Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sanskrit: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:48, 19 February 2007 editDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 edits Old Indo-Aryan language and Introduction← Previous edit Revision as of 14:20, 19 February 2007 edit undoDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 edits Old Indo-Aryan language and IntroductionNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 162: Line 162:


well, you are right, but "an old Indo-Aryan langauge from India" sounds silly and clumsy. The intro was fine , if you're going to revert, revert to that. ] <small>]</small> 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC) well, you are right, but "an old Indo-Aryan langauge from India" sounds silly and clumsy. The intro was fine , if you're going to revert, revert to that. ] <small>]</small> 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

An "old Indo-Aryan language" is the definition of Britannica. The addition "from India" is geographically incorrect, thus "from the Indian Subcontinent" was proposed instead. The introduction should be complete to avoid being as clumpsy and silly as you depict. Please give me a better reason for not restoring the sourced information, for essential information about the nature of Sanskrit is missing.
] 14:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:I said "clumsy", not "factually incorrect". Really, the intro is fine, thanks. Sanskrit can be said to be "from India" if you meet her sitting around an airport terminal somewhere. An ] should '''not''' be "complete", it should be concise and polished. ] <small>]</small> 14:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:20, 19 February 2007

WikiProject iconIndia GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Good articlesSanskrit has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FAOL

WikiProject iconLanguages Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Sanskrit received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive

Archives


  1. July 2001 – September 2005
  2. October 2005 – October 2006

Possible Restructuring of the Article?

Is there a reason why this page contains an extensive description of Sanskrit grammar when such information could be moved to a different article? Having a separate Sanskrit grammar article would be in consonance with most of the other Misplaced Pages articles on major languages, and would allow us to present complete nominal and verbal inflectional paradigms. We could even have separate articles for the Sanskrit noun and the Sanskrit verb, if we choose to follow the pattern for German grammar. Apologies if this has been discussed before. Gokulmadhavan 08:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


It is not the nationwide language dears

Hello fellow wikipedians,

Understand the[REDACTED] project to provide authentic sources alone.This article features sanskrit is speaken nationwide in India . mm . This is a dead language dears. and u r giving as much hype to make it alive. - what is your problem with comprehension? Nowhere the article says it is " speaken nationwide in India" . It says Sanskrit is used ofr liturgical and religious purposes and has lots of prestige, which is true.

Please provide some useful or if u dare give REAL facts about sanskrit.There are a bunch of blog entries to defame sanskrit than that of its promoters. No false info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.36.96 (talkcontribs) February 21, 2006 (UTC)

Hellø feller 59.92.36.96? Zø whæt længuaigzhe ærest thøu spaekin'? Nøt B1FFian isit? Rursus 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is one of the "scheduled languages" by definition of the "Official Language Commission", not by virtue of being "alive" in any way. dab () 18:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

An Explanation against thy argument

(By User:Bsskchaitanya)

My dear brother, i wish to atleast to satify ur question by the explansion given by me. I dont believe in what others feel and talk unless i get a conslusion by myself about believing it.

Sanskrit had been to Hindus and Ancient India like a divine language. Each word is considered as divine with some deeper meaning existing in it. Anyway that was feeling of those people like the people who still think that a person who died 2000 years ago has arisen and will again visit earth. So, lets stick to a rational and impartial discussion about that language.

Sanskrit is nothing more than a language. People according to their understanding and ideologies comment on it. Before the advent of Panini sanskrit was just an ordinary natural language which was changed along with time. Thats why we see lot of words and sentences used in vedic sanskrit deviating from the existing grammar rules. Presence of accents, letters like "f" and "q" and "retroflex fricative". But with passage of time they disappeared.

Advent of Panini

Panini had tried to analyse (qualitative and quantitative) sanskrit language just as an "language". This made him to think about gender, tense, mood, verb, noun etc., He wrote in his book about the grammar on sanskrit giving rule for almost all types of linguistic usage. Some exceptions existed in Vedic sanskrit literature with his grammar, so he called it as Ārsha Sāmpradāya. Next great person was patanjali who wrote an elaborate commentary on Panini's work. Aftermath him came bhartrihari who wrote Vakyapadiya. That person perceived Sanskrit as a means of expressing & understanding. These three works made revolutionary changes in the so called great divine language which was nothing but an normal vernacular language subjected to significant changes.

Aftermath Panini

From that time, Sanskrit sticked to the rules without subjecting to significant changes.
An Example quoted in Vakyapadiya:
In Vedic Sanskrit, the verb To bear - Grbhnāti
But in classical one it became - Grhnāti (Even after 2000 years it is same)

  • Now for an sanskrit learner the former one will sense as a nonsense and distorted version of the later one. Though later one was the distorted one of the former.
  • No language or dialect is superior to other. It is the qualitative literature and vernacular usage that makes it significant.
  • With the work of Panini, Sanskrit learners got knowledge of Structural linguistics, descriptive linguistics and generative linguistics. That made it a very power language in means of expression of the inner feelings.
  • Since it sticked completely to grammar rules rather than vernacular usage obviously the usage of people drastically reduced. Means the distorted dialects considered as outside the so called pure and divine sanskrit whom later developed into different languages such as hindi, bengali, marathi etc.

