Talk:Sanskrit

Archives

---

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

Basic question

I know nothing about Sanskrit and I wanted to know whether the script is written from right to left or vice versa and whether from top to bottom or vice versa. It is quite possible I missed the answer, but if it's not there, I think it probably should be. hypotaxis (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The information you need is in the most natural section for it: the writing system section says "when it was written, the choice of writing system was influenced by the regional scripts of the scribes. As such, virtually all of the major writing systems of South Asia have been used for the production of Sanskrit manuscripts. Since the late 19th century, Devanagari has been considered as the de facto writing system for Sanskrit" and clicking on Devanagari takes you to the article for that script, which is written from left to right. For what it's worth, left-to-right is what all other Indian scripts use as well (AFAIK). Perhaps there also exist works which have Sanskrit text written in other directions, say in Arabic or Chinese script in their respective regions, but I'm just speculating. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you. But it still does seem, from the POV of complete ignorance, that it might be a good idea to have this information on this page as well as the page on Devanagari script page. But then what do I know :) hypotaxis (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2009 (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!!!!

नामविश्व भाषांतरण

Dear Friends,

undersigned wants to put following request at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ to programmers of MediaWiki software to make apropriate changes in Sanskrit Language Wikipedia.Undersigned requests openions or support from those who know Sanskrit Language.Please do reply at your earliest or post your comment directly at संस्कृत विकिपीडिया:ग्रामस्य चौपालम्

Mahitgar १५:०३, १ पौषमाघे २००९ (UTC)

Dear Wikimedia Programmers,

Since undersigned wants to create new articles in Sanskrit Language Wikipedia specialy in "Wikipedia" and "Help" Namespace;Correction in Namespace Names will help me and Sanskrit Language Wikipedia a Long way. We kindly request following localisation of Sanskrit Language Wikipedia at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

• Namespace Current English Name 'Wikipedia' change the same to Sanskrit विकिपीडिया
  • Namespace Current semi-English Name 'Wikipediaसंभाषणं' change the same to Sanskrit विकिपीडिया संभाषणं

• Namespace Current English Name 'MediaWiki' change the same to Sanskrit मिडियाविकि
  • Namespace Current English Name 'MediaWiki talk' change the same to Sanskrit मिडियाविकि संभाषणं

• Namespace Current English Name 'Template' change the same to Sanskrit बिंबधर
  • Namespace Current English Name 'Template talk' change the same to Sanskrit बिंबधर संभाषणं

• Namespace Current Sanskrit Name 'उपकार:'(stands for 'Help') change the same to Sanskrit साहाय्य
  • Namespace Current Sanskrit Name 'उपकारसंभाषणं' (stands for 'Help talk') change the same to Sanskrit साहाय्य संभाषणं

Notes:

1)बिंबधर is a newly created applied term for Template.बिंब means an image that can transclude,and since a wikipedia template holds and helps transclude an image term created in sanskrit is बिंबधर

2)Help Namespace 'उपकार:' is being requested to be changed since 'उपकार:' means 'favour' where as right word for 'Help' in Sanskrit is available and is साहाय्य so this namespace change is being requested.

Please do reply at your earliest or post your comment directly at संस्कृत विकिपीडिया:ग्रामस्य चौपालम्

Mahitgar १५:०३, १ पौषमाघे २००९ (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahitgar (talk • contribs)

Sanskrit विकिपीडिया:लोगो,लेखन चर्चा

A Request from sanskrit language wikipedia was made at [bugzill bug no.16857] bugzill has requested that,The image should be no bigger than 135 x 155 pixels, please fix it and reopen this bug. undersigned does not have requisite skills needed for the same please some one do help by providing needful change to bugzill

