Talk:Sanskrit

Archives

---

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

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!!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.172.127 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 

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)

Where was Sanskrit actually born?

The literature I've read suggests that it was born somewhere around modern day Iran, and the speakers migrated towards modern day Afghanistan then towards India? Which theory is correct? This information is not specifically enunciated in the article...

Changing संस्कृत to संस्कृतम्

In the wikipedia side bar, in the section - articles in other languages, wherever sanskrit comes, it appears as संस्कृत, which is the Hindi name. It should be changed to संस्कृतम्, the sanskrit one. What should be done for this? How can we change the name of language in side bar. Some body help me.. --Bharat Sawant (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

संस्कृत is not necessarily the Hindi name; it is also the base (prātipadika) form in Sanskrit (saṃskṛta). That said, undeclined forms aren't normally used in Sanskrit, so I agree with you that using संस्कृतम् would be better. As for how to actually change this, I don't know. :-) Maybe it's necessary to change the "#language" somewhere, possibly on the Sanskrit Wikipedia. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

american sanskrit institute

as an external link or whatever. excellent resource - this is english, that is english --> sanskrit transformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.184.164 (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is an external link to academic courses around the world. ASI should be included. I would change this if I had the editing powers currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.184.164 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the article and came across a few puzzling areas

I think this is a valuable, helpful article, thanks to all who have contributed to it. While reading it I've noticed a few things that puzzle me.

The side bar states 'Total speakers 14,135 fluent speakers in India as of 2001[1]' the reference given actually counts 'Number of persons who returned the language (and the mother tongues grouped under each) as their mother tongue'. So in 2001 there were 14,135 native speakers in India, thus number of fluent speakers is at least 14,135, and possibly much more. Indeed further down the article states 'The 1991 Indian census reported 49,736 fluent speakers of Sanskrit'.

So wouldn't it be better if the side bar stated 'Total speakers 49,736 fluent speakers in India as of 1991.'?

Admittedly I haven't looked up the 1991 India census myself to verify the 49,736 number, (can't find the census online, and the '1991 Indian census' reference in the article redirects to the 'Demographics of India' article.

Okay my next stumbling block was the 3rd paragraph which states 'The pre-Classical form of Sanskrit is known as Vedic Sanskrit, with the language of the Rigveda being the oldest and most archaic stage preserved, its oldest core dating back to as early as 1500 BCE.[5] This qualifies Rigvedic Sanskrit as one of the oldest attestations of any Indo-Iranian language, and one of the earliest attested members of the Indo-European language family, the family which includes English and most European languages.[6]'.

Now what puzzles me most here is that the paragraph includes the text 'dating back to as early as 1500 BCE' and completely fails to mention that the dating of the Rigveda is very controversial.

Perhaps the controversial dating issue can be side stepped entirely. Wouldn't it be better to replace the 3rd paragraph with, 'The pre-Classical form of Sanskrit is known as Vedic Sanskrit, with the language of the Rigveda being the oldest and most archaic stage preserved. Rigvedic Sanskrit is one of the oldest attestations of any Indo-Iranian language, and one of the earliest attested members of the Indo-European language family, the family which includes English and most European languages.[6]', any disagreement?

To be consistent the beginning of the 'Vedic Sanskrit' section of the article should also be updated from 'Sanskrit, as defined by Pāṇini, had evolved out of the earlier "Vedic" form. Beginning of Vedic Sanskrit can be traced as early as around 1500 BCE (accepted date of Rig-Veda).' to, how about 'Sanskrit, as defined by Pāṇini, had evolved out of the earlier "Vedic" form. The beginning of Vedic Sanskrit can be traced as early the date of the Rig-Veda'. Sounds OK?

The final 'Dvigu' entry in the 'Compounds' section makes no sense to me, as currently there is no explanatory paragraph for (only) that entry.

That is all that I immediately noticed.ICouldBeWrong (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. To briefly address your points:

• I'll look for more detailed 2001 census data to see if the discrepancy in the number of fluent/native speakers can be resolved.
• I think it is important to provide some idea of the dating, since simply saying "oldest" is not too informative for a general reader who likely to wonder if we are taking about 10000, 5000, or 1000 years in the past. The 1500 BCE dating for the oldest core of the Rigveda is well accepted in mainstream scholarship, as long as we allow for a century or two of variance (which is not bad for oral texts that far back).
• Not sure what is happening with the 'Dvigu' compound. May be a result of vandalism, but will need to check the article history and/or sources for that.

