Jump to content

Talk:Sanskrit/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Citation

For the end of the line under In the West (Public education and popularisation): http://www.samskritabharatiusa.org/index.php/safl-overview Shivasundar (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit About Nepal

under: Public education and popularisation/university
Please add Nepal Sanskrit University http://nsu.edu.np/

Done. As an aside, it is more conventional to add new sections at the bottom of talk pages, and to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Shreevatsa (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request for the second table in Section 6.2: consonants

The following edit would correct a mistake:

च
/cə/; no equivalent

should be replaced by --

च
/cə/; English: chip

The following edits reflect the fact that the English consonants 'k' and 'p', when placed at the beginning of a word, become aspirated, and become equivalent to the Sanskrit ख and फ respectively:

ख
/kʰə/; no equivalent

should be replaced by --

ख
/kʰə/; English: cap

And,

फ
/pʰə/; no equivalent

should be replaced by --

फ
/pʰə/; English: path

Like 'k' and 'p', the English consonant 't' also becomes aspirated at the start of a word. However, this does not lead to any changes in the table, since the English aspirated 't' is not the same as the Sanskrit ठ. The latter is a retroflex stop while the former is an alveolar stop.

Sanskrit in Grantha Script, Brihadeeswarar Temple (1010 AD), Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- those scripts are not sanskrit'Bold text'

Edit request for section Writing system, End of first paragraph

lacks distinct letter cases

should be replaced by --

"does not make use of letter cases"

Use of letter cases is not somehow superior, so use of the word lacks signifies that Sanskrit is inferior. So I suggest making the above change.

 Done. I'm not sure that "lacks" necessarily implies inferiority, but anyway I've changed "lacks" to "does not have". Cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request for section Decline

This should be titled "Changes"

In the same section following statement should be removed as same quote is already stated further in the same section: Pollock (2001) says "most observers would agree that, in some crucial way, Sanskrit is dead"

 Not done. The first occurrence is the actual statement he made (and is relevant to the section); the second is someone else discussing what he means when says it. So I think we need both. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2014

Please add {{Wikivoyage|Sanskrit phrasebook|Sanskrit|a phrasebook}} to the external links. It will add a link to the phrasebook for the language at Wikivoyage. Thanks. 130.88.141.34 (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Addressing citation style

Addressing the {{citation style|date=May 2014}} tag on top of the article. I will go over all the references, adding all available details about them (some were missing ISBN numbers, and editor/author are mixed up). I have restored 5 dead links with working url or archiveurl and updated several other. Please leave me a message if you catch a mistake! Thank you! --AmritasyaPutraT 02:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Done(diff). I will be doing further content cleanup and probably trimming of the bulk unreferenced content. Will do it after a few days gap. The article has very good references but at some places we have too much intricate details and there is a lack of continuity. --AmritasyaPutraT 09:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dbachmann, Shreevatsa, and OccultZone: I would like to prepare this article for GA. Copy-edit, cleanup and suggestions for improvement are requested/welcome! Shreevatsa had spotted some reference error, and OccultZone has filled in some references and cleaned up some sections.  Thank you very much! --AmritasyaPutraT 09:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
If its about contributing, hardly anyone seemed to be working on this article for a while now. Other than the 18 unreferenced statements, there are some invisible codes. It may take some time to fix these numerous issues and its not gonna be hard. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone: I did not understand about "invisible codes"? --AmritasyaPutraT 09:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It is long to describe. Check Help:Wiki markup, look out if there are double spaces, they are not forbidden but it is better to not have them. Article has used some words of African and Norwegian, check if they can be interwikilinked. Sanskrit#Grammar has a number of words that have been unnecessarily boldfaced, check MOS:BOLD. Don't leave any important wikilinks, "St James Independent Schools" should be linked to St James Independent Schools. "Universities" and "Within other universities" can be merged into single section. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Fixed double spaces. Removed boldface in Sanskrit#Grammar. Wiki-linked St James Independent Schools, merged "Universities" and "Within other universities". I think the grammar section needs trimming. --AmritasyaPutraT 14:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

request for new section on western tampering of sanskrit

Iformation on how sanskrit was tweaked to suit Western colonial agender, a small write up of how the term "Arya" was changed by western indologist to gain a effort to estblish themself as the master of the natives and the sole creators of the indian scriptures, later this gave rise to hitler who titled him and all white men and women of european decent as the "Aryans".

Also Many indian scholars and european scholars such as Prof. Nicholas Kazanas of greece have made steps to asert that Avestan or Old Persian is Not older then the indian sanskrit, Thus sanskrit cannot be claimed as "a sub branch" under The old persian lingustic heritage.

Early sanskrit scholars such as Voltaire,Immanuel Kant,and Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel had a firm belief that essentially the idea that India was the Urheimat (origin) of (all Indo-European languages).

One more thing! Could we place a youtube video in the near future inside this page? i have a youtube video from a european sanskrit scholar who explians why sanskrit is much older then the Evestan, plus it all gives a nice speech to fill in some info on how the sanskrit words were misused by coloinalist to tiwts culture to suit the needs of the empire, two birds with one stone you could say. Also more info is actully written on this in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.96.38 (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For YouTube, a resounding "no." For your other points, we need author, work, and page number to take you seriously.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Writing illustration

The illustration of Devangari as used for writing Sanskrit has associated info/text that looks like this: "My name is (incomplete third word is the name) written in Sanskrit". I can't figure out what is intended or how to fix it. (Posted at talk:Sanskrit and talk:WikiProject Language). -- Jo3sampl (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It is confusing! The image shows a person in the process of writing "My name is Abhila" with the last word incomplete (we know that because the horizontal line that combines the letters of a word in Devanagari, is missing from the top of the third word). Either the caption should be rewritten explaining all this, or the image simply removed or replaced. Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the image should simply be removed, and someone with experience writing Sanskrit should write a famous phrase and take a picture, and that can be substituted for this image. That is, if there's a purpose to having an example of handwritten Sanskrit. It is nice at least. — Eru·tuon 09:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Will do it today. I also forgot about the audio recording correction. --AmritasyaPutraT 09:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Replaced. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate information between sections?

Hi, I've been running a copyedit on this page, and I've noticed a lot of detailed information duplicated between the "Varieties" and "Historical usage" sections. Is there any way we could divide the information more meaningfully? Perhaps keeping only information on the current usage of the languages in the "Varieties" section, while placing all historical developments and changes in the "Historical usage" section, would present the information more clearly. – 2macia22 (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge Sanskrit#Phonology and Sanskrit#Grammar sections from here into sanskrit grammar article

I think the bulk of Sanskrit#Phonology and Sanskrit#Grammar should be merged into sanskrit grammar article keeping all content and leaving only a small summary and appropriate pointers in this article. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be doing the merge/move shortly. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
What do other language articles do? Take a look at English, Latin, etc. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I want to make this article consistent with the other language articles, they have small sections on phonology and grammar. Here we also have a (imo deserving) separate article on Sanskrit Grammar which they don't have! --AmritasyaPutraT 16:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Great then. :-) I too think that overly big grammar sections are not of general interest to most readers of the article, so it's enough to keep them minimal in the language articles. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@Shreevatsa: hope you are doing well, can you help by moving the section? It is little tricky and I am spending little time on wiki and more time with books off-wiki. . --AmritasyaPutraT 07:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I have begin a move/merge without loosing any content/reference. Will need copyedit to fit in. --AmritasyaPutraT 09:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Added 8-10 references and removed two chunk of unreferenced fluff, which are more suited on respective specific topic pages. --AmritasyaPutraT 14:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any source for saying that Sanskrit traces its linguistic ancestry back to Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indo-European? I only knew the similarities with Greek, Latin. Article is not describing the Proto Indo thing, except a few words on leading paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorstaking (talk • contribs) 08:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


We need a new article on Sanskrit Phonology in line with the articles on Latin phonology and Ancient Greek phonology. Ancient Greek phonology article has been particularly well done with audio recordings to illustrate the sounds. I shall create a new article as soon as I get time. But, I'm beginning by first recording Sanskrit sounds and upload to Wikimedia which can then be linked to the article. If anybody creates the article on Sanskrit phonology in the meantime, please post here and let it be known. — isoham (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@ISoham: Nice thought. Bulk of phonology is in sanskrit grammar article, you may split it since it has become too long. --AmritasyaPutraT 17:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I was the one who did most of the recent work on the Latin and Ancient Greek articles. I don't know very much about Sanskrit, since I never studied it, but I can help with formatting, writing style, and organization. It's a fascinating language, so I may also help with the actual writing, if help is needed. The Sanskrit grammatical tradition was far more advanced than the Ancient Greek and Latin tradition, so it's important that we present it in all its fullness. — Eru·tuon 17:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Good and Featured articles on languages have substantial sections on grammar and phonology. Grammar and phonology, along with history, form part of the main meat of articles on individual languages. An FA is required to be comprehensive, and this includes giving a comprehensive overview of the grammar written in summary style. I have reviewed a lot of language articles for GA. If I were reviewing this one I would quickfail it because of the total lack of information about phonology and grammar and the exaggerated degree of detail about contemporary usages, such as the completely irrelevant table of universities. It does not conform in the most minimal sense to what we expect of good articles on languages. It also seems to rely on news sources to a problematic degree and not enough scholarly and linguistic sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
This was the revision of this article as of a month ago, before User:AmritasyaPutra moved out the bulk of the grammar and phonology sections in the next revsion. For what it's worth, I for one think it is an improvement (though the article is still in pretty bad shape for other reasons) as far as most readers are concerned. If "encyclopedic" style involves carefully omitting what is of interest and worth — e.g. I notice that most Wikipedia articles on poets and authors contain very little samples of their work, and are mostly irrelevant biography — that just shows that "encyclopedic" style is bad, not that it is something to aspire towards. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Grammar and phonology is what is of interest and worth when articles about languages is concerned. IF you dislike encyclopedic style there are other places that you can spend your time online than on an collaborative encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll ignore the personal remark. Is this policy about language articles written down somewhere, BTW? Shreevatsa (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not a policy, an I never claimed it was. But the criteria for Good and Featured articles are what they are. WP:Language has a set of guidelines for how to structure articles on languages Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages/Template. These guidelines of course do not trump local consensus but gives an idea about how other editors who know and write about languages think such articles should be structured and what they should include. My comment was not a statement of how to make the article follow policy, but a statement of my opinion of the article relative to other articles on languages.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Maunus: As you can see above the move was done after discussion over one month and I made nearly ~80 other edits too. This article is not nominated for GA, leave alone FA. Your suggestions is noteworthy and you are welcome to improve. Note that Sanskrit Grammar is a separate article too. I also replied to ISoham saying Sanskrit phonology deserves an independent article in my view too. --AmritasyaPutraT 01:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Sanskrit phonology and grammar deserve independent article, but these articles ought to be summarized in subsections of the main article on the language. I realize the article is not nominated for anything, but it seems relevant to consider the criteria that the community has established for assessing article quality when discussing how best to improve it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree that the Phonology section here, at least, could use some more information. Unfortunately the Śikṣā page listed as "further information" doesn't have what I was hoping to include here, and I simply don't have the resources or knowledge myself to obtain what's missing. Ideally, the information you'd want here is an IPA chart of all the phonemes that are used in the language. At the very least, I want to include a list of all the phonemes of the language, separated into the categories that are currently listed in the section (vowels, diphthongs, anusvara and visarga, plosives, and nasals). – 2macia22 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: found the information on the grammar page, adding it in now! – 2macia22 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@2macia22:, thank you so much, I am back today, but not likely to spend much active time on Wikipedia, I will work on your suggestions slowly. --AmritasyaPutraT 10:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Should be 'enhancing'

In the last paragraph of introductory section, it should be 'enhancing' rather than 'enhanced'. I'd change it, but this article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.151.121 (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Vedic Sanskrit grammar

The Wikipedia article Vedic Sanskrit grammar was created by Roberts7 in April 27, 2007‎ adding 50k+ text in a single edit. Very few articles link to that article. Can someone here take a look at that page and maybe add a See also link from here? Solomon7968 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sanskrit/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 19:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Review

