Talk:Sanskrit

Archives

---

1. July 2001 – September 2005
2. October 2005 – October 2006
3. February 2007 – ??

This article needs citations

The article contains a lot of statements that are not attributed to any source. I previously made edits to note this, but Dbachmann reversed them, saying that my edits were "silly" and that the claims are "undisputed." Now, I am not aware that someone's opinion that some claims are "undisputed" is now a valid criterion for said claims to be accepted. I also note that there are very few references, and none at all for important claims (e.g., that Sanskrit dates to 1700 BCE, or that it is a national language of Nepal). I am not personally prepared to grant these claims as undisputed, and even if they are known from folklore, is it accepted practice not to cite when there is folklore? Yes, I accept that it is not necessary or good to moronically insert a citation every sentence, but having so few citations, and none at all for almost all claims which are simply made ex cathedra, does not make sense, unless Wikipedia just morphed when I was sleeping.

I don't want to get into an edit war with Dbachmann over this issue, but I do hope that the community will look at this matter carefully.

Thanks, shrao, 2007-06-08

Consistency (or an explanation) of the Romanization scheme here

In some places there are accents (Á) over some of the Sanskrit words. What do these mean?! These accent marks are not shown on the IAST article at Wikipedia. Are you even using IAST here? If you are, then please explain to me what these accent marks mean and why they are not shown on the IAST article. If they are not IAST, then please replace them with full IAST. YoshiroShin (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance I only notice the accents in the Numerals section. They are used in older Sanskrit, that is, Vedic Sanskrit. In transliteration practice various Vedic accents are used in both IAST and ISO 15919, but I do not have the knowledge to add the needed information to the IAST article. --Kess (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

we have dedicated Vedic accent article. --dab (𒁳) 11:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Southeast Asian languages originating from Sanskrit

Which languages in Southeast Asia originated from Sanskrit? Marxolang (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Southeast Asia? None that I'm aware. See Indo-Aryan languages. Grover cleveland (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

None. There are some words which have been borrowed because of Hinduism in South-East Asia, otherwise most of the languages in SE Asia like Thai and others are tonal and have minimal or NO influence of Sanskrit. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So wrong man. Thai is heavily influenced by Sanskrit, but it is not an Indo-Aryan language, rather it is from the Tai-Kadai language family. The reason so is because Thai is Tai-Kadai in structure and substratum, Sanskrit only influenced Thai in terms of loanwords. The same applies to almost all languages in Southeast Asia to as far as the Philippines. Kotakkasut (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears so; trivial inspection of randomly selected entries in wikt:Category:th:Sanskrit derivations yields many basic terms, of not strictly liturgical origin, at least several of which are in 207 Swadesh list. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you believe South-East Asian languages originated from Sanskrit, then by the same token modern Indo-Aryan langauges like Hindi, Punjabi, Bengali, Gujarati etc. all "originated" from Persian and Arabic, which is clearly not the case. Also that would make English a Romance or Greek language, just because most of its technical vocabulary comes from Latin and Ancient Greek. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 06:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. We can conclude that although Sanskrit has influenced most Southeast Asian languages through loanwords, there is no direct descendant of the language in the area. Ashiwin (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The anthropomorphic relation of "descendancy" in natural languages is in many respects stupid and misleading. In a lexical case the point is clear: In what way is the several millenia old Sanskritism in Thai, Javanese, Prakrit or Dravidian lesser to a cotemporal coinage formed by means of regular derivational morphology of the "inherited" words? Exactly none. On each of those you can trace later occurrence of regular sound laws. In both cases you have single point of entrance, where the word is lexically diffused from one source (heard it : used it : mediate it to peers). In a non-lexical sense (e.g. phonological, accentological, morphological and syntactical isoglosses) there is no clear cut either: isoglosess can spread accross dialect clusters which are not genetically related. Languages can even borrow entire paradigms (I've read about one language borrowing present tense endings from Russian). It is well-known that some accentual and tonal properties are areal features. In South Slavic dialects for almost every single isogloss you can possibly imagine that should represent some "common innovation" for some dialect grouping you can find speech of some godforsaken village that was not affected by it, or where it's provably secondary.

So what is the point? By utilising the ambiguous copula "to be" in forming statements such as "English is Germanic language" or "Persian is not a Semitic language" you are deliberately ignoring an entire domain of consideration. Languages are not like biological species where there is a discrete (DNA-controlled) line that separates them. By saying that some highly-Sanskritised Indo-Aryan dialect, or highly-Arabicised Persian is "not X" where "X" would be some hypothetical quasi-genetic grouping of languages based on arbitrary collections of isogloss bundles, you are just diminishing the immense culturally-induced effect the genetically-unrelated language donor has made onto them, possibly radically altering their morphophonological and syntactical structure, as if the linguistic-genetic relation of "descendancy" is something unalterable and eternal. It's been a long, long time since English ceased to be a "typical" Germanic language in phonology and lexis. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

see also Sanskritization. --dab (𒁳) 09:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's a confusingly long explanation. I'm sticking to Grover cleveland and Ashiwin's conclusion. Kotakkasut (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ivan, does this mean that you are advocating throwing out the whole concept of genetic relationships between languages? In that case we would have to delete every single article in Category:Language families and its subcategories. Seems a little extreme. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not throwing out, just discussing it as people seem to have some b/w picture of this. In lots of cases the traditionally-held grouping in low-level language families is not a real "genetic" grouping (no exclusive common innovations + relative chronology for the sound changes). For example, Slavic languages are still today traditionally divided into South, West and East. The the first two are provably not genetic groupings, as well as some of the dialectal clusters within them (of what I know for sure: Čakavian or Kajkavian systems, i.e. there was no e.g. Proto-Čakavian and all Čakavian idioms descended from Proto-Slavic, there is not a single exclusive isogloss that covers all Čakavian idioms and same very ancient isoglosses divide them, hence the needed timeframe for potential common innovation is basically non-existing). Morover, recent findings of Old Novgorodian letters revise a traditional view of East Slavic as a separated cluster in 10th-14th century (Old East Slavic period) and indicate a state of much greater dialectal diversity. A major PIE subgrouping—the Baltic languages—is itself prob. not a genetic grouping but a "remnant" (reconstructing Proto-Baltic from Proto-Balto-Slavic has many problems).