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar ०७:५८, ८ फेब्रुवारी २००९ (UTC) (Copyright image from Marathi Language wikipedia is being taken for using as matches with gramatically correct Sanskrit language wording and writing system.Image was posted by user user:कौस्तुभ on Marathi Language Wikipedia & commons as authorised logo for Marathi Language Wikipedia and the same is proposed tobe used on Sanskrit Language Wikipedia )

sa:चित्रं:Wiki.png

Image is updated

• at Sanskrit Wikipedia sa:चित्रं:Wiki.png
• at commons:File:Wikipedia-logo-sa.png
• at meta:Wikipedia_in_other_languages

समर्थन करोति Mahitgar ०९:२०, १ पौषमाघे २००९ (UTC)

Though I am not a great expert on Sanskrit, I do agree that second change to use "Sahay" instead of "upkar" makes sense. This is from my understanding of other indian languages , especially Hindi.

mr:चित्र:wiki1.png mr:चित्र:wiki3.png mr:चित्र:myWiki4.png - suggessions received so far कोल्हापुरी १३:२९, ९ फेब्रुवारी २००९ (UTC)

Sanskrit no more classified as a Indo-Aryan language

Even though Sanskrit has been classified as a Indo-Aryan language by some historians and linguist, recent and more vigorous research in this direction has discredited the Aryan invasion theory (AIT) which also in turn makes classification of Sanskrit into a India-Aryan language redundant. The linguist theory supporting the AIT was based on similar sounding words in other languages with possible roots in Sanskrit was thus derived which again has been further discredited with the exit of Aryan invasion theory.

The basic premise being that since there was no existence of an Aryan race and no Aryan invasion ever took place into India, there cannot be a language that can be classified as a Indo-Aryan language.

It is now widely believe that Sanskrit is a language that was developed indigenously along the now extinct Saraswati river during the pre-Vedic and Vedic period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay shivramiah (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And we're supposed to believe this because you say so? Shreevatsa (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I never cease to be amazed at the utter twaddle people see fit to dump on this page. --dab (𒁳) 06:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

AIT wrong? perhaps; but a "Aryan" migration appears to have occurred. I recommend to the author of this section Asko Parpola's work. Or, if you need something less technical, try Gavin Flood's "An Introduction to Hinduism". There still exist reasons to think Sanskrit came from those who gradually moved into the IVC.richardtgreer (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

origin of name "Sanskrit"

"Sanskrit" is not the name of language. Original name of this language is "Girvaana"(गीर्वाण). This language is known not to have a script. All the text is handed down only by word of mouth.

Since this was the language of the "cultured" (सुसंस्कृत) this language became known as sanskrit (संस्कृत)

We find the language in almost all known scripts of India at written at different time periods. In later years the populous north India adopted Devanagari script and all the works are written in that script. There are a few vowels in Sanskrit that cannot be 'written' in any known language. These can only be taught by a proper teacher in person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroonpk (talk • contribs) 08:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

gIrvANa is the epithet of a deity mentioned in Bhagavata Purana. It is a bahuvrihi translating to "he who has speech for an arrow". The "original" (Vedic period) term for "Sanskrit" was indeed just "speech" (vAk). This is as in any other culture before it develops sophisticated traditions of scholarship, people will just call their language "speech", and the incomprehensible sounds made by other peoples as not-speech. --dab (𒁳) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have some sectarian ideas about the origins of Sanskrit that have nothing to do with historical linguistics and everything to do with sects - there are no vowels in Sanskrit that cannot be written (though there are words in Vedic that no one understands anymore); it was never generally known as gīrvāṇa etc. The earliest name for the language of Sanskrit (as opposed to speech or vāc generally which included all forms of speech not just Vedic) would seem to be in Pāṇini: he referred to the language of the Vedas and certain other texts as chandas; he referred to the language in newer texts as bhāṣā. What we think of as Classical Sanskrit is bhāṣā. It would be interesting to include something about the history of the word saṃskrita - when was it first used for instance - it post-dates both Pāṇini and (I think) Patañjali. 81.107.45.28 (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

etymology of sanskrit w.r.t tamil

i only speak english and french but i know many ppl from south india who speak tamil and sanscrit and i do not think they are lying to me when they tell me that sanskrit is etymologically derived from tamil. or as they put it "all of the