I will carry out the review this article over the next week or so. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. Layout and organization: The organization of sections is very odd, it does not follow the standard template for language articles, and the deviations from the standard template do not seem well thought out. I am not a stickler for consistency across articles, but the tempolate is made because it makes sense, so deviations ought to have some kind of rationale. The history section for example is sandwiched between two sections that are both basically about contemporary usage. Logic and the standard template would suggest having a section on history first and contemporary usage second - additionally a section on contemporary usage is also the last section in the article. I would suggest that all contemporary usage including "popular culture" should be consolidated and put either at the end of the article or immediately after the history section. The article also have many short sections, some consisting of a single short paragraph - particularly in the "contemporary usage" and "education" sections. These could benefit from being consolidated into larger sections. Additionally the "public education" section ends with a short section on European scholarship which seems out of place in this section focused on contemporary public education - and which would make a much better part of the History section (especially given the focus on colonial scholarship). Generally it is a major problem that the article focuses heavily on demonstrating that Sanskrit remains in use in contemporary by having two major sections describing this - but that in comparison it devotes almost no attention to the substance of the language: its phonology, its grammar, and its tradition of scholarship and the major works written in it. This imbalance alone is enough for me to consider that the article is not GA quality. The article simply cannot pass as a GA language article with such a minimal description of phonology and grammar.
  1. Accuracy and Neutrality. The article does not come across as neutral, and it contains a number of inaccuracies and omissions. The excessive focus on describing contemporary usage relative to describing the history and substance of the language, and to dispel the idea that the language is "dead", gives the entire article a non-neutral slant. Additionally naccuracies and omissions occur precisely in the description of the history of the language. For example even though today only 15,000 people, a tiny portion of the Indian population, speak Sanskrit as a native language, the article states that "a number of sociolinguistic studies of spoken Sanskrit which strongly suggest that oral use of modern Sanskrit is limited, having ceased development sometime in the past". This borders on being dishonest, since this decline is a fact that is attested to by the decline in ritual importance within India over the 20th century, the decline in the number of speakers in the 19th an 20th centuries and the decline of publications of major texts in the same period. This fact is not negated by the other fact, that Sanskrit seems to be currently experiencing a revival as part of the hindu-nationalist political resurgence. The "decline" section spends three lines on the mainstream academic view, namely that Sanskrit became a ritual language tied only to hindu practice and is currently experiencing a revival, but spends the rest of the section on contesting this view. The section on Origin and development is OK, overall but it is confused in its claim that "Indo-Aryan migration theory" explains the common features of Sanskrit and other indo-european languages. It does not - it explains how speakers of Indo-European languages arrived in the Indian subcontinent. The commonalities are explained by historical linguistics and the comparative method which enables us to reconstruct the shared ancestor of Sanskrit, Indo-Aryan languages and all the other Indo-European languages - and this body of knowledge stands regardless of which migration theory one adopts. The inclusion of the critique of the relation between Indo-European philology, orientalism and colonialism is fine and warranted - but it omits the fact that many early orientalist scholars promoted the erroneous view that Sanskrit was the mother tongue of the Indo-European language family - and it also omits the fact that this view continues to be promoted today in the context of Hindu nationalism. This connection between the promotion of Sanskrit and Hindu nationalism is well established and often commented on in the literature - but entirely omitted from the article. The history section also does not include the question of influence by other languages on Vedic sanskrit - which is a major question in the litrature and which impinges greatly on our overall understanding of the language's history. The history section also does not at all describe the development from proto-Indo-Aryan to Vedic Sanskrit - which is extremely well understood. The "interaction with other languages" section omits the many Sanskrit origin words in English - which most English language users might find interesting.
  1. Sources Sourcing is missing in many places, and there are entire unsourced subsections. The majority of sources are low quality online sources. Some solid academic sources are used, but they could be much better used - and considering how vast the literature on the topic is it does not adequately represent the academic literature. Major contemporary Sanskrit scholars such as Witzel and Doniger are ignored - their arguments and perhaps some counter arguments would enhance the information value of the article. The much too short section on Panini is based on two low quality sources instead of on the major body of academic literature about him, his work and its significance. I really don't like the choice of reference style, a harv-ref style or another style that sets apart book and article sources from online sources and news sources would be much better. I cannot demand this, but at least the citation style should be made internally consistent. Why is Maurer added to the further readings but not used? It would be a useful source. For GA, the main task is to source unsourced claims, to put academic sources to better use and to make sure the bibliography and referencing is consistent. For FA I think it will be necessary to choose a proper academic referencing style with a full bibliography, and to conduct a mcuh more thorough survey of the literature and integrate a much broader spectrum of academic sources.


  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Prose is frequently choppy, short one sentence paragraphs, little coherence between paragraphs, organization of sections is not well structured.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: The Lead could do better as a summary of the entire article.
    Some list problems, with the list of universities for example.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Some accuracy problems pointed out about.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Many uncited statements, tagged. More high quality academic sources would be good.
    C. No original research:
    Not a problem.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Phonology and grammar sections are severely underdeveloped.
    B. Focused:
    Gives excessive weight to the contemporary usage of Sanskrit, especially relative to the history of the language and its grammar and phonology which is most likely to be of interest to the reader.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article comes across as biased towards emphasizing the current use of Sanskrit as a living language, and downplaying its religious and historical significance.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    #Overall:
    Pass or Fail: A clear Fail. I would give time for the nominator to respond if they wouldlike to undertake the required work but I have just noticed that the nominator has been inactive for more than a month - hence they are unlikely to respond soon.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanskrit and Serbian

It is known that Serbian language and Bengali languages are similar with Sanskrit language about 60 percent www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggO91e78eE0 109.122.91.0 (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A youtube video? Have you ever heard about the Indo-European languages? Stop it, please.--Zoupan 08:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Still Acceptance of Aryan Theory?

WP:NOTFORUM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Sanskrit is the primary sacred language of Hinduism, a philosophical language in Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Jainism, and a literary language that was in use as a lingua franca in Greater India. It is a standardised dialect of Old Indo-Aryan, originating as Vedic Sanskrit and tracing its linguistic ancestry back to Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indo-European.[4]"

The following articles are well researched that are enough to show/prove that Aryan theory is mis-leading and wrong.

The links of articles are: 1- http://www.stephen-knapp.com/aryan_invasion_theory_the_final_nail_in_its_coffin.htm 2- http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/amythofaryaninvasionsofindia.pdf 3- http://www.stephen-knapp.com/solid_evidence_debunking_aryan_invasion.htm

There are many more 'Proofs' available in the form of well researched articles that shows that Aryan invasion Hypothesis is purely wrong.

The number of articles which are proofs which includes the Archaeological findings are more than number of articles supporting Aryan Invasion Hypothesis, thus should be discarded for lack of evidence & information should be corrected ASAP so it won't mis-guide people anymore. Some of the proofs are the topics by Swami Vivekanada himself.

I believe it should be revise again and information should be corrected on all the Wikipedia Pages.

Demise007 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

An "invasion" as postulated by late 19th-century/early 20th-century linguists has not been the scholarly consensus for decades. Nevertheless, there is no scholarly support for Proto-indo-european as indigenous to the Indian subcontinent (nor Western Europe, either) whatsoever. Go read The Horse, The Wheel, and Language to see what the current consensus is among historical linguists and archaeologists, then come back. -Ben (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Benwbrum:My point is simple, The above Evidences proves that the "Aryan Invasion" is purely wrong, therefore there is need to revise it. btw, the number of evidences against aryan invasion theory is more than that of aryaan invasion itself. imo, it all started from the misunderstood sanskritword called "arya", it ain't aryaan, those evidences list above are more than enough to say that Aryaans never invaded india whatsoever, therefore the theory is wrong. Demise007 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, none of that explains why the language I'm writing in is genetically related to e.g. modern Hindi, descending from a single language. The scholarly consensus is that the IE languages are no more indigenous to India than to they are to Texas. Anthony shows a number of non-military mechanisms for language spread.
Frankly I'm mystified by claims Knapp makes about the non-indigenous nature of Sanskrit's linguist ancestors as a tool of cultural domination. Who cares whether Sanskrit originated in India or not? My own culture uses Semitic religion, native American foodstuffs, and Germanic laws. So what?
Wikipedia is not going to throw away actual scholarship based on the ramblings of a "light artist" -- sorry, but Stephen Knapp is not "proof" of anything. I see Max Mueller all over articles proposing the Out-of-India theory of PIE origins, but never in the historical linguistics literature -- why spend so much time attacking obsolete scholarship instead of engaging with the actual scholarly consensus of actual historic linguists from this century? Ben (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a complete an unanimous consensus among historical linguists (who are the only specialists in classifying the historical relations between langages) that Sanskrit is an Indo-European language of the Indic branch, and that Indo-European languages originated outside of India in either anatolia or the Pontic steppes. The only question is how and when Indic languages arrived in the Indian subcontinent - and this is where the invasion theory (seeing the arrival as a military expansion) has now been replaced with a migration theory. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I do care whether it originated in india or not, My own people(britishers) ruined the hell out of a country who has a rich heritage, I am from EU
i don't see myself AT all connected with "vedic" stuff, well keeping that aside, Knapp claims are not enough? i have more evidences to show, the ::::thing is, Indo-Aryan Migration\Invasion is totally useless and baseless, it was poor attempt by my own people to capture India.. Now,
The thing is, your language is genetically linked with modern hindi language B/c it is Derived from hindi language itself, it is NOT that we are the source of them, it is opposite, english can be said as off-shoot from hindi & that explains genetic relationship, there are many more evidences ::::that cleanly explains that when there was nothing there was "vedic-culture", this all aryan theories and rest of stuff has already a Very weak ::::base, the number of evidences in support to it is lesser than against them, if i generally ask my self one question that, if EU is related to "vedic period" in any sense then why there nothing regarding it in our history?, The saraswati river in rig ved is misunderstood, the sanskrit word "Arya" is misunderstood, result of Poor understanding of that time & is cont. till now.
Talking about Max muller, he himself was against his own purposed theory at the end, he denied his own theory, you should read about it if you don't know about it at first place, Now, taking the fact the Hinduism is old goes back to 10 - 13k years itself proves aryaan theory wrong, it is baseless, weak from every sides, many proof against it, even the monk from india named swami vivekanada who had extremely good knowledge regarding his
own heritage proved it that aryan theory is non-sense created by EU(britain), Well talking about attacking Scholarship, if something is wrong and doesnot makes sense, whether it be Scholarship or whatever, it should be corrected at first place, carrying on same mistake as "scholarship" and propagating it is mistake, we are generally doing the job what those false scholars wanted to do when they ever planning to conquer india. Demise007 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC) @Benwbrum: @Maunus:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sanskrit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

cf. Norwegian: sammen skjær, Afrikaans: saamskaar I don't think the second parts of these are cognate with -kṛta. Is there a source?--92.77.222.80 (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been meaning to double check these. They do indeed look suspicious so I've removed them for now. Uanfala (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sanskrit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

"Established" category

In this RfC there is a fairly strong consensus that the "established in" category does not apply to languages.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Vedic Sanskrit

@Myedits2: You allege in your edit summary, "The sholarly [sic] term for the language of the Vedas is 'Vedic.' 'Sanskrit' is referred to Panini's standardization. The edit also makes the nature of the language more clear compared to Vedic." If it is the scholarly term, you should be able to cite reliable scholarly sources, and you should not be ignoring multiple scholarly sources which use the term "Vedic Sanskrit". Your systematic unsourced edits in this and other wikipedia articles is disruptive, and edit warring over this is inappropriate. I urge that you present WP:RS with your edits, stop adding unsourced opinion / wisdom / prejudice per WP:V. Let us collaborate and seek consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I agree with this argument. DivyaMaiya (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Falsification of History