Schelicherian Stammbaum model is only applicable in cases of clear-cut scenarios of isolated communities, so you get a non-empty set for the territorial intersection of all isoglosses that operating on all points of territory over the course of time. In all the other cases you get some pseudo-random (geography, prestige..various non-deterministic factors) spread of innovations, often across language boundaries.

cf. also Mixed_languages#Mixed_languages - is language with e.g. prevalently (>95%) Greek lexis but with Turkish inflectional and derivational morphology an Indo-European or Turkic? Should the fact it was originally Turkishised Greek or Hellenicised Turkish influence the answer to that question? Is the e.g. highly-Arabicised Persian speech much more intelligible to the speaker of Arabic more "close" to Semitic Arabic or some of its close "genetic" relatives like Ossetian, or more distinct like Hindi? What I'm saying that it's pointless to speak of some "close affinity" taking into account the state of affairs 3 millennia ago, and not recent ones that are somehow "artifical" like loanwords or loan-morphemes, by intensity much more greater in relatively recent historical period when the coinage of modern terms began and is affected by external factors such as media, schooling, religion.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Peacock terms

There are several glorifying phrases added without ANY factual substantiation or just about anything.

• What is this nonsense about Sanskrit being spoken in Pakistan, Korea and China? There is a difference between 'spoken in' and Buddhism's 'liturgical language' being Sanskrit, influencing China. Sanskrit has NOT influenced or changed Chinese (which is Tonal in the first place), Korean (which is a language isolate) or in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Urdu is the ONLY official language and even Punjabi, Sindhi and others are only recognized languages).

• 'as the learned language'

Many more. The Wikipedia page has to only mention that Sanskrit is being revived. Please do not make use of this page to revive Sanskrit or any other agenda. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 02:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, 'spoken in' in the infobox modified since it is not 'spoken' as a liturgical language in any Buddhist areas but texts are only written. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that such statements are inaccurate and should therefore be edited out unless backed by reliable sources it seems like an overreaction to give the entire article a heading of "peacock terms". By all means highlight the relevant/offending sections and call them "peacock" if you wish but I can't see how everything else amounts to a "revival" or glorification agenda. It seems a bit unfair as I have found the article generally very informative, comprehensive in scope and mostly very neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.36.248 (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

An article does not have to made up of only Peacock terms for that to be subject to this inspection. Also, informative articles can also have peacock terms used in them. So I am putting the tag back on, and I will clean up the Peacock terms if anyone is willing to help. Thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 02:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The article as pointed out before, in this same section, had nonsense about Sanskrit being spoke in Pakistan and all that. Neither did it have citations nor was it to provide information, just promoting a subject matter baselessly. The article has been improved slightly, however still seems to only promote the subject matter. Even normal information is being spiced up to make it look like a propaganda article. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 02:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sudarsansn, some time back there was an disconcerted, but nevertheless stormy tirade from some editors who wanted to insert the phrase that Sanskrit is a "South-Asian language". When pointed out that there is government-approved acrimony against it in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and a near concentration only in India and Nepal, they whimpered away. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean by the use of peacock terms and promotion agenda, there are several such ones here. Removal of the tag is not substantiated in talk page, the reason for posting is clearly mentioned here. This might have to be taken notice of by the administrators. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I see more and more edits being made to baselessly promote the subject matter, one look at the edit history of the article will make it evidently clear

• "the figurative presiding position accorded to all forms of Sanskrit" (??)
• "being the oldest and most archaic stage preserved, its oldest core dating back" (Why this extreme redundancy?)
• "and it has significantly influenced most modern"

I see only the kind of edits pointed out by User IAF above

- [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, may I ask you to tag the offending passages with an inline {{dubious}} (or else just remove them) instead of tagging the entire article with a less than helpful {{peacock}}? answering your points:

• "the figurative presiding position accorded to all forms of Sanskrit"-- I agrse this is bs.
• "being the oldest and most archaic stage preserved, its oldest core dating back" -- this is due to the difference of Vedic Sanskrit in general and Rigvedic Sanskrit in particular. There is a millennium between the "oldest core" of Rigvedic Sanskrit and late Vedic Sanskrit, and another millennium between late Vedic Sanskrit and Kalidasa.
• "and it has significantly influenced most modern Indian languages" -- well, it has, just like Latin and Greek influenced most modern European languages.

--dab (𒁳) 08:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is very simply this, there are too many ones, like those were the ones I saw in like one minute. There are several others, like almost every paragraph has about five or six of them. The tag is being removed because it is 'less' helpful but the point that is lost is that that is the most descriptive one to be used.

Based on your point Dbachmann, have you removed all the peacock terms and the tag in one go? Or at least, if you are interested, we, and other interested users, can clean it, giving it a time span of 2-3 days. Let me know, thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Articulation

It seems that the Sanskrit article, the Phonology section could benefit from a subsection on Articulation (s. http://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tutorial_wikner/index.html, for example).

Or maybe a new, specific article on Sanskrit articulation.

--Klimov (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoken languages

Sanskrit is NOT spoken in China, Nepal, Pakistan and other areas. It is not even spoken in India except for one hypothetical district with 3000 speakers. This was the issue raised in the Peacock terms section. Also, litturgical languages are NOT spoken languages, it is only the language in which the religious text is written.

People come here to glorify and revive Sanskrit, Wikipedia is not to be used for agenda and revival but citing information. Period. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 02:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So you don't think that in any of those areas where Sanskrit is used as a sacred language that Sanskrit is spoken at all? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It is used only for religious function. So Hindu priests and gurus often chant verses in Sanskrit and read the sacred texts in Sanskrit, but I doubt they speak it generally. It would need a source if that were the case. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have attended a course on spoken samkritam and have friends who went and studied the living sanskrit in the villages where it is spoken as a common language. It seems to be an old fashion to call Sanskrit 'dead' just to make it similar to Latin I guess. Wikidās ॐ 10:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably. I also watched a youtube video where there's this illiterate 6-year old girl not knowing anything about eka-vacana and bahu-vacana and obviously knowing the difference between singular and plural of Sanskrit nouns she uttered ^_^. I am really interested how far the tradition of vernacular spoken Sanskrit goes in the past: is it uninterrupted from Pāṇinian times, or just a result of subsequent cultivation of well-minded peasants by a few Brahmins that were not so obsessively possessive on "deva-bhāṣā" ? If this former is the case, then the things are radically different than in the case of Ancient Greek or Latin, who ceased to be utilized for any kind of conversation > millenium ago (even though people wrote books in them, and cherished them, but strictly as literary languages). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit debates were a common place just 300 years back, and poetry was written and recited not long ago. There is a huge wave of interest in spoke Sanskrit in recent years. At this pace it could become more of a spoke language then Gaelic Language at present. Yes people speak Gaelic but it is in a similar state to what you have described abpve:-) still its a living language. Completely different thing is the classical Sanskrit. Since the end of 17th c classical Sanskrit is not used for public debate and thus became less of a spoken language. Before that the debate was a major cultural element almost a 'theatre' level performance and was widespread. Now only a few villages (size of Gaelchta areas) has living language. Bleeding Mogul rule. Wikidās ॐ 15:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not just the Muslims that made spoken Sanskrit in decline. Even 1500 years, Pali and Prakrits were very common. Most Buddhist and Jain texts are in these languages, not Sanskrit. By then, only the Brahmins would have known Sanskrit. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

