Sanskrit - 'Dead language'

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

For Sanskrit is taught as a ‘Dead language’ which is defined as a ‘ language no longer spoken by living people and in circulation in society’ (!) .   

Apart from discussions, opinions, points made individually in different contexts, is there a full-fledged paper/article/book/seminar where this issue has been academically dealt by any Samskrtam scholars? (Searched BVP and samskrita groups for the points-)

Was looking for something where the issue is systematically, academically and point-wise way analysed in these lines- 

1. What is a dead language? 

2. What are the basic criteria for a dead language? 

3. Samskrtam vis a vis other dead languages of the world 

4. Samskrtam status, standards and role as a language in modern world context.. 

5. Indian traditional approach on this issue vs non-Indian standing. 

6. Special condition of Samskrtam

Or what lines one should think and approach on this issue? Is it always to be divided between indifferent non-samskrtam and emotional samskrtam standards..? 

-vinItA

उषा

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop) <sastr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste

 

1. I am also of the same opinion: <  Inclusion of Ksha, Tra and Jna is similar to the most used combined consonants. (Samyuktakshara) evolved over centuries of Tradition, but not part of Vyakarana Scheme or Shiksha Scheme…..  Inclusion of Am/ Ah(a) is demonstrative   .. the patterns of writing including this script of Devanagari are part of recent evolution >. The influence of regional languages (Prakrutham /Desi) can not be ruled out.  Example :The short ‘e’ , sort ‘o’ from Kannada.

 

2.  The importance of ‘Oral Tradition’ in learning Samskrutham is slowly fading out under the pressure and pervasion of the ‘Roman Transliteration model of Sanskrit learning’ promoted by many  ‘Sanskrit teachers’ desirous of  ‘Quick speech (tvaritaa vaktaaro bhavema . .. ?! Mahabhashya !) In one of the Universities with a big name, the Sanskrit student has no need to learn uttering of even a single sound of Sanskrit through out the course ! For Sanskrit is taught as a ‘Dead language’ which is defined as a ‘ language no longer spoken by living people and in circulation in society’ (!) .   

 

 

3. The rosary in the hand of Saraswati may be probably better explained as ‘ A-Kshara’ maalaa = The eternal immutable sounds. The count of 63 /64 units of sounds  under  ‘Shabmbu Matha’  attributed and associated with Panini’s name and Samskrutham Vyakranam may be a teaching tradition which links  ‘ Pratishaakhya approach and Mantra-Shastra approach’ flown in to the teaching of  ‘Vednaga Vyakarana’. The supporting reason being :Learning of Samskrutham was mainly for the ‘Voice training’ critical for the  ‘Veda-Mantra –Articulation (ucchaarana)’.  That apart, why only three  ‘Samyukta-aksharas as ksha –tra-jna’ when several others are possible may be an interesting issue to deliberate.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry  

 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Usha Sanka <usha....@gmail.com> wrote:

 Namaste

 For Sanskrit is taught as a ‘Dead language’ which is defined as a ‘ language no longer spoken by living people and in circulation in society’ (!) .  

​Please see the definition of Dead Language below:​

 Apart from discussions, opinions, points made individually in different contexts, is there a full-fledged paper/article/book/seminar where this issue has been academically dealt

​​

by any Samskrtam scholars? (Searched BVP and samskrita groups for the points-)

To be frank, I do not know whther such book or any article was published, or available online. Just google and you will get some articles,

​ ​

​If you are not specifically on 

​​

by any Samskrtam scholars​

you can consider my reply which draws from western dictionaries and linguists and not by samskrutam scholars.​​Otherwise, you may simply ignore the following replies by me, like those by western scholars. Sorry I did not notice the above specific point in your request. 

 Was looking for something where the issue is systematically, academically and point-wise way analysed in these lines-

 1. What is a dead language?.

​​

A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native language by a speech community.

/dead+language

A dead language is called as such, where there are no native speakers of the language. And not any language spoken by dead languages or could not be spoken by living languages. Any living human being can speak any language either it is classified as dead or living, by special training as he is endowed with articulatory organs of speech unlike animals. This is what is meant by dead language, that is not spoken by any living people as the native speakers. (i.e.) note the usage of "native speakers" and not those who are capable of speaking any language with articulatory facility.
We generally call as mother toungue in general usage.

Definition:

​ Language Death:​

A linguistic term for the end or extinction of a language.

Distinctions are commonly drawn between an endangered language (one with few or no children learning the language) and an extinct language (one in which the last native speaker has died).

Definition given by richard.

languagedeath

Native Speaker:

Definition:

A speaker who uses a first language or mother tongue.

"A child may be a native speaker of more than one language as long as the acquisition process starts early and necessarily prepuberty. After puberty (Felix, 1987), it becomes difficult--not impossible, but very difficult (Birdsong, 1992)--to become a native speaker."

nativespeaker

Please read the book on Language Death:

​Language Death - problems

Also one more article on problems of Language Death:

​Problems of Langauge Death

2. What are the basic criteria for a dead language?

I had already explained in short in the above paragraph and the difference between a living language and dead language.
In contrast with living language, which is the native speakers are living, it is called living language and the language the native speakers are no more living, is called dead language, precisely.
And not the dead people are speaking, is a dead language. There is a language called पैशाची which is said to be spoken by पिशाच-s and there is a literature also. The story by गुणाढ्य was written in पैशाची language according to legends.

Please read the above book on Language Death

​and also speech community:

Speech_community​

 3. Samskrtam vis a vis other dead languages of the world

​​Note the use of native speakers and speech community in the field of Language Study and Linguistic Study:

speechcommunity

The Hebrew

​ 

language was once a dead language and it is said that the Hebrew people, (in the

​ 

early

​ 1

9th century) made it a living language, as the native language by their effort

​ which is called Modern Hebrew​

.

Modern_Hebrew

Just like Samskritabharati workers
are trying today for Sanskrit. The difference is that Hebrew people were limited in population and without caste and creed as in India today. Hence it was possible with little effort. The case of Sanskrit is quite different and India is the 2nd largest country in population, and contains more than 17 languages based on which the country is divided even though India is one country politically and many other unlisted spoken languages only with oral literature, up to 371 languages.
And Sanskrit was used as priestly language for many centuries, like Hebrew
and the reviving efforts are recent ones in many corners and with different interests as yu have raised in your next question. Latin also a priestly language, no more spoken, while its derivative languages like French, Italian etc. are formed as spoken forms of the independent European Countries where they are the national languages, unlike India, which contains innumerable languages as already noted above. Hence reviving effort of Latin is also on the swing, see:

​Contemporary_Latin

Yet it is still classified as Dead Language

​ in comparative linguistics​ as it simultaneously continues as the language for church services, in spite of the users of today.

 

4. Samskrtam status, standards and role as a language in modern world context..

This is discussed in many forums with similar interests in reviving Sanskrit and no such effect in real life, like finding technical terms for English and Latin technical and Scientific words and finding Vedic Science to be utilized in modern world of other. But without users of such technically coined terms, in research projects, it is equal to be a dead list of words or any group of users may know who do not do any scientific research and write in Scientific language. If you mean by modern world, the scientific renaiscance period through Sanskrit or Sanskritising the Indian and World population, make use of Samskrtam to their daily needs.
Depends on your intensity of emotions and aspiration to use it as a language in modern context and its practicability.

 

 5. Indian traditional approach on this issue vs non-Indian standing.

Indian tradition had no doubt as such whether Sanskrit is a dead language or living language. They used it for serving their needs, learning Literature and different Shastra-s, without spending much time on such issues. Westernal Scholars who had a wider knowledge of languages of the world, in addition to Sanskrit, (with which they came familiar only after colonilization) became interested and engaged in Comparative Linguistics, and were the first to classify the languages of the world as Living and Dead, and as they were introduced, samskrutam was no more a living language in the strictest sense of the definition of the classification, and even then they were attracted to study its literature. That is how we have Sacred Texts of the East in 50 volumes, as a testimony to their intensity of interest. That doesn't mean Indian Scholars never studied Samskrutam before the western Indologists engaged themselves in the study.

 6. Special condition of Samskrtam
 Or what lines one should think and approach on this issue?

Answer to this depends on the inclination of the person and his choice. One can chose any approach and free to think independently and arrive at a conclusion.

​​

Is it always to be divided between indifferent non-samskrtam and emotional samskrtam standards..?

You may explain this point with sufficient grounds. What I have written in the earlier paragraphs, you can look into any book on Historical Linguistics or Comparative Linguistics which deal with the topic of dead and living languages. I just wrote from my memory of reading them in the books I refered for Historical Linguistics
, some links I have given.
Or one may despise and reject or replace with his effort, the Indian counter arguments and books to counter the assumptions and hypothesis, (than dedication to

​ learning​

Sanskrit as an ancient language and literature preserving its culture).

​Hope others will have their answers on these points.​

[venugopal gudimetla]

Usha ji,

Namaste, Not a scholar, but Samskritam is by no means dead. If day to day usage of a language is what defines a language to be dead or like, then Samskritam is no way dead yet. Currently there are 1lakh+ speakers. Some villages even have active speakers and also in one particular village in India, only Samskritam is spoken. Certainly as you wished, what I am providing is not academic, but proof in their own right that Smaskritam is not lost or that it is dead language. 

pl see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD7blPWe_xg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHLIy-WHDew

Yesterday in Samskrita Bharati annual meeting, they have said that the Samskritam speakers  in India have rosen to about 1lakh+. If you search wiki on the web, certainly you will find Sanskrit listed as one of the dead languages. But this is not entirely true. Mattur village has active speakers who speak Samskritam in daily life.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattur

http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/tale-of-two-villages/article4581221.ece

May be you will also might like to refer to the paper mentioned here:

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/bcs/anthro/samples/silvprop.txt

I will try to dig more and post if possible if I find any academic references.

Regards,

Venu

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:34 PM, venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com> wrote:

Usha ji,

Namaste, Not a scholar, but Samskritam is by no means dead. If day to day usage of a language is what defines a language to be dead or like, then Samskritam is no way dead yet.

Please read the definition of a dead language and what is language death and why Sanskrit was considered Dead Language. I had explained in some detail.

[venugopal gudimetla]

Sri hnbhat ji,

Thank you for the correction, then according to this 2001 Gov of Indian census of Sanskrit as mother tongue:

http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.htm

Am I missing something? the above cannot be considered as native speakers? even though their mother tongue is Sanskrit?

Regards,

Venu

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Copied and pasted from Google search...........

The most common process leading to language death is one in which a community of speakers of one language becomes bilingual in another language, and gradually shifts allegiance to the second language until they cease to use their original (or heritage) language.

If we go by the above definition Sanskrit is not completely dead

By contrast to an extinct language which no longer has any speakers, a dead language may remain in use for scientific, legal, or ecclesiastical functions. Old Church Slavonic, Avestan, Coptic, Biblical Hebrew, New Testament Greek, Ge'ez, Ardhamagadhi, Pali, Sanskrit and Latin are among the many dead languages used as sacred languages.

