Talk:Vedic Sanskrit

Text Removed

I removed the following text for its being innacurate:

"and still comparatively similar (being removed by maybe 1500 years) to the Proto-Indo-European language".

In the first place we have but a slight idea of what the PIE language looked like, and our knowledge is mainly confined to its morphology and vocabulary, and from this point of view at least Vedic is more distant from PIE than Greek or Latin, as it had already undergone satemization and simplification of the vowel system in front of velar consonants.

Lastly, 1500 years (despite being just a guess) is not a short period of time for language change, as it seems to be implied. One has just to consider that it was roughly the time span necessary to go from Latin to the Romance languages.

Robskin (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

references

what is "Mallory and Mair 2000"? How about providing bibliographic details (and page) once you are citing sources? dab (ᛏ) 12:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick JSTOR search, and managed to find a reference to 'Mallory, J.P. and Victor H. Mair. 2000. The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West. London: Thames & Hudson.' This book seems somewhat far afield from Vedic Sanskrit, so I'm not going to put it into the main page. If anyone else is more confident or manages to track down a copy, here is the reference. Mrgah 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, Mallory 1989 would likely be 'Mallory, J.P. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. New York: Thames & Hudson.' Bryant 2001 is anyone's guess. Mrgah 06:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Injunctive?

Someone who knows what the injunctive mood implies, and whether it exists in other languages?

it's not really a mood, it's a morphological remnant from before there were moods. dab (ᛏ) 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an article by Paul Kiparsky on injunctive both summarizing major previous treatments and proposing new view of its semantics - see http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/injunctive.article.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.244.109.165 (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

19th century scholarship

Max Müller was an important scholar, but his works (as most 19th century scholarship) are obsolete and no longer relevant excepting from a history of archeology point-of-view. Mueller used in his works the data he had available at the time, but since then a lot of things were discovered and ignoring them is not a good idea.

Also, Mallory is not just a professor, he's the editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies and he has been one of the most important experts in the field for the last couple of decades. bogdan 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, I don't believe that works of history from the times of Muller need to be rejected at once. The works of Muller are himself disputed in India, where people put the Vedas to 1700BC at least. Like him or not Muller is the authority on the subject. While Mallory might have mentioned it, alongwith Mummies from China and Irish Chariots, his work simply does not qualify to substitute Muller's when it comes to Veads. Freedom skies 20:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Muller is no authority on the Vedas. The very idea is ridiculous. Muller was at best a competent student from an alien culture without the depth of thought to comprehend even the tip of the iceberg that is the Veda. Your statement "..where people put the Vedas to 1700BC at least..." trivializes authentic Indian tradition and the opinions of genuinely learned Indian scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.6.77 (talk) 00:58, August 22, 2009

I agree with Freedom skies here, were not writing an article "J.P. Mallory's theories on Vedic Sanskrit" we are writing "Vedic Sanskrit". Also why have no Indian scholars been cited in this context? Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of trying to pitch Mallory. I'd support the citation of any respected, consensus-representing contemporary scholar here. But it's clear that Freedom_skies idolizes Muller in this case, and won't be happy until he's cited, no matter how superseded portions of his work may be. And as for Indian scholars, I would not object to the citation of scholars who have submitted their work to peer review and publish in international fora, just as Mallory and others have done. CRCulver 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer-review among a group of ignorants has little intrinsic value. Indian scholars are the true repository of Vedic learning, whether you like it or not. Wannabes who indulge in intellectual masturbation and think they understand the Veda better than the Indians seek the dubious legitimacy conferred by "peer review". Peer review works in the natural sciences because of the fundamental idea of *reproducibility*. It has little value elsewhere. There have however been several Indian scholars who have attempted to instill reason, but this is a futile task. There is no doubt that many western students have a sincere interest in Vedic and the Vedas - but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that unless you immerse yourself in the Indian system of Vedic learning you cannot hope to understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.6.77 (talk) 00:58, August 22, 2009

---

Actually this is a matter of trying to pitch Mallory. I offered you additional references which you declined. You left me with Muller alone then you claimed that the objective of my actions was to prove the alleged supremacy of Muller. How ironic ?? A few of the citations have been mentioned in the article. I have about a dozen more if you'd like to extend a request for them. Good day. Freedom skies 22:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