But the original purpose of this discussion was regarding countries other than India. There may be a few villages left which still speak Sanskrit in India but it is completely liturgical among other countries which used like South East Asia. So the infobox should only say "Spoken in India" unless somebody can pull out a source from somewhere. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

DaGizza, you are right. It is not 'spoken' anywhere else. Wikidās ॐ 20:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit stopped being a mother-tongue before the Buddha's time. Classical Sanskrit never was. Mitsube (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

let's just say it is spoken in the Indian subcontinent. The 1947 borders are irrelevant to this. Liturgical languages aren't spoken as a first language, but they are, of course, spoken. Already, as hinted at by the term, in liturgy. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot just 'say' it is spoken in the subcontinent. Borders are very much relevant, how can they be redrawn to the point before 1947 just to make it sound bigger. It is marginally spoken ONLY in India, not in the Subcontinent (which includes Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Bhutan, etc). Liturgical languages may be spoken, but do not have to be spoken. Moreover, Sanskrit is used only mantras, shlokas kind of things and except for a dubious citation about some random village in Karnataka, is not spoken anywhere. Even if so, we can believe in the number cited and it has 49,000 odd speakers.

Please do Sanskrit revival elsewhere and come and write about it here, do not revive it here. Thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

edit with care

this article is very vulnerable: It has a long history of development, and it has been contributed to by many people who actually know about the topic. Sadly, it seems to attract a lot of "improvements" on the part of editors with insufficient knowledge of the topic [1] who inexplicably are always convinced they know better. Any unilateral change of long-standing, discussed, stable content needs to be viewed with suspicion. In the light of all this, permanent semiprotection would be best. The chance of article improvement by drive-by editors adding "corrections" is negligible. --dab (𒁳) 13:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but also see [2]. As far as I can see, that's an unsubstantiated POV. Sanskrit (or Classical Sanskrit) was not invented or created or defined by Panini. He wrote a grammar for it, the only extant grammar among a dozen others named by him prior to his time, see Schools of Sanskrit grammar#Preceding_Eleven_Schools. Kindly stop Mitsube from indulging in unconstructive edit-warring and POV pushing. ­ Kris (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

if this is your only concern, we can discuss the phrasing. The fact is that these "Eleven Schools" are only known via Panini. Panini's work is the oldest surviving grammar of Sanskrit. It is undisputedly true that he had predecessors, only their work has been lost. I would prefer the phrasing "as laid out by" over "as defined by" myself, but this is a detail and open to bona fide discussion.

so, would you be satisfied if we replace "as defined by Panini" by the more agnostic "as laid out by Panini"? dab (𒁳) 18:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What about your ad-nauseum reverts without giving any specific reasons? ­ Kris (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes the earlier statement about Panini (before Mitsubi's revert) was good enough. ­ Kris (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

>>Any unilateral change of long-standing, discussed, stable content needs to be viewed with suspicion.<<
No, that is just your mentality. You need to see what those changes are and see what the damage (if any) is.
>>The chance of article improvement by drive-by editors adding "corrections" is negligible.<<
So I became a drive-by editor and the chances of me making any improvements is negligible, so you can flex your muscles and revert all my edits just because of your baseless suspicions? ­ Kris (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are acting like a drive-by editor, and you need to respect sourced material. Mitsube (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit became a secular language of philosophy and culture after Panini. Mitsube (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you can try pushing that POV as hard as possible, Panini was just "one" popular sanskrit grammarian, thats all. ­ Kris (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no replies from user:dbachmann for his article-wide reverts based only on his suspicions rather than a careful analysis on whether each of my contributions were damaging the article or helping its improvement. I dont know if that is a case of bullying members like me, together with his above interesting adjectives to describe me. ­ Kris (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You raised a valid point. I gave you a suggestion for a compromise phrasing. Instead of reacting, you immediately take the discussion elsewhere. If you want to continue this discussion, you'll need to focus on article content, point by point. So please stop testing people's nerve and start contributing in good faith. No, Panini was not just "one" popular sanskrit grammarian, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Already your grammatical mistake in the diff I link to above shows that you have no detailed knowledge of the topic. So why don't you just limit yourself to constructive suggestions and stop the antagonism. dab (𒁳) 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have enough knowledge on Panini to talk about his contribution. To modern scholarship, Panini might appear to be the most important sanskrit grammarian, only because we dont know who the others were before him. It was a long tradition of grammar, and Panini himself acknowledges that. Most of what we credit to Panini were not his inventions. Despite what you might think, Panini's grammar was descriptive (not prescriptive), and there are enough mainstream linguists who attest this view. Also what you described as a grammatical error on my part is formed by your own ignorance and prejudice. If you know better you can try finding a saMskRtA vAk anywhere, it should be saMskRta vAk, because this is convention. Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts without analysing whether my work on the article is constructive or desructive? I have no need or intention to antagonize you, but you are trying to play the bully with me, using words like "drive-by" editor etc and making total-reverts of my work without any basis. ­ Kris (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you note the difference between the saṃskṛta an adjective and a noun? vāc (nom. sg. vāk) is feminine, thus the -ā in qualifying adjective.

Pāṇini (or whoever signed the works under that name, regardless of whether they were his own inventions, result of a continual refinement during the history by a number of predecessors - all of which is speculative as very little known for sure even for Pāṇini himself, let alone for his predecessors), from today's perspective, did the capital work regarding the codification of what we today refer to as "classical Sanskrit". It is likely that he described his mother tongue (hence it was descriptive, but conditionally speaking - only in synchronic context), or [more likely IMHO] the archaic Brahmin speech, but his work was prescriptive and dominating in terms of defining "proper Sanskrit" for all writers afters him. The term prescriptive refers to role of a work as defining some kind of standard language - an abstract role model one should strive to attain in his writing. The term descriptive refers to a way that e.g. grammar or dictionary is written - describing spoken language, not trying to e.g. invent words that are not spoken, but are necessary in order to describe some regular morphological process. As far as the latter point is concerned, the answer is no - Pāṇini and other grammarians invented e.g. verbal roots in order to explain etymologies for some nouns (cf. in MW dictionary notes for the roots √al, √ṇa, √dhiṣ, √naj, √nīl, √paṇḍ, √parṇ, √pal, √pall, √puṇ, √pur, √bid, √maṭh, √mark, √maṣ, √vaṭ, √śaś, √sakh, √sī, √stu, √stūp, √hal), or invented meanings or nouns themselves to account for e.g. lost or secondary meanings preserved in compounds or whatever appears to be some kind of derivation. So the terms descriptive and prescriptive are not necessarily in a collision. What must be emphasized is the absolute authority of Pāṇini's work in later times; saying that he was just "one popular Sasnskrit grammarian" would be a gross understatement of his influence. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ivan. To say that Panini was just another grammarian is silly. Contributors whining about their edits getting reverted should STOP editing Wikipedia as it is a gradual accumulation and compilation of ideas that have come-by, and NOT 'driven-by', owing to changes made to the articles. Such contributors who crib about the authority of others should first analyze that the authority is in the existing Wikipedia standards and not in a self-proclaimed sense of 'I-know-Panini-he-was-my-neighbor' POV authority. One should stop making absolutely immature statements like 'I know Panini' (as if he were one's neighbor), 'ignorance and prejudice', etc when it is patently obvious that user Srkris is the one driving-by to drop POV parcels. Some more rewording and rephrasing needs to be done and it will be done. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments made by user Srkris who is whining about personal attacks: "which ignoramus altered this?", "formed by your own ignorance and prejudice", "Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts ". User: Srkris warned about personal attacks: WP:CIVIL - BE CIVIL!! - [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we need a separate main articles?

