrit.
I suggest you look at
"Atlas Linguistique Des Parles Dardes Et Kafirs"
by Gerard Fussman
1972 (Pub: L'Ecole Francaise D'Extreme-Orient)
A two-volume text.
"Kafirs of Hindukush": George S. Robertson
A classic text written just before most of
the Kafirs were conquered in Afghanistan.
Also look at
http://www.bekkoame.or.jp/~reiko-m/kalasha/kal-resume/e-resume.html
An Introduction to the Kalasha People in Chitral
Sid Harth
It is my magic that does bring people like you out in the open.
Did Columbus discovered India, I am not even talking about America? Did Einstein discovered
the theory of relativity? Did Newton discovered the theory of gravitation? Did Major Everest of
department of land surveys discovered Mount Everest? Did Aryans discovered what is known as
India? Did Nobel Laureate James Watson discovered the DNA or the helical shape of it?
Discovery and invention are analogous. There is nothing under the sun that can be called
invention. By the same token, the one that you applied to Panini, did Vyas wrote Mahabharat,
Valmiki wrote Ramayan, Shakespeare wrote all his famous plays, Kalidas wrote his sexy Sanskrit
plays and poetry, God wrote Vedas and Qur'an?
What is your point. Panini is given credit for the current Sanskrit language, he did not
invent it. Somebody, a navy woman, invented computer principle not your garden variety PC or Mac
machine. Who is talking nonsense here, not yours truly. I have been doing it for good four years,
three thousand or more articles, about thousand of them refer to my pet project to bring Sanskrit
out of the Brahministic cabals' jaws.
What have you got to say, my brother. I use words to zap people to think. I hope I am doing it
to you. Wake up. Stop quibbling. Little bedtime reading assignment for you.
http://www.rockefeller.edu/pubinfo/avery.nr.html
Sid
Balakrishnan wrote:
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
Distribution:
tm_ingj...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: In article <72ns91$7fb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
: yash...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: > Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
: > They are proof that Sanskrit, even though it is tongue twister
: > of most of us now, was indeed a spoken language of the common
: > people once.
: > Yashwant
: Although Finnish, my mother tongue, has none of those tongue
: twisting consonant clusters of Sanskrit, I find the latter
: amazingly easy to pronounce compared for instance to English.
: The Yoga Suutras flow out of my mouth without much effort.
Very well said... it is what we want to brainwash ourselves with that
matters... like the Math is difficult in US(for school kids) and
elsewhere! ;-)
regards, --Ramakrishna.
Sid Harth
As usual, so what is new, you have spin doctored the issue. A friend of
mine requested to find similarity between hundreds of Kafiri words and
Sanskrit. To my hard work, nothing was astonishing. To my surprise, the
similarity was exquisite. I spent lot of time on that thankless job.
Decided to write a scholarly paper on it. My computer hard disk froze on me
and all was lost, including the good buddy's e-mail address, the original
list, his English translation and my careful notes. Oh well. Some other
time.
I am not questioning your basic thesis that kafiri is influenced by a
language, which may or may not be Sanskrit, as my article clearly
indicates, there were several dialects belonging to several Aryan tribes,
similar but not the same. Aryans did not take a plane ride from their
ancestral villages and settlements to Kashi. They walked, all the way to
Punjab, the land they usurped from the native, possibly Dravid settlers of
Mohen jo Daro people.
The acquisition of vocabulary in any language refers to the basic
lifestyles. Aryans, most definitely, were warriors by need and necessity.
They had to take someone else's land, settle it, deal with the vanquished
on master-slave basis, adopt to the local customs and practices.
How is that in such a situation, only the master's language retains all
its glory, whereas, the slaves' language gets all the masters' vocabulary?
Logic my good brother, is not your forte. Being a computer doctor, how do
you manage to get the bacon home with that kind of scant respect for logic?
Beats me.
I never said, let me repeat, never as in never ever, that Aryans did
not have a language. They most certainly had, It, simply, was not and never
in a million years, be called Sanskrit of Panini, and other grammarians.
I can give hundreds if not thousands of instances of Tribals of the
hills and mountains of Madhya Pradesh, your native land, using Urdu,
English, Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati words, unbeknownst to them. They did not
go to schools to learn these common words either. They, like your Kafiri
speakers, are totally illiterate. What does that prove my dear good buddy?
Does it prove that their local tongue is the mother of all these
Indo-European languages?
Stick to the original thesis, yours not mine. Sanskrit was a spoken
language before Aryans came to India. It has to be. Idiots are popping out
deciphering the Mohen jo daro seals telling the Hindu, Brahmin mafia muddle
heads that those pictographs spell Sanskrit words. I be damned.