A dead language is a language which is no longer learned as a native language. Some well known examples of dead languages include Coptic, Ancient Greek, Latin, and Sanskirt, although there are numerous other dead languages from regions around the world, including huge numbers of Native American languages which died out with European colonialism. Some dead languages are topics of study because of their cultural, linguistic, or social importance, and some dead languages actually have numbers of speakers which exceed those of modern or living languages, languages which are learned as native tongues.

​So what is language death? In the simplest terms, a dead language is one that  is still used in specific contexts but does not have native speakers. Contrast this with so-called living languages, which continue to grow and evolve due in large part to the number of people using them in everyday speech. Dead languages, therefore, have not completely disappeared. They’ve just become linguistically inert — dead in the water, so to speak.

​I think this is what Dr. Bhat said

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

Please read the definition of a dead language and what is language death and why Sanskrit was considered Dead Language. I had explained in some detail.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[venugopal gudimetla]

Dear Ajit ji

Namaste, According to GoI 2001 census, even for that matter 2011 census, there are native speakers in India whose mother tongue is Sanskrit. What does that mean? is GoI's definition of native speakers wrong? or that native Sanskrit speakers do exist? if they don't exist and somehow GoI figures are wrong, why are they wrong? if for other reasons, one can rely on census, why not now?

Regards,

Venu

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:48 AM, venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Ajit ji

Namaste, According to GoI 2001 census, even for that matter 2011 census, there are native speakers in India whose mother tongue is Sanskrit. What does that mean? is GoI's definition of native speakers wrong? or that native Sanskrit speakers do exist? if they don't exist and somehow GoI figures are wrong, why are they wrong? if for other reasons, one can rely on census, why not now?

Here is the solution for your doubts:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/samskrita/eIFaVRj5q44/5N8NgRe6VkAJ

Please check. I think in some other Sanskrit Groups also there should have been such circulations before each census and all Sanskrit Knowing people are requested to declare as their mother tounge.

And for your information, linguistic definition of "native speaker" I have given in my first post itself.

Here is the linguistic definition of "mother toungue"

as:

One's native language; the language learned by children and passed from one generation to the next. 

Here is an explanation of the concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_language

A first language (also native language, mother tongue, arterial language, or L1) is the language(s) a person has learned from birth 

(^ Bloomfield, Leonard. Language)

and many other definitions and elaboration of the concept. And it is not the government that defines these terms. 

By the first definition, any language learnt by birth is called mother language or 1st language and its speakers are native speakers of the language. 

And to your other questions, relying on census, why not earlier than 2001 (many years after Mattur village was declared as Sanskrit Language), they were not recorded? Was they barred from recording it as their mother toungue or there was no colum 14 in the census form to gather such information. The last seems to be probable. But in that case, no such request in this group was needed in this group and in other related to Sanskrit.

This last remark has nothing to do with linguistic classification. 

Anyway, a language linguistically declared as dead,(unlike medically declared person) can be declared as living language and need not be continued to be called as such, as in the case of Latin and Hebrew as I have shown in my first post. This is theoretically possible in the case of Sanskrit also. 

No need of Govt. census nor Govt. Statutory notice or Declaration by Supreme judgement to declare it as living language, which is a hypothetical concept in linguistics.

The first question itself, was whether any book or article published in any journals considering all or any of the points raised by Mme. Usha and the reply is welcome on this point. I just reflected on the title as Dead Language and the linguistic concept.

[Phani Kumar]

Namaste.

1)As per Census of India (2001) over 14000 persons returned sanskrit as their mother tongue(Listed at no 17 after  punjabi in the attached statement). I could not lay my hands on 2011 census figures. Predictably the number could not have become. Number of people who speak a language are always many more than those who have a language as their mother tongue.The number of people who speak sanskrit is increasing by the day thanks to the effort of organizations like Samskritbharati.

2)Sanskrit was one of the 14 languages included in the original eighth schedule to the constitution. the number has now risen to 22 after the inclusion of Sindhi,Konkani, Nepali,Meiteilon etc.

3)Sanskrit is one of the official languages of Uttarakhand.

4)The attached Wikipedia article lists 8 sanskrit speaking villages.

5)Apart from hundreds of exclusive sanskrit schools, there are any number of schools and colleges which have sanskrit departments.There are about 13 sanskrit universities.

6) The number of institutions which teach Sanskrit abroad are also on the rise.cf; St.James Institutions of the UK, Australian National University etc(Please see the attached video). Presumably, they wouldnt be doing this if no benefit were to be had from learning sanskrit.

7)When you travel abroad, among the first things you notice is that English is not all that universal. In vast swathes of the planet, english is not even understood.In continental europe, latin America,China, knowledge of english is of a very limited help. So the point of sanskrit not being understood by many people etc doesn't wash.

8) It is possible to argue that if one were to purge all indian languages of sanskrit words, it won't be posible to speak any language.

Is it, therefore, fair to say that the last native speaker of sanskrit has died and therefore it is time its obituary was drafted?

Dr. Phani Kumar

32,Prasasan Nagar,

Road-72,

Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad 500033

Andhra Pradesh.

कालोह्ययं निरवधिः विपुलाच पृथ्वी ।

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Usha Sanka <usha....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Phani Kumar]

Namaste. Here is video clip that I could not attach to my previous mail.

Dr. Phani Kumar

32,Prasasan Nagar,

Road-72,

Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad 500033

Andhra Pradesh.

कालोह्ययं निरवधिः विपुलाच पृथ्वी ।

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Usha Sanka <usha....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Venugopal,

Ar Dr. Bhat has answered your question. Linguistically speaking of a dead language has nothing got to do with census, government policy , artificial existence of Sanskrit speakers are emotional writings of individuals. Linguistics is a precise and exact science and works on known and tested models for all languages including Sanskrit. Census is a statistical science, government policy is dictated by voters and linguists is based of certain axioms and on which theory and hypothesis is developed

I have never heard or know of any person living or dead except perhaps in legends who learnt Sanskrit from his or Her mother for the language to be called mother tongue by any definition standards.

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

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Not imposing any one to accept a linguist. If one wants to talk about census and use of Sanskrit language then the question whether Sanskrit is living or dead becomes untenable this is logic.

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

[Phani Kumar]

Namaste. I know of Sri Dorbala Prabhakara sarma'jis grand child learning sanskrit from his mother and conversing with her in sanskrit.I had the pleasure of staying in SB's guesthouse for a week at bangalore a year ago which was surrounded by residential qtrs. There I saw very young children of sri nagaraj mahodaya,sri lakshminarayana mahodaya,sri satyanarayana mahodaya converse in sanskrit with their mothers fluently as one would in one,s mother tongue. I understand so is the case in dr janardan hegde and sri chamu krishna sastryji's households as well.samskruta kutumbam is a well known concept in SB circles. Thank you.

Sent from Huawei Mobile

Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Venugopal,

Ar Dr. Bhat has answered your question. Linguistically speaking of a dead language has nothing got to do with census, government policy , artificial existence of Sanskrit speakers are emotional writings of individuals. Linguistics is a precise and exact science and works on known and tested models for all languages including Sanskrit. Census is a statistical science, government policy is dictated by voters and linguists is based of certain axioms and on which theory and hypothesis is developed

I have never heard or know of any person living or dead except perhaps in legends who learnt Sanskrit from his or Her mother for the language to be called mother tongue by any definition standards.

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

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:48 AM, venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Ajit ji

Namaste, According to GoI 2001 census, even for that matter 2011 census, there are native speakers in India whose mother tongue is Sanskrit. What does that mean? is GoI's definition of native speakers wrong? or that native Sanskrit speakers do exist? if they don't exist and somehow GoI figures are wrong, why are they wrong? if for other reasons, one can rely on census, why not now?

Here is the solution for your doubts:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/samskrita/eIFaVRj5q44/5N8NgRe6VkAJ

Please check. I think in some other Sanskrit Groups also there should have been such circulations before each census and all Sanskrit Knowing people are requested to declare as their mother tounge.

And for your information, linguistic definition of "native speaker" I have given in my first post itself.

Here is the linguistic definition of "mother toungue"

as:

One's native language; the language learned by children and passed from one generation to the next. 

Here is an explanation of the concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_language

A first language (also native language, mother tongue, arterial language, or L1) is the language(s) a person has learned from birth 

(^ Bloomfield, Leonard. Language)

and many other definitions and elaboration of the concept. And it is not the government that defines these terms. 

By the first definition, any language learnt by birth is called mother language or 1st language and its speakers are native speakers of the language. 

And to your other questions, relying on census, why not earlier than 2001 (many years after Mattur village was declared as Sanskrit Language), they were not recorded? Was they barred from recording it as their mother toungue or there was no colum 14 in the census form to gather such information. The last seems to be probable. But in that case, no such request in this group was needed in this group and in other related to Sanskrit.

This last remark has nothing to do with linguistic classification. 

Anyway, a language linguistically declared as dead,(unlike medically declared person) can be declared as living language and need not be continued to be called as such, as in the case of Latin and Hebrew as I have shown in my first post. This is theoretically possible in the case of Sanskrit also. 

No need of Govt. census nor Govt. Statutory notice or Declaration by Supreme judgement to declare it as living language, which is a hypothetical concept in linguistics.

The first question itself, was whether any book or article published in any journals considering all or any of the points raised by Mme. Usha and the reply is welcome on this point. I just reflected on the title as Dead Language and the linguistic concept.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Not trying to be augmentative here but isolated cases cannot be generalized. If this happens across a cross section of a population then one can consider that .

SB circles have their mission to make Sanskrit a spoken language and ensure that more people learn the language to better understand our glorious past How does this change  the linguistic model applicable for a dead language Thanks

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

[venugopal gudimetla]

Dear Sri Ajit ji,

Not so fast. Census shows that there are native Sanskrit speakers. Whether they adopted it as mother tongue or not or whether it is indeed their mother tongue is debatable, doesnt mean you know for sure that you can brush it aside just with opinions. Sir, secondly,  Linguistics is not a science that you can lump with tested models what ever you mean by that, no idea what the role models have in deciding whether Sanskrit is a mother tongue or not. I do know what census is sir, it has nothing to do with collecting basic information, raw data is raw data, prior to application of any statistical tools, so what is your point?

Just because you didn't hear of anyone mentioning Sanskrit as their mother tongue doesn't mean they dont exist.

Regards,
Venu

[venugopal gudimetla]

Sir, Could you plase explain what logic that is and why Census is not applicable? how are you able to ascertain that out of 41k people, none really exists whose mother tongue is indeed Sanskrit? Pray explain.

Regards,
Venu

[Naresh Cuntoor]

Not trying to be augmentative here but

 

Trying to pick up on this note ...  :)

The responses provided so far in this thread have reiterated points that have been made in some form or another in various threads. At this point, may I suggest that we take a step back, reflect, and only then think of responding.

