Jump to content

Talk:Prakrit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

old talk

Changed "The original crude language from which Sanskrit was derived could be Prakrit" to "Some have suggested that the original crude language from which Sanskrit was derived could be Prakrit, but this contradicts the findings of comparative linguistics, which are that Sanskrit is closer to earlier Indo-European linguistic forms than Prakrits are". -- AnonMoos 06:58, 29 July 2004

Moved that whole paragraph to a "Traditional accounts" and did a little cleaning up. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 16:32, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry that my edit apparently messed up the formatting -- I was using an older version of Netscape which was apparently not fully compatible with the editing form -- AnonMoos 06:46, 30 July 2004

Serious error in definition

I wish you wiki-people would read a book before they write these definitions.

It is quite false to define a Prakrit as a vernacular: these were artificial, poetic and literary languages that were *never* anyone's "mother tongue". It is true that Sanskrit grammarians pour scorn on Prakrits --but that is because Prakrits are not "The language of the gods", but are considered secular and imperfect by contrast to the language of the Vedas (the lattering being supposed to be of divine origin). Naturally, this was disputed by members of rival religions --e.g., Jain Prakrit is certainly considered sacred by the Jains.

Various prakrits were associated with various ruling dynasties, each of which respectively patronized the given prakrit as a literary language, and for certainly highly ritualized forms of communication from the state --e.g., the inscriptions of Ashoka (which are in Prakrit, by the way).

Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. - Nat Krause 08:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In reply to "sofixit" --apparently you didn't bother to notice that I completely re-wrote the article. Thanks for your non-reply, telling me to edit the article rather than complain. I did both; and my complaints are hardly without justification. I hope I don't have to re-write the thing again, after the next generation of proud graduates to "Intro to Hindi 100" decide to reduce the article to their level of understanding.
I've seen recent academic references use prakrit as a synonym for vernacular. The issue of purely literary vs. vernacular languages seems to be far from settled scholarship. I'm certainly open to the idea that the vernacular == prakrit equation is incorrect or incomplete if there is compelling evidence otherwise, but so far we have nothing other than a blanket statement that the belief that prakrit was vernacular language is a novice error. Please provide some references so that people can assess the foundation of your contribution- otherwise, the result is 'to the obstinate go the spoils' as the reverts and counter-reverts pile up. --Clay Collier 08:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hardly qualified to correct the situation, but I'd like to point out that the current definition we have at the beginning of this article is incoherent. This intro, consisting half of which was written by anon and half of which was there previously, says "Prakrit ... refers to the broad family of the Indic languages and dialects spoken in ancient India. The Prakrits were literary languages, generally patronized by kings identified with the ksatriya caste ..." If it really refers to broad family of Indic languages, then it can't be just a group of artificial, literary languages, right?
Furthermore, Clay is correct that what the situation calls for is citations, rather than snide remarks. - Nat Krause 11:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word prakrt or prakrit never means vulgar. Further defining "prakrit" as vulgar creates unnecessary negative and demeaning connotations. Abhijna

According to Sinhala usage, I mean as Sinhalese understand, who mix Sanskrit in speech often 50/50, prakRta means natural (as it appears) as against saMskRta means made (formed). This seems to suggest that Sanskrit was of those who wanted to manage the language in a precise way like the snobs nowadays and Prakrit is what generally everybody used? I may be totally wrong (and don't mean to offend anyone) but, the meanings of the words, I give are correct to the best of my knowledge. JC 06:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definately. Prakrit means natural(from prakruthi- nature). Sanskrit on the other hand means refined or scholarly(from samskruthi).117.99.85.33 (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arhamagadhi Dictionary

It wiill be great if a Ardhamagadhi dictionary can be setup.

The Prakrits became literary languages, generally patronized by kings identified with the Kshatriya caste, but were regarded as illegitimate by the Brahmin orthodoxy.