---

About e and o

The vowels e (ए) and o (ओ) were actually realized in Vedic Sanskrit as diphthongs /ai/ and /au/, but they became pure monophthongs /eː/ and /oː/ in Classical Sanskrit.
I doesn't agree to this, because there had be also intermediate diphthongs /ei/ and /ou/ between /ai/ > /ē/ and /au/ > /ō/. So in the Classic Sanskrit ए and ओ) had to be pronounced as /ei/ and /ou/. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roberts7 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Could someone please cite a specific book that may be helpful in studying this interesting question? What is the source? Buddhipriya 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For starters, read A. A. Macdonell's A Vedic Grammar for Students (pp.4-5). Aryaman (☼) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Upadhmaniya and Jihvamuliya

The current text reads:

"...upadhmaniya occurs before p and ph, jihvamuliya before k and kh."

This is a bit misleading: one gets the impression that the two are to be pronounced along with p/ph and k/kh respectively. If I'm reading this correctly, what the text means to say is that when the (historically late) grapheme for Visarjanīya (:) appears before k/kh or p/ph, Upadhmānīya or Jihvāmūlīya respectively are to be understood. If you read texts with the 'proper' graphemes (actually, there are different graphemes for these depending upon the particular corpus tradition) for each, k/kh and p/ph do not appear at all. Unless someone has an objection here, I'm going to change the text accordingly. Aryaman (☼) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Vedanta and Pali

The section on the fifth stage of Sanskrit states that Vedanta was a counter movement that used Pali. My understanding is that the writers of the Upanishads were themselves something of a countermovement, not to the extent of the shramanas. Should that line read "Jains and Buddhists" instead? Was there a period where Vedanta texts were written in Pali? Mitsube (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Attested vs unattested language

The consensus among linguists as regards the term Vedic is that it is applied only to the extant vedic language as it has been attested, and does not refer to the language of 1500 BCE i.e it is not 100% identical to the language in which which the vedas were composed. Modern scholarship identifies the need for metrical restoration of the hymns, apart from other such methods, to reconstruct historical vedic from attested vedic. What we simply call vedic is only the (unrestored/unreconstructed) attested vedic, and this is an important fact that has to be mentioned in the article. User:Dbachmann calls this "nonsense" and reverts it time and again, so kindly provide your view here so we can reach a consensus on the inclusion of the statement in the article. ­ Kris (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Vedic Sanskrit isn't "the language of 1500 BCE" in any case. It is the language of the Vedas which were compiled over the best part of a millennium. Your unattested language is, well, unattested. We have the Vedas, and these are by definition composed in Vedic Sanskrit. The bulk of the Vedic Sanskrit corpus dates to 1200 to 600 BC or so. It is only a few bits of the Samhitas that date to 1500 to 1200 or so.

Srkris, I am done investing time in you. Surely there must be some topic where you are qualified to contribute constructively? Please consider focussing on that. --dab (𒁳) 18:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dont have time to invest? Stop reverting then, and start gaining knowledge. ­ Kris (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll always find a minute to prevent article deterioration at the hands of the clueless. These "Vedic" articles are notorious candidates, you are not the first and not the last to erode their integrity. Please find a topic you understand if you want to work on the 'pedia. --dab (𒁳) 19:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would find two minutes to prevent the deterioration you yourself are causing. I gave u an academic link about restoration of Vedic from the attested language to the historical state when it was composed. Yet you revert? What kind of mentality is that? ­ Kris (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris, there is no point reasoning with these folks. As you know, understanding Vedic literature requires commitment and an essential "Indian-ness" - otherwise it is a futile exercise left to the lesser lights of western academia. I'd be amazed if any of these fools can speak a single sentence of Sanskrit (let alone Vedic) correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.6.77 (talk) 00:46, August 22, 2009

Reverts

Mitsube seems to repeatedly revert something I edit because he/she is clueless about the topic of the article. Is that a sufficient reason for him/her to act so disruptive? it is not just Mitsube but also Dbachmann - two clueless editors trying to keep reverting even if content is academically referenced. ­ Kris (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris - why not start your own page on the nature of the Vedic language ? It's obvious Bachmann and Mitsube have no idea what they are talking about. They place a higher value on reading the secondary works of western academics, not on study and contemplation of the primary Indian works within the larger Indian system of traditional learning. They probably have some modest background in the subject, and are writing what little they know. Leave them to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.6.77 (talk) 01:07, August 22, 2009