ये तावद् भाषां जीवन्तीम् इच्छन्ति, ते भाषाप्रयोगे रता भवन्तु नाम । ये तावत् पठनेन तुष्यन्ति, तेनैव तुष्यन्तु । किं चातः ?

 
कश्चित् पण्डितः भाषाप्रयोगे निरतमेवं पृच्छेत् - "किं तर्हि भाषा याधुना प्रयुज्यते भवद्भिः, सैव पूर्वं बभूव ? उत यद्यदपि भणन्तो भवन्तः संस्कृतं कथयन्तीति ?!"

तत्रैवं वदामः - अयि भोः, यदि कथंचित् कंचित् मायाविनं प्राप्य ब्रूमः, 'वाल्मीकिं च कालिदासं च भारविं च पाणिनीये काले निवसन्तं पामरं चापि अवतारय', इति ।

स मायावी यदि तथा कुर्यात् - अयमत्र वाल्मीकिः । एषोयं कालिदास इति । तथायं भारविरिति । पामरोयम् इति ।

तदा वयं पण्डितं कथयामो यत् "एतत् पत्रं तान् दर्शयित्वा पृच्छतु भवान्" इति ।

किमिति ?

किमिदं संस्कृतम् इति ?

यदि तत्सर्वं न शक्यम् - एकविंशतिं जीवतः आचार्यान् आसाद्य पृष्टुमर्हन्ति भवन्तः । किं संस्कृतं जीवति उत नेति ? तेषां मतं संगृह्य पुनश्च तादृशं मतादानप्रयासम् अष्टोत्तरशतशः कृत्वा सर्वस्यापि मतस्य संकलनं कुर्वन्तु । किं तदा तृप्तिर्भवेत् ?

यद्वा तद्वा भवतु, ये भाषया अनया ब्रुवन्ति, लिखन्ति, मन्यन्ते च ते भाषया अनया तथा कुर्वन्ति । तेषां न कस्यापि प्रमाणपत्रस्य वर्तते काचिदपेक्षा - यदसौ संस्कृतेन वक्तीति ।

किं काचित् पिपीलिका शर्कराकणं धृत्वा शर्कराकणस्य ग्रहणे प्रमाणपत्रम् अपेक्षते ? उत मधुरं तं गृहीत्वा याति निजतृप्त्यै?

नरेशः

[Ramakrishnan D]

Yes, I totally agree with Dr.Phanikumar .   In addition I wish to add that, the language Samskritam is quite living in our country since times immemorial, feeding all native languages and languages in neibouring countiries and even the Europian languages.   It is never dead.   Because we were subjugated by the foreign rule, especially the British, who were intolerant to see that Samskritam is the base for all the subjects like Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Astrology, Astronomy, Arts, Music etc. etc., in India, and it was flurishing.  They alienated  it by slowly introducing English into the native people to make them their slaves giving small jobs like clerical ones.

Even in those days Samskritam was never dead.   People were talking at least to the extent that many Veda pathasalas were there teaching samskritam, Peethams of swamijis were/are there in nook and corner using the language, preaching the subjects of Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas etc.   It is a known fact to everybody that all the rituals in our families are conducted in that language knowingly or unknowingly.   Then, how it is a dead language ?  

It was only a conspiracy by the then rulers to make English as a ruling language for their convenience and make the natives their tools to serve.

And we accepted it as dead.   Even today,  many of our scholors agree to be so.   

The time has come for us to say that it is not dead and it is quite alive.

At the same time we have to make efforts to make people learn the language, Samskritam, speak in it and make it your own speaking language.   It is not selfish to say so.   It is only with the greatness /richness of the language in all subjects that we have to study that.   If it is made our National language/Official language of the country, that will be great.

Regards to one and all.

[G S S Murthy]

Dear all,

Sanskrit is certainly not dead and will not die. But it is far from being a dynamic and vibrant language.

Large majority of Sanskrit scholars and lovers is only interested in studying and glorifying the hoary glorious past of Sanskrit. A language can be vibrant if it responds and has the capability to respond to changing times. Even those who are competent in fields other than Sanskrit and are also competent in Sanskrit do not attempt to create new branches of knowledge in Sanskrit.It is a pity that Sanskrit has become a hostage to traditionalists. Beyond editing and re-editing  old manuscripts and texts very little meaningful contribution to Sanskrit is happening. It is a pity that even today the best of Sanskrit studies is getting done in foreign universities.

Regards,

Murthy  

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

this is my point and it can never change fact is a fact Sanskrit is a dead language linguistically speaking even we have a dozen families artifitially speaking in Sanskrit. Now it is for you to provr linguists are false last mail on this topic if nothing fresh turns up thanks

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I remember an anecdote in Mahabhashya with similar context:

अप्रयुक्ताः इति ब्रूमः यत् लोके अप्रयुक्ताः इति । 

यदपि उच्यते कश्चेदानीमन्यः भवज्जातीयकः पुरुषः शब्दानां प्रयोगे साधुः स्यात्? 

न ब्रूमः --- अस्माभिः अप्रयुक्ताः इति । किम् तर्हि?

लोके अप्रयुक्ताः इति । 

ननु च भवान् अपि अभ्यन्तरः लोके? अभ्यन्तरः अहम् लोके, न तु अहम् लोकः |। 

The point is just like Ajit has said. But the speaker in the conversation, was concious that he himself is not the society, but he is part of the society and hence he is saying that he has not heard certain it used and so they are obsolete.

Our members' argument is similar to that. Because we are using, it is not obsolete, but forget that they are the part of the society unlike the speaker in the above context of Mahabhashya.

So this is the last message of me to the group in this topic.

अविचार्य न वक्तव्यं वक्तव्यं सुविचारितम्।

किं च तत्रैव वक्तव्यं यत्रोक्तं सफलं भवेत्॥

There is no need to translate the above message, as all the members of this group are speakers of Sanskrit. Thanks for all contributed to this topic.

​

[venugopal gudimetla]

Argument so far just to summarize:
1. For a language to be considered living and in constant use, there have to be native speakers whose mother tongue is that language as the first language, language of daily use.
2. Esteemed members like Phaniapard ji, Murthy ji, Ramakrishnan ji have provided GoI census data and other relevant data to say that there is considerable population that claims Sanskritam as their mother tongue.
3. Esteemed members like hnbhat ji, Ajit ji say that these are mere speakers but not those whose mother tongue is Samskritam.

Now I understand that hnbhat ji is eminent and respected Sanskritam scholar. But given the data that there could be genuine speakers as listed in census whose mother tongue is Samskritam, claiming that it is false, begs to be proved thus. Since scholarly arguments need to be proved through one's data, I beg nhbhat ji to prove that of the thousands of Samskritam speakers all are lying that their mother tongue is not Samskritam, no sizeable population exists whose native language is Smaskritam. Definition and concepts are alright, but all arguments need to be supported through either logic or through data. Just quoting Mahabhshyam may not be sufficient. How does one know that of the thousands of Samskritam speakers, none exist whose mother tongue is also Samskritam? just because you said so and think so? do you think that is good enough sir? facts need to be backed with data, if not, the answer is uncertain or not known.
Regards,
Venu

[vishal jaiswal]

I have nothing new to add, except that I do not see any significant new
literature in Sanskrit. As I have posted in the past, a big gap remains
between ground zero and the more
abstract/technical/religious/ritualistic/priestly works that occupy the
interest and attention of most people on this list.

I keep hearing how children need to learn Sanskrit, but even if they
learn the grammar, where is the context to apply that grammar. I refuse
to believe that Sanskrit is only about chanting mantras, stotras, etc.
If some of our scholars (no I am not one) could slowly create that
environment in the form of written and oral literature appropriately
suited for various age groups and graded from the simple to the complex,
that would be nice. I guess even translations from other languages
should suffice for now in this vacuum, though ideally original works
would be the best.

This is my very personal opinion, again please excuse me - but I wonder
why people spend their entire time proving some esoteric point or the
other - why not give some attention to truly try and bring sanskrit
alive to some degree instead. I always wonder out aloud, if I can breach
the barrier and be as fluent as people in the 10th or 11th century. Of
course the environment doesnt exist anymore, and yet that fascination
remains.

Regardless of the technicalities, Sanskrit is dead for me so far (I am
only progressing in the grammar which doesnt qualify it as knowing a
language as a whole for me). Whether I can bring it back to life, at
least for myself, remains a challenge. I should be able to pick up any
unknown piece of work in sanskrit, and if the vocabulary is not
specialized or technical pertaining to a certain domain like medicine or
mathematics or etc --- then I should be able to read the same without
resorting to bidirectional translation either inside or outside my head.
Then it becomes living for me at least as far as the written medium goes.

Thank you for reading,
~Vishal


Usha Sanka wrote:
> Namaste
> *For Sanskrit is taught as a ‘Dead language’ which is defined as a ‘

> language no longer spoken by living people and in circulation in society’

> (!) . *

>
> Apart from discussions, opinions, points made individually in different

> contexts,* is there a full-fledged paper/article/book/seminar* where this
> issue has been *academically dealt* by any Samskrtam scholars? (Searched

> BVP and samskrita groups for the points-)

> Was looking for something where the issue is *systematically, academically
> and point-wise way analysed *in these lines-

[Vinodh Rajan]

On 4 March 2014 12:55, venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com> wrote:

But given the data that there could be genuine speakers as listed in census whose mother tongue is Samskritam, claiming that it is false, begs to be proved thus

I would suppose at least most (if not some) just wanted to make a statement of supporting Sanskrit by declaring it as a known/native language. 

The following mail was sent to me in 2010 "encouraging" me to declare Sanskrit as a known language in the Indian census:

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

After opposing the caste based census, [...] now wants citizens to voluntarily register Sanskrit as their

second language in the census.

[...] feels that if people register the language, the final census

data would reflect higher literacy of Sanskrit, which will force the

government to take measures to preserve the language.

“According to the last census, only 14,135 people knew Sanskrit and

the language ranked 118 among all Indian languages. The result was

that the government listed Sanskrit as an in-danger language like

Arabi and Pharsi,” said [...]

[...]

Emphasising the importance of the language, Deopujari said that

whoever speaks an Indian language knows at least 50 per cent Sanskrit

words as Sanskrit is the mother of most languages

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

V

--
http://www.virtualvinodh.com

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear venu Gopal,

Sorry if I sound  bit blunt but this is the best way to put across what is needed now. I have and other members have indicated this topic has been discussed a thousand times over without any conclusions.

You can read elementary Linguistics book which classifies how languages are dead which is a technical terms before you asks for proofs. If you cannot understand elementary points raised please say so. If Mahabhashya is not authority for you for me and for grammarians and sanskritists from thousands of years it is.