Do we need separate main articles for each of this article's sections to reduce the article's size and make it better organized and meaningful? ­ Kris (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

the article is already WP:SS. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. dab (𒁳) 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We have separate article already for Vedic Sanskrit, Sanskrit grammar, Sanskrit phonology, Sanskrit revival, etc. If others sections like history grow large enough such that they they no longer adhere to WP:SS, separate article will be created for them in due course. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly WP:POVFORK. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

what, pray, is a pov fork? By "this", you mean this article? So what is it a cfork of? You are not making sense. dab (𒁳) 17:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand what it means, read what's in the link for anything to make sense. The idea of creating articles out of sub-sections of a bigger article to push POV is POV fork. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 00:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian Religions and the Indian Subcontinent

Fact 1:Indian Subcontinent does NOT mean India. It includes Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Burma, Sri Lanka and Maldives. Sanskrit is NOT spoken in ANY of these countries.

Fact 2: It is NOT the liturgical language of Indian religions, which again is not Hinduism alone. It includes Ayyavazhi, Sikhism, etc. It is one of the liturgical languages of Hinduism and Buddhism, since several core texts of even these religions are in different languages.

Do not enlarge the labels just to make it sound bigger. We cannot say that Sanskrit is spoken in the Eastern Hemisphere just to make it sound bigger and that India is in the Eastern Hemisphere. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit is almost never spoken by Buddhists. Texts written in Sanskrit are almost exclusively used in translation. Mitsube (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Firstly, it is not 'spoken' anywhere, in the strictest sense of conversations or casual talk, except for that dubious claim about some speakers. But even the benefit of doubt can be given that such a large country may have 50,000 speakers. To extend it to a Subcontinent or say that Hindu or Buddhist Priests talk to their 'devotees' in Sanskrit is pure nonsense. As mentioned, do not inflate numbers and use of adjectives to do revival here, the POV Editors here do it elsewhere and then come and report it here. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 10:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The data on the native speakers is based on the census. while it is correct that it is spoken only in some limited areas of india, not pakistan etc:) Wikidās ॐ 10:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, indeed. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor correction, Sanskrit is partially a liturgical language in Sikhism. There are some Sanskrit verses in the SGGS. But I still agree with your general argument. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 21:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The presence of some Sanskrit verses only indicates its relationship with other Dharmic religions and SGGS is written in Archaic Punjabi. Thanks for the mention though. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 00:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course sanskrit is spoken in Nepal. We have studied the language in our primary school and we have got several governmental institutes those teach Sankrit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzmand (talk • contribs) 11:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys know the difference between official language and scheduled language?

Sanskrit is one of the 22 scheduled languages of India not official you fool!!!!

Sanskrit is spoken in Nepal as well!!!!

Whats wrong with these Indians here... what do they want to prove?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzmand (talk • contribs) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it that this user is still around with all the blanking, nonsense, a ton of warnings and blocks?? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he is blocked for good now if you check the block log. He may create sockpuppets though just to annoy us further. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gizza, yes, I am waiting to see a sockpuppet pop out of nowhere now. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 06:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah suckers...if somebody is questioning the authenticity of the bullshit you write here then he is the culprit... nice tradition you guys have here.. Hats off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.166.40 (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism of Infobox contents

The "spoken in" field in the infobox of this article should specify (1) Indian Subcontinent or South Asia, and (2) Southeast Asia because Sanskrit is a historical natural language evolved from Vedic Sanskrit and was used across the Indian Subcontinent (and elsewhere, such as Gandhara, Kamboja, and South-East Asia) for significant periods of time. These places had Indianized kingdoms and are included within the term Greater India. It doesnt matter if it is not spoken or recognized as an official language anywhere today. ­ Kris (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

how about just linking Greater India? The question is rather futile, since it is a literary language not natively spoken anywhere. dab (𒁳) 17:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

All natural languages have to be natively spoken somewhere at some point of time. Sanskrit was spoken natively wherever it evolved into prakrits later. It also remained in use side by side with the prakrits (but was later retained as a native language only by the brahmins till the early part of the last millenium). The question here is not whether it was spoken natively or non-natively. ­ Kris (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested to see a source on Sanskrit being a mother tongue (of any group) after 500 BCE. Mitsube (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The infobox should specify where it is spoken today, not where it was spoken a thousand years ago. Since by that token, we should specify the language spoken in Canada as Cree, Metis and Inuit instead of English or French. This is blatant POV nonsense. Do not enlarge the labels just to make it sound bigger. We cannot say that Sanskrit is spoken in the Eastern Hemisphere just to make it sound bigger and that India is in the Eastern Hemisphere. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 00:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