Feel free to edit/expand the article yourself. If I or anyone else disagrees with your some change, we'll undo that edit, and then we can discuss it here on the talk page (see WP:BRD). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply.

I accept that an oldest dating around 1500 BCE is popularly accepted as a best estimate, at least by many Indologists (with notable exceptions). But this date seems more of a conjecture supported by some linguistic evidence to me, rather than a scientifically verifiable fact.

Additionally, in the context of the paragraph, it's not the oldest possible date that is relevant. Rather the youngest possible date is relevant. (So that Sanskrit qualifies as 'one of the oldest...').

So rather than 'dating back to as early as 1500 BCE', the text 'dating back to at least 500 BCE, and possible much older', would I think be both less controversial, and also eliminate the incorrect logic in the paragraph.

If there are no objections I'll update the article with this change.

Kind regardsICouldBeWrong (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand your point about the "youngest possible date is relevant" and am not sure what the 500 BCE date corresponds to. Can you clarify again ? Note that there is a distinction between the oldest possible dates for the Rigveda, and the (generally) accepted dates for the oldest parts of the Rigveda; the former will be around 1700 BCE (or even 2000 BCE), while 1500 BCE corresponds to the latter. Abecedare (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the youngest possible date being relevant. The paragraph under discussion concludes with 'This qualifies Rigvedic Sanskrit as one of the oldest attestations of any Indo-Iranian language, and one of the earliest attested member...'. So what's important isn't the upper bound ('as early as') on how old Sanskrit is but rather the lower bound (i.e. 'at least as old as').

The 500 BCE number I gave, was overly conservative. I think a non-controversial change would be to replace 'its oldest core dating back to as early as 1500 BCE.[5]' with 'the conventionally accepted date of 1200 to 1500 BCE', which is essentially a quote from The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture page 239 as shown on google books.

Personally I'm skeptical of the conventionally accepted date. But what seems clearly wrong is the text 'as early as 1500 BCE'. Looking at page 239 it states 'Witzel even 1900 BCE', so Witzel accepts it could be older, and Witzel is mainstream.

Ideally I'd use text like 'dating back to at least 1200 BCE, and possibly much older', with a couple of references one Bryant (mainstream) and another to Kazanas (not as mainstream, but still, ah, in the river) ICouldBeWrong (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

the dating of the Rigveda is in no way controversial. Kazanas is just a crackpot. There is no way this stuff is going to be even alluded to here in the main Sanskrit article, under WP:UNDUE. For this you want the Indigenous Aryans article. The article is fine as it is, there is no call for going into byzantine detail on the Rigveda on this article. This would be like discussing the intricacies of dating Beowulf and the timeline of the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, including cranky notions about the Celts, at the English language article. Remember, just because Wikipedia has an article on it doesn't mean it is in any way sane. --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is a fine article, but I've identified a few areas where it can be improved.

I'm not suggesting that the intricacies of the dating of the Rigveda be discussed in the article, but, as is, the 3rd paragraph of the article contains a non sequitur, specifically the paragraph conclusion requires that terminus ante quem must be established rather than terminus a quo. That is the most recent plausible date of the core of the Rig Veda is relevant, not the most ancient plausible date.

Thus I suggest changing the text from 'its oldest core dating back to as early as 1500 BCE.[5]' to 'dating back to at least roughly 1700-1100 BCE', (this date range is taken from the Rigveda article, and the reference there can be reused. Unfortunately I can't find a more accurate date range for just the 'core dating'),

This solves the problem with the non sequitur logic, and has the additional advantage of not carelessly, and needlessly offending many millions of people, mainly Indians who conventionally have accepted earlier dating of the Vedas than Indologists.

Your statement that 'the dating of the Rigveda is in no way controversial' appears verifiably untrue. As the Rigveda article states 'The dating of Rigveda has been a center of controversies; there is a strong disagreement among scholars'. Even mainstream indologist Bryant has written "In my view, the Indo-Aryan invasion/migration theory, at least in its present forms, as well as the dating of the Vedic texts, remain unresolved issues that invite unbiased fresh scrutiny" (in the Journal of Indo-European Studies). I see little evidence that outside of the Indological community consensus has ever been achieved.

