Origin of Sanskrit

[Guest guest]

It is supposed that Sanskrit is an Aryan language,but when we find

hundreds thousands words of Munda and Dravidian languages in Sanskrit

from pre-historic period then i think that the origin of Sanskrit is

any Munda language influenced with vedic language

 

I also think that attempt grat Panini to purify Sanakrit from the

words of local languges proves my idea.How you think about it?

 

Mylibrary/message/14

[Guest guest]

---INDOLOGY, "Aslam Rasoolpuri"

<aslamrasoolpuri> wrote:

>

> It is supposed that Sanskrit is an Aryan language,

 

No sir, it is not merely supposed, but is a well established

fact.

 

> but when we find hundreds thousands words of Munda and

> Dravidian languages in Sanskrit from pre-historic period

 

There is no language on earth that doesn't have at least a

few words originating as foreign loans, and any language as

widely used as was Sanskrit always has many such loans.

Compare the case of the English language, which belongs to

the Germanic family, but which nevertheless has an enormous

vocabulary taken from Latin and Greek especially, but also

from numerous other languages. However that has nothing at

all to do with determining the family to which a language

belongs.

 

Every language has in addition to its vocabulary or list of

morphemes each attached to a distinct lexical meaning, a

framework into which these vocabulary items are inserted -

the word order, affixes if any, sentence-function words like

the conjugations (and, or, etc.), pronouns, etc. Languages,

besides building new words with their own inherited stocks

of morphemes according to their own word-building rules,

also readily borrow new items into their vocabularies from

outside languages with which they come into contact. However

the basic framework mentioned here is much more resistant to

such outside influence, and normally only evolves gradually,

by degrees, with a clear line of continuity from earlier

stages. The latter fact allows linguists to trace language

evolution fairly well, as well as provides a basis for

language-family assignment. Members of a family are all of

those languages whose basic framework evolved from that of

an earlier common ancestor, regardless of how many foreign-

language loans those descendant languages may eventually have

acquired, even if those loans eventually vastly exceed the

number of native inherited words. Although even in cases of

the last sort, there is still a tendency for the majority of

the most commonly used words to be of native origin.

 

If you analyze the frameworks of this sort, along with the

vocabularies, from each known stage in the evolution of

Sanskrit, Siraiki, any Dravidian language, and any Munda

language, it is transparently clear that Sanskrit and Siraiki

belong in the Indo-Aryan family, that Sanskrit is an older

member of that family, and that Dravidian and Munda are each

families distinct from Indo-Aryan. There's really no question

about it. If you really want to see this properly demonstrated,

collect for us a list of the following words and phrases from

Siraiki, from two or more modern Indo-Aryan languages, and

from two or more Munda languages, and post them to this list.

In fact, properly, you should have already made such a

compilation, if not in fact a much larger one, before you

began trying to popularize the idea that Sanskrit and Siraiki

have been improperly classified.

 

one

two

three

four

five

six

seven

eight

nine

ten

twenty

I

me

you (addressed to one person in the familiar)

he

she

it

we

you (addressed to more than one person)

they

"I run"

"you run" (addressed to one person in the familiar)

"he runs"

"we run"

"you run" (addressed to more than one person)

"they run"

mother

father

son

daughter

brother

sister

hand

head

foot

finger

eat

drink

talk

walk

go

be

 

> then i think that the origin of Sanskrit is any Munda language

> influenced with vedic language

 

Hardly. Sanskrit differs from Vedic in only a few small

details, and Vedic has Munda loans as well. The origin of

Sanskrit is in fact just the opposite of what you claim.

It was built upon Old Indo-Aryan dialects with which Panini

was acquainted, including Vedic, and influenced by Munda

languages, as well as Dravidian, Iranian, and others.

 

> I also think that attempt grat Panini to purify Sanakrit from the

> words of local languges proves my idea.How you think about it?

 

What makes you think that Panini tried to purify Sanskrit

from local words, by which I suppose you mean words not of

Indo-Aryan origin? That's not the case, and in fact he would

not have been able to do so to any but a very small extent,

since he wouldn't have been able to tell which words weren't

originally of Indo-Aryan origin, with the possible exception

of a few very recent or very transparent loans. Such a task

is only possible with the methods of modern linguistics which

the world did not yet have.