There is no Indo-Aryan concept. Name India is conined by Europeans . The root of the word is Indus. A river where hindus civilization began. Indian never called themselves as indians . Now about the word aryan, this word is conied by European with any root for it. Arya means intellectual person. However there is no meaning for the word Aryan. So Indo-European or Indo-Aryan should be removed if used. DivyaMaiya (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Indo-European and Indo-Aryan are linguistic classification and Sanskrit belongs to these language families. It's not about the etymology of these words, it's about the taxonomy of the language. Hitro talk 21:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
"Arya" means noble, and comes from the Indo-Aryans themselves. Whose roots can be traced back to the north European Corded Ware culture, by the way. So yes, in that sense "Arya" may be an European word. And the IVC no doubt is one of the roots of the socalled "Hindu culture," but this Hindu culture as such developed at the Ganges bassin, not at the Indus Valley. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"Samskrit"

I hear there's a movement to spell it with an 'm'. Perhaps someone should include the debate in the article? I added a redirect, anyway. Here are a couple of RS:

Hugs ... richi (hello) 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

An amusing read. So they want an m because they think it's a better representation for the "anuswarh". Well, the article can't possibly include every single Sanskrit-related nutty idea in the world, but if that spelling catches on, nutty or not, it will have to be represented here. Bit too early though. – Uanfala (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

no need actually.if Indian languages were to be transliterated according to vowel glyphs,then reading such texts would be idiotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashanklmb (talk • contribs) 07:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Hindu nationalists like to blame the Brits for everything, forgetting that monolingual speakers of Hindi, a large proportion of the Indian population, pronounce the word with an "n," not "m." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Second- and third language speakers of Sanskrit

The infobox has statements about the numbers of first, second, and third language speakers of Sanskrit in India. Two sources have been cited for these numbers. The first is an article in The Hindu newspaper: S, Rukmini. "Sanskrit and English: there's no competition". and the second is the 2001 Census of India for which an indirect link (from "Time machine") to the census has been cited. This is: "Comparative speaker's strength of scheduled languages − 1971, 1981, 1991 and 2001". Census of India, 2001. Office of the Registrar and Census Commissioner, India. Archived from the original on 11 April 2009. Retrieved 31 December 2009. Neither seems to have any information on second- (L2) and third language (L3) speakers.

I have removed the L2 and L3 information from the infobox. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

How you can tell that a language is dead

In the 2001 Census of India, some 14,000 people identified their mother tongue to be Sanskrit. The Census of India, in its guidelines for the enumerators, defines the mother tongue to be:

Mother tongue is the language spoken in childhood by the person’s mother to the person. If the mother died in infancy, the language mainly spoken in the person’s home in childhood will be the mother tongue. In the case of infants and deaf mutes, the language usually spoken by the mother should be recorded. In case of doubt, the language mainly spoken in the household may be recorded.

Why am I skeptical that there are any people in India whose mother tongue is Sanskrit? It is because if you look at the distribution of native speakers of Sanskrit, by gender, and region, you will find that Sanskrit is the only Indian language whose male speakers outnumber its female speakers by 30% to 40%. All other languages have roughly equal numbers by gender. If Sanskrit is indeed these 14,000 speakers' mother tongue, then where are the mothers in the census numbers? Or are Sanskrit-speaking mothers producing a preponderance of male offspring? More likely people are making up these answers to identify with the prevailing political mood in India. That is why the number of native Sanskrit speakers in India changes wildly every ten years, from 2,212 in the 1971 Census, to 6,106 in 1981, to 49,736 in 1991, to finally 14,135 in 2001. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Script in infobox

The infobox itself says, "No native script." As long as Sanskrit was a living language, its various compositions were either orally transmitted (1500 BCE to 500 BCE), or written in Brahmi script, Kharosthi or later the Nagari script, a precursor to the late-medieval and modern Devanagari script. If someone can write "Samskritam" in any of the first three above-mentioned scripts, fine. But writing it in the Devanagari is only slightly more authentic than writing it in the Persian script, for the first Sanskrit translations to Persian were done around the same time as the Devanagari began to establish itself as a stable script for transcribing works in a dead language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I have Brahmi keyboard and can upload Sanskrit written in Brahmi script. However, in Brahmi is it written as Sanskrit or Sanskritam ?Awaiting your reply. 86.97.131.142 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I didn't realize they had Brahmi keyboards. (I suppose they could be used for writing articles about old inscriptions.) The problem though might be bigger. In my limited knowledge, it is not clear that at the time that Brahmi may have been used for writing Sanskrit, that the nominalization (neut) saṃskṛtam was in existence or it was only used as an adjective saṃskṛtā or saṃskṛta (meaning pure, or improved, or refined) in combination with a noun which it was modifying. Also, it is not clear how it was pronounced then. Someone working in historical linguistics might have a clue. You could write either word with such a keyboard but we will need a reliable source saying that that is how it was written in those times. As far as I'm aware the Asokan edicts, which were written in the Brahmi script, were (at least in on the pillars) using a Prakrit language. I'm not sure that there are surviving ancient Sanskrit inscriptions in Brahmi, though there might be later ones in Sarada or Nagari (precursor to Devanagari). Sorry, I can't help any further, but writing the present-day pronunciation of the word "sanskrit" or "sanskritam" on such a typewriter is a fraught exercise despite Panini's supposed thoroughness. Sorry, I should have been more careful in choosing my words above. Now that I think of it, I meant "if someone can reliably write ...." Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sanskrit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

A grammar mistake?

In the Writing system section, shouldn't there be no article?
calling it a "parallel products of a literate society"--Adûnâi (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the author(s) from the Tatar Wikipedia participants

Thank you, the author(s) of this article. We translated your article into the Tatar language.--A.Khamidullin (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@A.Khamidullin: I see that. Congratulations! Best regards on behalf of the various authors, foremost among which, I believe, has been @Dbachmann: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

इस लेख को पढ़कर बहुत ही अच्छा लगा अब इसको संस्कृतानुवाद की भी आवश्यकता है जो मैं करने का प्रयास करूंगा अंशू गुप्ता (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sanskrit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sanskrit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Devanagari the official script?

Is there any evidence? If there is then please attach it there. Otherwise remove the official tag. Sagir Ahmed Msa (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "official"? Sanskrit is one of the official languages of India, just as Hindi is.[3] While this Act notes that Hindi in Devanagari is the first official language of Uttarakhand and does not specify any script for Sanskrit, its use is implicit, for the simple reason that Sanskrit has not been written in any other script for centuries. --Pete (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 Done. I removed the "official" label. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not exactly true. You will find even today Sanskrit written in other lipis but by far Devanagari is the traditional script for Sanskrit. And it is because of that it was then adopted by Hindi. Hindi can also be written in other lipis.49.207.62.210 (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sanskrit doesn't have any native script and throughout history was written down in local scripts, without any preference for a particular script. Sometimes there were scripts, which were used only for sanskrit (such as Grantha alphabet in Tamil Nadu), but even they were restricted to their particular region. We don't find any sanskrit inscriptions in devanagari outside of the region, where devanagari was traditionally used. Devanagari emerged as de facto sanskrit script only since 19 century, but it is still no more traditional for sanskrit than any other historical indian script. 80.250.56.174 (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Age

This article seems to contradict the article on the Hittite language. The phrase "As the oldest Indo-European language for which substantial written documentation exists..." is not compatible with the description of Hittite as "the earliest-attested of the Indo-European languages". I do not claim to be an expert on either language, but my understanding is that any statements about the age of Sanskrit should be cautious because the dating of its earliest records is uncertain; dating for early HIttite records is somewhat more reliable. If/when the Sanskrit article is unlocked, this area of the article should be reconsidered. The sentence might be changed to read "... possibly the oldest ...", and a cross-reference to Hittite could be added: "(cf. Hittite)".

It would also be worth discouraging the misconception that, because of its antiquity, Sanskrit must be the "parent" of all other Indo-European languages. (The British writer and broadcaster Melvyn Bragg has been heard several times to say Sanskrit is the ancestor of English.) The branching of Proto-IE is well explained by the cladogram in the Proto-IE article. EEye (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems sensible. But are the Hittite texts really "substantial written documentation"? Perhaps, though the oldest just amounts to two paragraphs in English, and nobody will be adapting it for tv any time soon. In fact the earliest of the dates claimed for the Rigveda predate this a tad, though of course with the Hittite we have actual original inscriptions. If you hear MB saying that again, just kick him in the shins. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Vedic known to be the oldest documented Indo-European language?

I think it is not really known that Vedic is actually the oldest. Hittite, Luwian, and Old Avestan are all also from the 2nd millennium BCE. Ficusindica (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It states "oldest documented Indo-European family of languages". We must stick with what the RS are stating. I will embed a quote to ease WP:V. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources and sourced content