• sounds* originate in tamil". please refer to the following URL, as i think this will better explain what i am talking about:

http://www.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=147743

this might be a "political correctness" or "nationalist" issue for some bad acedemics but if you actually listen to the two languages or better yet what native speakers of both languages would tell you i think you can learn that the view being put forward by wikipedia that "tamil is one of 62 other proto-dravidian derived south asian language group languages" and "like all other nearby languages borrows many words from sanscrit". this is completely wrong and also completely ignores this:

http://tamil.berkeley.edu/Tamil%20Chair/TamilClassicalLanguage/TamilClassicalLgeLtr.html

which strangely enough, is linked to as a footnote on the page of Tamil language, but this page nonetheless tells the idea of "proto-dravidian" and tamil being one of all offshoots thereof (albeit one of the only 4 or 5 written). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reetside (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a native speaker has any authority in determining the history of theirs or others' languages. Not only does it give limited awareness of cognates, but it doesn't help with directionality (that is, we can reasonably guess that English ease and French aise are cognates but we can't tell which is the borrowing language). The second source you cite implies the opposite of what you're saying.

Now, if you're saying that the sounds of Sanskrit (several of which are rare amongst non-Indian Indo-European languages) occurred as a result of influence from Dravidian languages, I don't think that that's too outrageous. However, this doesn't mean that Sanskrit is "derived" from Tamil or that there are a large number of "etymological" cognates. It simply means that the languages have influenced each other. Besides, you'd need to find some reputable scholarly sources that argue this, not random forums on the internet. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

see Dravidian substrate in Vedic Sanskrit for an article about the topic your parents' account is a warped, folksy derivation of. --dab (𒁳) 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

it should be mentioned that sanscrit is the oldest language

sanscrit is proven to be the oldest language written with an alphabet and grammar on earth. this is not even possible to dispute academically -- as the date of the rig veda is put at 1,500 BC. such a remarkable characteristic of this language deserves some kind of mention on the wikipedia page. i would not want to be so politically incorrect as to suggest that this represents the actual invention of alphabet and grammar and writing from which all other western languages copied but maybe the case that can be made in this respect might be mentioned too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reetside (talk • contribs) 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. How could it be the oldest language written with an alphabet and grammar but not the invention of an alphabet and grammar? History of writing disputes your claim as there were quite a few alphabets developed before 1500 BC. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption that writing is necessary for a language to evolve is highly incorrect. Sanskrit evoloved to the highest form (to be used in today's intelligent computers) by oral transmission. People were trained to use their "non-written" senses to develop Sanskrit. Peoples' brains were evolved enough to develop the language without having to write it down. That is how the "purity" of the language was maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.132.228.1 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanskrit is the purest (oldest) and most highly evolved language.

Considering it is used in knowledge representation and machine translation for intelligent computers, it is highly incorrect and improper to call it dead language. The author's knowledge of sanskrit is poor if not biased against it. A pity, another more reasonable wiki is not written for Sanskrit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.132.228.1 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

you do not actually have the first clue about the topic, do you. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand where the author is going with this article. BTW What is the first clue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.132.229.1 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like me. I am pure, old and highly evolved :) hypotaxis (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Serbian - Sanskrit similarity

I see that it was mentioned briefly that Slavic language had Sanskrit origin. Firstly, which Slavic language is in question? As there is no Slavic language as such, but rather group of Slavic languages. Also, does anyone know anything about similarities between Serbian language (part of Slavic group) and Sanskrit? According to German linguistics from 19th century, Serbian language is the European language with most Sanskrit words still in everyday use. They quoted some 150 Sanskrit words that are being used on a daily basis in Serbian language. i.e - eng. "shoe", in Sanskrit - "upanak", in Serbian "opanak"

   - eng. "two",  in Sanskrit - " dva" in Serbian    "dva"
   - eng. "three",in Sanskrit - "tri", in Serbian    "tri"

and the list goes one...

would appreciate any unbiased comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.56.25 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)