The statement is very offending - Brahmin Orthodoxy - who these people are? do they really have origion? do they really maintain family history? do they ever respect the nation? do they ever have love for Dharma? what dharma principles they are following or ever followed? There are no brahmins neither their legitimates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.57.2 (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means that for many centuries Brahmins would have regarded the idea of a non-Sanskrit holy book as absurd, at the same time that Buddhists were enthusiastically developing Pali... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prakrit language is ancient. In acient time prakrit language was talking language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.55.46 (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prakrits were distinct by the time of Asoka, but from a comparative Indo-European perspective, Sanskrit (especially Vedic Sanskrit) represents a much earlier stage of linguistic history... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

|^^^ What is the definite proof of this? Aren't the earliest Indo-Iranian inscriptions written in India all Prakrits?|CormanoSanchez (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is that historical linguists use Vedic Sanskrit as a basis for proto-Indo-European comparison/reconstruction more often than prakrits... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

Dear editors of this article. I am no expert in this subject and hence can't do the changes myself, and that is why am posting this message (because I often hear people saying- if you dont find it ok, just do it yourself rather than passing comments!). Well, my concern is about the lead. The lead doesn't say that it is a broad family of the Indic languages untill you read till the third line (although the same sentence). Can the lead be changed a bit for ease of the reader? Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inline references

this article needs more references as notes...--Esteban Barahona (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that this is simply the result of lacking citations rather than lacking sources, hence the {{Nofootnotes}}. We may need to change it to {{refimprove}} if we feel that the sources listed at the bottom aren't cutting it. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X3nodox

Hi, as a reader I find the opening paragraph could be more clear to what Prakrit is. The sentences throughout the article are also a little long and convoluted. Breaking some of the longer sentences into two would be helpful. Secondly, how do these vernaculars differ linguistically? There are articles linked to each one but a brief mention would be good.Rofflebuster (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentences are wordy and confusing. Possibly split the two interpretations up, and also give a general definition. I also found the last paragraph of forms to be vague, and lacking details. Including more details of how each Prakrit is used (with references!) would be useful, and interesting. (The existing examples are interesting already!) Also explanations of the differences between Prakrits could add to this article. Scatter89 (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


128.253.110.123 is me, for the record ... X3nodox (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prakrit did not derive from "Classical Sanskrit", a form that was not formed until 1st century, and there are may questions regarding PRakrits relation to what is now called Vedic Sanskrit, they probably both share a parent language, the Prakrit can also be compared to slang, street or common talk with all sorts of allowable simplifications, while the Sanskrit was highly ARYA-sticratic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.215.42 (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parallels with other language groups?

If Prakrits are vernaculars as opposed to "classical" Sanskrit, are there parallels with vernaculars around classical Latin? The contemporary Indic vernaculars I'm most familiar with -- Hindi and Nepali -- have substituted prepositions for declensions. The same holds for most Romance languages, except Romanian apparently retains declension to some extent. LADave (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can analogize Sanksrit to Latin, but there's a greater time-depth in the case of Sanskrit -- Prakrits/Pali were already distinctive languages being written down for some purposes at a time when Latin was rarely spoken outside the Italian peninsula. Technically, Hindi has "postpositions"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that the time periods in question do not run in parallel, but that the Indo-Aryan developments are earlier than the Latin/Romance ones, you can view Vedic Sanskrit (probably very close to at least some Indo-Aryan dialects spoken in the 2nd millennium BC) and Old Latin (the Latin of Plautus apparently being close to spoken Latin in 200 BC – except for the spelling, which in some ways reflects even older stages of Latin recorded only in inscriptions, while some archaic, pre-Plautine, texts, such as the Carmen Saliare, the laws of the Twelve Tables or the Carmen Arvale, are known to modern scholars only in partly updated, modernised versions, i. e., spelt more like Classical or Plautine Latin at best; indeed, even Plautus is known to us only in manuscripts which use a spelling more like Classical Latin than the inscriptions of the 3rd/2nd century BC, the inscriptions displaying even more archaic spellings that were not in tune with the spoken language at the time and often disappear in the Classical period) as analogous, while Classical Sanskrit is analogous to Classical Latin in that both are based on stages (Vedic and Old Latin respectively) that were more archaic than any contemporary dialect. At the time when Panini codified Classical Sanskrit (largely) on the basis of Vedic Sanskrit, spoken Indo-Aryan dialects must already have been in the Middle Indo-Aryan stage, hence many Prakritisms in Classical Sanskrit, some of which even crop up in Vedic literature (which continued to be written in the 1st millennium BC). Similarly, at the time of Classical Latin, spoken Latin (Vulgar Latin) must already have been splitting into regional dialects and was on its way to the modern Romance languages. In the 1st millennium AD, Latin was basically used to write incipient Romance (Late Latin), or full-blown early Romance dialects (Middle Latin), in some cases at least. Similarly, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is essentially artificially Sanskritised Middle Indo-Aryan. The Sanskrit case is even more complicated in that Vedic Sanskrit, Panini's Classical Sanskrit (both reflecting spoken Old Indo-Aryan dialects) and the Prakrits (all reflecting Middle Indo-Aryan dialects) all appear to go back to Old Indo-Aryan dialects (spoken in the late 2nd millennium BC) which were not identical, but slightly different; yes, even Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit are different in some details which seem to be this old. Hence, spoken "Proto-Vedic", "Proto-Classical-Sanskrit", "Proto-Pali", "Proto-Ardhamagadhi", and the Old Indo-Aryan stages of other Prakrits, all were different, but only in details. Contemporary with Vedic, they were probably fully mutually intelligible with Vedic, merely slight regional varieties, but all of them were different, independent continuations from Proto-Indo-Aryan (which itself was probably spoken in the early to mid 2nd millennium BC). This would all be much easier to show in a diagram. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this Jain Tirthankar reference?