Regarding Kazanas I see no reason to engage in name calling such as 'just a crackpot' due to his dating of the Vedas, surely more polite phrasing could have been used.ICouldBeWrong (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"even mainstream"? I am of course talking about mainstream exclusively. Everything is "controversial" on the internets. The date of the Rigveda is not controversial, it is unknown. It is uncontroversial that 1500-1000 BC fits the bill, and it is also uncontroversial that no more precise statement is possible. Further details aren't necessary for the Sanskrit article. You want to go into details? Come to Talk:Rigveda.

All this revisionism is a result of the BJP interlude in Indian government. Check the publication dates. If by "outside of the Indological community" you mean Voice of India & friends, you are right, the consensus there is that the Vedas are one gazillion years old and were written by magical space Aryans.

I Could Be Wrong, but I suspect foul play here. Perhaps somebody can be kind enough to try checkuser. --dab (𒁳) 23:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the 1500-1000 BC dating of the Rigveda, even the Rigveda article gives a 1700-1000 BC range. I think it should be non-controversial to reuse the Rigveda text and reference for the Rigveda dating in this article, so I've done that.

Now I wrote 'even mainstream indologist' to indicate that at least one mainstream indologist, Bryant, questions the consensus dating of the Vedas. He wrote an entire book about it, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, pages 238-246 concern the dating of the vedas (esp. Rigveda page 243), much of the book is available online on google books.

This indicates that even within the indologist community the consensus is questioned by a mainstreamer, (I'm not convinced Bryant accepts a 1500BC or even 1700BC limit on the age of the Rigveda).

More to the point the consensus of the indologist community does not necessarily reflect the consensus of all scholars. The Rigveda article mentions 'strong disagreement' amongst scholars, which suggests a consensus dating of 1500BC-1000BC for the Rigveda is too narrow a range.

Furthermore as mentioned in the Rigveda article and by Bryant (page 252) Astrochronological (Archaeoastronomical) and other types of evidence suggesting great antiquity (pre 1700 BCE) for the Vedic culture have been persistently, repeatedly, and independently (from Herman Jacobi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak to Kazanas) presented for over a century now.

As Bryant writes 'Ultimately, all that can be authoritatively established about the chronology of the Vedic corpus.... is that it preceded the Buddhist literature that refers to it.' (page 249). ICouldBeWrong (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Sanskrit compounds page it seems clear there's a problem here. Earlier this Sanskrit article contained a list of all the compounds. But at some point the list seems to have been (accidentally?) truncated. I guess what needs to be done is put back the missing compounds, but preferably summarize rather than just repeat the info in the Sanskrit compounds article. ICouldBeWrong (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I put back the missing compounds and condensed the text a little. I would like to condense it some more. ICouldBeWrong (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Now condensed and simplified. ICouldBeWrong (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Another problematic area of the article is the syntax subsection of the grammar section. It 'requires expansion'. A suggested source for doing so is chapter 'Section the First' of Sanskrit Syntax, by J.S. Speijer, online. ICouldBeWrong (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

निष्ठा धृति: सत्यम्

can somebody please describe निष्ठा धृति: सत्यम्. --Bigsuperindia (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Adityat Jayate Vrishti" meaning "Sun (Adityat) generates (Jayate) the weather (Vrishti)" is moto of India Meteorological society (IMD). This cold be added to the article. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhupendraraut (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this article about Sanskrit or India?

this sentence is very controversial and does not belong to this article!!!

Please remove this:

                     It is a classical language of India,others being Tamil, Telugu and Kannada.

Sanskrit is a classical language of whole Indian subcontinent not only India that exist since 1947.

Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.91 (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cases

I'm too lazy to log in and fix this, but the sentence "the number of actual declensions is debatable" is incorrectly placed in the same paragraph as, and preceding, Panini's description of case function. Declension classification is an issue completely separate from case function. Also, the whole mention of Panini's description is just meaningless; it only serves to make Hindu nationalists and PC people happy by emphasizing that "Hindus had definitions of cases long ago, hurrah!". Panini is a great name in the history of linguistics, but linguistics has actually moved on a little since his time, and his description of Sanskrit case is neither sacrosanct nor an alternative to a description in modern terms.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it won't be me that provokes Shiv Sena. Maybe we could just put a link and a note at the top of the section mention saying Panini is obsolete. Maybe not in those words, doesn't have to even mention him, something like "modern cases" la gaie (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tamil, Telegu, Kannada - classical languages?

Can we get some good reference as this looks like someones opinion and nothing else... And why even bring up the classical language reference to sanskrit in the first place? 114.79.131.70 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)