POV pushers may disagree, but the logic is that that for a dead language, its historical geographies make more sense than current geographies. ­ Kris (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is patently obvious as to who is the POV pusher here. Enlarging labels is POV, citing where it is spoken today is what is required in the Infobox. Historical geographies seem to make sense only for the POV garbage that is being pushed here. Maybe we should write Eastern Hemisphere to push more. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 19:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Srkris is hellbent on enlarging the labels. He once again replaced it as Indian Subcontinent in spite of the rebuttal here and is now enlarging the Indian Religions label. Sikhism and Jainism have Sanskrit words by virtue of being Sanskrit based languages, they are NOT written in Sanskrit and their liturgical languages are NOT Sanskrit. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Jainism relied on Sanskrit far less than Buddhism, see the link on my userpage. Mitsube (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Srkris in that historical geographies are more important for quasi-dead languages like Sanskrit. But that means it wasn't spoken in these countries, but just a liturgical language. The best solution would be to add a "Spoken in" and "Liturgical language" section in the infobox. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How did you come to the conclusion that Sanskrit i.e Old-Indo-Aryan was never spoken?­ Kris (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkis is partially correct - there was a period when Sanskrit (in pre-Pāṇinean non-codified sense) was spoken vernacular, for most practical purposes Vedic Sanskrit being equal to the Late Proto-Indo-Aryan. Dialectal stratification between the western and central dialects is even discernible, even within the Ṛgveda itself! Now, to what extent exactly was the geographical distribution of spoken Vedic Sanskrit (in supra-dialectal sense) different to that of "Vedic Prākrits" (Indo-Aryan dialects ancestral to other prākrits)—I have no idea. However, dumbing down Sanskrit usage and expansion as some mere "liturgical language" in post-Vedic times would be a severe understatement and PoV, just as much as it would be to claim that Sanskrit is spoken anywhere where it's not. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit was, and is, of course, spoken, but it was by definition never a vernacular. This article focusses on Classical Sanskrit. The question of dialectal traces in Vedic Sanskrit should be discussed at Vedic Sanskrit. The seminal study of this is Witzel (1989), which has been referenced there for ages, but I warn you that it is all quite speculative. It is a misleading anachronism to speak of "Sanskrit in pre-Pāṇinean non-codified sense": the proper term for this would be Old Indic. This would include the early Indo-Aryan dialects ancestral all prākrits as well as to Sanskrit proper. This is not the topic of this article. The Old Indic vernaculars of which Sanskrit was the standard register no doubt existed, but they are unattested. The surprising thing isn't that vernaculars of 1000 BC were lost -- the exceptional thing is that anything has survived. The fallacy is, of course in Srkris' "Sanskrit i.e. Old-Indo-Aryan". These aren't synonyms, even though Sanskrit is the only attested Old Indic dialect. Discussing the question of "Sanskrit as a mother tongue" is like discussing "Classical Latin as a mother tongue". Classical Latin wasn't a mother tongue, Vulgar Latin was. In contrast to Old Indic vernaculars, we have some records of Vulgar Latin, but that's the only difference.

No, Ivan, "Sanskrit usage and expansion(huh?) as some mere 'liturgical language' in post-Vedic times" is not "a severe understatement and PoV", it happens to be the definition of "Sanskrit". You keep ignoring that "Sanskrit" is short for samskrta vak, which translates to "refined speech" as opposed to mere vak "speech". Asking "is Sanskrit spoken natively" is like asking "is refined, literary English spoken natively". The answer is no, you need to get a full education before you will be able to speak it. --dab (𒁳) 18:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

this is relevant to this discussion, or "Persistent Vandalism of Infobox content" how? This justifies the reversion to India in the infobox how? --dab (𒁳) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I mistook this to be also a discussion about the first line of the article. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 19:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I though we were discussing also Sanskrit in a sense Vedic Sanskrit, which is here apparently treated as "Old Indic". They are not exactly two "different languages" but whatever. The infobox should then more explicitely state the difference between the classical language one had to learn and master to be proficient in (as non-mother-tongue), and the earlier spoken and closely related Old Indo-Aryan vernaculars including Vedic ones which also contribute to the corpus of Sanskrit literature, and are also covered by they term Sanskrit in a more wider sense. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, Classical Sanskrit is not merely Panini's dialect, but also includes the language of the whole corpus of non-vedic Sanskrit literature. Some of these (example the language of the epics Ramayana and Mahabharata) is not in Paninian Sanskrit. There are scores of other documents (like for example the Nirukta and Nighantu, which are composed in an intermediary stage between vedic and classical sanskrit. All these (after vedic but upto paninian sanskrit) are called classical sanskrit. Just as how you claim Sanskrit is not the same as Old-Indo-Aryan but just an OIA dialect, classical sanskrit is also not synonymous with Panini's dialect as represented by his grammar. Patanjali in his Mahabhasya ("great commentary" on Panini), clearly mentions that even in his time (c. 2nd BCE) there were many Brahmins who didnt need to study sanskrit to speak it perfectly as a native language, and it was clearly therefore natively spoken (albeit by a minority) even till the turn of the christian era. ­ Kris (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian Religions ?

Indian Religions includes Sikhism, Ayyavazhi and Jainism and the core texts of these languages are NOT in Sanskrit. A liturgical language, is a language that is cultivated for religious reasons by people who speak another language in their daily life. Sikhism, Ayyavazhi and Jainism do NOT use Sanskrit for religious reasons as in the case of Shlokas, Mantras for Hinduism. Their texts having Sanskrit words does not mean it is in Sanskrit. Even William Shakespeare used Latin phrases in his plays, it does NOT mean that Shakespeare wrote in Latin. STOP enlarging labels to make them look bigger. First, it was POV nuisance with Indian Subcontinent and now it is enlarging the label for religions. Sheer POV nonsense. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 19:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this patently obvious? Labels are being enlarged to make everything sound bigger? First, it was South Asia vs Indian Subcontinent, next it was Indian Subcontinent vs India, now it is Indian Religions. Why not just say Eastern Hemisphere and religions, instead of being even remotely close to what one would term being specific? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 19:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that is obvious is someone is now desperate. ­ Kris (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, someone is desperate, that happens to be you. You started off with South Asia then toned it down to the Indian Subcontinent. This time, why don't you start off with the generic term religion, I mean, you can, by your impossible reasoning, somehow demonstrate that at some point of time the only religion in the world was Hinduism and so by historic geography, Sanskrit was the liturgical language of ALL religions!! Try that for a change. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 09:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are two terms for the same region, and I dont expect someone to understand that using one or the other doesnt mean one has toned down, whatever that means! I dont need to tone down fearing a POV pusher, and the Info-box link which mentions "India" still points to the Indian subcontinent. Now go wild as POV pushers are wont! ­ Kris (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

South Asia and Indian Subcontinent seem to include and exclude several entities. If your best bet at enlarging labels was to point the text India to the Indian Subcontinent, and writing that in the edit summary as a copy-edit, then I have to mention that it is a very cheap trick. Infobox updated. Why is it so patently not obvious to someone that enlarging labels is actually the PoV part, not writing facts. Why don't you work for 'Voice of India', seriously, they need hyper-enthusiastic Sanskrit chauvinists like you to write that Australia was once a Vedic Homeland!! The infobox says where it is spoken and the answer is India, period. We cannot include the Americas because there is a spoken Sanskrit class organized by RSS there!! [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann is also then your Voice of India worker, look he enlarged it first. Have fun reverting. ­ Kris (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Font size in the "See also" section