​Nobody in the past thousand years have claimed Sanskrit is their mother tongue except for Sanskrit enthusiasts who may not have bothered to read any source materiel primary or secondary​ Government and it policies or census department is not the source of Sanskrit language or its linguistics This much I can say in conclusion Thanks a lot for you time on this

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

--

[Naresh Cuntoor]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

लोके अप्रयुक्ताः इति । 

ननु च भवान् अपि अभ्यन्तरः लोके? अभ्यन्तरः अहम् लोके, न तु अहम् लोकः |। 

अस्य लोकस्यान्तर्भूत एव वच्मि । श्रूयताम् । प्रत्यक्षानुभवोयं मातृभाषाविषये । वस्तुस्थितिं वच्मि, न तु साध्वसाधुनिर्णयो मम अत्रोक्तानां विषये ।

भारते सन्ति महानगरेषु ये आबाल्यादेव आङ्ग्लभाषापाठकाः । तेषां मातापितरस्तु न जन्मना आङ्ग्लभाषापाठकाः। प्रौढास्ते आङ्ग्लभाषाप्रयोगे निरता अभूवन् कार्यादिषु ।

दम्पती मिथः कर्णाटकादिभाषां पठतः । परं बालैः आ~ग्लव्यवहारः । ते बाला एवमेव प्रवृद्धाः । एतेषां बालानां मातृभाषा का तर्हि ? देशभाषा तु न प्रयोगाभवात् । आङ्ग्लभाषा इति ब्रूमः ? परंतु या आङ्ग्लभाषा न तु नेटिव् स्पीकर्स् स्थानमर्हति खलु ।

एते बालाः तस्स्मिन्नेव लोके प्रवृद्धाः । न केवलं तेषां गृहेषु स्थितिरेषा । परन्तु तेषां बान्धवाः, मित्राणि च एवमेव भवन्ति ।

यदि एतेषां बालानां मातृभाषा तर्हि आङ्ग्लभाषा भवितुमर्हति (नान्यागतिः खलु), तर्हि अद्य ये बालैः संस्कृतेन व्यवहरन्ति गृहेषु, तेषां मातृभाषा संस्कृतं कुतो न ?

लोकोपि परिवर्तनशीलः । हीब्रूभाषाविषये एवमभवत् इति निरदर्शनं न निगद्यते । तत्र स्थितिर्भिन्ना यथा भवान् आह ।

ये भारते संस्कृतपाठकाः सन्त्यद्य आबाल्यात् तथाकुर्वाणाः ते वर्धन्तां नाम ।

अन्यच्च, भारते कोटिशः जनाः सन्ति, शतशः भाषाः सन्ति इति । सन्तु नाम । एतत् सर्वं न प्रसज्यते यदा ते तेषां गृहे, तेषां परिसरे, तेषां बन्धुवर्गे शब्दान् प्रयुञ्जते खलु ।

नरेशः

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

2014-03-04 20:19 GMT+05:30 Naresh Cuntoor <nare...@gmail.com>:

यदि एतेषां बालानां मातृभाषा तर्हि आङ्ग्लभाषा भवितुमर्हति (नान्यागतिः खलु), तर्हि अद्य ये बालैः संस्कृतेन व्यवहरन्ति गृहेषु, तेषां मातृभाषा संस्कृतं कुतो न ?

​Will this make Sanskrit a native language as a linguistic entity​ or are we reviving a dead language artificially? Even now there are many speakers in Middle English or old English who use and understand them   Many may write and start speaking Latin artificially but it is never natural. Sanskrit was never a mother tongue for any one now and was not so the past. It might become artificially in the future as you have indicated. Thanks for allowing me to express a view on this topic

[venugopal gudimetla]

Sir, this is circular logic which might be pleasing to your own reasoning quite a linguistic feat really. I would request you kindly entertain me logic than quote "your master's voice" or that you studied by rote. If Samskritam existed for thousand years in India, does it mean that it spoken or was it because it became a part of every day life? it is pathetic that Indians have to rely on western scholars to be told about history of their languages were. It is evern more pathetic that "scholar" like your self peddle nonsense in the name of scholarship. No Body even claimed Hindusim as their religion, who would know some "scholars" who come questioning it. I pray you use logic and data presented than memorized learning. What is the point of quoting Mahbhashyam when people have presented you with data that there could be some Samskritam speakers whose mother tongue could be Samskritam? it is a more a statistical question. I hope you are able to appreciate what I am trying to ask you. If there are 41000 probable speakers, what is the probability that some could be calling Smaskritam their mother tongue. If I am presenting your data, why are you asking me to refer some linguistic book? do you mean to say that linguistics cannot be ever be wrong? and people whose mother tongue is indeed is Samskritam are deluded?

Regards,
Venu

[venugopal gudimetla]

Sir, could you please post links to original article? what is the source of this?

Regards,
Venu

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Let me now get into your line of thinking. Sanskrit existed for thousands of years because it is apart of culture it is the language of the elite. Sanskrit thus has an honored place.  Let me add I love Sanskrit hence I am on this list.

41,000 probable speakers out 100 crore population. Majority of the respondents would have said they speak sanskrit and understand not that it is their mother tongue. Even if it is their mother tonguedon't you think they have said so figuratively or they love the language they want to save it so they would have said so. Now does your stastics 24,000 out of 100 crore population make any sense not to me sorry.

Linguistics is  not based of this statistics or census survey conducted or government policy or enthusiasts over exaggeration of facts and arguments. I hope this helps.

Let me end it here instead of going to point by refutation method. Thanks again

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

[venugopal gudimetla]

Sir, You need to read more. I have heard this reasoning before, "Samskritam was language of Brahmins and those on horse back coming into India and gave it to Brahmins etc". The question is not about what threshold of numbers defines a language to be dead or alive. It is your and nhbhat ji's contention that there are no people existing whose mother tongue is Samskritam anymore. Now you moved your goal post and say that few people could be people could be speaking Samskritam as their mother tongue so what? What nonnsense, have a firm stand and define your position. Is it numbers of speakers which define a language as living or the nativity? please make up your mind.

And do read up more, to know if Samskritam was localized to Brahmins or was an universal language of the masses, please peddle your opinions as facts.

Regards,
Venu

[Vinodh Rajan]

On 4 March 2014 15:31, venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sir, could you please post links to original article? what is the source of this?

Regards,
Venu

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rss-wants-sanskrit-registered-in-census-1387878

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TDivJA-tv74J:www.sanghparivar.org/rss-wants-sanskrit-registered-in-census+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

V

[Naresh Cuntoor]

​Will this make Sanskrit a native language as a linguistic entity​ or are we reviving a dead language artificially? Even now there are many speakers in Middle English or old English who use and understand them   Many may write and start speaking Latin artificially but it is never natural. Sanskrit was never a mother tongue for any one now and was not so the past. It might become artificially in the future as you have indicated.

Zeroth, but you didn't answer my question. Can, according to you, the kid who grew up speaking English in an 'artificial' English environment (to use your formulation) - call English his mother tongue? If yes, does that logic extend to a Samskrit-speaking kid? If not, why?

 First, comparison to Middle English, old English or such is not the appropriate because an average speaker of English today won't be able to understand the older forms, unlike with Samskrit. That was the point I made earlier with reanimating the ancients. In fact, why don't you try that experiment? Try reading Beowulf in old English!

Second, regarding 'never a mother tongue in the past' - again, this has been discussed in the past and examples have been shown to support the counter-view - incidentally from the same Mahabhashya that was thrown by someone :)
 I am sure you can dig up the archives. But if one is only satisfied by pratyaksha pramaaNa, there isn't much to say unless we can figure out time-travel anytime soon. So I'll leave it at that.

Third, about the future. What is natural to one society may be quite artificial to another, no? Or vice-versa. Would you say that a kid who has grown up articulating his/her thoughts in Samskrit from the beginning is any less natural than you? Is he/she waiting for a certification from a linguist to say that he is speaking in the native? Or is he/she simply going about his everyday life and throwing tantrums like every other kid?

Coming back to the present - about census. Look, you and I know that there is a political element to this - 'political' not in a bad way, but in a sense that one wants to assert one's identity. We could talk about means and ends and what is justified till the chickens come home to roost or whatever it is that they do. But that is a response that evolved in today's context. And that's that.

Without referring to anyone in particular, I find it amusing that it is usually people who wax eloquently about India's pluralism and all that care so much about counting the number of people, only to deny things to groups that are deemed not big enough. Miniscule minority or not, people exist. At least in the case of Samskrit speakers, it is possible to create a group that is too big to ignore! That, to me, seems the point of responding the way they did to census.

Getting off my soapbox,

Naresh

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

​

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Naresh Cuntoor <nare...@gmail.com> wrote:

​Will this make Sanskrit a native language as a linguistic entity​ or are we reviving a dead language artificially? Even now there are many speakers in Middle English or old English who use and understand them   Many may write and start speaking Latin artificially but it is never natural. Sanskrit was never a mother tongue for any one now and was not so the past. It might become artificially in the future as you have indicated.

Zeroth, but you didn't answer my question. Can, according to you, the kid who grew up speaking English in an 'artificial' English environment (to use your formulation) - call English his mother tongue? If yes, does that logic extend to a Samskrit-speaking kid? If not, why?

​Yes kids whose parents speaks English is a English speaking kid, whose parents speak Tamil is a Tamil speaking kid. My point is Sanskrit was never a spoken language of the masses. It was an artificial language of the elite which bound the elite. So why force a child to learn Sanskrit in an artificial way?​

 Will that preserve our heritage. I don't think so. Sanskrit is best preserved if it learnt and thought the way any language should be learnt and thought. Whats the best method I will leave that out​ to experts.​

​ First, comparison to Middle English, old English or such is not the appropriate because an average speaker of English today won't be able to understand the older forms, unlike with Samskrit. That was the point I made earlier with reanimating the ancients. In fact, why don't you try that experiment? Try reading Beowulf in old English!

Second, regarding 'never a mother tongue in the past' - again, this has been discussed in the past and examples have been shown to support the counter-view - incidentally from the same Mahabhashya that was thrown by someone :)
 I am sure you can dig up the archives. But if one is only satisfied by pratyaksha pramaaNa, there isn't much to say unless we can figure out time-travel anytime soon. So I'll leave it at that.

​In linguistics, language death (also language extinction, linguistic extinction or linguicide, and rarely also glottophagy) is a process that affects speech communities where the level of linguistic competence that speakers possess of a given language variety is decreased, eventually resulting in no native or fluent speakers of the variety. Language death may affect any language idiom, including dialects and languages.​The most common process leading to language death is one in which a community of speakers of one language becomes bilingual in another language, and gradually shifts allegiance to the second language until they cease to use their original (or heritage) language. I quote wiki here​

​.​

 

​Mahabhashya was quoted more as Subhashita why take it literally?​

 

​Even If you take it literally it makes sense to the current debate does it not?​

Third, about the future. What is natural to one society may be quite artificial to another, no? Or vice-versa. Would you say that a kid who has grown up articulating his/her thoughts in Samskrit from the beginning is any less natural than you? Is he/she waiting for a certification from a linguist to say that he is speaking in the native? Or is he/she simply going about his everyday life and throwing tantrums like every other kid?

​Why Should a kid articulate or start thinking in Sanskrit why cant the kid do it in its own natural Mother Tongue​

 

​?​. The future of the language is best secured if all study our culture in a dispassionate way taking more scholay interests producing greater relavent books and rasing the standard of research.