 

There seems to be a lot of confusion, at least among non-

linguists on the internet, about just what exactly Panini

did. He did not create Sanskrit from scratch, or by merely

rearranging various elements of real languages he knew,

thus inventing an entirely new and artificial language as

was done with Esperanto, nor did he refine any Prakrit or

other Indo-Aryan language of loanwords to create it. Sanskrit

is in no way possible derivable from any of the Prakrits,

as the irreversible merging of numerous forms took place in

Indo-Aryan between the stage of Sanskrit and that of the

Prakrits. What he in fact did was to codify, as insurance

of its preservation, the language of the educated upper

classes, which though recognized as being slightly different

from Vedic, was close enough to it to insure the continued

intelligibility of the Vedas as well.

 

In addition to Vedic, there were naturally numerous closely

related, mutually intelligible, but slightly different

variations, or dialects of Old Indo-Aryan spoken in N. India

at the time, and when we speak of Panini's "creation" or

"refinement" of Sanskrit, we are referring to the process

by which he picked and chose from among the various dialects

those features he thought best fit for his one standardized

form. It's similar to the situation in the history of English -

at one time "ain't" was an acceptable contraction of "am not",

but eventually someone or some body of sufficient authority

decided that "ain't" was to be discarded. Of course it

survived in popular speech but is now "officially" improper

English. Panini subjected Old Indo-Aryan to a similar process,

although he is known to have built upon the work of precursors,

only actually completing a process already begun. He superceded

his precursors and became the last in the line, and almost the

only one now remembered, through the completeness, conciseness,

and brevity of his Ashtadhyayi which rendered earlier works

superfluous.

 

So you can see, for purposes of language-family assignment,

Sanskrit can in no way be separated from Vedic.

 

> Mylibrary/message/14

 

Michael Witzel and F.B.J. Kuiper whom you cite are referring

only to vocabulary loans into Indo-Aryan from Munda. Neither

is in any way implying, nor would either ever countenance the

notion, that Sanskrit or Siraiki are Munda languages. Kuiper

has joined the ancestors, but Witzel is a member of this list

and the Indo-Iranian list to which you post as well, and can

tell you that himself. Neither one of your two other sources,

Manansala and Kalyanaraman, are competent to weigh in on

linguistic questions as neither has any training in linguistics,

nor knows Sanskrit beyond a certain number of Sanskrit words.

 

While on that matter, sir, don't you think that you yourself,

just as a matter of proper procedure, ought to have at least

a basic knowledge of Sanskrit before you begin campaigning for

a change in its language-family assignment? One can't really

get a proper understanding of such matters merely by browsing

the internet and taking an average reading off of the various

opinions - some coming from real authorities, but most from a

many misinformed and/or ideologically motivated individuals

with no recognized authority in the field. Do you have access

to a university library? If so you should easily be able to get

hold of Colin P. Masica's 'The Indo-Aryan languages'. I highly

recommend you read at least this one book, and make sure you

properly understand it, before you, no offense intended, waste

any more of your own precious time and effort, as well as that

of the rest of us on what is really nothing more than a wild

goose chase. You will find out that Siraiki is indeed an Indo-

Aryan language, and that it was so assigned on a very sound basis.

 

Please seriously think upon it, if only for your own sake.

 

David

[Guest guest]

Thank you very much, Sir,for so detailed reply .My veiw is not only

due to work on internet but alo there are several other linguists who

beleive that Aryan veiw is due to prejudcees of The English invaders

and it has political back ground

 

Indee your may be qualified in Sanskrit but i have studied some old

veiws about your contention.I had read it in sixth class .Now the

idea has been changed

 

There are several linguist in Pakistan who beleive that Punjabi and

Urdu are Dravadian or Munda families languages.Ain -ul-Haq

Faridkoti ,Dr sohail Bukhari and Aaif khan have the same veiw in

their research works and books

 

Have you any documentry evidence that Aryan intered in Indus

valley.We supposed that some groups intered in this area and that

were Aryan and their language was Aryan language.So our language

belongs with Aryan groups .If the human beings had an original

language then the origin may be same in Munda ,Dravidian and Aryan

languages.

 

You supposed that Darvadian and Munda are the same languages ,but no

linguist admit it.

 

Sir .if you have approach to this book then read it next time

 

Pre-Aryan origins of the Pakistani languages

 

I have read linguistic survey of India by Grierson, languages of

India by Zograf Encyclopedia of languages and several other books ,

 

I am working for from thirty years not for six seven years after

introduction of internet .

 

 

 

 

INDOLOGY, "wtsdv" <liberty@p...> wrote:

>

> ---INDOLOGY, "Aslam Rasoolpuri"

> <aslamrasoolpuri> wrote:

> >

> > It is supposed that Sanskrit is an Aryan language,

>

> No sir, it is not merely supposed, but is a well established

> fact.