Why is smaller font size used in the "See also" section? Normally it is just the same as other section, and I don't understand why my previous edit concerning it was reverted. Can anyone tell me the reason if there is any? Thanks for your attention. Salt (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edits may have been a casualty of the crossfire in the edit wars that were going on. I'll update this anyhow. Thanks. ­ Kris (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The name "Sanskrit"

Hazra, Kanai Lal. Pāli Language and Literature; a systematic survey and historical study. D.K. Printworld Ltd., New Delhi, 1994, page 13 has that Sanskrit "properly got its name after the "refinement" effected by Panini." He holds that Vedic Sanskrit was called (in Pali) "chandaso," "of the hymns." Does anyone have a conflicting source on the origins of the term "Sanskrit"? Mitsube (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the generally accepted point of view.Taprobanus (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"chandasi" is actually the locative, literally "in the hymns (chandas)" - it isn't the "name" of any languge, it's Panini's terms for what he considered archaic, unproductive forms. We've been groping about this for weeks now. It is very simple, and the article has been aware of it all the time. The native term for "language" is simply "vaak". "Sanskrit" is the refined register of that language. The term for the historical language in general, including all hypothetical dialects, would be Old Indic. The term "Vedic Sanskrit" can be compared to the term Homeric Greek, the term Classical Sanskrit to "Epic Greek". Homeric or Epic Greek aren't spoken dialects, they are the refined, educated register of speech, showing the influence of many different vernaculars, as employed by professionals as the result of a long education. It is pointless to ask "how many people are native speakers of Epic Greek". There aren't any traces of actual vernacular Old Indic dialects, but that's just a circumstance of attestation, a consequence of the late arrival of writing to India. If the Indians had begun using an alphabet in 700 BC like the Greeks, we would have many vernacular Old Indic inscriptions. We don't, but that doesn't mean Old Indic vernaculars didn't exist. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The term is likely pre-Panini; it seems unlikely that if it were merely a technical term invented by him it would have made its way into the Pali canon. The Aryans were aware of other languages, are you sure that "language" only refers to Old Indic? Mitsube (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann is correct in that Chandasi/Chandasa/Chandaso was a dialect, literally "of the metrical hymns i.e the vedic hymns". In India, it is still called "veda vaak" or "vedic speech". Vaak is not language, but speech. Sanskrit/Vedic/Prakrits were all "spoken" dialects known by their own descriptive names. Vedic itself was a vernacular. Classical sanskrit was not just Panini's sanskrit, it includes all post vedic sanskrit whether or not conforming to Panini's grammar. Comparison with Homeric or Attic Greek may not hold, such a comparison is merely a misconception. Vedic and Sanskrit were both Old-Indic vernaculars, simply because all languages before Panini's time were only spoken languages. The reason why Panini himself composed his grammar in sutra(aphorism) form is to keep brevity above all other considerations and aid memorization and oral transfer of its content, as writing had not yet been introduced in India in his time. ­ Kris (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

region

Sanskrit is "spoken" in Greater India. This is pretty much a tautology, since the "Indian cultural sphere" includes any region that has been significantly influenced by Sanskritic tradition.--dab (𒁳) 09:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is Japan, Korea & China not included because after all they were influenced by Buddhist religion ? For example Aum Shinrikyo even has a Sanskrit name. If Mauritious can be included why not Guyana, Surinam, Trinidad and Fiji are not included beacuse people there also chant Sanskrit verses in their rituals ? Taprobanus (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not SPOKEN in Greater India, because otherwise we could include any country with 20 Hindu temples to be speaking Sanskrit. It is SPOKEN only by 49,000 speakers in India. It is like this, Latin is NOT spoken by every country with a Catholic church or a huge Catholic presence, it relates only to Vatican City. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your "points of view". ­ Kris (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly straightforward, but hey "welcome back". [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 00:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "point of view" Kris. It is a definition of "Spoken" as opposed to "revered" or "liturgical". Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. The difference is between "was spoken" and "is spoken". Maybe the infobox should also specify the periods when it was spoken between Gandhara and Indonesia ­ Kris (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed to Ancient India, which should be acceptable to everyone concerned. ­ Kris (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient India isn't even an article, it's a disambiguation page for various historical periods. Look, this isn't a big deal. Greater India or India (the region, not the Republic!) will do. "Greater India" doesn't have a precise definition, it's "whererver Sanskrit has had some influence". Of course, Sanskrit isn't "spoken" anywhere in the sense of a native language, but it is still fair to indicate the region of its main influence. --dab (𒁳) 13:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is seriously disruptive behavior on Kris's part. In spite of repeated consensus on the usage of India by Dbachmann, Gizza, Mitsube and several other editors, he is repeatedly pushing the same enlarging labels nonsense. He has jumped from South Asia to Indian Subcontinent to Ancient India and to almost anything that makes it bigger. This is all sheer POV nonsense by Kris, every single change made in this article for the past few weeks has been POV and even other editors seem to acknowledge it. This persistent vandalism has to stop. Leave the damn thing alone, at least till the 49,376 speakers die out or switch to using Chinese!! [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 21:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me repost the point regarding Greater India. It is not SPOKEN in Greater India, because otherwise we could include any country with 20 Hindu temples to be speaking Sanskrit. It is SPOKEN only by 49,000 speakers in India. It is like this, Latin is NOT spoken by every country with a Catholic church or a huge Catholic presence, it relates only to Vatican City. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 21:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

this is a silly argument, but I'm not going to waste time over the trivial task on spelling it out. Turning your argument on its feet, India has an area of 3,287,240 km². In how many of these km², do you think, are you going to find anyone engaged in chatting away in Sanskrit at any time? Why, you think this is a silly argument? Well, it's the same one you've just been trying to sell us. It's simple. India is not a region (it's the article on the 1947 Republic). If we have no consensus, we'll just have to leave the slot blank for now. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