Coming back to the present - about census. Look, you and I know that there is a political element to this - 'political' not in a bad way, but in a sense that one wants to assert one's identity. We could talk about means and ends and what is justified till the chickens come home to roost or whatever it is that they do. But that is a response that evolved in today's context. And that's that.

Without referring to anyone in particular, I find it amusing that it is usually people who wax eloquently about India's pluralism and all that care so much about counting the number of people, only to deny things to groups that are deemed not big enough. Miniscule minority or not, people exist. At least in the case of Samskrit speakers, it is possible to create a group that is too big to ignore! That, to me, seems the point of responding the way they did to census.

​I agree​

 

​ http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-rss-wants-sanskrit-registered-in-census-1387878​

​Trying my best to wind up this debate and concentrate on work to enrich and spread Sanskrit its glorious past and give bright hope for our future heritage. ​

[Naresh Cuntoor]

​Yes kids whose parents speaks English is a English speaking kid, whose parents speak Tamil is a Tamil speaking kid. My point is Sanskrit was never a spoken language of the masses. It was an artificial language of the elite which bound the elite.

Again - you are ignoring the point made about examples to illustrate Samskrit being used by ordinary folk, and not just by poets.

 

So why force a child to learn Sanskrit in an artificial way?​

 Will that preserve our heritage. I don't think so. Sanskrit is best preserved if it learnt and thought the way any language should be learnt and thought. Whats the best method I will leave that out​ to experts.​

I didn't talk about heritage. My limited point was about Samskrit and it's use as a language.

Isn't it the parent's prerogative to educate their children in the best way they see? And where is this outrage of yours when it comes to parents who are "forcing" children to learn English "in an artificial way"? The thing about goose and gander is that they are both geese.

 

​ First, comparison to Middle English, old English or such is not the appropriate because an average speaker of English today won't be able to understand the older forms, unlike with Samskrit. That was the point I made earlier with reanimating the ancients. In fact, why don't you try that experiment? Try reading Beowulf in old English!

Second, regarding 'never a mother tongue in the past' - again, this has been discussed in the past and examples have been shown to support the counter-view - incidentally from the same Mahabhashya that was thrown by someone :)
 I am sure you can dig up the archives. But if one is only satisfied by pratyaksha pramaaNa, there isn't much to say unless we can figure out time-travel anytime soon. So I'll leave it at that.

​In linguistics, language death (also language extinction, linguistic extinction or linguicide, and rarely also glottophagy) is a process that affects speech communities where the level of linguistic competence that speakers possess of a given language variety is decreased, eventually resulting in no native or fluent speakers of the variety. Language death may affect any language idiom, including dialects and languages.​The most common process leading to language...

How is this related to what I was saying? Random wiki quote?!

 

​Mahabhashya was quoted more as Subhashita why take it literally?​

 

​Even If you take it literally it makes sense to the current debate does it not?​

Mahabhashya as subhashita? I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

Taken literally, what you said previously does not make sense.

 

​Why Should a kid articulate or start thinking in Sanskrit why cant the kid do it in its own natural Mother Tongue​

 

​?​. The future of the language is best secured if all study our culture in a dispassionate way taking more scholay interests producing greater relavent books and rasing the standard of research.

So now I see a shift from 'native speakers' or 'mother tongue' to "own natural mother tongue". What next? "Really own, not yours, only my mother tongue?" :)

At any rate, last time I checked, India was a free country - relatively speaking. Parents were free to choose how to educate their kids.

I have been passionately dispassionate in making my points. Although it is difficult to resist being dispassionately passionate when arguments are ignored!

 

​Trying my best to wind up this debate and concentrate on work to enrich and spread Sanskrit its glorious past and give bright hope for our future heritage. ​

I am reminded of the quote, with one leg on the past, and another leg on the future, .... you know the rest!

Listen, I am not questioning anyone's commitment to Samskrit. And of course, I recognize that many, including you, want good things for Samskrit. So I see no need to belabor that point.

Naresh

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

If Sanskrit is spoken by ordinary folks it is because they have learnt it as language that doesn't mean Sanskrit is a language of a native speaker or it their mother tongue or is their own natural tongue all mean one an the same in common parlance.

If your limited knowledge was about language Then do you propose all parents start teaching their children in Sanskrit not in their mother tongue which sanskrit is not. Thanks for letting me know India is a free country by quating plitically motivated census figures  .

Ordinary folks are for me people Ido day to day business none of them speak in Sanskrit and will ever probably you might but if you do no one will ever understand you I hope you get my point.

Before you say I belabor my point pleas see the entire thread completely and you will know what I am saying.

This is a one line point I have been saying over and over again and yet you keep harping with your point either with a story in Sanskrit which made no sense or accuse me of changing my stance.

This is my point. Linguistically speaking Sanskrit is a dead language ( I have defined what a dead language is) except in Elite scholarly circles or with enthusiasts who want to speak in Sanskri

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

--

[Naresh Cuntoor]

I am sure you will agree that simply repeating a point does not make it true - especially when presented with a counter-example. In that spirit, would you consider the English-speaking child (from previous email) a native speaker of English? His parents aren't, and neither are people in his circle. If you consider him a native speaker of English, on what basis do you exclude a similar child who grow up with Samskrit from his childhood?

I am not proposing to teach anyone anything - all I am saying is that if some parents want to educate their children in a particular way (and I say this with no personal stake in this matter) - they should be free to do so without a sort of critical outrage.

As you said, please read the thread - I did not quote census figures. In fact, I set them aside.

I know quite a few ordinary folk with who are perfectly able to speak in Samskrit fluently and they have been doing so for a long time - some from prepubescent times. And our conversation is hardly ever about glorious heritage or whatever. This is not to say that Samskrit today is widely spoken. It is not. So what? Does a Tulu speaker stop speaking Tulu becomes 98.2% of the country does not understand his/her Tulu? (I just made up that number to make a larger point).

Some people want to keep Samskrit reserved for certain things they consider sacred, and that's their prerogative. Just as some people thought the idea of an opera in English was ludicrous. Operas were meant to be in Italian or such. But languages belong to people who use them. Rest is well, besides the point.

This will probably be my last post on this thread for the next couple of days at least. I have said what I have wanted to say in reaction to the discussion so far. Unless there is anything significantly new, I'll step off this thread.

Naresh

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

If Sanskrit is spoken by ordinary folks it is because they have learnt it as language that doesn't mean Sanskrit is a language of a native speaker or it their mother tongue or is their own natural tongue all mean one an the same in common parlance.

If your limited knowledge was about language Then do you propose all parents start teaching their children in Sanskrit not in their mother tongue which sanskrit is not. Thanks for letting me know India is a free country by quating plitically motivated census figures  .

Ordinary folks are for me people Ido day to day business none of them speak in Sanskrit and will ever probably you might but if you do no one will ever understand you I hope you get my point.

Before you say I belabor my point pleas see the entire thread completely and you will know what I am saying.

This is a one line point I have been saying over and over again and yet you keep harping with your point either with a story in Sanskrit which made no sense or accuse me of changing my stance.

This is my point. Linguistically speaking Sanskrit is a dead language ( I have defined what a dead language is) except in Elite scholarly circles or with enthusiasts who want to speak in Sanskri

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Your points are well taken and my view remains. Thanks for discussing. Now let me on as you prefer to move on Thanks

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

[Shreyas P. Munshi]

A line from Shri Naresh Cuntoor Sir's mail reads:

"Some people want to keep Samskrit reserved for certain things they consider sacred, and that';s their prerogative."

I think these are the people who  come in way of Sanskrit becoming the language of the masses. They call Samskrit 'the language of the gods', 'girvaaNaBhaashaa' etc which has the hidden connotation that this language is not for the common man. Unless this 'language of the gods' notion is wiped out, to me it seems, Sanskrit will never become the language of the masses. And today, perhaps because of this 'language of the gods' syndrome, wherever enthusiasts are teaching Sanskrit SambhaashaNa, the majority of students are Brahmins. I attened SamskritaBharati's 15 day residential Sambhashana course in 2010 near Delhi and found that, in my batch of some 50, only one was a non-brahmin, a bania from Somnath,Gujarat. 
Submitted in all humility...Shreyas

****************************************************************************************************************
Shreyas Munshi
shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197

Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.

Know More >

[Sanjay Chakravarty [Gmail]]

Ajitji,

 

I couldn’t help jumping into the debate. I feel as if my mother is being insulted.

 

Going by the definition of language death that you have mentioned

 

In linguistics, language death (also language extinction, linguistic extinction or linguicide, and rarely also glottophagy) is a process that affects speech communities where the level of linguistic competence that speakers possess of a given language variety is decreased, eventually resulting in no native or fluent speakers of the variety.

 

I think I see enough linguistic competence amongst the people on this list. They are able to converse in Sanskrit amongst themselves, and can do so orally if given a chance. Perhaps just 300 people, still a community. Artificial, maybe, still a community which wants to preserve the language as it has been. Period. संस्कृतम् अमृतम् चिरंतरमेव.

 

Was Sanskrit ever a living language? Instead of believing the western scholars, just as Nareshji says, I am more inclined to think by logic. That a language cannot survive for 5000 years without being part and parcel of everyday life. And that can be only when it is spoken everyday. If we say, it was an elitist language like English, where the mother tongue is something else but children are brought up in English today, well even English, to be living, has to be the mother tongue of some race. An elitist language cannot drop from the sky as one which belongs to no race on earth. Therefore, Sanskrit had to be the mother tongue of some race. If not in Bharat, whose mother tongue could it have been?

 

Languages metamorphose in 500 years. The English of 16^th century, as Nareshji says, is not the English of today. What makes us think that Sanskrit survived for millennia just by being an elitist language? I really like Nareshji’s points here. We cannot go back in history, so pratyaksha pramana is not there. Shall we ignore the anumana as well?

 

As I write, I also read your email signature, taken from the Geeta. It can equally well describe the Sanskrit language. अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणः

 

Warm Regards

Sanjay

[Phani Kumar]

Sir,You will forgive my inability to follow the drift of your thesis. I could follow the argument that sanskrit should be pulled down from its pedestal whether I see eye to eye with you on that or not. But I could not quite follow the point you were trying to make when you said that all participants save one in a certain course were brahmins. You think there ought to have been a prohibition against brahmins even If the participation in the course was voluntary, or no matter what you do only brahmins will participate in such courses?
Dont you think,sir, it is time we raised the level of this discourse?
Sent from Huawei Mobile

"Shreyas P. Munshi" <shreya...@rediffmail.com> wrote:

A line from Shri Naresh Cuntoor Sir's mail reads:

"Some people want to keep Samskrit reserved for certain things they consider sacred, and that';s their prerogative."