No need for jingoistic attitude. No research is valid if the thesis is
contaminated by researcher's biased, partisan fucked up attitude. You ought
to know that. I can give more instances of Avesta, the language of the
ancient Persians of the Zarthustra days having more Sanskrit words than
select few you quoted. They never came to Kashi to learn Sanskrit either.
For a moment, stop, reexamine the basic principle here. Language can
exist and it does, without a name. An unknown language or languages of the
marauding Aryans existed before Panini wrote his compendium, grammar of all
grammars and gave it a name, other than what was or were local, tribal
names of those languages.
This is the point in the history, this is the man, real or imaginary,
is the one who can be called a father if not inventor of Sanskrit. A
language absorbs words like a parched land absorbs water from the monsoon
rain. when the land is saturated water carries land with it rather than
land carries water.
There has to be a limit to this constant bickering as to who spoke a
language that can safely be called Sanskrit or anything else. My dear
yashwant. you are the worst violator of this Brahmin game. I believe, you
are not even a Brahmin. Who the hell cares if you are right or I am right.
The idiot brigade, you know as well as I do, who they are, are still
refusing to buy a simple beginner Sanskrit book, a working hard copy
dictionary, find a remote corner of their abode and work on Sanskrit rather
than sing her praises, endlessly and disgustingly.
Sid
yash...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Squid
VAtreya
>I've heard there would be in India at least one village of a couple
>of hundred people who speak Sanskrit as their mother tongue.
Yes, I remember reading long ago (approx. 10 years ago ) in an article in one
of the Indian Dailies about a place called Mathur in Karnataka, India where
people spoke only Sanskrit.
A few years ago, I read a similar article about the same place in an Indian
Government publication called "India Perspectives" published by Embassy of
India, Moscow.
But I have not verified it myself, so I dont know how true it is.
Regards
Vasu
Vasudevan S Atreya
Sid Harth
This lie is nailed by me several times. There are witnesses on this news
group. By not attesting to the fact they are conspiring to keep this Mathuru myth
alive. Do you know who is this conspirator, rather constipated conspirator? None
other than my own brother, Dr. Yashwant Malaiya. Here is to wit.
Y. Malaiya wrote:
>
> What is the Mathuru Myth?
>
> Yashwant
My dear Yashwant,
For some time, Sanskrit Digest is subjected to Mathuru Myth. The Myth
goes like this. Sanskrit is spoken by all the people in a Karnataka
village named Mathuru. The myth makers, artfully, neglect to mention the
name of the village in their posts. Further, they maintain that it is a
sure sign of regeneration of Sanskrit as a world language, simply put, a
universal language spoken and used by the people all over the world. The
details are always sketchy, anecdotal and self serving. Few people, if
any, know as to why, suddenly, there is a need for villagers to speak
Sanskrit. When Adi Hastings of University of Chicago exposed them in an
article, I responded by asking the proponents to either prove their
statement or eat a crow. They did eat a crow.
They hurled their usual abuse and determined that the details were
irrelevant. The fact about this village speaking Sanskrit in their
everyday life turned out to be a fiction. Not everyone speaks Sanskrit
in Mathuru. Some do and others don't. There goes the statement that 100%
people in Mathuru speak Sanskrit. Who are these people who have suddenly
found refuge in Sanskrit and what is their rationale? The answers were
known but not given. The article I mentioned gave a better picture. It
was a small community of brahmins who were goaded by their sectarian
chief, head of Pejawar Math, that brought this overt action among the
residents.
My complaint is about the veracity of such claims to further the cause
of Sanskrit. If they want to present the status of Sanskrit in a manner
that helps those non speakers to start learning and speaking it, they
should avoid making false claims. It does not help, only hurts their
cause.
Sid Harth..."Spoonful of sugar helps medicine go down, not Sanskrit."
Some more Mathuru Myth.
I have fought battles on this issue, Mathuru Myth, propagated by
certain vested interests, with little or no help from knowledgeable and
trustworthy sources. Adi exposed it for the first time. Clarifications
were asked for and they never came.
India Today of March 15 edition carries an article on this matter by
Stephen David and Anna M. M. Vetticad. I do not want to quote it
verbatim, one can buy a copy.
Certain excerpts which deal with this village and its Sanskrit
speakers, are worth mentioning here. Stephen says "Sanskrit was reborn
in Mathuru when a head of the Pejawar Math (religious sanctuary of a
town called Pejawar) passing through in 1987 exhorted the people to
revive the tongue."
I have no connection with Stephen. His comment is worth analyzing,
though. "Sanskrit was reborn" says Stephen, that means it was dead, as
nothing is reborn while it is still alive. "Who is the midwife?" I ask,
"a head of Pejawar Math" is the answer, not the people of Mathuru. "Who
are the people of Mathuru?" I ask, "Mathuru is probably a part of
centuries old Brahminic settlements. From 3rd to the 5th century A.