Reasons "for" the official status

Though India was nothing but a cluster of provinces and kingdoms, it was the feelings that,

  • All belong to same nation called bharatavarsha.
  • All langauges came from the mother Sanskrit.

These two feelings were mixed in the Indian blood throughout the ages though there was a drastical diversity in culture, language, way of life, religion etc.

Because of above reason, In Independant India, some leaders thought of keeping Sanskrit as national langauge though it considered nothing more than a mere dead language. The reasons are,

Reasons against the official status

  • Because of some presence of muslim population in India, it was decided that if Hindi was made as official one, then even urdu speakers can enjoy the benifits by being just like a different dialect. So, Sanskrit was made as one of the official languages of India. Nothing was there to say that it was classical language by default.
  • Moreover it was used as a medium to prove the superiority by some section of people (so called upper castes), so it looked as symbol of oppression for peoples of some other castes, muslims and christians.

Alternative for its Status

  • Many attempts were made by government for revival of sanskrit. To perfectly say for survival of it. For futher info, refer the article.
  • It was given official status in the list of scheduled official languages.

Conclusion

  • Every body will have their own opinion, so we should atleast respect though we may not accept it.
  • I think you concentrated on sanskrit only. I suggest you to go through some other great Indian languages like Tamil. Then you can find how they became into a great language through grammar and literature.
  • Through some light on historical linguistics, sociolinguistics and comparative linguistics. Then you can have a much clear-cut idea about Sanskrit.
  • It for Constitution of India, like Latin and Greek for the western world. The Constitution of India-Part III Article 24 Fundamental Rights clearly mentions, "Any community that has a language and a script of its own has the right to conserve and develop them". We Indians ought to obey and follow our constitution. If you are a foreigner then atleast you have to respect the longest written constitution of any independent nation in the world, containing 444 articles and 12 schedules, as well as numerous amendments, for a total of 117,369 words in the English language version. I think Sanskrit clearly suffices the above criteria.
  • Government of India uses the Standard Hindi which derived much of its formal and technical vocabulary from Sanskrit as means of communication. The motto of World's largest democracy Indian Republic is a sanskrit sentence, Satyam Eva Jayate (Truth alone triumphs). Every seal bearing the Coat of Arms of India will have that.
  • For Indians, sanskrit lives throught out India

-User:Bsskchaitanya 15.45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure the above user is aware of the contributions of several grammarians before and after Panini. People like Yaska, Shaunaka, Patanjali, Katyayana, Bratrihari, Sakatayana, Pingala, Gargeya come to mind immediately. So Panini was not the "creator" of classical sanskrit, although he was definitely one of its most important grammarians. Sanskrit existed all the way from the Vedas and even before that in the Indo-European form as one of its most important branches. All this is however irrelevant to trolls and vandals who dont know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity--> Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 10:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is considered a personal attack. Please assume good faith. Comment on content not on the contributor. Thanks - Parthi 11:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolls are to be called trolls. I meant trolls and I used the word trolls. There is no contributor I am talking of. -- Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 11:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What is this section even about? Sanskrit is a "scheduled language" in India. The definition of this lies with the Indian govenment, not with Misplaced Pages, and we're merely reporting the fact. Sanskrit is the topic on this page, so of course it is concentrating on Sanskrit (wth?) -- if you want to discuss the relative notability of languages of India, you are looking for languages of India. dab () 11:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, that's the same thing I'm saying. Why feed trolls? And what do the claims have to do with the article in question? --­ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 04:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronouncing Vowels

In section Sanskrit#Vowels, it is mentioned that IAST /a/ is equiv. to English schwa. Isn't it a little closer a short IPA /ɑː/ ? Also, as noted in section Sanskrit#Phonology, is IPA /ŗ/ pronounced /ri/ in modern Sanskrit? I have heard /ŗg/ being said as it is in the name of the veda, and, in Malayalam, the name of Christ pronounced /kŗsθu/. Kummini 16:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, IAST /a/ is NOT the short form of IPA /ɑː/ . It is a central vowel, and it is pronounced as schwa (the open-mid central vowel). Yes, for sandhi purposes, the ancient Sanskrit grammarians agree that a + a = IPA /ɑː/ . And the Pandits of modern India are no longer to speak vowel-like /ŗ/ , they approximate it as /ri/. Exceptions are always there, though. Cygnus_hansa 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Most Sanskrit pandits from Tamil Nadu across pronounce /ŗ/ as r. Lay speakers of Telugu pronounce it /ru/, while the /ri/ pronounciation from what I understand is dominant in the North. I've tried to clarify this, but feel free to change the wording. Ambarish 05:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


-I will try to clarify your doubt. Telugu people name it as "aru". In pronunciation of that vowel you need to know the following

  • Place of origin: Cerebral (Mūrdhanya)
  • Now narrow your mouth (i.e., it is a tensed vowel) and try to pronounce the consonant "ra".
  • The pronunciation will be inbetween ra, ri and ru.