@Ficusindica: Why did you add "refers to recorded dialects" instead of "is a language"? The cited Encyclopedia Britannica and mainstream RS overwhelmingly state that "Sanskrit is a language". You did not add any sources, just made blog-like edits that do not reflect the cited sources. In a series of edits, such as this, you deleted some sources and sourced-content from the lead. Please explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Sanskrit is ambiguous. It refers to both "Classical Sanskrit" and "Vedic Sanskrit." Vedic Sanskrit of course represent recorded dialects. They are natural languages. On the other hand, Classical Sanskrit is a constructed language. You can't actually view Sanskrit as a language, it comprises of recorded dilates and the standardized language. Although Sanskrit is a very common word, interpretation of the word "Sanskrit" as a single language has little credence. Ficusindica (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ficusindica: We must stick with what the mainstream WP:RS are stating. Sanskrit is an old IE language. Like all languages, it too evolved. The article is already acknowledging the Vedic and Classical aspects of this language (I will expand this section as well as I update and revise this article). Please provide some peer-reviewed scholarly sources with page numbers with any suggestions you may have. We can then collaborate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Note that Britannica does note that "Vedic Sanskrit" comprises of (multiple) recorded dialects.[4] "Classical Sanskrit" is of course different. We must note that "Sanskrit" comprises both a group of recorded dialects and a constructed language. Ficusindica (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Languages have dialects, and a dialect refers to it in the context of a specific region or population group. That does not mean we should write "Sanskrit refers to recorded dialects". Because that does not reflect what Britannica and the vast majority of scholarly sources are stating. Britannic is calling Sanskrit "a language", "an Old Indo-Aryan language". It is not appropriate to emphasize the "dialects" part, which appears once in the entire Britannica article in the context of the early Vedic documents. To quote, "Sanskrit language, (from Sanskrit: saṃskṛta, “adorned, cultivated, purified”) an Old Indo-Aryan language in which the most ancient documents are the Vedas, composed in what is called Vedic Sanskrit. Although Vedic documents represent the dialects then found in the northern midlands of the Indian subcontinent and areas immediately east thereof, the very earliest texts—including the Rigveda (“The Veda Composed in Verses”), which scholars generally ascribe to approximately 1500 BCE—stem from the northwestern part of the subcontinent, the area of the ancient seven rivers (sapta sindhavaḥ). (...)" Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
We'll be going in circles. I see that you respect Sanskrit. But noting that Vedic Sanskrit is a term that refers to "a group of recorded dialects" does not demean the concept of Sanskrit. It's just that Sanskrit is not just "a language," and "dialect" is not a demeaning term. In a linguistic perspective, all daughter languages of a certain language, like daughter languages of Proto-Indo-European, are dialects. This is in contrast to "Classic Sanskrit," which is not a natural language, and we must contrast the two. Ficusindica (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ficusindica: While you registered your account a few years ago, you have about 250 edits. So, I request you to avoid WP:FORUM-y discussions, respect WP:Talk guidelines. We cannot cherrypick and generalize/misstate something beyond its context. We must summarize what the scholarly sources are stating. The sources are stating that Sanskrit is a language. The article's lead should too. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
It consists of two things, I hope that you understand. A group of recorded "dialects," used here in the linguistic sense, AND a constructed language. It's our job at Wikipedia to address ambiguities. Do you wish to issue a request for comment? Thanks. Ficusindica (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Ficusindica: I understand your POV. The article should not reflect the personal opinions of any editor, rather it should reflect what the scholarly sources are stating. The article should and does mention the early "dialects" aspect in the main section. It will be absurd to allege or make this article imply that Sanskrit is not a language. RFCs are not meant to be a way to discard our core content policies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ficusindica: Why are you fixated on noting that Sanskrit is a language? Ficusindica (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch:I do not deny that there is a concept of language behind the word "Sanksrit." While not dispelling that concept, we must note what the word refers to, a number of recorded Indo-European/Indo-Aryan dialects and a constructed language. What is your opinion on that? Thanks. Ficusindica (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Ficusindica: No need to ping yourself! I have struck it out and added your signature to your first line to prevent confusion. For the rest, please reread my comments above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I actually make mistakes a lot. But anyway, do you not think that we should refer to what the word "Sanskrit" refers to, as in breaking it down. We actually do it in the second para, but I happened to have done it in the lede sentence during my edits. I think that it may be useful to put it there. Ficusindica (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ficusindica:, Sanskrit is "ambiguous" only in the sense that, say, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Estonian, Turkish, Malay, Basque, and Afrikaans (and this isn't an exhaustive list) are "ambiguous". They all vary across a number of dialects. They all are also embodied in standard forms (often synthesizing features from multiple dialects and characterized by varying degrees of artificiality in vocabulary, grammar, and orthography) prescribed by one or more organizations. Would you argue against identifying them, first and foremost, as languages in their respective Wikipedia articles? Do you consider the editors who have classified them as such "fixated" on the use of the term "language" to identify them? If not, but you still feel that Sanskrit isn't a "language", it isn't clear what leads you to consider it a special case. Largoplazo (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not deny that Sanskrit is a language, because that concept exists.
But we can say that there is a concept of Sanskrit as a language but also a reality of it being two thing, a "group of recorded dialects," another way of saying a group of "very closely related" languages, and a constructed language. I'm sure that you know that these two define the word Sanskrit, but you want to emphasize that Sanskrit is a language.
That's why I want to define Sanskrit in the lede sentence, and allow the rest of the lede paragraph address the idea of Sanskrit as a language.
I think the word "dialect" is the confusing part. Sometimes, a group of related dialects is called a language. Sometimes, a standard form exists, and colloquial varieties are called "dialects." What the word dialect actually means, is "any spoken and natural language." In this sense, a dialect is not a colloquial way of speaking but a natural language, unlike that standard form which is not a natural language. This is the usage of the word "dialect" used here. These recorded dialects are dialects in this sense, and are not "dialects" of a certain language. Sanskrit comprises "a group of recorded dialects," IE dialects that are lucky to have been written down. Tanks. Ficusindica (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You still haven't presented anything that distinguishes Sanskrit from all the languages I listed. That was my whole point: You could just as well ask whether we should, up front, describe French as an ambiguous term describing either a set of dialects or a constructed, standardized language promulgated by l'Académie Française. But we don't. The fact that languages have dialects, as well as various registers that may include standardized, prescriptive, somewhat artificial versions, is inherent in language, not a salient feature specific to Sanskrit that calls for us to treat that language differently from others. Largoplazo (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Sanskrit is a historical language. French has been created by taking elements of various spoken forms. However, Sanskrit has not been created by taking elements from various spoken forms. These "dialects" were recorded as they were. Classical Sanskrit is a separate development, not created by assembling various dialects, but by constructing a language mainly based on the grammar and lexicon of Vedic. Vedic does not comprise "dialects of Classical Sanskrit" or "dialects of Sanskrit" ie. Vedic is not dialects of a standardized language. While the developments may sound similar, Vedic is never thought to be "dialects" of Classical Sanskrit of Sanskrit. Ficusindica (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you aren't familiar with the development of any other language, but you still aren't expressing anything that appreciably distinguishes Sanskrit from other languages. French dialects aren't dialects of standard French: there were French dialects before there was a standard French. Italian dialects aren't dialects of standard Italian: there were Italian dialects before there was a standard Italian. Conversely, as Classical Sanskrit was an adaptation of existing grammar and vocabulary, standard French, standard Italian, etc., were all refinements (to use the word applied in the Italian language article) of existing vocabulary and grammar in one or another "preferred" dialects, typically one spoken and written in literary centers, like Francien dialect, spoken in Paris and its vicinity, and Florentine Italian. So your observation that the Vedic Sanskrit dialects aren't dialects of Classical Sanskrit fails to distinguish Sanskrit from these other languages in that regard, as do your observations about the provenance of Classical Sanskrit. Largoplazo (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
We can't call Classical Sanskrit refinements over Vedic. Classical Sanskrit is a constructed language. The difference between French and Sanskrit is that French does not refer to the dialects based on which French was formed, instead they are called "dialects of French." However, Sanskrit does refer to both the constructed language and the dialects used to created it. That's why we have to disambiguate the word Sanskrit to mean bot Vedic and Classical Sanskrit. Ficusindica (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You haven't made it clear that the difference between "refinements" and what you're insisting on calling "constructed" is anything other than, perhaps, a matter of degree. Classical Sanskrit was not made up from scratch. As for "...French does not refer to the dialects based on which French was formed, instead they are called 'dialects of French'", that's a blatant contradiction. You say "French" doesn't refer to those dialects—and then you immediately refer to them "dialects of French"! Whatever distinction you're trying to draw still seems illusory to me. Largoplazo (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • An RS or two supporting the special treatment of Sanskrit as not-a-language would be helpful, but "In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, ..."; this is, indeed, a discussion over the wording used in the article and the overall presentation of the subject in it, not a general discussion about the subject. So WP:FORUM isn't being infringed, is it? Largoplazo (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no claim that Sanskrit is not a language, but it is simply composed of Classical and Vedic Sanskrit, and we have to note them both. Also, there is not proof that Vedic Sanskrit, at least Rigvedic, was actually composed in geographical India.Ficusindica (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Largoplazo: Any discussion that focuses on personal opinions / prejudices / wisdoms of an editor, that ignores RS already cited and our core content policies, and where the editor insists on their own personal POV without offering few RS with page numbers to support that POV, is a forum-y discussion. It is the pursuit of some script in their mind, rather than an objective consideration of the due and mainstream scholarship. The issue here is that the vast majority of scholarly sources call and treat Sanskrit as a language, like as you point out "French, Portuguese, Spanish, Estonian, Turkish, Malay, Basque, and Afrikaans". We summarize scholarly sources, and do not entertain the WP:FRINGE opinions of any editor or WP:TE. Ficusindica: Please see my comments above. Wikipedia is not the place for asking for proof of X or Y. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You're mistaken. As founded as your point is about discussing the issue at length without invoking reliable sources, and while the discussion may seem "forum-y", it isn't "WP:FORUMy" just because the word "forum" was used as a shortcut to that section. The guidance in WP:FORUM doesn't cover this. And you're conflating the purpose of the discussion (covered by WP:FORUM) with its failure to focus on relevant grounds for reaching a resolution (not covered by WP:FORUM). Your substantive remarks might have been correct, but you invoked the wrong guideline to back it up. Largoplazo (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Simply put, Sanskrit is composed of Vedic Sanskrit (sometimes just "Vedic") and Classical Sanskrit. Ms Sarah Welch: Why are you opposed to even mentioning and defining the two? They are quite distinct. Ficusindica (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Ficusindica: The article already summarizes the Vedic and Classical Sanskrit aspects of the subject where it is due in the lead and the main article. Your POV is that "Sanskrit is not a language", or that "there is a concept of Sanskrit as a language, but it is not really a language", or some such. You keep arguing your POV without citing a few quality peer-reviewed scholarly publications with page numbers. That is not constructive. Wikipedia is not the place to insist on or summarize your personal wisdoms / prejudices / opinions. If you accept that scholarly publications do state Sanskrit to be a language, please stop deleting that from this article. It is WP:TE to do so. I have Tim Burrow and many of the cited sources on my desk. The replacement text you keep inserting before these cites misrepresent what those cited sources are stating. Please do not do so. For rest, please see above. If you do not understand wikipedia content policies and my related request, please contact WP:TEAHOUSE or one of the noticeboards. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch: I never said Sanskrit is not a language. But we have to note what Classical and Vedic mean to disambiguate clearly. My version of the leading two sentences read:
"refers to recorded dialects of Old Indo-Aryan, Indo-European dialects spoken in the 2nd millennium BCE as well as a constructed language dating to mid-1st millennium BCE.[1][2] Referred to as Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit, respectively, Sanskrit is the primary language..." Ficusindica (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Unacceptable. For reasons, please see above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference britsanskrit was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Tim Murray (2007). Milestones in Archaeology: A Chronological Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 115–116. ISBN 978-1-57607-186-1.

Largoplazo: The WP:FORUM states, "In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article,(...)." One way to distinguish a "general discussion about the subject" from "a discussion on how to improve articles" is the insistence of "personal opinions" versus "what the RS are stating and discuss that in light of wikipedia content guidelines". Article talk pages are not the place for the "general discussion/analysis of personal opinions" while ignoring the mainstream RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources

We should avoid WP:CITEKILL, so I list a few more sources with page numbers supporting the mainstream scholarly view that "Sanskrit is a language":

  1. "Sanskrit is a language of learned treatises and commentaries to this day" - Prof. George Cardona, in The World's Major Languages, page 380, (Editor: Bernard Comrie)
  2. "Classical Sanskrit, a language that became a vehicle for scholarly, religious, and literary discourse...." - Prof. Benjamin W. Fortson, in Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, page 209
  3. "The idea was inspired by the critical discovery of the third member of the comparison (the tertium comparationis in technical jargon), namely Sanskrit - a language geographically far removed from the other two." - Prof. Benjamin W. Fortson, in Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, page 9
  4. "Sanskrit, a language which has survived as the living language of Indian philosophy,..." - Prof. Neal White, in A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English, page vii
  5. "The most important discovery leading to this hypothesis was the recognition that Sanskrit, a language of ancient India, was one of the languages of the group." - Albert Croll Baugh and Thomas Cable, in A History of the English Language, page 20

There are a zillion more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not deny that Sanskrit (Classical Sanskrit) are all these. But how else will you define Vedic and Classical Sanskrit? Ficusindica (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Ficusindica: Please end this "I do not deny" style forum-y discussion. Find scholarly sources. Read them. Then start writing, "Sources such-and-such state...." on page number(s) "such-and-such", and we can improve this article by including "this, this etc". FWIW, for the umpteenth time, the article already summarizes the Vedic and Classical aspects of Sanskrit, with Panini and the rest per the scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Sanskrit comprises just Vedic and Classical and we must disambiguate right in the lede para. Please find a suitable disambiguation if you don't accept mine. Ficusindica (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion in the 2nd lead para suffices. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
But saying Sanskrit "is a language" is insufficient. It comprises at least two recorded languages as Vedic and a synthetic languages called "Classical Sanskrit." Ficusindica (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
No. For reasons and the next steps available to you, please see above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You want to disregard Britannica that points out two dialects recorded as Vedic. [5] You somewhat neglect me because of my negligible number of edits. Ficusindica (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Ficusindica, I've browsed through the discussion above and am still not clear on why you object to begining the article with "Sanskrit is a language" in the lede sentence, and then in the subsequent paragraphs (of the lede itself) getting into the business of the various dialects and history of language development? That is the approach adopted by all the books referred above (do you have an example of a work that doesn't take this approach?), as well as wikipedia article on English language, Latin etc. Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sanskrit is not a single language with a single standard form. It comprises possibly two recorded dialects known as Vedic Sanskrit and a constructed language known as "Classical Sanskrit." Just saying Sanskrit is a language is misleading and insufficient. Ficusindica (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Ficus, you still haven't addressed my questions on lede sntence vs later paragraphs. Note that nobody is proposing that we "Just say[] Sanskrit is a language"; that's just a strawman. The only question is whether or not the first sentence says that it is a language. Can you cite any work that takes your preffered approach? Abecedare (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
We should choose as much information as we can in an elegant manner. Britannica ventures on discerning Vedic and Classical in the first and second paragraphs, and it doesn't note "it is a language." It is very elegant to note:
refers to recorded dialects of Old Indo-Aryan, Indo-European dialects spoken in the 2nd millennium BCE, as well as a constructed language dating to mid-1st millennium BCE. Referred to as Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit, respectively, Sanskrit is the primary liturgical language of Hinduism..." Ficusindica (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The EB article is titled "Sanskrit langauage" and it starts with "Sanskrit langauage [is] an Old Indo-Aryan language...". Not sure what your point is, or what source you are citing that takes approach you are proposing. Can resume discussion once we have examples of such sources. Abecedare (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Then let's note it is an "Old Indo Aryan" language, not "is a language of ancient India with a documented history of nearly 3,500 years." However, you say my approach is not needed. But can you argue that it is disadvantageous? Ficusindica (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it would be productive to begin a discussion on yet another proposal for the lede sentence, so soon after the previous one has been resolved after such (needlessly, IMO) lengthy debate. How about giving User:Ms Sarah Welch a couple of weeks to work on the article, and then we can debate on what can be improved? In the meantime, it would perhaps be prudent to limit discussion on the talk page to any errors that are introduced and need to be corrected post-haste, rather than matters of preferences, which can wait that long. Abecedare (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