D., the local rulers patronized Sanskrit which was the official language
of the Brahmins, along with Kannada, and the influence is still there."
is the answer given by a native Mathuruan S. Settar, secretary of the
International Association for Sanskrit Studies, nearly a mouthful for a
villager.
Bunch of brahmins trying to speak Sanskrit in their own little village
of merely 1200 people is not what I call regeneration and universal
acceptance of Sanskrit. I knew couple of dozen people who would do it at
the drop of a hat. I lived with them. It is not that I don't want these
brahmins to speak Sanskrit, they always did. The constant lies they
perpetrate by quoting Mathuru Myth is what bothers me. Lying is not good
for anyone and especially for brahmins.
Stephen, further, says "For all the scholarly attention, Mathuru's
mission has not found any takers beyond Hosahalli village across the
river (Tunga)" quoting Samrat Kumar. Samrat is a lecturer at Shimoga
college. Samrat also said "both are Brahmin dominated villages which is
why the effort has succeeded there." Holy guacamole! The
earth shattering movement, that is how it comes to the world, thanks to
vested interests' propaganda thru all kinds of media including this
new-fangled thing called internet.
What is the purpose of this movement for the locals? I ask. "Television
beyond a certain point can be corrupting, especially for the youth.
Sanskrit is meant to ward off these evils" says Aswathanarayan Avadhani,
a village elder. The cat is out of the bag, isn't it? All these new
thing are displacing the Brahmins. Mathuru is a "Brahmin's last
stand." Like Custer, Brahmin is going to die in the end and Mathuru will
be a mere footnote in the history.
Sid Harth..."Those who dig ditches of lies, shall have to lie in them."
Would you all please forget about Mathuru myth and get a Sanskrit book and
study Sanskrit, please, pretty please?
Sid
VAtreya wrote:
yash...@my-dejanews.com
Sid Harth <gautama...@malexcite.com> wrote:
> My dear Yashwant,
>
> As usual, so what is new, you have spin doctored the issue. A friend of
> mine requested to find similarity between hundreds of Kafiri words and
> Sanskrit.
I have prepared a map to show how close the Kalash Kafirs live to
Shalatur, the home town of Panini, the grammarian.
See: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/temp.html
Note that Takshashila was famous even before the time of
Buddha. Panini may have taught there.
Also nota that
Peshawar=Purushapur, the site of India's tallest stupa by Kanishka
Jalalabad=Nagarahar
Charsadda=Pushkalavati
The entire region being called Gandhar.
I also suggest you look at the place names mentioned by
Panini as given an a map in " A Historical Atlas of South
Asia".
I am not sure if Hataka, mentioned in Nagar Khand (where Nagar
Brahmins of Gujarat hail from) is connected to Attock, but
they are from somewhere in this general region. The
Khatris of Punjab too are from around here.
Sid Harth
Fancy footwork. High time, my brother, can't say a computer coolie cannot
whip up a rabbit from his non existent top hat. I am going to give this due,
solemn moment of glory, to you. Savor it as much as you possibly can. I share
your joy, as much as all your admirers, yours truly included.
Beyond the oohs and aahs lies the tough battle of setting your suppositions
against the known dates and places in a very fragmentary, totally partisan, half
cooked history of the land and its people. Panini geography and geographical
names have been extensively written upon, none definitively, none with multi
disciplinary substantial research, I hate to add, university level, academically
robust, undisputed quality research. You have, at least, an access to known
university material, I have to go and buy each and every book I refer to.
The odds are against me but I take your challenge in the spirit it is
offered. None for the personal glory, none for the medal of honor, none for the
sectarian clapping and hearty applause. The period of Panini itself is under
debate but we can agree to a common year plus or minus few hundred years here or
there. It is your job to defend your position, being that Sanskrit was, as we
know today or in Panini's day, a well structured, well endowed, well liked,
suitable for all purposes of speakers, be they ordinary peasants, laborers,
native people, i.e.. non Aryans, kings, noblemen bureaucrats and warriors.
Not to forget, woman/mother/grandmother/sister/aunt is the primary force in
acquisition of language, linguistic skills, a care giver and nurturer in a family
unit. As you brought this topic to the forum afresh, I give you a leeway, sort of
handicap. You are ahead of me in that respect only. What I have to do is to shoot
every single supposition of yours down, starting from the Panini birthplace, his
locale, his times, his assumed role in putting a recognizable structure to a new
language called, not by him, but by others, Sanskrit.