>

> > but when we find hundreds thousands words of Munda and

> > Dravidian languages in Sanskrit from pre-historic period

>

> There is no language on earth that doesn't have at least a

> few words originating as foreign loans, and any language as

> widely used as was Sanskrit always has many such loans.

> Compare the case of the English language, which belongs to

> the Germanic family, but which nevertheless has an enormous

> vocabulary taken from Latin and Greek especially, but also

> from numerous other languages. However that has nothing at

> all to do with determining the family to which a language

> belongs.

>

> Every language has in addition to its vocabulary or list of

> morphemes each attached to a distinct lexical meaning, a

> framework into which these vocabulary items are inserted -

> the word order, affixes if any, sentence-function words like

> the conjugations (and, or, etc.), pronouns, etc. Languages,

> besides building new words with their own inherited stocks

> of morphemes according to their own word-building rules,

> also readily borrow new items into their vocabularies from

> outside languages with which they come into contact. However

> the basic framework mentioned here is much more resistant to

> such outside influence, and normally only evolves gradually,

> by degrees, with a clear line of continuity from earlier

> stages. The latter fact allows linguists to trace language

> evolution fairly well, as well as provides a basis for

> language-family assignment. Members of a family are all of

> those languages whose basic framework evolved from that of

> an earlier common ancestor, regardless of how many foreign-

> language loans those descendant languages may eventually have

> acquired, even if those loans eventually vastly exceed the

> number of native inherited words. Although even in cases of

> the last sort, there is still a tendency for the majority of

> the most commonly used words to be of native origin.

>

> If you analyze the frameworks of this sort, along with the

> vocabularies, from each known stage in the evolution of

> Sanskrit, Siraiki, any Dravidian language, and any Munda

> language, it is transparently clear that Sanskrit and Siraiki

> belong in the Indo-Aryan family, that Sanskrit is an older

> member of that family, and that Dravidian and Munda are each

> families distinct from Indo-Aryan. There's really no question

> about it. If you really want to see this properly demonstrated,

> collect for us a list of the following words and phrases from

> Siraiki, from two or more modern Indo-Aryan languages, and

> from two or more Munda languages, and post them to this list.

> In fact, properly, you should have already made such a

> compilation, if not in fact a much larger one, before you

> began trying to popularize the idea that Sanskrit and Siraiki

> have been improperly classified.

>

> one

> two

> three

> four

> five

> six

> seven

> eight

> nine

> ten

> twenty

> I

> me

> you (addressed to one person in the familiar)

> he

> she

> it

> we

> you (addressed to more than one person)

> they

> "I run"

> "you run" (addressed to one person in the familiar)

> "he runs"

> "we run"

> "you run" (addressed to more than one person)

> "they run"

> mother

> father

> son

> daughter

> brother

> sister

> hand

> head

> foot

> finger

> eat

> drink

> talk

> walk

> go

> be

>

> > then i think that the origin of Sanskrit is any Munda language

> > influenced with vedic language

>

> Hardly. Sanskrit differs from Vedic in only a few small

> details, and Vedic has Munda loans as well. The origin of

> Sanskrit is in fact just the opposite of what you claim.

> It was built upon Old Indo-Aryan dialects with which Panini

> was acquainted, including Vedic, and influenced by Munda

> languages, as well as Dravidian, Iranian, and others.

>

> > I also think that attempt grat Panini to purify Sanakrit from

the

> > words of local languges proves my idea.How you think about it?

>

> What makes you think that Panini tried to purify Sanskrit

> from local words, by which I suppose you mean words not of

> Indo-Aryan origin? That's not the case, and in fact he would

> not have been able to do so to any but a very small extent,

> since he wouldn't have been able to tell which words weren't

> originally of Indo-Aryan origin, with the possible exception

> of a few very recent or very transparent loans. Such a task

> is only possible with the methods of modern linguistics which

> the world did not yet have.

>

> There seems to be a lot of confusion, at least among non-

> linguists on the internet, about just what exactly Panini

> did. He did not create Sanskrit from scratch, or by merely

> rearranging various elements of real languages he knew,

> thus inventing an entirely new and artificial language as

> was done with Esperanto, nor did he refine any Prakrit or

> other Indo-Aryan language of loanwords to create it. Sanskrit

> is in no way possible derivable from any of the Prakrits,

> as the irreversible merging of numerous forms took place in

> Indo-Aryan between the stage of Sanskrit and that of the

> Prakrits. What he in fact did was to codify, as insurance

> of its preservation, the language of the educated upper

> classes, which though recognized as being slightly different

> from Vedic, was close enough to it to insure the continued

> intelligibility of the Vedas as well.