She chooses to adorn the concept of Sanskrit a bit. We can't have such an indirect lede sentence. Ficusindica (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


@Ficusindia:Oh, my goodness. "I do not deny that Sanskrit (Classical Sanskrit) are all these. But how else will you define Vedic and Classical Sanskrit?" So you don't deny the sources that characterize Sanskrit as "a language". But you're still fretting about not delving right into the Vedic/Classical differentiation as though that were of greater urgency than identifying it as a language (as opposed to a musical style, a fruit, a geographical feature).
  • English language begins "English is a West Germanic language ...", not "English language may refer to Old English or Middle English or dialects spoken in Great Britain or dialects spoken in Ireland or dialects spoken in North America or dialects spoken in Africa or dialects spoken in Oceania or Asia or the Pacific."
  • French language begins "French (le français ... or la langue française ...) is a Romance language of the Indo-European family", not "French language may refer to any of a number of dialects spoken in and near Paris historically or in the present day or dialects spoken at various times in Lyon or dialects spoken at various times in Marseille or dialects spoken in Corsica or dialects spoken Quebec or dialects spoken in southern Belgium and parts of the Brussels region or dialects spoken in Guadeloupe or dialects spoken in Reunion or a standardized language constructed and revised by l'Académie française."
Both articles eventually cover the details! They don't start with the details. They don't need to start with the details. It is ordinary for a Wikipedia article's lead to cover high-level information and then get to the details later on. You're wringing your hands as though nobody is going to know about the separate existence of Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit or the significance of each of them unless we present that dichotomy as the first thing we tell people about the topic known as "Sanskrit".
I'd already tired of this, and you haven't come up with anything new. The only reason I'm appending this latest comment is to make one last-ditch effort at forcing the bigger picture in front of you, of how we generally handle languages that share with Sanskrit the characteristics that are at the core of your proposal for the article, to see if maybe you'll have an epiphany and see what I'm talking about so that you'll relax and feel better about it. If not, well, I gave it a shot. Largoplazo (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Sanskrit can be said to be a language, but "Classical Sanskrit" is also a language. Plus Vedic is composed of two dialects. If you don't distinguish these and just say Sanskrit is "a language," it's misleading. Being that both Classical and Vedic can be called Old-Indo-Aryan is sufficient, but distinguishing is better. Ficusindica (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I take it back. One more comment: You're just repeating what I've already dispensed with several times. It's no more misleading than any of the other language articles are by beginning as they do. Putting high-level information up front and saving the details for later is not misleading. It's proper organization of an article. Unless and until you either claim that all those articles are misleading (which I don't believe you will do), or else you come up with a way in which Sanskrit actually differs in pertinent respects (you haven't so far; you've insisted on using the word "constructed" to describe Classical Sanskrit, but your attempt to use that word to distinguish it from the other languages fails: the fact is that the basic way the standard languages developed is comparable) from all those other languages, then you have no further grounds for arguing your case. Largoplazo (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Then please just note it is "an Old-Indo-Aryan language," not the adornment Ms. Welch lately put as the lede sentence. Ficusindica (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There is nothing weird in having different dialects varieties or registers of the same language - that does not mean that the language is less of a language. Sanskrit is an Indo-Aryan language. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Parsing Ficusindica

If I am able to understand these reams of posts being made by Ficusindica, it seems that his positions are two:

  • He thinks of 'Vedic Sanskrit' and 'Classical Sanskrit' as two different "dialects".
  • He thinks of 'Classical Sanskrit' as a "constructed" language.

To make any headway in this discussion, he needs to produce WP:RS that make exactly these points.

If I tried a bit, I could probably produce sources that say that Sanskrit was "constructed". But they would be based on a folk interpretation of sanskrtam as "well-constructed" and thereby infer that Sanskrit was "constructed". On the other hand, the scholars would interpret sanskrtam as purified or refined, as does George Cardona in EB [6]. I found this example in Michael Witzel's article. In 'Middle Vedic' apparently, one finds the form [bhoti] for the classical Sanskrit word bhavati. It would be ridiculous to claim that bhavati is a "constructed" word, whereas bhoti is the "unconstructed" word. For all we know, bhavati might have been the original word, which got shortened to bhoti in natural speech, but a reader of the Veda would have to follow the apparently wrong form for the sake of the metre or to adhere to the Vedic standard.

The other thing Ficusindica is completely missing is the time aspect. The Vedic language is older, and it was used for everyday speech. Classical Sanskrit came later and, by the time it was formulated, the vernacular languages were already Prakrits. So the classical Sanskrit could make rules for word forms, completely disregarding any spoken forms. When our article talks about "older form" and "newer form", it is indeed talking about "dialects" in the sense of Ficusindica. But we don't use the term "dialect" to distinguish the forms evolving in time. We use it only when there are multiple newer forms that vary by region or usage context and there are enough of them to warrant the term "dialect".

So, basically, I don't accept of either of Ficusindica's points. But I might be made to change my mind if he produces reliable sources that do it his way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't need sources for these basic claims. Firstly, 'Vedic Sanskrit' and 'Classical Sanskrit' are not two dialects. Vedic comprises two recorded dialects, natural languages actually spoken in the 2nd millenium BCE. However, Classical Sanksrit is not a natural language like Vedic. It was constructed. The distinction is clear. Why do you think Vedic is not a constructed language, ie. it is a natural language? Ficusindica (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ficusindica: Largoplazo, Abecedare, Kautilya3 and Maunus, all seasoned editors known for their significant contributions to wikipedia, have patiently responded, offered good explanations and advice to you above. Please pay attention. There is no need to repeat. We would welcome peer-reviewed scholarly sources and constructive suggestions from you, but much of what you repeat and this "don't need sources for these basic claims" is a bit baffling. Kautilya3: you make a good point. I would welcome reliable sources and a short summary section about the dialects of Vedic and Classical Sanskrit, particularly scholarly information on the similarities, differences and relationships between these dialects. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
By referring to "Largoplazo, Abecedare, Kautilya3 and Maunus," you make it seem that they all agree with you, although most of them have questioned more. I regret the bitter nature of this discussion. However, the first sentence of any article provides a definition. While breaking down what Sanskrit is is not needed, it is better. Please note why my version of the leading sentence and the beginning part of the second sentence are disadvantageous. I note "Sanskrit is primary liturgical language of Hinduism..." while also breaking down what Sanskrit is. The nature of Vedic and Classical are quite different, even though they are together considered to be Sanskrit. We have to give credit to both Sanskrit as a language as well as its duality as Vedic and Classical. Ficusindica (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I set aside your misrepresentations, and just note once again that the article already covers the Vedic and Classical Sanskrit in the lead and the main article. For more specifics, please read Abecedare's comments again. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think any of the controversy here is over substance, so sources are irrelevant. I infer that everyone in this discussion understands the development of the various incarnations of what's known as Sanskrit. The argument is over the order of presentation, the application of emphasis in the article. Ficusindica seems certain that the article is hiding the details of Vedic and Classical, but it isn't. He keeps repeating the factual details as though the problem is that we don't understand them or don't believe them, when it's their relevance to the organization of the lead that is in doubt. (Succinctly: If you say X, and I agree with X but don't agree that X is relevant to Y, then you aren't going to change my mind about the relevance of X to Y by repeating X 25 more times.)

If I'm going to bring forth one more example of how Sanskrit doesn't need special treatment in comparison to other languages, it's Hebrew language, which begins "Hebrew (...) or [ʕivˈɾit] is a Northwest Semitic language native to Israel, spoken by over 9 million people worldwide." Yes, that's suitable, even though Modern Hebrew was constructed over 2,000 years after Hebrew was no longer a language of daily speech. Largoplazo (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not let this article be the first to disambiguate and define liberally in the lede sentence? Is there any disadvantage to that? This edit was mine. Ficusindica (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Let's define it in the second sentence: "It comprises recorded dialects of Old Indo-Aryan spoken in the 2nd millennium BCE as well as a constructed language dating to mid-1st millennium BCE, termed Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit, respectively. Ficusindica (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

My version of the second paragraph

Both Vedic (often just called "Vedic") and Classical Sanskrit are grouped under Old Indo-Aryan languages. Vedic refers to two dialects spoken in the 2nd millennium BCE, the older among them being used to compose the Rigveda, and thus called Rigvedic.[1] A third dialect of Old Indo-Aryan is recorded as Mitanni-Aryan in Western Asia, while Old Avestan, an Old Iranian language, is fairly close in grammar and lexicon to Vedic. Unlike the spoken dialects of Vedic, Classical Sanskrit was created in mid-1st millennium BCE with the Aṣṭādhyāyī treatise of Pāṇini based on late Vedic as then used in the northwest of the Indian Subcontinent.[2] Apart from the Vedic texts, all literature in the Sanskrit language is composed in Classical Sanskrit. Sanskrit/Vedic itself traces its linguistic ancestry back to the Proto-Indo-Aryan language (from which Vedic Sanskrit differs only marginally), the Proto-Indo-Iranian, and the Proto-Indo-European language.[3] As one of the oldest documented Indo-European languages,[4][note 1][note 2] Sanskrit holds a prominent position in Indo-European studies.[7] Sanskrit is not, however, the parent language of most Prakrit (Middle Indo-Aryan) and modern (New) Indo-Aryan languages, but are themselves daughter languages of the hypothetical and reconstructed Proto-Indo-Aryan language (from which Vedic differs marginally).[a]

References

  1. ^ Encylopedia Britannica [1] Quote: "Although Vedic documents represent the dialects then found in the northern midlands of the Indian subcontinent and areas immediately east thereof, the very earliest texts—including the Rigveda (“The Veda Composed in Verses”), which scholars generally ascribe to approximately 1500 bce—stem from the northwestern part of the subcontinent, the area of the ancient seven rivers (sapta sindhavaḥ)."
  2. ^ Encylopedia Britannica [2] Quote: "What is generally called Classical Sanskrit—but is actually a language close to late Vedic as then used in the northwest of the subcontinent—was elegantly described..."
  3. ^ Thomas Burrow 2001, pp. v & ch. 1.
  4. ^ Philipp Strazny 2013, p. 500.
  5. ^ a b Roger D. Woodard (2008). The Ancient Languages of Asia and the Americas. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-521-68494-1., Quote: "The earliest form of this 'oldest' language, Sanskrit, is the one found in the ancient Brahmanic text called the Rigveda, composed c. 1500 BC. The date makes Sanskrit one of the three earliest of the well-documented languages of the Indo-European family - the other two being Old Hittite and Myceanaean Greek - and, in keeping with its early appearance, Sanskrit has been a cornerstone in the reconstruction of the parent language of the Indo-European family - Proto-Indo-European."
  6. ^ Arne Hult (1991). On the Development of the Present Active Participle in Bulgarian. Institutum Slavicum Universitatis Gothoburgensis. p. 26. ISBN 978-91-86094-11-9.
  7. ^ Benware 1974, pp. 25–27.
  8. ^ Masica, Colin P. (1991). The Indo-Aryan Languages. p. 156.