This Panini version of language called, subsequently, as Sanskrit must leave
certain foot prints in the sands of time. Nothing gets destroyed, they are
finding millions year old fossils of plant, insect and bird/reptile forms of
life, even as we speak. We shall, together, explore if such telltale signs show
up when we dig. What I find is not mine and by the same token, what you find is
not yours, in other words, it is ours, as a matter of fact, it is everybody's who
participates.
Sid
yash...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <3650990C...@malexcite.com>,
> Sid Harth <gautama...@malexcite.com> wrote:
> > My dear Yashwant,
> >
> > As usual, so what is new, you have spin doctored the issue. A friend of
> > mine requested to find similarity between hundreds of Kafiri words and
> > Sanskrit.
>
> I have prepared a map to show how close the Kalash Kafirs live to
> Shalatur, the home town of Panini, the grammarian.
>
> See: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/temp.html
>
> Note that Takshashila was famous even before the time of
> Buddha. Panini may have taught there.
>
> Also nota that
>
> Peshawar=Purushapur, the site of India's tallest stupa by Kanishka
> Jalalabad=Nagarahar
> Charsadda=Pushkalavati
>
> The entire region being called Gandhar.
>
> I also suggest you look at the place names mentioned by
> Panini as given an a map in " A Historical Atlas of South
> Asia".
>
> I am not sure if Hataka, mentioned in Nagar Khand (where Nagar
> Brahmins of Gujarat hail from) is connected to Attock, but
> they are from somewhere in this general region. The
> Khatris of Punjab too are from around here.
>
Sid Harth
get down to, down and dirty business at hand.
Panini was showcased by the western orientalists, the common name given to bunch
of researchers who have nothing whatsoever to do with Christian prosetilization or
British imperialists, much denounced as the basis of western interest in Sanskrit.
Germans were ahead of others, not much in terms of output but initiative.
The various and sundry works appeared in the academic world, to compare with
Paris salon of fashion and visual arts, these were the intellectual cells where
strict codes of conduct and research ingenuity was a prerequisite even to get a foot
inside the 'members only' clubs.
In 1839-40 much before British tentacles were rapped around a failing Mughal
empire and all those blood thirsty cabal of hyenas after the former Mughal empire
hogging unto themselves whatever was in their possession, including Poona Brahmins'
scattered Marathi Empire.
Otto Bohtlingk, a Sanskrit pundit, published two volume set of Panini's
"ashhTaadhyaayii," under the title, "Panini's acht Bucher grammatischer Regeln,"
European accents are missing in the title. This work consisted of all the Panini's
verses, their German translations, comments and indices.
The demand must be steady if not torrential for this set. In 1887, another volume
appeared under the title, "Panini's Grammatik' and was reprinted in 1964. In 1882, W.
Goonatileke, obviously a Ceylonese gentleman, published "Panini's Eight Books of
Grammatical Sutras," translated in English. The same year saw one Srisa Chandra Vasu,
obviously a Bengali gentleman, writing and publishing another English version, "The
Ashtadhyayi of panini,"
French were lagging behind in this endeavor but had a precious offering in
1948-54 titled, "La Grammaire de Panini traduite du Sanskrit avec des extraits des
commentaires indigenes," by Louis Renou. These three volumes were compacted in two,
revised with Sanskrit text of the sutras in 1966.
This fancy footwork, better than my brother Yashwant's computer coolie razzmatazz
was the foundation stone in the last quarter of the eighteenth century valiant push
of Sir William Jones, at the inauguration of the first meeting of the Royal Asiatic
Society of Bengal towards the concerted efforts to establish a strong relationship
between Sanskrit and classical languages of Europe. This movement led to the further
study of Comparative Philology, which mushroomed into modern day Linguistics.
No Brahmin in sight. No RSS goon taking credit for such an earth shaking event.
All western academic driven pure research. Further research on Panini is a subject of
hot pursuit, again, no Brahmins in sight. In 1972, MIT brought out "A Reader on the
Sanskrit Grammarians," by J.F. Staal.
Several academic research papers, Ph.D. dissertations later in subsequent years,
a very comprehensive survey of the research on Panini has been published by George
Cardona, Mouton, 1976.
So much for Hindu, Brahmin pride in Sanskrit and Panini.
Let us talk about Panini himself. Nowhere in his work he ever mentions the word,
or to that effect a comparable term for this fabled, fabulous term, "Sanskrit." He
calls it Bhasa, instead. There goes the neighborhood of Yashwant.
Sumitra M. Katre, may his tribe increase, an eminent Sanskrit pundit, a Chitrapur
Saraswat Brahmin of impeccable character, drive and wisdom is the one I am relying
upon for previous information. Sumitra, a man's name, not that of a woman, himself
came out with a spanking new edition, all spruced up, jazzed up, 1334 pages thick,
hardbound, while he was a professor at University of Texas, in 1989. a truly
masterpiece, published in India for Indians, cheap edition, by Motilal Banarasidas,
Delhi. Rs. 895.00
Sumitra describes thusly:
"The Ashtadhyayi of panini is the earliest extant descriptive grammar of sanskrit
as currently spoken during his time (c. 6th cent. B.C.) and occasionally referred by
him as [Bhasa], in the north west region of India (now pakistan)."