User:Bsskchaitanya 13.57 14 November 2006.

translators needed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject India/Translation

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject India/Translation--D-Boy 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Motto of the Indian Navy

The motto of the Indian Navy is 'Shano Varuna' - meaning 'May the Lord of the Oceans be Auspicious Unto Us' according to the Indian Navy site:

I would like to know is it Shan No Varuna as stated in the Indian Navy page of[REDACTED] or is it Shan O Varuna. Which one is correct. Kindly help. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat 10:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's actually Sham No Varunah, or in Sanskrit transliteration, Śaṃ No Varuṇaḥ. The anusvãra at the end of the first word is often pronounced as a nasal belonging to the same class as the subsequent consonant, and so in this case it sounds like there is a double n sound. The second word is definitely No though, which is actually Naḥ transformed by sandhi rules; it's the dative plural form of the first person pronoun (i.e., the "Unto Us" part of the motto). Gokulmadhavan 06:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why vāk?

Wouldn't it be more Sanskritic to write भाषा instead of वाक्? In any case isn't contemporary Indian usage just to call the language संस्कृतम्? Vijñaptimātra 08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent

Since IAF choose to defended his repeated revert on this page, I will copy-paste his arguments to this Talk:

I confirm unsourced reverts by certain elements of anything that might include or point to the existence of Pakistan or Pakistan territory, most probably to the purpose of edit warring on the subject. Unre4L made a correction and I have the impression this was enought to revert. I am hardly amused by this erroneous equalizing of the Indian Subcontinent to India and suspect malicious intentions, especially here, even creating redundancy subsequently abused as a pretext to further contextual romovals. Rokus01 10:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: So you are accusing User:Dbachmann of being an Indian nationalist? Talk about oxymorons. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Where do I say "Indian nationalists"? I hold Indian people in high esteem. I mention elements that create a culture of senseless reverting and editwarring within Misplaced Pages. Nationalists are many and all over, and it takes outstanding administration and excellent administrators to make the difference. Rokus01 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Indo-Aryan aspect of Sanskrit has been dealt with later in the article, as that Sanskrit is a proto-Indo-European language. It does not merit mention in the opening sentence at all. The opening line as I edited can be deemed fit according to norms.
Besides, your assertion about introduction of redundancy is wrong at the outset, because at the very next edit---in the space of just 3 minutes---I removed that reducndancy myself. In your excitement to prove a wrongdoing, you overlooked that fact.
The opening line speaks about what Sanskrit IS and not a> which familiy it belongs to, and b> where exactly were its origins i.e. the Indian-Sub continent. You could have added the part of Indian-subcontinent and/or Panini's base that lies in present-day Pakistan in the section of History. The opening line's context of Sanskrit being an Indian classical language is based upon its official Status in India presently. The Subcontinental encompassment need not be provided as it is not recognized officially by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. IAF

Mister IAF, for the sake of arbitration I don't have to explain about the principles of a good introduction. Rather invoke a third opinion, if the meaning of the word "introduction" is not clear to you and if you don't have the 15th edition of Britannica at hand to verify the edits you choose to revert. However, don't pretend such a degree of off-topic ignorance to contradict this evidence of introducing error for the sake of promoting the word "India", where in reality a much larger geographical area is involved. Rokus01 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Old Indo-Aryan language and Introduction

To concentrate on the current disagreement, I want to mention two reasons against this revert:

  • Being an introduction, this introduction should give a overview of the nature and the significance of Sanskrit. This significance involves (1) Sanskit being an old Indo-Aryan language, (2) Sanskrit being the classical literary language of the Hindus of India (this includes Sanskrit being a liturgical language of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism) and (3) Sanskrit being one of the official languages of India. The Indo-Aryan nature of Sanksrit being mentioned elsewhere in the article is not an argument to exclude this element from the introduction. Also, to Sanskit being an Old-Aryan language does not suffice the current geographic definition of India.
  • This introduction to the nature and significance of Sanskrit is sourced and according to the Britannica last (15th) edition.

Accordingly I will restore the sourced information. Rokus01 16:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

well, you are right, but "an old Indo-Aryan langauge from India" sounds silly and clumsy. The intro was fine as it was, if you're going to revert, revert to that. dab (𒁳) 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

An "old Indo-Aryan language" is the definition of Britannica. The addition "from India" is geographically incorrect, thus "from the Indian Subcontinent" was proposed instead. The introduction should be complete to avoid being as clumpsy and silly as you depict. Please give me a better reason for not restoring the sourced information, for essential information about the nature of Sanskrit is missing. Rokus01 14:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I said "clumsy", not "factually incorrect". Really, the intro is fine, thanks. Sanskrit can be said to be "from India" if you meet her sitting around an airport terminal somewhere. An introduction should not be "complete", it should be concise and polished. dab (𒁳) 14:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Sanskrit: Difference between revisions Add topic