Ficusindica (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ficusindica: The changes you suggest are not supported by the sources you cite, and is WP:OR. There are other issues with your wording such as in the first sentence, but let us focus on this OR violation. What is it in the cited sources above, or which page of which source, do you see support for:
  • "Vedic refers to two dialects spoken in the 2nd millennium BCE"
  • "the older among them being used to compose the Rigveda,"
  • "A third dialect of Old Indo-Aryan is recorded as Mitanni-Aryan in Western Asia, while Old Avestan, an Old Iranian language, is fairly close in grammar and lexicon to Vedic."
  • "Unlike the spoken dialects of Vedic,"
  • "Apart from the Vedic texts, all literature in the Sanskrit language is composed in Classical Sanskrit."
  • etc
Further, you may wish to review the WP:LEAD guidelines in case you haven't done so. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sanskrit as root language

Change your claim that Sanskrit is the parent languages of all Indo-Aryan languages. Ficusindica (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC) I also suggested an edit to the lede paragraph in the previous discussion. Ficusindica (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
What is it in the article, that you believe, states, "Sanskrit is the parent languages of all Indo-Aryan languages"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The last line of the second paragraph states "Sanskrit is the root language of many Prakrit languages and numerous modern daughter Northern Indian subcontinental languages such as Hindi, Nepali, Bengali, Punjabi and Marathi." I don't think you can find a source for even "many" Prakrit and modern Indo-Aryan languages. Ficusindica (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Dialects of Old-Indo-Aryan: Britannica states that two dialects are represented in Vedic. [7] ("Although Vedic documents represent the dialects then found in the northern midlands of the Indian subcontinent and areas immediately east thereof, the very earliest texts—including the Rigveda (“The Veda Composed in Verses”), which scholars generally ascribe to approximately 1500 bce—stem from the northwestern part of the subcontinent, the area of the ancient seven rivers (sapta sindhavaḥ).") As for Mitanni-Aryan being a dialect of Old-Indo-Aryan, you can find many sources in Google Books. [8] Ficusindica (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ms Sarah Welch: Ficus may have somewhat of a point with regards to the lede sentence, Sanskrit is the root language of many Prakrit languages and numerous modern daughter Northern Indian subcontinental languages such as Hindi, Nepali, Bengali, Punjabi and Marathi. It is arguably/technically correct but still possibly misleading in that, as Alfred C. Woolner has written:

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 S'auraseni, the Midland Prakrit, is derived from the Old Indian dialect of the Madhyadesa on which Classical Sanskrit was mainly based.

An easy fix would be to add a qualifier as in, Sanskrit, though not necessarily Classical Sanskrit, is the root language..., which should IMO suffice for the lede; the details can be spelled out in the article body.
Now, I realize that Woolner is quite a dated ref, and modern scholarship may define the terms and present the issue differently. So I'll trust you to take a deeper look yourself. However, I don't believe two of the books cited in support of the sentence are pertinent to the topic because, at a quick glance, the cited parts appear to be anthropological studies into what (lay) people in some parts of India believe about Sanskrit being the root language, rather than what linguists say about that. Abecedare (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The Vedic dialects are not the parent languages of Prakrit and modern Indo-Aryan languages. Vedic differs slightly from Proto-Indo-Aryan. In fact, if Vedic was Proto-Indo-Aryan, the term wouldn't have existed. The article on Prto-Indo-Aryan presents a source on the slight different between the Vedic dialects and Proto-Indo-Aryan. Because Mitanni-Aryan is classified as an Indo-Aryan language, Prto-Indo-Aryan is the parent languages of the two Vedic dialects and Mitanni-Aryan. Ficusindica (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Ficus, it would really help if you started supporting your arguments with references that directly support your point. Lacking that, even when you are right, editors here are often unable to judge the merit of what you say. Abecedare (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, "Prto-" means "the parent language of," so "Proto-Indo-Aryan" means "the parent language of the Indo-Aryan languages." Mitanni-Aryan is, of course, classified as an Old Indo-Aryan language. So the existence of the term Proto-Indo-Aryan would mean Vedic is not actually that language. I see that the article on Proto-Indo-Aryan language presents a source on the particular differences between Vedic and Prto-Indo-Aryan and Vedic. But I don't have access to it, after the sentence "Despite the great archaicity of Vedic, the other Indo-Aryan languages preserve a small number of archaic features lost in Vedic." Ficusindica (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@Abecedare: I checked a few sources, and added the clarification as well as a summary in the main article. The interrelationships are quite a lengthy discussion in the Colin Masica, Tim Burrow and other sources, and I have tried to distill it and keep the jargon to the minimum. Comments, suggestions, and edits to further improve the expanded main article would be most welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Where did you see Vedic is the "root" language of Prakrit and modern Indo-Aryan languages. That role is for Proto-Indo-Aryan. Ficusindica (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to the concerns so promptly, MSW. If after taking a deeper look at the material and sources, I have any more suggestions, I'll let you know. Abecedare (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know whose opinion you are getting that suggests that Vedic as the parent language of Middle and New Indo-Aryan languages, but such as language as "Proto-Indo-Aryan" does exist, and that hypothetical language is the parent language of ALL Indo-Aryan languages, historical and modern. [9] However, many modern standard dialects, especially high registers of languages including at least Bengali and Hindi have been heavily influenced by Classical Sanskrit. Ficusindica (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Phonology section

@Diannaa and Abecedare: I am overhauling this high traffic article, and need your guidance for additional phonology section revisions. This is a highly technical section. I have poured through several sources, but am particularly following the Jamison source (appears in The Ancient Languages of Asia and the Americas, Editor: Roger Woodward (2008), Cambridge University Press). Stephanie Jamison provides a particularly distilled, well-written shorter version. The jargon intensity is high and the paraphrasing is too close to my comfort, but given the highly technical nature of this section, it is difficult to "reword" and restate it without slipping into OR concerns. I have liberally added inline cites and in-text attributions to address the WP:PLAG concerns. Please let me know if there is more we need to do here and how best to proceed so we do our best to satisfy our WP:Copyvio and related guidelines in letter and the spirit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see the problem of avoiding close paraphrasing versus avoiding original research and introducing factual errors. Unfortunately, I don't have a deep enough knowledge of this technical area to suggest any steps beyond what you are already taking. Perhaps you can ask at WP:LANG whether the proposed approach is acceptable, although I don't know if any project members there are knowledgeable about Sanskrit in particular; Kwamikagami, who is active in language area articles including some Indian languages, may be the one to ask. Another approach would be to ask some editors well-versed in Sanskrit to review your final version to check for any errors that may have been introduced by the paraphrasing, or any improvements that can be made; Dbachmann, Shreevatsa, Buddhipriya and Opfallon come to mind though the latter two have been inactive for quite some time.
Note: I haven't pinged the editors listed in the above comment. Will leave it up to you to decide if/when/what-for to ask for their input. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Concerns about close paraphrasing can be mitigated by following the standard template for phonology sections and by using in text attribution of the author who is being paraphrased.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, both. I will now continue expanding the section with that guidance. Improvements and revisions are always welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Thanks for the private message last week. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Writing system section

@Abecedare and Maunus: I am wondering how to improve the "Writing system" section. Sanskrit has been written in many Indic and in non-Indic scripts such as the southeast Asian (Balinese, Javanese, etc). Would you have any particular example article or suggestions for this section, particularly for a language that has had numerous writing systems? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably this will need a spin-out article, so I would just have the summary here describing the history of sanskrit writing with links to the articles on the different scripts, and maybe some illustrations. If you want to have an illustration for example as table with the description of the now current use of devanagari to help readers who want to read modern texts in sanskrit that would work as well.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes I too imagine a summary-style description covering (1) Oral transmission, (2) Brahmic scripts(s), (3) Devanagari script, (4) Other writing systems, (5) Transliteration schemes. Just picking up numbers from top of my head I would roughly assign, say, 10%, 30%, 30%, 15%, 15% weight respectively to those topics in terms of space devoted. Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
As for existing articles: Greek language#Writing system may be worth looking at, although I think we (meaning you :) ) can do better! Abecedare (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

From a historical point of view, it would also be useful to know if Devanagari has any special claim to be a script for Sanskrit. All Indian scripts (as well as many Southeast Asian scripts) are derivatives of Brahmi, and Sanskrit can be and is written in all of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

How Sanskrit sounds?
A recitation of the Sanskrit composition Guru Stotram, or "the hymn of praise for the teacher (guru)". (4 mins, 55 secs)
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Kautilya3: Indeed. This would be better discussed in the Devanagari script subsection. Sorry, I have been busy in real life and the progress is slow. How is the rest of the article coming along so far? Any further suggestions/revisions to improve this article would be most welcome. A question: Should we embed a short 30 to 60 second sound clip of a Sanskrit recitation? There is one available on the commons, which I now link. It is some five minutes long, a bit long. Can someone or you find one and upload a shorter one? I have quite a few clips that I recorded in Hindu and Buddhist monasteries over the years, in which Sanskrit is accurately pronounced. Unfortunately, I did not get permissions at the time for a public release. I am checking into it. Another option would be to clip/crop the audio clip attached to first 1:01 of the 4:55. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the audio is certainly useful. We can clip this recording after one shloka perhaps. I will also look for something better or alternative. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
That would work, though I slightly prefer the 61 seconds clipped version because it covers three shlokas with more consonants and phonological features. I am fine with either. Each shloka is almost exactly 20 seconds in this audio clip. If we decide to clip it after the first shloka, it should be clipped at 20 seconds. I don't know how to clip audio files, someone please help. @Abecedare, Maunus, and Largoplazo: and others: any thoughts? any resources that can help produce the clipped audio file if the consensus emerges to embed an audio clip in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't bother chopping at all. The listener can always switch off whenever they choose (I heard the whole thing yesterday). And what's the downside: just the fact that its a 3MB, rather than a 700KB download? Doesn't sound that big of a deal to me. One unrelated suggestion though is to label it as "How Sanskrit chants sound?" so that the listener doesn't mistakenly think this is how a conversation in Sanskrit will sound too. And if we can provide a link to the associated text (perhaps place on wikisource) for the listener to follow along, that would also be helpful. Abecedare (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I am fine with that as well. My concern was indeed the file size and how it may affect wikipedia audience accessing it with mobile devices. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Epigraphy section

I have reverted this because of several reasons. The article is about Sanskrit language. We should not wp:coatrack this article into controversies and much-debated history and politics of ancient India. Just because we can find sources that state "milk or [this or that] is nutritious", does not mean we should add it to this article. Indirect stuff such as "...It is thought that they became promoters of Sanskrit as a way to show their attachment to Indian culture" is undue, it may be a better fit in other articles. Second, the Renou quote on the great paradox, if we want to include it, fits better as a note, since this is not an article on Indian epigraphy. I had already moved the Renou into a refn note. Third, epigraphy reflects writing systems that were in use, the various scripts, and therefore it is a better fit in the later part. The history of language is not the same as the epigraphical history. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