Panini admits and notes the regional variations from the west to the east in his
"Bhasa," of which he is trying to standardize a grammar. He also admits that he
either relies or acknowledges the previous ten works of, Apisali, Kashyapa, Gargya,
Galava, Chakravarman, Bhardwaj, Sakatayana, Sakalya, Senaka and Sphotayana. None of
these works survived.
So far so good. The name Panini is a patronymic derived from Panin-a,
"paanina-sya apatyaM=paaninii." Among other names of Panini we have "dakshiputra,"
and "shaalaaturiiya," referring to his ancestral abode/hometown. Thanks to Yashwant,
we know where it is on the map.
Yashwant, do you have anything that you do not like in this article, speak up now
or forever hold your peace.
Sid
VAtreya
Thanks for an unambiguous explanation on the Mathuru myth.
I was skeptical about it as I had stated in my prev mail.
Vasudevan S Atreya
C.R. Selvakumar
<yash...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Balaji Gadhiraju <bal...@vennela.2kweb.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Let us see if you identify the speakers of the language X (below).
>> > I will give you a clue. Practically all speakers of this language
>> > are illiterate.
>> >
>> > The transliteration is not done by me, there may be some
>> > small errors in the transliteration scheme.
>> > --------------
>> > English Language X
>> >
>> > head shish
>> > bone athi
>> > village grom
>> > rope rajuk
>> > smoke thum
>> > oil tel
>> > dog shua
>> > ant pililak
>> > son putr
>> > boy purushguek
>> > girl shtrizhaguek
>> > long driga
>> > eight asht
>> > broken chhina
>> > kill nash
>>
>> Hi Yashwant,
>>
>> I really didn't get what you are trying to tell. But anyway the
>> words seem to be Sanskrit. But how does that answer my question.
>
>
>These words are used by the Kalash "Kafirs", a tribe in Northern
>Pakistan. Practically all of them are illiterate. None of them,
>as far as I know, has ever met a Brahmin or perhaps a even a
>Hindu. The Pakistanis regard them as extremely backward and
>ignorant.
>
>The story of this tribe is very fascinating (and sad). But the
>important point I want to make is this. These people live
>in a couple of valleys upstream from the Indus river, not far
>from where Panini lived. The Kafirs were fierce isolationists
>for many centuries, thus they were able to preserve some very
>old characteristics.
>
Yashwant, can you please clarify HOW the above will be
PROOF that *Skt* was spoken ? Many many indo-european
languages are spoken and all you've presented goes
to prove that probably Kafirs' language is an
indo-european language (Dardic, Kafir languages are known to be
Indo-european languages). I'm curious to know how
the conclusion that it is Sanskrit is arrived at.
>of most of us now, was indeed a spoken language of the common
>people once.
In ancient times ( before 500 BCE), Vedic, an archaic
form of Sanskrit must have been spoken, like Anicent
Greek or Latin must have been spoken. I've heard people
claiming that Vedic and Classical Skt are two different languages
though they are strongly related. Avestan and Skt are also
deeply related, but they are not the same language.
Selvaa
Dr. Axel Bergmann
> [..........]
> Let us talk about Panini himself. [.....]
> Sumitra M. Katre, may his tribe increase, an eminent Sanskrit pundit, a Chitrapur
> Saraswat Brahmin of impeccable character, drive and wisdom is the one I am relying
> upon for previous information. Sumitra, a man's name, not that of a woman, himself
> came out with a spanking new edition, all spruced up, jazzed up, 1334 pages thick,
> hardbound, while he was a professor at University of Texas, in 1989. a truly
> masterpiece, published in India for Indians, cheap edition, by Motilal Banarasidas,
> Delhi. Rs. 895.00
>
> Sumitra describes thusly:
>
> "The Ashtadhyayi of panini is the earliest extant descriptive grammar of sanskrit
> as currently spoken
CURRENTLY SPOKEN
> during his time (c. 6th cent. B.C.) and occasionally referred by
> him as [Bhasa], in the north west region of India (now pakistan)."
>
> Panini admits and notes the regional variations
VARIATIONS (viz., of one and the same language)
> from the west to the east in his
> "Bhasa," of which he is trying to standardize a grammar. He also admits that he
> either relies or acknowledges the previous ten works of, Apisali, Kashyapa, Gargya,
> Galava, Chakravarman, Bhardwaj, Sakatayana, Sakalya, Senaka and Sphotayana. None of
> these works survived.
