09-17-2008, 07:58 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The same tendency to reject historicity is in evidence in the debate
on the origins of Indo-European and Indo-Aryan. Though the
distinction between Vedic and Classical Sanskrit has been
acknowledged since Panini himself, numerous Hindus deny a history,
i.e. change, to the language of the gods. If at all they acknowledge
the existence of an Indo-European language family, they cannot
conceive of a pre-Sanskrit language as its origin, with Sanskrit
merely an evolute on the same footing as Greek or Hittite.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good post Bodhi.
Just want to deal with this, this is a strong tendency among modern Hindus many of whom DON'T KNOW any Sanskrit themselves.
1) All languages change with time, perhaps Sanskrit after Panini has slowed down in change but I really doubt it has stopped changing since 400 BCE (or earlier since pANini hasn't been given a concrete date).
2) Sanskrit is one of the oldest languages but not the oldest of all as many Hindus ignorantly claim.
3) "Sanskrit is the mother of all languages", another ignorant statement I see very often.
Very often these claims are made by lay Hindus who themselves don't know any Sanskrit and have never made the effort to learn it (I am trying these days, taking a course in it, lets see where it goes).
My view of Sanskrit is that its the connective language of all Hindus and also the language which is key to unlocking a good chunk of our heritage, so it should be promoted as such.
I also want to bring up another thing, these claims are not much different from the DMK types who claim Tamizh to be the oldest language, all other Dravidian languages coming from Tamizh or making up crackpot theories about Tamizh-Sumerian connection. Often many of these are those who themselves can't read any Sangam text.
I think its important that all Hindus know their regional language well, Sanskrit, Old Tamizh at least (to read and understand the Sangam texts) and also English for the jobs that demand it.
on the origins of Indo-European and Indo-Aryan. Though the
distinction between Vedic and Classical Sanskrit has been
acknowledged since Panini himself, numerous Hindus deny a history,
i.e. change, to the language of the gods. If at all they acknowledge
the existence of an Indo-European language family, they cannot
conceive of a pre-Sanskrit language as its origin, with Sanskrit
merely an evolute on the same footing as Greek or Hittite.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good post Bodhi.
Just want to deal with this, this is a strong tendency among modern Hindus many of whom DON'T KNOW any Sanskrit themselves.
1) All languages change with time, perhaps Sanskrit after Panini has slowed down in change but I really doubt it has stopped changing since 400 BCE (or earlier since pANini hasn't been given a concrete date).
2) Sanskrit is one of the oldest languages but not the oldest of all as many Hindus ignorantly claim.
3) "Sanskrit is the mother of all languages", another ignorant statement I see very often.
Very often these claims are made by lay Hindus who themselves don't know any Sanskrit and have never made the effort to learn it (I am trying these days, taking a course in it, lets see where it goes).
My view of Sanskrit is that its the connective language of all Hindus and also the language which is key to unlocking a good chunk of our heritage, so it should be promoted as such.
I also want to bring up another thing, these claims are not much different from the DMK types who claim Tamizh to be the oldest language, all other Dravidian languages coming from Tamizh or making up crackpot theories about Tamizh-Sumerian connection. Often many of these are those who themselves can't read any Sangam text.
I think its important that all Hindus know their regional language well, Sanskrit, Old Tamizh at least (to read and understand the Sangam texts) and also English for the jobs that demand it.