First, a note on procedure: deleting and reverting repeatedly the properly-sourced contributions of another user [10][11][12][13] is very rude and contrary to Wikipedia rules. Second, the content you have been deleting is a very faithful reflection of one of the very best sources on the subject (by your own admission): Salomon, Indian Epigraphy pp.86-94. Third, the content you have been deleting is well-known and acknowledged by the best scholars in the area. You cannot cherry-pick Salomon and only choose what you like from his book and delete what you don't like. If indeed the subject of the massive Indo-Scythian influence in early Sanskrit epigraphy is contentious (which I don't think it is, it is just historical fact), then please provide proper sources in order to contradict Salomon's summary. This is standard Wikipedia procedure. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
पाटलिपुत्र: Instead of my behavior, can we please discuss this article and my concerns above about your contributions? For the record, you did not start with Salomon, with your first edit where you incorrectly alleged "perfect Sanskrit"! Here was my first revert and edit summary message for you. Along with focusing on the subject of this article, I request you provide the sources with page numbers you relied on for the "massive influence" in early Sanskrit language epigraphy claim you make above. FWIW, we have already summarized Salomon and others with "The Junagadh rock inscription of Western Satraps ruler Rudradaman I (c. 150 AD, Gujarat) is the first long inscription in fairly standard Sanskrit that has survived into the modern era. It represents a turning point in Sanskrit epigraphy, states Salomon, being "the first extensive record in the poetic style" in "more or less standard Sanskrit".[287][note 33] It is important because it is likely the prototype of the extensive Sanskrit inscriptions of the Gupta Empire era.[287]" Once you provide your sources that explain what-how-where the 'massive influence' developed, we can review it and see what else to add here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
(ps) Abecedare / the talk page watchers: I am still working on the epigraphy/texts sub-sections and expect to explain a bit more on Brahmi / early-Nagari / Gupta / Sarada / Siddhamatrka / etc scripts used for Sanskrit language in epigraphy and texts. I want to keep both subsections short/distilled per Abecedare and my discussions. I hope to add this clarification about writing systems in Sanskrit next week or sooner if I am able to. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course I did not start with Salomon, and I am thankful that you pointed Salomon to me as a reliable source. I was the first one to correct, and modify my contributions accordingly. His analysis of Sanskrit is excellent, but it seems you are only ready to accept the parts of his analysis that suit you. You essentially removed from the paragraph the summary of his analysis of Sanskrit epigraphy as "the great linguistical paradox of India", essentially hiding into a note what is his major introduction to the subject [14]. My "massive Indo-Scythian influence in early Sanskrit epigraphy" is just my way of describing on this Talk page the extensive description of the influence Indo-Scythian Sanskrit epigraphy made by Salomon in page 86-92, and his various explanations to that effect: Thus it appears that the use of Sanskrit for inscriptions was promoted, though not originated, by the Scythian rulers of northern and western India in the first two centuries of the Christian era. Their motivation in promoting Sanskrit was presumably a desire to establish themselves as legitimate Indian or at least Indianized rulers and to curry the favor of the educated Brahmanical elite. (p.93) In conclusion, although the hybrid dialect is still predominant, Sanskrit is beginning to establish itself as an epigraphic language in this era, especially in Brahmanical circles, continuing the trend which began in the first century B.C. (p.88) The Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman (SI 1.175-80), the greatest king of the second Western Ksatrapa line of Castana, was written shortly after A.D. 150 and represents a turning point in the history of epigraphic Sanskrit. This is the first long inscription recorded entirely in more or less standard Sanskrit, as well as the first extensive record in the poetic style. Although further specimens of such poetic prasastis in Sanskrit are not found until the Gupta era, from a stylistic point of view Rudradaman's inscription is clearly their prototype. (p.89) we can suspect that the inspiration for using Sanskrit for epigraphic purposes emanated from Mathura (there are clear historical connections between the Western Ksatrapas and the Scythian dynasties of Mathura) (p.89) The spread of epigraphic Sanskrit to the south in subsequent centuries can also be attributed to the influence, direct or indirect, of the Western Ksatrapas. In summary, I believe it's appropriate to qualify this influence as quite massive, but you are free to use another word if you wish. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
For the record, the clipped quotes are incomplete. The reader may wish to read Salomon's chapter and the important context such as the source of Junagadh inscription Sanskrit, as well as many more early Sanskrit inscriptions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looking at the before and after versions of Pataliputra edits, I find both the versions tedious, not sufficiently insightful or discursive, but Pataliputra's version more so. So, his edits are going in the wrong direction. We don't need all the trivia like which was the first Sanskrit inscription in Western India etc. All we need to cover are interesting features like, what were inscriptions used for, which periods saw incline or decline of Sanskrit inscriptions, how was the language employed in them. A more interesting question is, why were Sanskrit inscriptions used at all, even after the language stopped being spoken? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The paragraph in question Early epigraphy is actually a combination of Ms Sarah Welch's contributions and mine, and essentially reflects the content of Salomon's "Indian epigraphy" pages 86-92, which is quite specific in terms of actual epigraphical remains, hence its possibly "tedious" but very factual nature. The other points you mention are clearly interesting as well and deserve development.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"Tedious" means boring, unencyclopedic. Don't blame it on the source. This is our encyclopedia, and we need to decide what information to the present to the reader and in what format. Turning a long list into a paragraph and adding lots of blue links doesn't make an encyclopedic article. There needs to be interesting information, a thread of narrative, and insight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, but I beg to differ. I personally find the information highly factual and highly interesting, coming from an outstanding source (Richard Salomon). At least, this information on the reality of Sanskrit epigraphy brings some certainty and undisputable archaeological facts to an area which is often too prone to fabricated/embellished claims and romantic/nationalistic/unproven theories.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
पाटलिपुत्र: You have a different POV than Kautilya3 and I. Once again, we have already summarized the Rudradaman I Sanskrit inscription and its significance in this article. Salomon has been extensively cited in this article, as well, before your first recent edit. Our dispute then is about that image you plugged in, about what information to present to the reader and in what format. Further, our challenge is one of plenty... there are a lot of inscriptions and texts of significance to the subject. We must discuss and reach a consensus on which images best aid the understanding of the subject. Rudradaman inscription image is not only of poor quality, in the current form it does not aid any understanding of the Sanskrit language. Further, this is not an article on Indian epigraphy history, or archaeology, it is one on the Sanskrit language. Please keep those "fabricated/embellished/romantic/nationalistic/unproven" allegation hints off this talk page, as Kautilya3's comments are not it and they do not help improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Sanskrit and Prakrit language links to Indo-European languages.

@RexxS: Is there a way to overlay a colored box (light blue or light orange?) in the upper right half of the IndoEuropeanTree.svg image? The upper edge of that box would be above Vedic Sanskrit, lower edge above Iranian and the left edge midway just left of Sanskrit/.../Punjabi/Sindhi little green boxes. It is a crowded image no doubt, but it does show some aspects of the language relationships. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I made a template called Template:Overlaid images that might work for you if the coloured box is a pre-defined image.
Optionally you could use the markup I changed above. I'm not sure I interpreted your instructions properly, but you can play with the size and positioning (width, height, left edge, top edge) of the box, as well as the border thickness, border colour and background colour as you choose. Unfortunately, you have to specify a fixed size for the image - I've picked 880px wide. When you use the image, you can scale it (e.g. a quarter size, making it 220px wide), but you'll have to scale the box width, height, left, and top by the same factor. Let me know if you need help with either the template or the above markup. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: Exactly what I was hoping for. Thank you. Thank you. I will play with this template. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Junagadh inscription

पाटलिपुत्र: why is this due? Per MOS:IMAGES, images are "an important illustrative aid to understanding" the subject. What and how does that poor quality image aid any understanding here? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A better photographic version of the Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman.
Anybody, me included, would readily agree that the photographic rendering of this 2000 years-old inscription is not very good (and I suspect the photograph itself is OK, but the inscription is quite worn). Still, it is of immense value, at it shows the current state of one of the most important early Sanskrit inscriptions in Indian history. I don't quite understand how you can object to this photograph, since you yourself have introduced numerous epigraphical images of much much worse quality here or here, including in the very same Sanskrit article here. Once again, it's OK, since we're not here to make a photography beauty contest, but, rather to report accurately about important historical material, even if they are quite worn and not exactly beautiful to look at. In any case, it is a billion times better than using a totally irrelevant 18th century manuscript in front of a paragraph about 1st century rock inscriptions, as is currently the case in the article [15]. Anyway, I have uploaded a new image with slightly better rendering, here attached. Cheers पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. The subject of this article is Sanskrit language, and flooding this article with images of many 2000-year inscriptions is undue and does not aid understanding the subject of this article. In other wikipedia articles dedicated to each inscription, we have more flexibility. We need to avoid overcrowding this article with undue images once again, something I have repeatedly requested to you in other articles where we have had our content and style disputes (e.g. Ajanta Caves). For which image of an inscription is best here, we can seek a consensus of the wider community. Yes, a short discussion about the Sanskrit inscriptions is due, something the article already includes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Inserting one relevant image in a barren 30-lines paragraph is not "flooding this article with images", it is just illustrating it in typical Wikipedia manner. Further, epigraphy is by definition a visual subject, which naturally deserves an illustration. Lastly, visual subjects generally deserve illustrations, sometimes more than non-visual subjects, as User:Johnbod has already shared with you, a principle which has been rightly applied to the Ajanta Caves article and in many others. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a language article. Ajanta Caves is a visual subject indeed, yet you overdid it there. We balanced it out. Lets keep this talk page's focus to this article. There are many inscriptions. We have images for quite a few. We must ask: what and how does that image aid the understanding of this article's subject, the Sanskrit language? which image is better and why? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Better images?

There are numerous much better quality pictures as as those below, and others. Some illustrate the writing scripts, some geographical significance of Sanskrit, some other aspects of the Sanskrit, etc. These we may wish to consider. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

5th/6th-century Gupta script Sanskrit inscription related to Shaktism (left), Sanskrit at a UNESCO world heritage site temple (middle), the oldest known written document in Malaysia is partially in Sanskrit (right), etc.


These are pretty images, and we could indeed find a way to use them, but they are a million times less interesting (historically-speaking and encyclopedically-speaking) than images of the first known Sanskrit inscriptions that you are continuously deleting [16][17][18][19], such as the first long inscription in literary Sanskrit in Indian history (2nd century CE) , or even the high-quality picture of the first known Sanskrit inscription from western and central India (2nd century CE) . Is it the fact that these two early inscriptions were made by rulers of foreign origin (Northern Satraps and Western Satraps) that bothers you? Obviously, in an encyclopedia, photographic prettiness is next to irrelevant, what is most important is the informational or historical value of a photograph, and so far nothing you propose beats, by very far, the historical value of the two photographs I have been proposing. A note on procedure: deleting and reverting repeatedly the properly-sourced contributions of another user is very rude and contrary to Wikipedia rules. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
पाटलिपुत्र: Please quit speculating about my motives and focus on my concerns above and the subject of this article – the Sanskrit language. Your allegations about "foreigners" are strange and difficult to comprehend given how much content I have added in recent weeks, before your first recent edit, on Sanskrit and Southeast Asia, Central Asia, East Asia etc. Your term "foreigners" is difficult to understand in the context of this article, but if the context is modern, it is strange for you to make your allegations because SE/E/C Asia would qualify, as would other content added. If you are projecting your own priorities on me, that is inappropriate use of this talk page. Please stop these speculative aspersions. If you believe I am rude/breaking rules, once again as in our many content disputes in various articles in the past, you are welcome to try DRN/ANI/etc. Now, can we get back to relative evaluation of the images and discussing how and which images contribute better to understanding the subject per the MOS:IMAGES guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
So let's go back to the direct issue at hand: we have about 30 lines discussing early Sanskrit epigraphy, which happens to be for a very large part the product of Northern Satrap and Western Satrap involvement (see Salomon). Epigraphy is eminently a visual subject, and 30 lines is a big and dry chunk of text. Therefore it is normaly judicious to add an appropriate image (here, idealy illustrating the most famous and important Indo-Scythian Sanskrit epigraphy, which is the main content of the paragraph). I added one photograph of "the first known long inscription in standard Sanskrit" (no less) , which you rejected as low quality and which you removed repeatedly, despite the improvements I made to the photograph. Then, to try to satisfy your request for a better quality image, I tried another one, the "first Sanskrit inscription of western and central India" , which happens to be of a very good quality, but which you still deleted several times without explanations. Both photographs represent some of the oldest (2nd century CE) and most important of early Sanskrit inscriptions, and played a huge role in later developements (prototypes for Gupta inscriptions etc...). You added dozens of images to this article, yet you refuse a single relevant image from me to illustrate the subject of epigraphy which is at this point a barren chunk of text. That's just very hard to understand.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Unpersuasive. Not only is the image quality poor, it is undue to this Sanskrit language article. We have already mentioned that inscription in the text, which suffices. You are incorrect about "perfect/standard, long" etc. The Nasik caves inscription is barely visible and fails MOS:IMAGES guidelines (if you find a better image, we can consider it along with other images posted on this talk page). Please note there are many more images to choose from that are far more relevant, three examples are above and many more I am now adding. I support a community discussion and then the inclusion of consensus images. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional images