Now, Sid:
do you hold these historical facts so soberly described by Professor Katre to be
compatible with your own strange beliefs and theories concerning this topic ?
Cheers,
Axel
Sid Harth
My brother Sumitra, is as much a man, a person, for all those who may find this a
sexist statement, capable of thinking, deliberating, debating, deriving, drawing right
conclusions from scanty data available, as yours truly. Katre is not a god, a mere mortal
same as you are. No one should take other's point of view as a gospel.
Yashwant is throwing his usual RSS shit. He has as much right to do so as I have to
knock his socks off, as he, my brother, is talking nonsense. Sumitra, at least, has a grace
to look things up before he opens his mouth. When they elect Sumitra as god of all gods,
please let me know, I may have a god busting operation to start at such solemn moment.
Sid
"Dr. Axel Bergmann" wrote:
> Sid Harth wrote:
>
> > [..........]
> > Let us talk about Panini himself. [.....]
>
> > Sumitra M. Katre, may his tribe increase, an eminent Sanskrit pundit, a Chitrapur
> > Saraswat Brahmin of impeccable character, drive and wisdom is the one I am relying
> > upon for previous information. Sumitra, a man's name, not that of a woman, himself
> > came out with a spanking new edition, all spruced up, jazzed up, 1334 pages thick,
> > hardbound, while he was a professor at University of Texas, in 1989. a truly
> > masterpiece, published in India for Indians, cheap edition, by Motilal Banarasidas,
> > Delhi. Rs. 895.00
> >
> > Sumitra describes thusly:
> >
> > "The Ashtadhyayi of panini is the earliest extant descriptive grammar of sanskrit
> > as currently spoken
>
> CURRENTLY SPOKEN
>
> > during his time (c. 6th cent. B.C.) and occasionally referred by
> > him as [Bhasa], in the north west region of India (now pakistan)."
> >
> > Panini admits and notes the regional variations
>
> VARIATIONS (viz., of one and the same language)
>
> > from the west to the east in his
> > "Bhasa," of which he is trying to standardize a grammar. He also admits that he
> > either relies or acknowledges the previous ten works of, Apisali, Kashyapa, Gargya,
> > Galava, Chakravarman, Bhardwaj, Sakatayana, Sakalya, Senaka and Sphotayana. None of
> > these works survived.
>
> Now, Sid:
>
> do you hold these historical facts so soberly described by Professor Katre to be
> compatible with your own strange beliefs and theories concerning this topic ?
>
> Cheers,
> Axel
yash...@my-dejanews.com
> The Ashtadhyayi of panini is the earliest extant descriptive grammar of
>sanskrit
> as currently spoken during his time (c. 6th cent. B.C.) and occasionally
>referred by him as [Bhasa], in the north west region of India (now pakistan)."
> Panini admits and notes the regional variations from the west to the east
>in his "Bhasa," of which he is trying to standardize a grammar. He also
>admits that heeither relies or acknowledges the previous ten works of,
>Apisali, Kashyapa, Gargya, Galava, Chakravarman, Bhardwaj, Sakatayana,
>Sakalya, Senaka and Sphotayana. None of these works survived.
Thanks for the informative note. First we indeed need to be grateful
for Sanskrit scholars from outside of India. Secondly, Sanskrit, as a spoken
language (Panini's Bhasha too was a Prakrit) had to have regional
and temporal variations. Sanskrit had changed before Panini, it was changing
during his time, and it changed after him too to some extent. Panini's
contribution was that gave a fixed definition, thus ensuring that it
will always be understood (by some at least).
Incidentally Hindi too has often been called "Bhasha". We simply
called it Bhasha when I was in elementary school.
Selvaa wrote:
> Yashwant, can you please clarify HOW the above will be
> PROOF that *Skt* was spoken ? Many many indo-european
> languages are spoken and all you've presented goes
> to prove that probably Kafirs' language is an
> indo-european language (Dardic, Kafir languages are known to be
> Indo-european languages). I'm curious to know how
> the conclusion that it is Sanskrit is arrived at.
The Kalash Kafirs' language is not Sanskrit, but derived from
it. However note that words like "mutra" and "asht" are very
close to original Sanskrit, in fact closer than any other
Indian language in its non-literary form. Thus I suggest
that the Kalash (so called because they wear black clothes)
because of their isolation have preserved some of the
characteristics of the language spoken in that region.
There are (or perhaps "were") many Kafir tribes. The book
"Atlas Linguistique Des Parles Dardes Et Kafirs" by Gerard
Fussman, gives maps showing distribution of words among them.