I came from the third opinion page. If something is referenced to an academic source then it can go in the article; if something is without reference, no one can stop it from being deleted. This is like the basic thing about wikipedia. See WP:V, WP:RS, for example. I can see the dispute on the page now. These are my remarks:

• no name calling, incivility, insinuation, aspersions, snarky comments, uncooperativeness, etc., drop it all;
• the ledes appear to be different, I don't know the difference in content because I didn't look carefully, but it would be a good idea to go through it like one line at a time. Just go through it on the talk page and discuss the first sentence, then the second sentence, and just agree to them one at a time like that. There may only be 20 sentences in the lede, all up anyway. In some cases you will be able to combine the points in two sentences to create a new sentence. If there are different interpretations prevalent in academic sources, then both of them can appear in the lede. Just make the lede longer to accomodate, but please see next:
• the article in general is poorly referenced, and that always create problems. I saw the books down the bottom, that is good, but there should be a reference at least in every paragraph. See, for examples, these articles, where nearly every line is referenced. That is basically what you should do. It's good that something is from an academic publication, but if no one knows it, they still may not trust it. I'm at least this way. If wikipedia does not tell me where it got that info, it is worth less to me than if the source is identified.
• if it actually becomes difficult to work collegially and in a friendly and openminded way, then 1) that is a shame, but 2) the person who can gather the most and best sources will be the one whose sources go in the lede and other places. I mean, that person will simply determine the content of the article, because wikipedia doesn't care about your personal opinions, it only cares about the opinions of reliable sources. If there are really no sources for what you want to put in then you can't have it in the article. Ultimately it really should not be a battle though...

By the way, I just did my job of combining the two versions. Good luck resolving your differences and working productively together.--Asdfg12345 23:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, to put it specifically, saying another editor is "clueless" about the topic is not nice or helpful to a productive editing environment. That's obvious, right? It doesn't even matter if someone knows nothing about it, really--if they just use good sources then they have more firepower and can trump an expert who comes to write the article directly, but without any references. --Asdfg12345 00:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help Asdfg. The issue is that some editors are indeed genuinely clueless (I dont mean this as a mode of disrespect), but that is not sufficient reason for them to engage in revert wars to remove content that I am adding here (with academic references). These clueless editors who are repeatedly removing content by reverting the article under the pretext of maintaining "long-standing" versions think that by their actions they are maintaining neutrality. When did a content of an article become factual merely because it was long-standing or merely because it was in agreement with their own misconceptions? The main points which were removed from the article by these misinformed editors (and which you have restored now) are

• That the term "Vedic" refers to the form of language attested in modern times from the chanting of the Vedas, not the form that the Vedas were composed in. It is for this purpose that metrical and other restoration methods are used to restore the historical form of the language, as mentioned in the reference.

• Vedic sanskrit was predominantly an oral language that was eclipsed by classical sanskrit before writing was introduced in India c. 300BCE. It has been preserved only through oral liturgical traditions till the present day, and is for this reason unique as a language preserved largely intact for over 3 millenia without the need for writing. ­ Kris (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you are right. I am clueless on this topic, and I'm not insulting myself from saying so, it's just the case. I probably should not have touched the article, but my intentions were good. I think if you just get a couple of references to say what you said then you can use them and you won't have to argue with people about anything, you can just insert the sources, and if anyone deletes them then you can get them into trouble. If other people have contradictory sources of equal stature then both can appear in the article, even the lede perhaps, and that contradiction can be noted--like "there are different views..." Please don't take my edits as anything more than someone clueless on the topic attempting to resolve something in a possibly inappropriate way. I hope there can be good advancements.--Asdfg12345 09:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that one need not be an expert to edit an article, but my main problem with User:Mitsube (not with you) is that he/she is indulging in revert-wars without ever putting a single word in the talk page justifying his/her actions, the content being removed has academic references. That's a problem, you agree? ­ Kris (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Srkris often doesn't use sources. He has also been caught attributing things to sources that do not appear in them. Further he revert wars to advance his agenda, without properly using sources, or by deleting properly sourced material. He also thinks his knowledge is greater than it is, and was caught incorrectly declining a simple nominative case adjective in the first line of the Sanskrit article (he changed it to something incorrect, on his own authority). Other users seem to have lost interest in dialogue with him, for these reasons. Mitsube (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a complete lie. The only reference that this article has, was included by me and repeatedly removed by you. Just see the history of edits. Talk of not using sources, huh!!! ­ Kris (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris is clearly a problem editor. But he is showing some signs of beginning to listen to reason, while keeping up the ranting in order to save face. This sort of user in my experience tends to just walk away at some point as they become aware they can't have it their way. We'll see, Wikipedia will prevail either way. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates are Confusing and Misleading