I think these are the people who  come in way of Sanskrit becoming the language of the masses. They call Samskrit 'the language of the gods', 'girvaaNaBhaashaa' etc which has the hidden connotation that this language is not for the common man. Unless this 'language of the gods' notion is wiped out, to me it seems, Sanskrit will never become the language of the masses. And today, perhaps because of this 'language of the gods' syndrome, wherever enthusiasts are teaching Sanskrit SambhaashaNa, the majority of students are Brahmins. I attened SamskritaBharati's 15 day residential Sambhashana course in 2010 near Delhi and found that, in my batch of some 50, only one was a non-brahmin, a bania from Somnath,Gujarat. 
Submitted in all humility...Shreyas

****************************************************************************************************************
Shreyas Munshi
shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197



From: Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 01:37:06
To: Samskrita Google Group <sams...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Sanskrit - 'Dead language'

Your points are well taken and my view remains. Thanks for discussing. Now let me on as you prefer to move on Thanks

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

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Naresh Cuntoor <nare...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am sure you will agree that simply repeating a point does not make it true - especially when presented with a counter-example. In that spirit, would you consider the English-speaking child (from previous email) a native speaker of English? His parents aren';t, and neither are people in his circle. If you consider him a native speaker of English, on what basis do you exclude a similar child who grow up with Samskrit from his childhood?

I am not proposing to teach anyone anything - all I am saying is that if some parents want to educate their children in a particular way (and I say this with no personal stake in this matter) - they should be free to do so without a sort of critical outrage.

As you said, please read the thread - I did not quote census figures. In fact, I set them aside.

I know quite a few ordinary folk with who are perfectly able to speak in Samskrit fluently and they have been doing so for a long time - some from prepubescent times. And our conversation is hardly ever about glorious heritage or whatever. This is not to say that Samskrit today is widely spoken. It is not. So what? Does a Tulu speaker stop speaking Tulu becomes 98.2% of the country does not understand his/her Tulu? (I just made up that number to make a larger point).

Some people want to keep Samskrit reserved for certain things they consider sacred, and that';s their prerogative. Just as some people thought the idea of an opera in English was ludicrous. Operas were meant to be in Italian or such. But languages belong to people who use them. Rest is well, besides the point.

This will probably be my last post on this thread for the next couple of days at least. I have said what I have wanted to say in reaction to the discussion so far. Unless there is anything significantly new, I';ll step off this thread.

Naresh

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

If Sanskrit is spoken by ordinary folks it is because they have learnt it as language that doesn';t mean Sanskrit is a language of a native speaker or it their mother tongue or is their own natural tongue all mean one an the same in common parlance.

If your limited knowledge was about language Then do you propose all parents start teaching their children in Sanskrit not in their mother tongue which sanskrit is not. Thanks for letting me know India is a free country by quating plitically motivated census figures  .

Ordinary folks are for me people Ido day to day business none of them speak in Sanskrit and will ever probably you might but if you do no one will ever understand you I hope you get my point.

Before you say I belabor my point pleas see the entire thread completely and you will know what I am saying.

This is a one line point I have been saying over and over again and yet you keep harping with your point either with a story in Sanskrit which made no sense or accuse me of changing my stance.

This is my point. Linguistically speaking Sanskrit is a dead language ( I have defined what a dead language is) except in Elite scholarly circles or with enthusiasts who want to speak in Sanskri

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.

Know More >

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Sanjay Chakravarty [Gmail] <sanjay...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ajitji,

 

I couldn’t help jumping into the debate. I feel as if my mother is being insulted.

​ I  have already expressed my desire to be out of this discussion as I have clearly said what i needed to covey. Yet you keep poking me. I never mentioned any ones mother being insulted here. If you are an emotional person how will it change facts? Please leave out rehoteric and come up with some good points i may then respond.​

 

 

Going by the definition of language death that you have mentioned

 

In linguistics, language death (also language extinction, linguistic extinction or linguicide, and rarely also glottophagy) is a process that affects speech communities where the level of linguistic competence that speakers possess of a given language variety is decreased, eventually resulting in no native or fluent speakers of the variety.

​

 I think I see enough linguistic competence amongst the people on this list. They are able to converse in Sanskrit amongst themselves, and can do so orally if given a chance. Perhaps just 300 people, still a community. Artificial, maybe, still a community which wants to preserve the language as it has been. Period. संस्कृतम् अमृतम् चिरंतरमेव.

​
 

​ Don't prattle without understanding what I said. Many who participated in this discussion are neither Linguists, Sanskritists or Indologists including me but I know linguistics well. You may heard about census report but have ever heard Linguistic Survey of India?. PLSI as a nation wide survey is being carried out by members of respective communities, writers, cultural activists, scholars of intangible heritage, practitioners of oral arts and traditions, responsible citizens interested in working out alternate ways of development and scholars who believe in maintaining organic links between scholarship and the social context. According to them the  number of Sanskrit speakers or people who wrongly claim Sanskrit as their mother tongue their numbers have increased ever since a politically motivated survey and census report was circulated

http://peopleslinguisticsurvey.org/

​

 

Was Sanskrit ever a living language? Instead of believing the western scholars, just as Nareshji says, I am more inclined to think by logic. That a language cannot survive for 5000 years without being part and parcel of everyday life. And that can be only when it is spoken everyday. If we say, it was an elitist language like English, where the mother tongue is something else but children are brought up in English today, well even English, to be living, has to be the mother tongue of some race. An elitist language cannot drop from the sky as one which belongs to no race on earth. Therefore, Sanskrit had to be the mother tongue of some race. If not in Bharat, whose mother tongue could it have been?

 

​

​The discussion was not about whether Sanskrit is artificial language or not That can be discussed in a separate thread.​

 But all I know it is an artificial language so whats new?​ 

 Mahabhashya was quoted in this context please read its message well. A linguistic entity can either be a living or dead language. An artificial language without it ever being a mother tongue of any can still be an age old language because of its usage in sacred and religious acts and purposes. May be if you make a loose definition of mother tongue your views fit in.​

 

Languages metamorphose in 500 years. The English of 16^th century, as Nareshji says, is not the English of today. What makes us think that Sanskrit survived for millennia just by being an elitist language? I really like Nareshji’s points here. We cannot go back in history, so pratyaksha pramana is not there. Shall we ignore the anumana as well?

 

​You have the right to consider and keep a view point its your choice and to express my views is my choice​.

 

As I write, I also read your email signature, taken from the Geeta. It can equally well describe the Sanskrit language. अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणः

 

 

​We are not discussing Gita or my signature line quotes here.​

 

​Don't pick upon unneeded details May i now say you mentioned Warm regards can regards be warm or cold.​

[Shreyas P. Munshi]

A line from Shri Phani Kumar Sir's email:

"You think there ought to have been a prohibition against Brahmins? "

No Sir. No Sir. On the contrary, I strongly believe that there can not be and should never be allowed, tolerated or encouraged, any type of prohibition or restriction on learning by any individual or a section of humans anywhere in the world, just as lower caste-upper caste labelling, and then behaving in that manner, and also making others to behave in that manner, should never be allowed. So, without going into historical elaboration which Dr  Ambedker has done in plenty in his writings, the point I was trying to make is that because of the elitist status given to Sanskrit by a section of the society, non-Brahmins do not easily volunteer for learning Sanskrit. They have a mistaken notion that Sanskrit is for Brahmins and not for them, and by tradition and inheritance, Brahmins do not need any persuasion for learning Sanskrit. One cant escape noticing that even in the fraternity in which we are communicating, the majority consists of Brahmins. And I feel that unless we propagate the idea among the common people that the language Sanskrit is like any other language and is fit for (and allowed to be learnt and used by) by all sections of our society, more so because Sanskrit by its very design is ever-modern and more computer-friendly, Sanskrit will never become the language of the masses that SamskritaBharati have envisioned. Of course nobody today prevents a non-Brahmin from  learning Sanskrit (everyone is welcome), but  to me it seems that there does remain a great need to motivate non-Brahmins to learn Sanskrit.  I thought the beginning could be made by wiping of the 'language of the gods' syndrome and calling it 'our language' or something like that which would make Sanskrit more inclusive. This was my humble submission as a beginning learner.
With profound regards...Shreyas

____________________________

Shreyas Munshi
shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197

From: Phani Kumar <phani...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:58:29
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Sanskrit - 'Dead language'
Sir,You will forgive my inability to follow the drift of your thesis. I could follow the argument that sanskrit should be pulled down from its pedestal whether I see eye to eye with you on that or not. But I could not quite follow the point you were trying to make when you said that all participants save one in a certain course were brahmins. You think there ought to have been a prohibition against brahmins even If the participation in the course was voluntary, or no matter what you do only brahmins will participate in such courses?
Dont you think,sir, it is time we raised the level of this discourse?
Sent from Huawei Mobile

"Shreyas P. Munshi" <shreya...@rediffmail.com> wrote:

A line from Shri Naresh Cuntoor Sir's mail reads:

"Some people want to keep Samskrit reserved for certain things they consider sacred, and that';s their prerogative."

I thinkthese are the people who come in way of Sanskrit becoming the language of the masses. They call Samskrit 'the language of the gods', 'girvaaNaBhaashaa' etc which has the hidden connotation that thislanguage is not for the common man. Unless this 'language of the gods' notion is wiped out, to me it seems, Sanskrit will never become the language of the masses. And today, perhaps because of this 'language of the gods' syndrome, wherever enthusiasts are teaching Sanskrit SambhaashaNa, the majority of students are Brahmins. I attened SamskritaBharati's 15 day residential Sambhashana course in 2010 near Delhi and found that, in my batch of some 50, only one was a non-brahmin, a bania from Somnath,Gujarat.
Submitted in all humility...Shreyas

****************************************************************************************************************
Shreyas Munshi
shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197



From: Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 01:37:06
To: Samskrita Google Group <sams...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Sanskrit - 'Dead language'

Your points are well taken and my view remains. Thanks for discussing. Now let me on as you prefer to move on Thanks

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

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Naresh Cuntoor <nare...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am sure you will agree that simply repeating a point does not make it true - especially when presented with a counter-example. In that spirit, would you consider the English-speaking child (from previous email) a native speaker of English? His parents aren';t, and neither are people in his circle. If you consider him a native speaker of English, on what basis do you exclude a similar child who grow up with Samskrit from his childhood?

I am not proposing to teach anyone anything - all I am saying is that if some parents want to educate their children in a particular way (and I say this with no personal stake in this matter) - they should be free to do so without a sort of critical outrage.

As you said, please read the thread - I did not quote census figures. In fact, I set them aside.

I know quite a few ordinary folk with who are perfectly able to speak in Samskrit fluently and they have been doing so for a long time - some from prepubescent times. And our conversation is hardly ever about glorious heritage or whatever. This is not to say that Samskrit today is widely spoken. It is not. So what? Does a Tulu speaker stop speaking Tulu becomes 98.2% of the country does not understand his/her Tulu? (I just made up that number to make a larger point).

Some people want to keep Samskrit reserved for certain things they consider sacred, and that';s their prerogative. Just as some people thought the idea of an opera in English was ludicrous. Operas were meant to be in Italian or such. But languages belong to people who use them. Rest is well, besides the point.