The Kalash kafirs have preserved the Sanskrit words best
(but not the old culture, because the Kalash live at the
edge of the "Kafiristan"). My guess is that it is due to their
proximity to the heart of the region of Panini's Bhasha.
> In ancient times ( before 500 BCE), Vedic, an archaic
> form of Sanskrit must have been spoken, like Anicent
> Greek or Latin must have been spoken. I've heard people
> claiming that Vedic and Classical Skt are two different languages
> though they are strongly related. Avestan and Skt are also
> deeply related, but they are not the same language.
Avesta was composed in regions just north of HinduKush in Afghanistan.
Incidentally some of the Brahmin communites in India (for example the
Shakadvipis of Gaya, Bihar) originated in that part of Afghanistan.
I have added Balkh, a major Avestan center in the map at
http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/temp.html
Incidentally Brahui, a Dravidian language, is also spoken by some in
Afghanistan.
Mo
Siddharth wrote:
> The Ashtadhyayi of panini is the earliest extant descriptive grammar of
>sanskrit
> as currently spoken during his time (c. 6th cent. B.C.) and occasionally
>referred by him as [Bhasa], in the north west region of India (now pakistan)."
> Panini admits and notes the regional variations from the west to the east
>in his "Bhasa," of which he is trying to standardize a grammar. He also
>admits that heeither relies or acknowledges the previous ten works of,
>Apisali, Kashyapa, Gargya, Galava, Chakravarman, Bhardwaj, Sakatayana,
>Sakalya, Senaka and Sphotayana. None of these works survived.
Thanks for the informative note. First we indeed need to be
Selvaa wrote:
"Atlas Linguistique Des Parles Dardes Et Kafirs" by Gerard
Fussman, gives maps showing distribution of words among
them.
The Kalash kafirs have preserved the Sanskrit words best
(but not the old culture, because the Kalash live at the
edge of the "Kafiristan"). My guess is that it is due to
their
proximity to the heart of the region of Panini's Bhasha.
> In ancient times ( before 500 BCE), Vedic, an archaic
> form of Sanskrit must have been spoken, like Anicent
> Greek or Latin must have been spoken. I've heard people
> claiming that Vedic and Classical Skt are two different languages
> though they are strongly related. Avestan and Skt are also
> deeply related, but they are not the same language.
Avesta was composed in regions just north of HinduKush in
Afghanistan.
Incidentally some of the Brahmin communites in India (for
example the
Shakadvipis of Gaya, Bihar) originated in that part of
Afghanistan.
I have added Balkh, a major Avestan center in the map at
http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/temp.html
Incidentally Brahui, a Dravidian language, is also spoken by
some in
Afghanistan.
Yashwant
yash...@my-dejanews.com
>
> The Ashtadhyayi of panini is the earliest extant descriptive grammar of
For serious students of Indian history, there is an indispensible tool
A Historical Atlas of South Asia
by Joseph E. Schwartzberg (Editor), Shiva G. Bajpai (Editor)
ISBN: 0195068696
It is large and very expensive volume (but well worth the price)
with detailed maps and time-lines. It should be there in your
university library. If you should want to own your own copy you
can buy it from:
Sanskrit Grantha Ratnakara
http://members.tripod.com/~malaiya/sanskrit.html
Sid Harth
Weber writes in his History of Sanskrit language very flatteringly that,
perhaps, Panini's Ashtadhyayi may be considered as, we must discount such glossy
attestations as the mark of respect to the particular works, depending upon lack of
knowledge of or unavailability of grammars of the other languages being considered
while making such glowing statements, the pinnacle of grammar treatises.
Be it as it may, a little praise does not hurt for Sanskrit's image, even after
the times since Weber wrote these remarks, the whole new world of linguistics has
blossomed into a magnificent tree. Gold strucker also admits his admiration for
Sanskrit and says that Panini, as if shows the progress of a living language in a
very appropriate chronological sequences, using modern technological example, I
might add that Panini fleshes out the minor details in a computer animation, looks
almost real.
"shabdavidyaa," art or science of the words, literally, but by that we assume
the art of communications using the standardized vocal sounds with limited meanings
attached to them, was in vogue. language grows with or without a grammar, a scheme,
mostly driven by a body, private or public, on top, as it is a living thing. It is
a life force as in life force of a river. It takes turns, twists, it jumps the
obstructions in her path, it takes away nominal obstructions when powerful, it
changes the contours of the topography as it is changed by the contours of the
immovable topography.
Language does wonderful things and nasty things. Language unites the set of
linguistic groups and it divides them depending upon which versions carry the power
to subjugate the others. Sanskrit of Panini, in no way can be considered as the
language of the people, it always was and still is the language of the select few.