The first paragraph says "But there are scholars who believe that Prakrit is older than Sanskrit, and it is on the base of Prakrit (original) that the Sanskrit (refined) language was made. This also is in tune with the Jain religion, where the first Tirthankar is Adinath himself." It is not at all clear what the relation of the second sentence to the first is. Could someone in the know clarify this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundaryourfriend (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the language?

Sorry for criticism, but nothing in the article talks of the language, all material is about and around the language. Neither morphology, nor phonology, nor typology are even mentioned. Anybody knows anything about the language to add meat to the bluff? Barefact (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prakrit is more of a language classification than a single language (though Magadhi can be considered the most important prakrit by Hindus, and Pali by Buddhists). There's some discussion at Magadhi Prakrit... AnonMoos (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timescale!

1. When were the Prakrit languages spoken?

2. If Sanskrit was never written down until "way after the Prakrits" (as the Sanskrit article claims), then what alphabet were the Vedas written in?

Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bigzteve -- You can say very roughly 500 B.C - 500 A.D. Anything before about 500 B.C. would be more of an (unattested) precursor to Prakrit than a Prakrit as such, while anything much after 500 A.D. would be called "Apabhramsa". Of course, some prakrits remained in literary use long after 500 A.D. And the Vedas were originally transmitted orally. Writing was unknown in India until many centuries after the Vedas started to take shape, and Brahmins scorned writing as a medium for preserving sacred texts for additional centuries after Indic alphabets came into use... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's great! Now that you explain it I have found the relevant passages in the articles. Thank you! BigSteve (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Why is "Prakrit" capitalized in this article? Isn't it a common noun akin to "dialect" or "variety"? Largoplazo (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It only applies to a select group of languages. If "Middle Indic" is capitalized, then "Prakrit" probably should be also. AnonMoos (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the term is a very special case. One doesn't normally speak of Middle Indic languages as "the Middle Indics" or of one of them as "a Middle Indic". I see your point if one thinks of them as a family called Prakrit, which I guess is pretty much the case given the definition in the article, but the primary usage gives the impression that it's a common noun comparable to "language", "dialect", "tongue", though the scope of its use is limited to that particular family. Largoplazo (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory use of quotation to support claim about the ancestry of the Prakrits

This is to the IP user 223.186.108.17 who restored their addition to the infobox, asserting Vedic Sanskrit to be the ancestor of the Prakrits. The source says If in 'Sanskrit' we include the Vedic language and all dialects of the Old Indian period, then it is true to say that all the Prakrits are derived from Sanskrit. If on the other hand 'Sanskrit' is used more strictly of the Panini-Patanjali language or 'Classical Sanskrit,' then it is untrue to say that any Prakrit is derived from Sanskrit, except that Sauraseni, the Midland Prakrit, is derived from the Old Indian dialect of the Madhyadesa on which Classical Sanskrit was mainly based. I had removed this because the quote is a conditional, not a firm statement, but you restored it.