This will probably be my last post on this thread for the next couple of days at least. I have said what I have wanted to say in reaction to the discussion so far. Unless there is anything significantly new, I';ll step off this thread.

Naresh

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

If Sanskrit is spoken by ordinary folks it is because they have learnt it as language that doesn';t mean Sanskrit is a language of a native speaker or it their mother tongue or is their own natural tongue all mean one an the same in common parlance.

If your limited knowledge was about language Then do you propose all parents start teaching their children in Sanskrit not in their mother tongue which sanskrit is not. Thanks for letting me know India is a free country by quating plitically motivated census figures .

Ordinary folks are for me people Ido day to day business none of them speak in Sanskrit and will ever probably you might but if you do no one will ever understand you I hope you get my point.

Before you say I belabor my point pleas see the entire thread completely and you will know what I am saying.

This is a one line point I have been saying over and over again and yet you keep harping with your point either with a story in Sanskrit which made no sense or accuse me of changing my stance.

This is my point. Linguistically speaking Sanskrit is a dead language ( I have defined what a dead language is) except in Elite scholarly circles or with enthusiasts who want to speak in Sanskri

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.

Know More >

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

Samskrtam as a Language

This is strictly keeping aside the census, or other  Linguistic Survey of India or PLSI data issues raised in the thread- I have been with Samskrtam since my childhood. I have a bondage with her. But it is not that emotion speaking here-

Before applying dead language definition, one should also try applying living language elements to Samskrtam. 

I heard my Gurudeva speaking in Samskrtam. He speaks so fluently, never searching or stumbling for words. I also heard Shankaracharyas of Kanchi and Sringeri speaking in Samskrtam. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbDmqTFsUcY

There are many a vyAkaraNa scholars in my state and others as well, whom I have heard (because of some good deeds I must have done) giving proficient elaborations on different Samskrtam and non-Samskrtam subjects in beautiful heart filling Samskrtam. The interesting thing is that never have been to Samskrita Bharati clases. The language has not come to them artificially. It was from a tradition, a continuous paramparA. They got it from their gurus, and they from theirs. Still they manage to speak idiomatically. That means Samskrtam is not bereft of the power of being spoken as a natural language, even of does not come from mother, at early childhood. Though she comes later than one's mother tongue, she has capacity to fully become one.

 

Places where we find Samskrtam

Mathas were great centres of learning the academic Shastras. One example from that paramparA.. a vidvat sabhA where exams are conducted in Samskrtam-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyYvKA9ORi8

The sage of Kanchi was taught not only Vedanta but all academic shastras like logic, meemamsa, yoga etc. OK, considering their strong branding (as religious institutes), it is difficult for others to understand their academic value. Well, setting them aside, what about Vidyapeethas? My Tirupati Vidhyapeetha has many a Samskrtam scholars who fluently converse, give speeches in the Divine Language. They have never been to Samskrita Bharati classes and had speaking abilities even before Samskrita Bharati, or for that matter its maker, gave out first birth cry. (In fact the idea head of Samskrita Bharati himself originated from here.) Scholars here, from different language mother-tongued though, learnt her from very early periods of their lives, can write books, teach lessons, write poetry, sing songs, conduct quizzes, competitions in Samskrtam. One can find students learning, arguing, fighting, joking and even teasing each other in Samskrtam. New vocabulary is continuously building.. not just coined, but it is as good as that found in old texts. I just want to say, that like house hold speech (as cited by others in the thread), we have academic institutions as well, where Samskrtam as language fulfills all the conditions of a living language.

 

Considering the definition

She has been more alive than English - as the point has already been made. English of some 100 years back is unintelligible today. Even Old Tamil has same fate. But Samskrtam- NO. So can we strictly declare her dead? May be the answer lies somewhere in between when it comes to Samskrtam issue. She is not alive in terms of 1. Being mother tongue 2. Having Native speakers 3. Having certain number of population.

But she is not dead linguistically in the sense that she is 1. understood without help first hand with even bare knowledge -when one reads texts like Ramayana and puranas (unlike Kavyas which are artificial), 2. she flows with nuances on the tongue of anyone who learns her (experience of many a student who learnt her including me) 3. People create new ideas and works without artificial effort like we can see here in the avadhAnam-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3GnorRNjXE

4. There IS original literature unstopped, flowing like River Ganga amidst all these adversities, all these years in the form of many a Samskrtam periodicals, (http://sanskritdocuments.org/news/SanskritNewspapersandMagazines.html) mahakAvyas [http://www.sanskrit.nic.in/ASSP/Mahakavya.htm] There was a book published by Sahitya Academy which gave all post-independence literature in Indian languages, and one chapter was devoted for Samskrtam as well- It gives names of many Samskrtam original works!!

[Are all these Samskrita Bharati motivated or created or artificial? Are they not natural in some sense of the word? at least?] They are not just translated works 5. She has avicchinna parampara in atleast some places like mathas and vidyapeethas which have been holding her for us to this day – the same natural idiom very much alive, not at all connected with Samskrita Bharati or Sri Chamu Shastri in any way. (so – she is not “created” again like Hebrew)

 

Ever Spoken?

Coming to the question- her ever being a spoken language, yes- it is again unlike issue of Mother tongue and natural language, but ever very much spoken as we come across many such Panini sutras (उदीचामातः स्थाने यकपूर्वायाः ७।३।४६ - http://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tools/sarvanisutrani/7.3.46.htm उदीचाम् आचार्याणां मतेन यकारपूर्वायाः ककारपूर्वायाश्च आतः स्थाने यो ऽकारः, तस्यातः स्थाने इकरादेशो भवति। उदीचां ग्रहणं विकल्पार्थम्। इभ्यिका, इभ्यका। क्षत्रियिका, क्षत्रियका। ककारपूर्वायाः चटकिका, चटकका। ) which are meaningless is she were only a “written” language. Many sentences in Ramayana and Mahabharata have natural flowy idiomatic expressions, full of liveliness and vigour. We have arthashastra, subhashitas, jyotisha, ayurveda, pasushastra, ganitam and even kAma shastra- (do not know if there was a krodha shastra as well :) ) etc. books written in Samskrtam. Is it possible that writing books for a non-spoken language be practical? Why would everyone choose to write only in Samskrtam if none spoke her at all? She was never imposed on anyone like what happened during Non-Indian rulers' times with Parsi, Arabbi etc. No rulers imposed her as a language or her subjects (Yes- it happened with Buddhism during King Ashoka's rule - but they were Pali-ists and Prakritsits, not strictly Samskrtists) Nor was ever she made to be used inevitably like present day English (without knowledge of which one is not considered "Educated" at all!! So- indirectly imposing!!)

 

It must be a want of reason issue. I have not existed in those times (even if I did, would not be allowed access to those memories; even if I had access, I would have to answer many questions before people would be convinced), so I cannot answer. I only think in simple terms like observing– what we do today. We write books in English, other languages because we know there are people who speak them. One cannot just write so many day to day issues, life and worldly issues if she were not spoken in any point of time in history at all.

 

vyAkaraNa for a non-spoken language?

And what for will a vyAkaraNa be written? Can you write vyAkaraNa for a strictly a non-spoken language? Recently declared state Telangana has a Telugu (called Telangana) entirely different from what can be called as Andhra Telugu, and a professor I know has written first Grammar book for her. One cannot barely write a vyAkaraNa just like that for a bookish language. And it was not just Panini, but many others later wrote many grammars. Was it all for a non-spoken language? She would have died a natural death had she ever been only written, bookish, elite language.

 

Elite-brAhmaNa-priestly

So, here comes next issue- one more branding- that She is elite, brAhmana, priestly, ritualistic language alone; No- it is one of "created" impressions by haters of this language and country something done deliberately like AIT. Even if it did, then we should be happy that "elitists" "brAhmanas" and "priests" saved her for us, to this day!!!!

And she was never used by women is even more disgusting abhiyoga!!! No, there have been women authors in Samskrtam as well. There are even vedic RShikas!! We find women characters conversing in Prakrit only in dRshya-kavyas. That cannot be given as an evidence for women being non-Samskrtam. When we see Ramayana / Mahabharata/ Bhagavata there is no distinction for women’s language. (this is how I understood the issue) Hanuman only says- if I speak too polished, posh a language (because he was nava-vyakarana pandita) then Sita might confuse me for Ravana (as that fellow was good at all scholastics and put them aside conveniently)- not that she does not know Samskrtam. People did not want women to be burdened with knowledge affairs (because of many sensitive and prone areas in her life) and they had always non-academic things to perform more, so were less conversant and fluent in Samskrtam- that’s a different issue.

 

Mathas as they often are "branded", cannot be treated wholly as priestly. In the centres like Vidyapeetha, it is not always brAhmanas who learn her academically. In Vidyapeethas she is not limited to “priestly” affairs. In fact my Vidyapeetha has special center for non OC categoried students! And we all learnt the shastra in Samskrtam! vyAkaraNa etc. shastras are taught in Samskrtam medium strictly academically (to all castes, creeds and sects) and have nothing in common with “priestly” affairs. Initially I did not know much Samskrtam when I joined newly there, but once I started, I picked up in few days, and never found her unintelligible. Point to be noted is she was shastra level Samskrtam!! Yes, it is very much true that one who is conversant competent in an Indian language is 50% knowledgeable in Samskrtam. This is the experience of many a learner of Samskrtam- either Samskrita  Bharati way or another.

 

Present relevance of the Dead-Alive issue

Indian youth are running away to other countries because present generation always learnt that all science is Non-Indian origin. There is nothing worth in India. It is fact for them because they least know about Samskrtam. All Indian knowledge is preserved in language who belonged to her from time immemorial. The thinking, the vision, the content of those precious texts have been eclipsed because of Mecauley education system. And when Samskrtam was tried to make academic in modern ways, she suffered a death blow. So it becomes an issue of importance that not only that Samskrtam is alive, but she owns worthy a literature to make the whole world proud. One Bhagavadgita, one Ramayana can change the present want-of-peace, unrestful situation and ancient texts contain answers to many a problem of the world. Ayurevda, yoga, jyotisha are not merely bookish things, but they are applied sciences, tried, tested and proved by time immemorial. Every Samskrtam scholar is aware of these issues which need no elaboration. Calling one sweet, scholar-feeding and divine language as dead has resulted in great devastating state of lack of pride in youth and we are losing them. Many Science graduates, technology people, and modern sciences stalwarts are themselves turning to Samskrtam, looking for answers to their inquisitions. If Samskrtam remains sealed “dead” then not much work will be done with her and precious treasure of knowledge (still remaining in the unedited manuscripts) will always wait for discoverers.

 

A case in contrast-

Now coming to dead language definition, yes, it is completely applicable to Prakrit. Because lately I never heard anyone speaking, writing books or creating a flowy speech in Prakrit, (not even Paisachi, Magadhi Pali). (Pardon if I am missing something here. Let me know if anyone heard of it). So she may be a language being studied as a dead language and the definition completely applies to her.