The natural language has a power unto herself to change, stabilize, find a
workable model that is on even keel, self correcting, self shaping, self monitoring
aspects. Just like a human or animal body, it casts off that which has ceased to be
useful and functioning, like human skin or body byproducts. It grows when given
opportunity to like all normal little children grow to be men and women and it is
stunted, when restricted, chained, shackled by outside influences. Tiny feet, at
one time in the history of China was a sign of beauty, a commodity much in demand
in legal or illegal marriage market. Millions of Chinese put wooden shoes on little
feet of their own daughters, hoping and dreaming such confined little feet would
bring their daughters much luck, fame and fortune in the flourishing concubine
markets of that time.
African tribes, Indian tribals have such quaint customs in disfiguring their
women folks, by the modern western standards wearing bangles, nose rings, lip
rings, neck rings and such, we all know that. Beautiful to the said cultures,
atrocious customs to all others.
Sanskrit has been put in this straight jacket, not because of Panini, he was a
good guy but on account of not understanding the principle of regeneration.
Language is not a recipe of a cocktail, an exotic island beverage with slices of
lemon, orange peel, pineapple and little decorative umbrellas and little toothpicks
or sword shaped toothpick like devices.
Language is nothing like that. It is like a bolt of lightening. It appears and
just as soon disappears, in the meantime roaring and lightening the dark skies. You
can't put that in a bottle and serve with an hors-doeuvres. Panini is great as much
as any grammarian of any language.
Portuguese catholic missionaries wrote grammar of a language of the people in
one of their territories, Goa, now called Konkani. Without this piece of hard work,
there would not be a separate language called Konkani. Konkani is a regional
variation of neighboring major languages, Marathi and Kannada. Did anybody spoke
Konkani before? Yes and no, at least in the form that it exists, all the speakers
were illiterate village folks, it was not written. It was written in Roman script
with atrocious spelling conventions till some smart Brahmins caste it in Kannada
script and or Devnagari script. Most native Christians still use this Roman script,
Hindus use either Kannada or Devnagari script.
What Panini did is create a separate, self standing, self sufficient language
that not he, Panini, called Sanskrit but much later, by others. The language did
not exist as a piece of cake does not exist, exists only in bunch of dissimilar
ingredients and a recipe, pots, pans, oven, heat and human hands to mix these
ingredients in a proportion as prescribed by a given recipe.
Cake exists in ingredients not in the final form. Wheat is not cake, neither is
a shortening, sugar, spices, baking soda, salt, eggs. Putting all these together
makes a cake. Sanskrit is a cake, liked by one and all, I hope so, I like it but
villagers of that time and of this time do not eat cake. They, some of them at
least, never ever had a crack at this cake. Mother Brahmins kept the list of
ingredients, recipe and all, in a locked cupboard.
Panini is said to have collected all the ingredients, not by buying published
books at Barnes & Noble over internet, collected in the sense, collecting of
specimen from the field. People talking to each other in a regular, day to day
human contacts, communicating in a language or languages, what Panini himself calls
"bhaasaa."
Panini did so many operations on these ingredients. Altered the basic sound
forms, added, appended, changed, replaced, reformed with basic units, stems,
arranged, rearranged, turned things upside down, inside out. he did what a good
chef would do to his masterpiece.
Such transformation speaks of the creation and not stocking. Wheat from the
fields is collected and stocked in jute bags, stored one on top of other. such
stocking and delivering to the buyer or hungry person does not constitute creation.
Panini created, after lot of trial and error, discarding the first batch, the
second batch so on and so forth till he arrived at the optimally perfect batch,
which is what we call modern day Sanskrit.
Come again, my brother Yashwant, Axel "mahodayaH," and anyone who wanted me to
call quit when I quoted Sumant, verbatim, are you getting my drift or are you still
drifting like some discarded flotsam and jetsam on the sea waves pounding at the
rock of a desert island shore?
Get smart brother, time is against us. Get all your ducks in row. That is the
prerequisite of learning and mastering Sanskrit. You may like Sanskrit but
Sanskrit, mainly my mom, Saraswati does not like dummies.
Sid
yash...@my-dejanews.com
> Get smart brother, time is against us. Get all your ducks in row. That is
> the prerequisite of learning and mastering Sanskrit. You may like Sanskrit
> but Sanskrit, mainly my mom, Saraswati does not like dummies.
> > Sid
It is said that Kalidas, considered by many the finest Sanskrit
author, was a dummy in the beginning.
There is a Hindi doha which says,
karat karat abhyaas tai.N, ja.Damati hot sujaan,
rasarii aavat jaat tai.N, sil par parat nisaan.
To be an expert in Sanskrit (or Hindi etc.) one can spend a
lifetime. But it does not take too much effort to learn
a little, enough to enjoy a few words, and to keep on
learning a little bit at a time.