You claim the quote supports the ancestry of Vedic Sanskrit over all the Prakrits. The quote draws conclusions about the derivation of the Prakrits from Sanskrit for two specific interpretations of "Sanskrit". Those interpretations are:

  • Vedic-language-and-all-dialects-of-the-Old-Indian-period
  • Classical Sanskrit

Neither of these interpretations is "Vedic Sanskrit". Further, if the author of the quote understood Vedic Sanskrit to be the ancestor of all the Prakrits, then the author would have written "Vedic language" instead of "Vedic language and all the dialects of the Old Indian period", correct? The implication is that "and all the dialects of the Old Indian period" is necessary for the statement to be true; without those words, it isn't. Thus, the quotation contradicts your understanding of the ancestry of the Prakrits. Largoplazo (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic language and all dialects of the Old Indian period is called Vedic Sanskrit.-- Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] o [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Vedic Sanskrit is the language of the Vedas, that is, Vedic language. It seems unlikely to me that X + Y = X. Largoplazo (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Languages consist of many dialects and Vedic Sanskrit had many dialects. That is not arithmetic but similar to set theory. Linguistics is not arithmetic.Relic1234 (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Relic1234: Fine. It's set theory. X ∪ Y ≠ X, given the clear premise behind having mentioned Y explicitly, which is that Y ≠ ∅. (I'm puzzled as to why you thought that identifying it as a set theory problem was going to change the outcome.) Your interpretation continues to contradict what the source you supplied says. And as I've pointed out to you in the warning I just left on your talk page, achieving consensus is required, not responding and then going back and doing what you want again. Largoplazo (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said similar to set theory. Not same. Linguistics isn't set theory also. My real response was "Languages consist of many dialects and Vedic Sanskrit had many dialects." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relic1234 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, "I'm going to keep making arguments, and then weaseling out of them by pointing out my own vagueness when you hold them back up to me." And, yes, it is set theory. We're talking about dialects and languages, and sets and subsets and members of families of dialects and languages. Set theory is applicable just as arithmetic is applicable to numbers. And, thus, you still haven't answered the question about why the author explicitly referred to dialects in addition to "Vedic language", if not to convey that they are separate from it. If the author meant for "all dialects of the Old Indian period" to be understood as included in "Vedic language", then mentioning them explicitly preceded by "and" would make as much sense as reading "the Seven Sister States and and all Indian states" and claiming it should be understand to mean that all Indian states are Seven Sister States. Largoplazo (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of POV pushing where they claim Vedic Sanskrit is ancestor of Prakrit with dubious references is the work of Hindu nationalists. Even I can find scholarly articles that suggest the opposite to what they claim. "It follows that Vedic and Prakrit are sister dialects instead. " of being related as mother to daughter." Article source:https://archive.org/stream/jstor-3087594/3087594_djvu.txt Bodhiupasaka (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically Vedic Sanskrit is not the direct linguistic ancestor of Prakrits (just as technically Classical Latin is not the direct linguistic ancestor of the Romance languages), but Vedic Sanskrit is structurally more archaic than the Prakrits, and is not strongly distinct from the ancestor of Prakrits, so the technical issue is unlikely to be of much interest to non-linguists. AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)`[reply]

I agree . Unfortunately the user with his IP address visible does not want to accept reality. Their political groups have started to rewrite history ,claiming that the oldest Indian civilization is a Hindu civilization called the Saraswati Civilization which does not even exist ! Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you should see the early forms section in the Hindi language article in Wikipedia where they claim that Hindi is a Prakrit that descended from Classical Sanskrit ! Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the sources mentioning Sanskrit as origin of Indo-Aryan languages were written by "Hindu nationalists" since both were written by non-Indians. I don't think William Bright and Alfred C Woolner are Hindu nationalists. In the book by William Bright he says that he did two years of field work about Indian languages in the introduction.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TVa1BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA16&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=IwE16UFBfdEC&pg=PA3&lpg=PP1&focus=viewport