The article states that the Vedic Scriptures were compiled at the latest 2000 - 1500 BC. However, List of languages by first written accounts states that Sanskrit was only written down during 100 - 300 AD. Does the Vedic Sanskrit considered a different language than the standard Sanskrit? Or Vedic Scriptures were orally transmitted, then recorded at a later date. If orally transmitted, references are needed to confirm the dates. Thanks. --Natkeeran (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

the key word here is written, as opposed to oral tradition. The immediate reference used in this article to identify the mainstream estimates of the texts' composition, incidentially 1500-500 BC, not 2000-1500 BC as you claim, is Witzel (1989). --dab (𒁳) 20:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Differences between the Vedas?

I could not find an in-depth discussion here of the principal differences between the Vedas (other than minor textual differences). For example, Sama Veda is much slower and more repetitious than Rg Veda, as is suitable for its particular role in the development of consciousness. And Gandharva Veda is actual music. There are also specific differences in the Vedangas for the various Vedas. Is all this really missing? Is it relevant to the topic of Vedic Sanskrt? after all, Vedic Sanskrt is much more than just meaning and pronunciation, yes? David Spector (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd expect such a discussion in this article, rather than in the article on the Vedas (which is linked in the first line of this article, and which I expect you'd have found by now). I also don't understand the question itself (what would be "minor textual differences" between two different texts? If you're liking to Gandharva Veda you'd surely also know it's an appendix to sAmaveda? etc.), but nevermind all that here. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This article lack substance and authenticity

I observed in the main article as well as in talk page, the term VEDIC SANSKRIT sounds dubious and lack any supportive arguments. I found several serious issues with the way the article has been put up in the place. Many terms tend to be misleading and lack depth of the matter. I would like to cover sentence by sentence where these issues lies.

1. "It is an archaic form of Sanskrit, an early descendant of Proto-Indo-Iranian...". -

Here it sounds like Sanskrit was a vernacular language came out of as a rambling-babbling of some bovines and peasants or cohort of them, living in a uncivilised age. On the contrary, as a matter of fact, Sanskrit mantras were first listened and composed as hymns after a long dedicated meditation and then transcribed in a precise manner with absolute counting of letters and words using particular meters. Thus vedic hymns do not sound to me as archaic, evolving language in any way ; rather, hymns were written precisely in the way they were supposed to be written. How well thought could anything else be.

2."On the side of vocabulary, Rigvedic Sanskrit shows a considerable number of loanwords taken from an indigenous Indian source...".

I still do not comprehend that why it is said like that here. If anyone who has learned sanskrit in India from a learned Brahmin, must have know that Sanskrit, unlike any other language, was composed on a premise of sound and syllables - meaning that this world was created with a "Naad" (a great sound - like a big bang) and Naad thus exist everywhere in the form of "Aakshar (letters) - something which never dies, vanishes etc.. This Naad or sound energy is eternal and remains in the brahmanda (universer) forever in the form of Matrikas which forms syllables in transcription. Since this world is composed of Naad, every matter including living or non-living, whether it is a solid, liquid or gas represent these Matrikas, thus given or have associated syllables.

For detailed reference one can start reading Panini Ashtadhyayi where Panini Himself refers the premise of his work based on 14 Maheshwar sutras originated from Shiva's Damru. Reserachers can also invest their time and resources to verify how and where these 14 Maheshwar sutras were composed.