To be concise, it is not spoken anywhere outside India, it used outside of India as a ceremonial language, but is spoke only in the country of India, if there is a census results for Nepal you will see it, it not 'spoken' even there. I would be even more specific, South India. Wikidās ॐ 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The debate is not whether India is a region or not, but the countries where it is spoken and as per an official government census, it is spoken by 49,736 speakers as per the 1991 Linguistic census of India and that is a statistic. It is outright silly go back to any census figures from the 5th century AD and include the Eastern Hemisphere. The official government figures are good enough to put it up as an established and cited fact. ALL the population data for even other Indian languages come from that census. I am putting India back in there. There is consensus, it almost looks like it is being intentionally avoided. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 19:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

nonsense. --dab (𒁳) 21:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, Mitsube, Gizza and I seem to agree exactly on what constitutes a statistic, a 'point of view', an enlargement of the label and a fact. It is spoken by 49000 odd speakers in India, as a cited fact, period!! [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 19:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

the "fact" is that 49,000 people thought it would be funny to tick "Sanskrit" in the 1991 census. It's not like anyone checked. You may or may not be interested in the fact that 390,000 Brits adhere to the Jedi religion. --dab (𒁳) 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

good, we are getting somewhere. So we have the claim that "it is not spoken anywhere outside India". Do we have any reference to back up this claim? I would be satisfied with a credible reference to the effect that "Sanskrit is not spoken anywhere in Pakistan, Nepal or Bangladesh". --dab (𒁳) 21:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot go on a rampage against 49,000 people who 'ticked' Sanskrit in their census questionnaire. If that is what they ticked, that is what we get. If 390,000 Brits adhere to Jedi religion, then they ARE Jedi-ites, or whatever, and it has to be cited. Census figures do not need to convince anyone, it is a statistic. Even I cannot believe that there are just 33 Million people in the whole of the world's second largest country, Canada, where I live, but that's the way it works.

Also, I don't think we can find a statistic or a credible reference that proves a claim contrary to the fact that it is meant to record. Statistics or credible references like the census can only tell us where something is spoken, not where it is NOT spoken. So, we have a statistic for where it is spoken. There cannot be ANY reference which states that Sanskrit is NOT spoken in Pakistan, Nepal or Bangladesh. Regarding the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and a country with Islam as it's state religion, namely Bangladesh, it is more than obvious. The burden of proof would be on those who seek to establish that Sanskrit is spoken in Siberia not on those who state the patent reality.

Regarding this whole business of South Asia, Indian Subcontinent or whatever, this has to be understood: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Even Pāṇini was born in Kandahar, however, we cannot say that Sanskrit is spoken in Afghanistan, unless we have an exceptional source. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 21:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

indeed. Compare "eastern Mediterranean" at Ancient Greek. Greater India is really the best we can do here, greater accuracy is neither possible nor desireable. --dab (𒁳) 07:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There are 49,000 speakers, if they all die, we will consider including even the Eastern Hemisphere. India is the best proven fact here, all the rest is a hypothesis. Find some evidence to back your claim that it spoken anywhere outside India, then we can include that. If you want that in, the burden of proof is, obviously, on you. To enlarge this label and include 17 sovereign nations that have literally NOTHING to do with Sanskrit is merely pushing either POV or just a wholesome waste of time!! [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 08:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

the 2001 census records 14,000 native speakers. Your behaviour is just disruptive at this point. May I ask you to consider the very first line at the India article? For other uses, see India (disambiguation). By linking to India, you refer to the Republic of India. India (disambiguation) tells you that "India" may also refer to a region, known as (culturally) Greater India or (geologically) Indian subcontinent. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

His behaviour was disruptive right from the beginning, just that I tried to prevent it earlier and got labeled by you as his opponent. Now enjoy his company. ­ Kris (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Kris, just because Sudharsansn has a problem doesn't mean you're doing great. Conversation on this talkpage has really been very tedious recently. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed the wood for the trees, that's all I pointed out. Ultimately I got blocked for trying to protect referenced content from being removed. I have no wish to come between your edit wars. Have fun. ­ Kris (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This is for the Sociolinguistics professor - look who first linked like this to the Indian Subcontinent. ­ Kris (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

your point being? I stand by this edit. "Greater India" is fine too. There is room for discussion, but the discussion needs to be informed and conducted in good faith. Instead, it has been uninformed and immature. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The professional linguist said something in your talkpage, remember? Atleast I'm trying to contribute content with the good intent of improving the article (like I did to pronouns section, compounds section etc) much of which were repeatedly reverted in bad faith by you-know-who. Sudharsansn, the sociolinguistics professor, hasnt made a single meaningful contribution to any of the sanskrit-related language articles. Need I then go into the question of who is disruptive and who's not? ­ Kris (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:SOAP Taprobanus (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to Dbachmann please, he wanted me to indicate "the point" ­ Kris (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris, stop acting like you are drunk and berserk. Being a ruthless POV monger does not give you the right to talk about my profession or my field of study again and again. This is your last civility warning, before it is reported and you get blocked once and for all. An Sanskrit-Aryanist clown like you, technically speaking, has no place in any society, leave alone Wikipedia editing.

Greater India or India is a constructive consensus seeking measure going on between Dbachman, other editors and myself. Just because one enlarged label replaces another does not necessarily have to mean that you have to be ecstatic about your POV being in the article.

Indian Subcontinent or Greater India is only an enlarged label. In a place that seeks to establish consensus and not the truth, it does not take an academic or a scholar, only a bunch of POV pushers working in collaboration, like yourself. The Sociolinguistic professor, that I am, is interested in correcting connotations and implications of some very simple labels. I am not a chartered accountant, out here on a linguistics POV spree writing about things without the faintest understanding of what they mean, again, like yourself. It is fairly obvious, when one looks at your contribs, how it has basically been a spree of POV edits pushing the Voice of India agenda and nothing worthwhile.

So shut up and get back to the article without poking your nose into what I am doing, again and again. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 22:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann: >>the 2001 census records 14,000 native speakers. Your behaviour is just disruptive at this point.

Every editor, apart from yourself and Srkris, are, on the basis of consensus, fine ONLY with India, meaning the Republic of India. It is SPOKEN ONLY in the Republic of India although it may have influenced several cultures in the past. Without data proving that it is spoken outside India, your continued edits would have to be considered just as disruptive as Srkris. CITE and WRITE. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sudharsansn has been reported for his disgusting personal attacks. ­ Kris (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not even spoken today across the whole of India, but mainly in pockets of South India. That doesn't mean we should specify the region as South India or narrow it down further into the Shimoga district of Karnataka or further down into the village of Mattur, which is where the language is spoken by a majority. The point is, it is not widely regarded as a spoken language for the last 1000 years at least. In its heydays it was spoken all across South-Asia and South-East Asia, not to mention parts of China where the sanskritist Mahayana tradition of Buddhism thrived, and that is the historical extent of its spread. Buddhism as a whole has more works written in Sanskrit than in Pali, which were popular in the Northwestern regions of India and Southwestern parts of China (i.e Tibet) see http://www.uwest.edu/sanskritcanon/romanized_text.html , I am saying all this to merely point at the historical spread of spoken and written Sanskrit across Greater India ­ Kris (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed how much time can be wasted over a non-issue, even for Wikipedia standards. I am not sure the map of Greater India is contributing anything useful to this article. --dab (𒁳) 17:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Does the addition of the yajna picture to the nambudiri article make it more useful? ­ Kris (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Does his actions in another article fall within the scope of this? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To let a troll like you repeatedly talk about my profession, 1, 2 and 3 which again was inferred from my mention of that in another talk page, and let you bash me is what is actually disgusting. It is nearly pointless to have a system, like Wikipedia, to work on the consensus gained by POV mongers, including having a Wikiquette page in which editors like you, with absolutely no regard for anything in WP, report this here. You just wanted to get me blocked because you were blocked a few days earlier, for edit-warring. This is just nonsense. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it has become clear that Skris is a troll. It is time to remember WP:DENY. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally, there seems to be consensus on that for sure. It is time for other editors to follow WP:DENY and | for Srkris to know this. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