A few candidate images for this article
  • Tigalari script Sanskrit manuscript page
    Tigalari script Sanskrit manuscript page
  • A fragment of the Buddhist Jatakamala manuscript showing Sanskrit language in the Gilgit-Bamiyan-Type II Protosarada script, Toyuk, now at the Ethnological Museum, Berlin
    A fragment of the Buddhist Jatakamala manuscript showing Sanskrit language in the Gilgit-Bamiyan-Type II Protosarada script, Toyuk, now at the Ethnological Museum, Berlin
  • 2nd/1st-century BCE Sanskrit inscription in Nanaghat cave inscription, one of earliest known long Sanskrit inscriptions related to Hinduism, Maharashtra
    2nd/1st-century BCE Sanskrit inscription in Nanaghat cave inscription, one of earliest known long Sanskrit inscriptions related to Hinduism, Maharashtra
  • 572 CE Maliya copper plate inscription, Hinduism, king Dharasena II, Sanskrit, Saurashtra script, Gujarat
    572 CE Maliya copper plate inscription, Hinduism, king Dharasena II, Sanskrit, Saurashtra script, Gujarat
  • Copper-plate charter of Jayanatha, Chhattisgarh, c. 502 CE
    Copper-plate charter of Jayanatha, Chhattisgarh, c. 502 CE
  • 6th-century Arang copper plate inscription of Jayaraja, Chhattisgarh, Sanskrit
    6th-century Arang copper plate inscription of Jayaraja, Chhattisgarh, Sanskrit
  • Gopika cave inscription, Sanskrit, Shaktism, Anantavarman, Gupta script, Bihar
    Gopika cave inscription, Sanskrit, Shaktism, Anantavarman, Gupta script, Bihar
  • Sarada script Inscription from Hund, northwestern Indian subcontinent
    Sarada script Inscription from Hund, northwestern Indian subcontinent
  • 10th century college foundation grant Devanagari inscription in Sanskrit on stone, Karnataka
    10th century college foundation grant Devanagari inscription in Sanskrit on stone, Karnataka
  • 5th or 6th century Vadathika Cave Inscription, Sanskrit, Shaivism, Anantavarman, Gupta script, Bihar
    5th or 6th century Vadathika Cave Inscription, Sanskrit, Shaivism, Anantavarman, Gupta script, Bihar
  • 11th century Shilahara Copper plate Devanagari script inscription in Sanskrit, Maharashtra
    11th century Shilahara Copper plate Devanagari script inscription in Sanskrit, Maharashtra
  • Numerals script history ancient India (some extracted from Sanskrit literary works, various places)
    Numerals script history ancient India (some extracted from Sanskrit literary works, various places)
Sanskrit language in various scripts and locations

The significance of these images is the variety of writing systems and geographic reach of Sanskrit language in ancient India and the later centuries. Comments and additional image suggestions, if any, are welcome. I am looking for additional quality images available under proper CC license from Odisha, Bengal, Assam, Kerala, Sri Lanka, southeast Asia, central Asia and East Asia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If I add one single image to a barren 30-lines paragraph about Epigraphy you call it "flooding this article with images" [20] and immediately remove any attempt [21][22][23], but when you add 8 images in exactly the same location [24], everything's fine... anybody will admire the logic. Please beware of WP:OWN. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:Coatracking issues

पाटलिपुत्र: I have reverted you because once again this is not an article on history or Indian epigraphy. Let us discuss this. Please explain how these plugs or attempts to emphasize undue content about the Western Satraps is appropriate in this article on the Sanskrit language? Why doesn't the refn note suffice along with the link to the Junagadh inscription suffice, for what is indirectly related though somewhat interesting information to the subject of this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I also object to your misrepresentation through this edit summary message that "I am seeking any right to review, directly or indirectly" because that is false. Please see my concerns in the sections above, which you did not address and I reopen those concerns in this section again. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:
First, a note on methodology: your systematic deletion today again [25][26] of most of my (highly RS, explained, consistant with sources) edits typically contravenes to WP:OWN: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article". Please respect Wikipedia editorial rules.
Second, my edits essentially either consist in:
1) Making links to more detailed articles from unlinked or unclear names in the paragraph on epigraphy (Kanakerha inscription instead of just "Kanakerha", Nasik inscription of Ushavadata instead of just "Nasik inscription", a link to Rudrasimha I where the Gunda inscription is located on Wikipedia, and to Gondal, India, rather then just "Gunda").
2) Eliminating redundancies (your edit about Ginar being something separate from the Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman, which is wrong)
3) Documenting was is unclear (Kanheri is an inscription by Satavahana ruler Vashishtiputra Satakarni)
4) Following the logic and emphasis of Salomon (For example 95% of his content on western Indian epigraphy is first and foremost about the Nasik inscription of Ushavadata and the Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman, and 5% is about subsidiary inscriptions, but your edit was putting this upside down and strongly reducing the importance of these two inscriptions).
5) Reestablishing the logic of Salomon according to which the Northern Satraps first promoted Sanskrit (after the first few inscriptions of the 1st century BCE), then the Western Satraps probably emulated them, which you are systematically deleting.
6) Per Salomon, mentioning that Prakrit epigraphy predates Sanskrit epigraphy by several centuries, since the Edicts of Ashoka circa 260 BCE, which is really the least we can do in terms of context.
So basically, I am just improving your own content, but you don't seem to see that....
You seem to dislike that the early history of Sanskrit epigraphy involves the Northern Satraps and the Western Satraps to a very large extent, but that's the reality of it, as exactly presented in our common highly reputable source "Salomon, Richard (1998). Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509984-2." Denying it or trying to delute it or hide it, inspite of the sources, comes accross as xenophobic or unduely nationalistic.
Third, I am only adding 600 bites of content which you are systematically deleting [27][28], while you have recently added 5000 bites of content, which you seem to consider as the only version possible ([29][30])
Fourth: You have been contravening to WP:OWN in the handling of images as well, as described in a previous segment of this endless Talk Page: if I add one single image to a barren 30-lines paragraph about Epigraphy you call it "flooding this article with images" [31] and immediately remove any attempt [32][33][34], but when you add 8 images in exactly the same location [35], everything's fine... anybody will appreciate the logic.
No hard feelings, but please stop such behaviour, and start to respect Wikipedia editorial rules. You are a good editor, but you are not the only one, and you have to recognize the proper contributions of those who may have a slightly different perspective from yours. As User:Johnbod once said very perceptively, our collaboration, although sometimes bumpy, can make great articles. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
पाटलिपुत्र: You did not answer my questions. The article already mentions many of the things you state above including Ashoka, Prakrit epigraphy, etc and there is no need to repeat it. This mention is sometimes in refn notes because some of this is not directly related to the subject of this article... the Sanskrit language. Not addressing my primary concern about "due, relevance" is unproductive. Repeated hints on this talk page such as "xenophobic or unduely nationalistic" is not helpful, comes across as reverse-projections of your own intentions here, it is a violation of WP:TALK / WP:TPNO, and I request again that you stop such comments. You are welcome to try DRN / ANI with your "xenophobic or unduely nationalistic" allegations or WP:OWN concerns, but this article's talk page is not the place for it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
(ps: We must use the spelling in the scholarly source; We avoid dupe-links, per MOS/GA review guidelines, but I will check some of the links you mention above, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC))
@Kautilya3: I am open to deleting the epigraphy section and replacing it with something focussed on writing systems in epigraphy. You are welcome to review the discussion above, make revisions to improve this article. FWIW, the inscriptions are the most preserved evidence of writing systems for Sanskrit. Texts are problematic because of scholarly disputes on their dating and other details. It is unclear if, how and when the writing system evolved in the ancient texts as they transitioned from being purely orally transmitted to being orally transmitted and written. Unlike inscription substrates such as stone and metal, most of the palm leaf and other manuscripts decayed relatively rapidly given the Indian and southeast Asian tropical climate, so texts were routinely copied from older copies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र: What you seem to want is an article on Sanskrit epigraphy or a substantial section in Early Indian epigraphy. The content you want doesn't belong in this article.
Sarah, I don't mind having a section on epigraphy, provided it is at a high-level and focuses on broad historical trends in the use of Sanskrit in epigraphy, but the reader should be spared boring trivia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Number of people with Sanskrit as a first language

The linked source names 22 languages, with Sanskrit coming in last – and not merely last, but two orders of magnitude lower than its nearest neighbor. It is my opinion that the source in question, whose title is "Comparative Speakers' Strength of Scheduled Languages", is actually trying to make a point about this being a remarkably rare language. It might be impressive that 14,000 people claim a "dead language" as their first language, but "comparatively", it's still "dead last" on a list that catalogs languages for more than a billion people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The source in question is a table giving the census results. If you believe that the census returns are trying to make any point whatsoever, you need to be reminded of WP:SYNTH. And if we're sharing opinions, here's mine: if there is anything remarkable here (and I don't think there is), it is in the fact that there are any people at all who claim Sanskrit as their spoken language. – Uanfala (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Not at all surprising that it’s dead last. There are some isolated pockets of groups trying to teach their children Sanskrit from infancy, but similar to conlang groups, they have a vested interest in exaggerating the numbers. “Magnitudes lower than its nearest neighbor” sounds exactly right. The fact that it is official is for historical reasons. It would be official even with zero speakers. Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
+1 Uanfala. It may be relatively rare as a first language, but still in use (recited/spoken/heard) by numerous more as a non-first language. It is legacy content from an old version, sourced and worth keeping for fwiw. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
How many people have Latin as their first language? Frankly, I'd be surprised if anybody really has Sanskrit as a "mother tongue", if only because not enough mothers speak it (as opposed to fathers). Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
John, never say never; you'll end up surprised by the rare counterexamples. Like, for example, George Soros's native language. Mathglot (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
It is difficult to put forward a plausible claim that a table of facts that is sorted according to which item has the most or the least is trying to make no point at all about which has the most or least.
My point, however, isn't that a sorted table is ranking the content in it. My point is that most readers don't understand de-contextualized numbers. "Fourteen thousand people" is a lot, if you're talking about billionaires or deaths from a natural disaster. It's next to nothing when you're talking about people in India. Providing some sort of context is important. I don't really care whether that context is provided by saying that it's "14K out of 1.2B", or "0.001% of people", or "one out of 80K", or anything else. Just not "14K, and we're going to leave figuring out whether that's a significant fraction of the people surveyed up to your best guess". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal with List of Sanskrit universities in India

The merge tags have been up since March 2017, but I cannot find any discussions for it, so I might as well start it. I agree it should be merged as the list article is relatively short and I believe this article already has a list of universities. 69.118.34.240 (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: If I am understanding you correctly, you support one list linked to from this article and removing duplicate entries from this article (or merging to the list if there are differences) Seraphim System (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. If there is a separate list article, I don't see the need for a table of Universities in this article. The important ones can be mentioned in the narrative, and the full list can be elsewhere. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Computational studies

@Uanfala: I agree. The reason I had wanted to mention the computational methods studies on classical Sanskrit is that unlike other studied languages, the embedded phonetic rules (internal sandhi) with morphological rules (external sandhi) present difficulties. As Huet remarks, "[computational] treatment of Sanskrit fall somewhere between speech recognition and the analysis of written text." I did not explain all this in the refn note, perhaps I should? I am also okay with skipping this, if you feel this would still be not noteworthy. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

There isn't much benefit just saying it's "been studied", without a hint as to the aspect concerned, or conclusions. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Huet's remark ultimately refers to a feature of the writing system of Sanskrit (the fact that sandhi is represented) rather than the language. Of course, these, and other similar studies can be summarised somewhere (bearing in mind that they are better described as studies of NLP methodologes that use Sanskrit data, rather than studies of Sanskrit that use computational tools), but that's a level of detail that belongs in one or another of the more specific articles (Sanskrit grammar?). If anything can be added here, that would be a brief overview of the resources that have been created for Sanskrit: corpora, tokenisers, parsers, etc. – Uanfala (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Uanfala: Just a belated note that you persuaded me. I agree that a more specific article would be a better place, perhaps with more details about the notable aspects of the related studies. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sanskrit/Archive_7&oldid=1219382326"