Also see the early forms section in the articles of Romance languages like French, Spanish, Italian where they have mentioned both Old Latin and Classical Latin as early forms and in the article of Vulgar Latin where the old form is mentioned as Old Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relic1234 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos Your argument is incorrect. You are comparing Vedic Sanskrit with Classical Latin while you should have compared with Old Latin. Classical Latin may not be direct linguistic ancestor of Romance languages but Old Latin is the real ancestor. Similarly Vedic Sanskrit is the ancestor of Indo-Aryan languages.Relic1234 (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the previous editors have said. Your previous references do not give concrete proof that 'Vedic Sanskrit is ancestor of all Prakrits' , it is simply a conditional statement. The scholars like Woolner are certainly not Hindu nationalists but the ones who twist his words for POV pushing certainly are. Please read your own references carefully. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are a Buddhist nationalist who does not like the fact of Vedic Sanskrit being ancestor of Prakrits and who is repeatedly pushing to remove mention of Vedic Sanskrit or Sanskrit from Prakrit Wikipedia article.Relic1234 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic Sanskrit is the codified version of an older language used for the Vedas, much like Classical Latin is to old Latin. So your previous analogy is incorrect. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Sanskrit is codified version of Sanskrit language just like Classical Latin is for Old Latin. The dialects used in the Vedas were not uniform.

Let me make this clear to you. Just as another editor had pointed out, there is NO mention of the term 'Vedic Sanskrit' in the interpretations made by the authors from whom you've quoted. Now you realise why your edit is wrong ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources mention Sanskrit as early form of Prakrit. Then change the early form to Sanskrit.

And accusing me of being a Buddhist nationalist will not validate your own position. And I am not the first editor to have removed your erroneous edit. I have never explicitly accused anyone , including you of being a nationalist. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you folks please use indentation so we can see who is responding to what? Please insert the appropriate number of colons in front of your previous comments so that we can all sort the discussion out. Normally I would to that for you but I already can't tell what's going on. Largoplazo (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on stating that Vedic language/Vedic Sanskrit is the "early form" of the prakrits

One user (I think--a newly registered user who appears to have picked up where an IP user left off) has listed "Vedic Sanskrit" in the infobox as an early form of the prakrits. Question: Should the infobox present "Vedic language" or "Vedic Sanskrit" as the "early form" or as an ancestor of the prakrits? (I think it's fair for me to specify: not "some prakrits" or "any prakrits" but "the prakrits" as a whole, the subject of the article.) Largoplazo (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Due to narrow technical issues (of little interest to non-linguists), it would probably be better to avoid wording such as that Vedic Sanskrit is the ancestor of Prakrits, but it would be fine to use slightly looser wording which means almost the same thing (Vedic Sanskrit is very similar to what unattested ancestral forms of Prakrits would have been, etc). AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The focus of this RFC is on designations in the infobox, which doesn't leave room for varying degrees of looseness. While the question and the variety of hypotheses and the nuances concerning its answer can be covered in the text of the article, I believe that the infobox should remain mute in the absence of a consensus that such a relationship is firmly established as true. Largoplazo (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about Sanskrit. However, the infobox is intended to be a quick summary of unambiguous fact. If the statement is in anyway wrong, disputed or ambiguous, it should not be in the infobox. Elinruby (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that Vedic Sanskrit is the ancestor of Prakrits is wrong, but it's wrong in a narrow technical way that would be of little interest to non-linguists (and in fact, most non-linguists would have difficulty even understanding the issue). There's no real dispute over the facts, but the importance of the facts is rather low in this context. I notice that the French language article includes "Classical Latin" in the infobox, even though that's also technically incorrect... AnonMoos (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm not at all sure I understand the infobox parameters involved, but if the only choices are saying that Vedic Sanskrit is an "early form" of Prakrits and completely ignoring Vedic Sanskrit, then I would say include it. The technical linguistic issues mainly caution against claiming that Vedic Sanskrit is the one sole direct ancestor of Prakrits, and "early form" seems to be interpreted more loosely (it certain is when Classical Latin is listed as an "early form" of modern French)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’ve been asked for a comment on this topic on my talkpage. Unfortunately my knowledge en Sanskrit and Prakrits is far too shallow to help resolve the issue on what authoritative sources suggest. On a broad level, I agree with what AnonMoos seems to suggest, that is the article should not give the impression of unconsted fact about a topic which is subject of discussions among those active on its treatment. I suggest to find sources that suggest the most broadly stated points of view on the topic and link them to an idoine assertion. --Psychoslave (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prakrit&oldid=973811066"