>

> In addition to Vedic, there were naturally numerous closely

> related, mutually intelligible, but slightly different

> variations, or dialects of Old Indo-Aryan spoken in N. India

> at the time, and when we speak of Panini's "creation" or

> "refinement" of Sanskrit, we are referring to the process

> by which he picked and chose from among the various dialects

> those features he thought best fit for his one standardized

> form. It's similar to the situation in the history of English -

> at one time "ain't" was an acceptable contraction of "am not",

> but eventually someone or some body of sufficient authority

> decided that "ain't" was to be discarded. Of course it

> survived in popular speech but is now "officially" improper

> English. Panini subjected Old Indo-Aryan to a similar process,

> although he is known to have built upon the work of precursors,

> only actually completing a process already begun. He superceded

> his precursors and became the last in the line, and almost the

> only one now remembered, through the completeness, conciseness,

> and brevity of his Ashtadhyayi which rendered earlier works

> superfluous.

>

> So you can see, for purposes of language-family assignment,

> Sanskrit can in no way be separated from Vedic.

>

> > Mylibrary/message/14

>

> Michael Witzel and F.B.J. Kuiper whom you cite are referring

> only to vocabulary loans into Indo-Aryan from Munda. Neither

> is in any way implying, nor would either ever countenance the

> notion, that Sanskrit or Siraiki are Munda languages. Kuiper

> has joined the ancestors, but Witzel is a member of this list

> and the Indo-Iranian list to which you post as well, and can

> tell you that himself. Neither one of your two other sources,

> Manansala and Kalyanaraman, are competent to weigh in on

> linguistic questions as neither has any training in linguistics,

> nor knows Sanskrit beyond a certain number of Sanskrit words.

>

> While on that matter, sir, don't you think that you yourself,

> just as a matter of proper procedure, ought to have at least

> a basic knowledge of Sanskrit before you begin campaigning for

> a change in its language-family assignment? One can't really

> get a proper understanding of such matters merely by browsing

> the internet and taking an average reading off of the various

> opinions - some coming from real authorities, but most from a

> many misinformed and/or ideologically motivated individuals

> with no recognized authority in the field. Do you have access

> to a university library? If so you should easily be able to get

> hold of Colin P. Masica's 'The Indo-Aryan languages'. I highly

> recommend you read at least this one book, and make sure you

> properly understand it, before you, no offense intended, waste

> any more of your own precious time and effort, as well as that

> of the rest of us on what is really nothing more than a wild

> goose chase. You will find out that Siraiki is indeed an Indo-

> Aryan language, and that it was so assigned on a very sound basis.

>

> Please seriously think upon it, if only for your own sake.

>

> David

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Aslam Rasoolpuri"

<aslamrasoolpuri> wrote:

>

>

> Thank you very much, Sir,for so detailed reply .

 

You are most welcome.

 

> My veiw is not only due to work on internet but alo there are

several

> other linguists who beleive that Aryan veiw is due to prejudcees

of The

> English invaders and it has political back ground

 

Well not only the English invaded India, remember, and while

these linguists, if they can properly be so called, whom you

list below do not have English names and so are unlikely to

share English prejudices, they do have names ...

 

Let's just leave it at aknowledging that a member of any group

may have a prejudice influenced by her membership in that

group. In any case, we are able to check the work ourselves

without having to take anybody else's word for it, and thus

having to fear how their prejudice might have interferred with

the result. See below.

 

> Indee your may be qualified in Sanskrit

 

And I may not be. I do know enough for the question at hand,

but am not asking anybody to accept anything on my authority

in any case. I'm ready and willing to demonstrate the process

used to assign languages to a family right here for all to see

for themselves.

 

> but i have studied some old veiws about your contention.I had

> read it in sixth class .Now the idea has been changed

 

Nothing in this case is based upon any idea that can change,

but upon Sanskrit itself, which doesn't change from day to day.

 

> There are several linguist in Pakistan who beleive that Punjabi

and

> Urdu are Dravadian or Munda families languages.

 

Zero plus zero is zero. Add zero to itself a thousand times and

the sum is still zero. Likewise, no matter how many supposed

linguists share a view, it matters not if it can be demonstrated

that that view is unsound. I'm more than happy to demonstrate

it right here for you, thus eliminating any contest to prove who

is backed by more authorities, or whose sources and authorities

are better.

 

> Ain -ul-Haq Faridkoti ,Dr sohail Bukhari and Aaif khan have the

> same veiw in their research works and books

 

If these fellows actually claim that Sanskrit is a Munda language,

then I contend that they are no linguists of any competence.