 

That’s why I was puzzled, Keeping aside census datas, politics, efforts of revivals etc., I did not understand how a dead-language definition applies to Samskrtam. Without making the issue further complicated, may be the definition needs a re-consideration when it comes to Samskrtam?

Thankyou.

[Usha Sanka]

Samskrtam comes to Brahmanas natural way because they are related more and connected more to it through their rituals. Anything else can die easily, but not their rituals- fortunately. So many of the pooja, mantras are in that Divine language. They would naturally want to know the meaning,. and there is nothing wrong in it.

Coming to Devabhasha- it is language "for" the gods.. not just "of" the gods., if that word ever would describe her. (And why feel bad using devabhasha-? In fact we should be proudly speaking her.)

But it is not the actual intended sense of that word- deva-bhasha means a language that has divine element in her!! Her construction, her Grammar, her sciences are all inspired from the Divine. All sounds bear an energy and they are perfected in Samskrtam!! That's how Samskrtam words give power to the speakers. Each letter bears the power of a mantra if used properly..! That is why chanting some shlokas even will enhance brain cells for more memory and understanding powers. The language helps you penetrate deeper into your brains' unexplored areas even without your knowledge. Unfortunately there is no study taken up anywhere in these lines!! It is done for Music and other areas, but not Samskrtam because of these misconceptions and wrong notions "deliberately" induced into the mind of innocent non-brahmana Indians!! (Please note there is an issue called "colonizing" if you are familiar with that term!)

No body ever stopped anyone from learning. It was "natural" that others stayed away because there was nothing that connected them to Samskrtam or Shastras in their lives. We all know that our life styles are different. We have many disparities - and we are bound to accept. Noone created them. They are there since beginning of this earth- everywhere- where there are no brahmanas also!! 

People fought for Vedas being kept away from them!! Now they are on roads. How many buy them? How many read them? Out of that how many understand them? 

Pardon, please. But now things have changed. Please do not raise irrelevant issues here! Misconceptions can be there about anything and everything when they are deliberately introduced with missionary zeal by some people! I pray- do not fall prey to them.

[Naresh Cuntoor]

[Mod. note]

At this point, I think we have addressed this thread exhaustively. So let's step back and consider this thread closed. No more posts on this thread, please.

Naresh

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. Is it not high time academicians such as linguists pondered over the question of why there is a resistance to the use of terms such as “dead language” in reference to languages such as Sanskrit?  Is not this resistance based on the fact that all the languages that are brought under the category of ‘dead language’ do not possess the same characteristics and the users of this term are able to see that the term ‘dead language’ is not able to communicate the idea that Sanskrit has many distinct features vis-à-vis the other similar languages which have very few or no  mother tongue speakers ? 

 

2. The statements such as "most observers would agree that, in some crucial way, Sanskrit is dead" by western scholars such as Sheldon Pollock (2001) ("The Death of Sanskrit", Comparative Studies in Society and History 43 (2): 392–426, ) were contested by western scholars only.

 

 Hannender (2002) , for example, contests Pollock's statement by saying,

 

 "On a more public level the statement that Sanskrit is a dead language is misleading, for Sanskrit is quite obviously not as dead as other dead languages and the fact that it is spoken, written and read will probably convince most people that it cannot be a dead language in the most common usage of the term. Pollock’s notion of the “death of Sanskrit” remains in this unclear realm between academia and public opinion when he says that “most observers would agree that, in some crucial way, Sanskrit is dead”?( "On "The Death of Sanskrit", Indo-Iranian Journal 45 (4): 293–310(18)),

 

Hatcher, Brian A. (2007) too contests Pollock's idea in "Sanskrit and the morning after", Indian Economic & Social History Review 44 (3): 333–361.

 

3. Hannender's words, "Sanskrit is quite obviously not as dead as other dead languages " shows that it is this distinction of Sanskrit in comparison  to the other  languages that are declared as 'dead' that makes most people rebel against the characterization of Sanskrit as a 'dead language' .

 

4. The term 'dead language' and its definition in some books of Linguistics are not so sacrosanct and unalterable that the term and its textbook definition need to be applied to Sanskrit and Sanskrit should be called a 'dead language' under that definition.

 

5. The contemporary state of Latin and the contemporary state of Sanskrit, though appear to have some similarities that prompt scholars to group the two languages under one category, in fact have many differences.  Hence even if Latin is accepted as a 'dead language' by the experts in that language for any reason(s),  Sanskrit need not be accepted as a 'dead language' for those reasons.

 

6. It should be noted  that the call for rejecting the characterization of Sanskrit as a 'dead language'  is not an emotional call but a well reasoned out academic call for a more meticulous comparative study of languages which are presently grouped under the same category without such keen analysis.

 

7.  It will be more fruitful and useful in this regard to contribute information on how the creative works in Sanskrit continued , in fact, more vigorously during the more recent centuries (post 16th ) , in the fields of aarthika side of vyaakaraNa and the prakriyaa side of the same, in the fields of alankaara such as new theories of Chamatkara, new concepts of Naayikaa-bhedas, naayakabhedas etc. emerged, new creative works at least in the form of  translations of vernacular poetry new play-works (such as vyaayogas and bhaaNas), new Vedanta works such as Achala Vedanta , later Gaudeeya VaishNava works etc. ,  came out without the assumed interruption found in the analysis of scholars such as Sheldon Pollock. I request scholars in this list contribute all such information at their disposal, if necessary, in a different thread.

 

8. That way we can reassure to ourselves that groups such as BVP or Samskrita are not post-mortem study groups. 

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Monday, March 3, 2014 8:48:19 AM UTC+5:30, Usha Sanka wrote:

Namaste

For Sanskrit is taught as a ‘Dead language’ which is defined as a ‘ language no longer spoken by living people and in circulation in society’ (!) .   

Apart from discussions, opinions, points made individually in different contexts, is there a full-fledged paper/article/book/seminar where this issue has been academically dealt by any Samskrtam scholars? (Searched BVP and samskrita groups for the points-)

Was looking for something where the issue is systematically, academically and point-wise way analysed in these lines- 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Ushaji's original question was

 

Apart from discussions, opinions, points made individually in different contexts, is there a full-fledged paper/article/book/seminar where this issue has been academically dealt by any Samskrtam scholars? (Searched BVP and samskrita groups for the points-)

This blog gives many links to articles:

 

http://theanalyst007.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-indian-must-learn-dead-language-called-sanskrit.html

Nagaraj 
On Monday, March 3, 2014 8:48:19 AM UTC+5:30, Usha Sanka wrote:

[ken p]

Sure,Since Sanskrit is not easy to learn and communicate, it's a dead language but how about it's script? Are students taught Sanskrit in it's original script or in it's modification to Devanagari script? Hindi promoters may not try to impose Hindi but trying to propagate it's script through learning Sanskrit so people can read Hindi.

How many Devanagari scripted languages are slowly disappearing under the influence of Hindi /Urdu? Why?

Why all Indian languages are taught to others in Roman script but not in widely propagated Devanagari script?

One may read this article.

https://amrutmanthan.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/amrutmanthan_hindi-will-destroy-marathi-language_tamil-tribune_100728.pdf

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

ken p,

I could not understand this remark of yours <Are students taught Sanskrit in it's original script or in it's modification to Devanagari script? Hindi promoters may not try to impose Hindi but trying to propagate it's script through learning Sanskrit so people can read Hindi.>

Are you suggesting that there exists another script which is 'the original script' of Sanskrit?  As far as is known, Sanskrit has been written in the Devanagari script after the so-called 'BrahmI' script disappeared from use around the 8th century.  (I call it 'so-called' because that appears to be an invented name for a script in which all epigraphical material - stone-carved inscriptions, copper-plate grants - is written.  It was completely forgotten like the Egyptian Hieroglyphic, till rediscovered in the 1830's by the efforts of Prinsep and other workers.  What was its name of it by which its users called it is not known.  Also not known is how old it was and whether it too had a predecessor/s.)

So my question.  What is the 'original script' that you are referring to?  And are you suggesting that because Devanagari is not the 'original' script of Sanskrit, it should be given up and replaced by the Roman script so that the onslaught of Hindi over regional languages will be halted?

Devanagari-scripted languages like Marathi are certainly under the threat of being swept away by English and Hindi but the causes for it are to be sought elsewhere and not in the fact that Marathi also uses Devanagari as a script, just as Hindi does.. Marathi has been using Devanagari as its script since the earliest written records in Marathi known from the 9th century onwards.  Marathi lovers and speakers are not blaming Devanagari for its current decline, nor are they demanding the removal of Devanagari.  They are quite happy with Devanagari and will resist any attempt to replace it with anything else.

An attempt to replace all Indian scripts with the Roman script was made in the 1830s by Missionaries of Serampore and by a few evangelically-minded British officials in Calcutta.  This, they thought, would help spread of Christianity among the 'heathens'. However, this attempt was foiled by the staunch support given to Indian scripts by 'orientalists' like Prinsep  (This was at the time when, following Macaulay. a decision was reached that the Indian education system needs drastic changes and infusion of the English language and science.)

Arvind Kolhatkar

[Usha Sanka]

​

Since Sanskrit is not easy to learn and communicate, it's a dead language 

Is this your criteria to define a dead language? So, can we conclude, by your definition, that whatever language "is not easy to learn and communicate" is dead?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:12 PM, ken p <drk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sure,

​​

Since Sanskrit is not easy to learn and communicate, it's a dead language but how about it's script? Are students taught Sanskrit in it's original script or in it's modification to Devanagari script? Hindi promoters may not try to impose Hindi but trying to propagate it's script through learning Sanskrit so people can read Hindi.

How many Devanagari scripted languages are slowly disappearing under the influence of Hindi /Urdu? Why?

Why all Indian languages are taught to others in Roman script but not in widely propagated Devanagari script?

One may read this article.

https://amrutmanthan.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/amrutmanthan_hindi-will-destroy-marathi-language_tamil-tribune_100728.pdf

  

--

"-यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम"

[ajit.gargeshwari]

Haha!! On the same note English spellings are difficult so is English a dead Language. I think the discussion needs a focus

[ken p]

One may talk to college graduates of Sanskrit and English and see who is more fluent in communications in the in the field of study !

One may join this group to learn pronunciation key to difficult English spellings.

.

 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/saundspel/conversations/messages/67323

रविवार, 26 अप्रैल 2015 को 12:36:52 पूर्व UTC-5 को, ajit.gargeshwari ने लिखा:

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Ken

​,
​

I suggest you to please see the complete thread.  This thread is too old and we are not adding anything substatntial to the debate. If you are talking about spellings and difficulty or easy to learn (Which is relative

​ you may find Sanskrit difficult I find English Latin Greek difficult)​

) as a criteria to determine if a language is dead or not you are mistaken

​.​

Don't advise me which group I need to join I am glad you are in Samskrita group.​ Its you who raised the topic ease or difficult to learn a language is a criteria to determine if a language is Living or Dead

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/samskrita/PR2bj1VMfvw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.