About being specific, the English article also specifies only countries, not regions like Western Europe, Americas or anything. It states the countries where it is spoken and lists the data. Similarly, Sanskrit is spoken in India and the census data is listed. Whether you like it or disagree it with it not a wikipedia issue, you can start coaching classes and improve the number of Sanskrit speakers to make it cite-able. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

lead

please stop the petty edit-warring over the lead. We have huge tasks to address in terms of content, and this silliness needlessly ties resources. How about you try to shine by actually improving our coverage of Sanskrit grammar or literature? Too hard?

Sanskrit is an extremely notable topic, with a history literally spanning millennia. The "classical language of India" fad is an issue of petty communal politics in the modern-day RoI, dating to 2004. There is no way this is WP:LEAD-worthy, please don't try to push it back. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's not a "fad", but rather total ignorance on your part. It is a Classical language and oficially designated as such. Besides, do not mistake it to be just an "honorariam" from one particular country, but factually it is a classical language from what we know as 'ancient India'.

So, I use the official designation to quash the debate about it's classical language status, and I also deliberately mention that it is an Indian classical language because it is from "ancient India" - a known historical region.

And I really want to know how you arrived at the conclusion that it's "communal politics, dating to 2004"  !

As far as the Hindu-non Hindu ness of the earliest Sanskrit texts are concerned, it is a ludicrous debate that was whipped up by ultra right-wing liberals and secularists a few years ago. They argued, that the word "hindu" does not even exist any of the Vedas, Upanisads, Puranas and epics. When told about the origin of the word, this point was foregone but they continue to argue that Hinduism as it is known today, never did exist at the time period of Indo-Aryan invasion (when the RV was compiled). At no point in the middle-ages were the Vedas taken off the shelves, dusted off, and pronounced "Hindu texts". The recitation of their Sanskrit shloks or mantras in the typical manner of a purohit presiding over it is unchanged to this day. No matter that temples or Puranic dieties (like Laxmi) were not conjured up in the Vedas. But their primary use i.e. as a 'manual' or as a set of 'incantations' or 'charms' that were to be recited aloud by a priest(s) while conducting rituals (usually fire ones) has NEVER been undermined to this day. There even never was any "revival" movement of sorts to declare them "Hindu" or as such . IAF (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The religion when the earliest texts were composed had a different pantheon and revolved around sacrifice, often bloody, with no concept of reincarnation. So calling these texts "Hindu" is misleading. Mitsube (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The sacrifices have been done away with now for the most part. The vedas are still recited in basically much the same manner now, as they were then with a priest who overlooked and supervised, besides chanting from the vedas. Even during Upanisadic times, there were no temple-dieties, no Diwali (or other modern Hindu festivals). Even the most Puranic gods & goddesses that are at the forefront of worship today, did not exist during the period of the primary Upanisads, and yet the Upanisads are regarded central to Hindu philosophy.

We're talking evolutionary development and not similarities/dissimilarities. IAF (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

New information about origin of Sanskrit

I would like to present an excerpt of “Emergence of Hinduism from Christianity” (ISBN 1438227310) of M. M. Ninan, pages 45-48. It situates the origin of Sanskrit at a much later date than usually accepted. Only the relevant information with regard to Sanskrit is inserted below.

The word “Sanskrit” (Samskritam) means “that which have been refined” – a language refined from existing languages. That is what the name itself says and evidently it was developed out of common languages by refining them. The main language of North India during the (…) 1st century AD (…) was Pali and Prakrit - the languages used by Buddhism and Jainism. Dravidian language of Tamil already existed in the south. Evidently, Sanskrit language was made by refining all these common languages.

One of the early exhaustive collections of languages can be found in the Buddhist edicts of Emperor Asoka. (268 -233 BC). His aim was to declare the gospel of Buddha to all his subjects and therefore, he presented this gospel in all languages spoken in the empire. It included Greek and even Aramaic (because there was a small group of Jews in the country). However, there was no Sanskrit in the group, indicating that the language Sanskrit did not exist at that time. We know that Buddhism and Jainism used only Pali and Prakrit languages.

In fact, the earliest Sanskrit document ever found dates AD 150. It is evident therefore that Sanskrit came into existence during the period of AD 100 – 150 by refining the existing languages.

It will be interesting to look at the time line of various scriptures. Please note that we are talking about written scriptures. Any one can claim a long period of non-written oral transmission of scriptures for which we have no method of verification. It is only common knowledge that it is the documentation and writing “in black and white", that lead to growth of ideas and literature. We cannot expect scientific thinking or logical thinking and building on ideas of the past without the solid communication medium of writing. Hence, the time line of Scriptures will be revealing.

Notice that the earliest form of written scripture was the Hebrew Torah (14th century BC). Even Egyptian writing did not permit documentation to develop literature, because they were essentially pictograms. Only the phonetic system permitted elaborate conceptual literature. While Zoroastrian Zend Avesta was written in the Sixth Century BC and Buddhist and Jain literature by Fifth Century BC, Aryan Vedas came to be written down only in the Second Century BC. The rest of the Indian Scriptures – the Puranas and the Upanishads and Brahmanas came into existence only after Sanskrit became the language of Gods – the liturgical language and the language of theological studies (much later than the second century AD).

Source: http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/articles/PDF/Emergence%20of%20Hinduism.pdf

--Afopow (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't post random nonsense pulled from personal homepages (or self-published fringecruft). See WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. It is true that Classical Sanskrit literature flourished in the AD period, and that Puranic Hinduism originates in the Middle Ages. Sanskrit itself still originates in the BCE period, and had already been perfectly "refined" by 300 BCE. --dab (𒁳) 12:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source per WP:V#SELF: the publisher, CreateSpace, advertises "on demand self-publishing" on its homepage. Also WP:FRINGE. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with dab and GC, that book is a complete garbage maintaining fringy theories that no sane scholar would support today. As for the relationship of the Christianity and Vedic-influenced Indic religions, suffice is to say that the founder of an atheistic religion came to be celebrated a Christian saint. Sapienti sat. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)