But there's really no need to go down that road as I've already

offered to demonstrate to you right here why Sanskrit and Siraiki

cannot belong to either the Dravidian or Munda families. Please

complete the task I gave you, of posting the equivalents in two

or more Munda languages, in two or more Indo-Aryan languages,

and in Siraiki, of the list of words I gave you. If you haven't

already compiled such a list yourself, then at least those

linguists whom you cite as authorities should have, and should

have published it along with their claims. If they have not,

they are not properly doing their job as linguists.

 

If you are sincerely interested in arriving at the truth, and

not merely trying to find more people who will agree with your

theory, then please accept the challenge I set before you in

the previous email. Please complete the list, and then I will

be able to demonstrate to you here and now how it all works.

There will be no need to ring up either England or Pakistan.

 

> Have you any documentry evidence that Aryan intered in Indus

> valley.

 

None at all. Do I need it for something?

 

> We supposed that some groups intered in this area and that were

> Aryan and their language was Aryan language.So our language

> belongs with Aryan groups .

 

We supposed no such thing. Language-family assignment has

nothing at all to do with geography, but is based entirely

upon the actual features of the languages themselves.

Whether Aryans went into the Indus, or came out of the Indus,

or were dropped over India from outer space in no way has

any bearing on the question at all. We could have found

both Sanskrit and one Munda language on the planet Mars, and

nowhere else in the universe, and Siraiki and another Munda

language on Venus, and the results would be the same. We

would group Sanskrit and Siraiki together, and the two Munda

languages together, although of course we would scratch our

heads about how they arrived where they did! There is likewise

still some head scratching about the geographical distribution

of Sanskrit and the other Indo-European languages, but that's

really a separate question, and it's not really proper for

you to try to piggy-back your own attempt at revision on the

back of the other more legitimate issue.

 

> If the human beings had an original language then the origin may be

same

> in Munda ,Dravidian and Aryan languages.

 

I can't make sense of this statement. If human beings had an

original language, then the Munda, Dravidian and Indo-Aryan

languages alike would all have their origin in that language.

It could not be the other way around.

 

> You supposed that Darvadian and Munda are the same languages ,but

no

> linguist admit it.

 

No, you've misunderstood me. Dravidian and Munda are two

distinct language families, and I never said any different.

 

> I have read linguistic survey of India by Grierson, languages of

> India by Zograf Encyclopedia of languages and several other books ,

>

> I am working for from thirty years not for six seven years after

> introduction of internet .

 

The more years spent travelling in the wrong direction, the

further one ends up from his destination.

 

Please collect for us a list of the following words and phrases

from Siraiki, from two or more modern Indo-Aryan languages, and

from two or more Munda languages, and post them to this list.

 

Thank you.

 

David

 

one

two

three

four

five

six

seven

eight

nine

ten

twenty

I

me

you (addressed to one person in the familiar)

he

she

it

we

you (addressed to more than one person)

they

"I run"

"you run" (addressed to one person in the familiar)

"he runs"

"we run"

"you run" (addressed to more than one person)

"they run"

mother

father

son

daughter

brother

sister

hand

head

foot

finger

eat

drink

talk

walk

go

be

[Guest guest]

Thank you once again ,

 

I had read your list of words given below in frist reply and that

was not necessary to discuss it.This and like it several lists of

words are given in the books of historical linguistics.These are loan

words and other influences in these languages due to thousand years

migrations of tribes and people.

 

If you have time you may find these loan words in different

languages of different families.Urdu and Arabic are different

languages from dirrerent familis but there are hundred thousands

words resemblance .

 

Basic words like ABA and other family relations words are same in

these languages .These loan words are very confusing and all theory

of Aryan languages depend upon it

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Aslam Rasoolpuri"

<aslamrasoolpuri> wrote:

>

> Thank you once again ,

 

You're welcome.

 

> I had read your list of words given below in frist reply and that

> was not necessary to discuss it.

 

I don't think you can dismiss such lists so easily, and if

such lists are really as useless as you think, then in what

manner _do_ you intend to objectively prove the correctness

of your language-family reassignments?

 

Never mind, do not answer here, as I've continued this thread

on the akandabaratam list, as a reply to Paul Manansala who

wanted to respond to my post here, but not to participate on

Indology. See akandabaratam/ .

There I have already addressed some of yours and Paul's claims,

and am even now preparing a long and detailed reply to Clyde

Winters in the same thread, which will touch upon still more.

 

David