Hence there is no chance of brrowing or lending of the vocabulary as being transacted, exchanged during these times. Rather they were composed indigeniously on a scientific premise with ingenuity and then permeated into the daily languages.

3. "The hymns of the Rigveda are thus composed in a liturgical language which was based on the natural language spoke in Gandhara during the early phase of the Swat culture, at the end of the Indian Bronze Age. This liturgical language over the following centuries came to be separated from spoken vernaculars and came to be known as the "artificial" or "elaborated" (saṃskṛta) language, contrasted to the "natural" or "unrefined" prākṛta vernaculars by the end of the Vedic period. "

I would contrast on the use of words such as "Liturgical" "Language spoke in Gandhara" "Swat culture" "Indian Bronze age" " Separated from vernaculars" etc. for most of that feeble statement I have somewhat rebutted in my 2nd point. I would rather ask the writer to cite some facts and details along with this statement. I presume this is to be highly speculative in nature and highly doubt that this is a tenable argument. Dating vedas, citing them as a reconstructive part of language, confining it to the local geographic, demographic region are some of the issues we need to work on and give the western world an understanding of what Vedas and this language really are.

4. "Vedic had a subjunctive absent in Panini's grammar and generally believed to have disappeared by then at least in common sentence constructions...".

I suppose that writer was comparing Panini's grammar with vedic mantra structures as they were contemporary. As I stated in my first point...Mantras were written in a way they were supposed to be written using particular syllable and accent ; grammar was never been the focal point of composing vedas nor it was composed to enrich the language in any form. Infact, Grammar is used as a vedanga to get the better understanding of vedic mantras. The purpose of transcribing these hymns is to create a faculty in every human being in one form or the other with a power of sound (wave) energy. This is why hymn is a collection of "Mantras". Comparing two sources of cultural aspect and testing them on a false premise would always return inconclusive and misleading results. Why on earth people are trying to get the grammar from vedas whereas it was separately laid down by Swatantranand Nath and Panini to get the good understanding of Mantra structures. Grammar is ancilliary to Vedas along with other five parts ; people should take holistic approach rather than taking it as a tool of evolution.

Nevertheless, ingenuity, intelligentsia were the most sought after faculties in India and they still remain to be.220.255.1.128 (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as a food for thought - Panini's grammar is the pinnacle of thinking as he used algorithms to contruct sentences. Nowadays, Scientific world is ready to use this language by marking it as a most sophisticated computing language ever. Why vedic sanskrit grammar will be different and in an evolutionary phase if Panini himself has learned it from vedas.

220.255.1.102 (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK. If anything here "lacks substance and authenticity", it is your rambling. Our articles are supposed to be based on identifiable academic sources, not anonymous essays posted off of one's head. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well Dab certainly you and your team who try to put these article do not understand the subject matter at all; may be just one suggestions, perhaps you may not like it; if Sanskrit language is really hard for you and your team then perhaps you can visit very learned teachers in Varanasi, Nasik, Ujjain etc. in India and learn something new. Once accomplish that, refer back to the historical treatise on Ashtadhyayi,Shiv Sutras, origination of Pratyahaars, the evoluation and use of syllables in Sankrit and finally Vedas, written in Sanskrit and try putting those as reference instead of some western articles and books. Sanskrit is root language of Indo-European branch and can best be understood by Sanskrit Linguists and Historians. This may shed some light on the matter I wanted to bring to the notice of the people. The topics I have mentioned herein my response are very credible and taught at the Hindu Benaras University, Sarvanand Sanskrit University. Hope this clarifies.Saarleya (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

i still doubt that distinction can be traced through Pitch and Accentuation in vedic mantras and can be compared with Panini's Ashadhyayi. Both are distinguised in itself and has its own purpose. For instance, Page 73 of Wikener's Into to Sanskrit Grammar - he himself got this understanding from Pandits that Sanskrit has 3 primary vowels which make total 16 vowels known as Matrka Shakti. This is an important aspect in accent and pitching the mantras and has nothing to do with Grammar.hope this clears the air again. Saarleya (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Prehistoric derivation and sourcing

The article suffers from a lack of citations to reliable sources, in some places more than others. In section Prehistoric derivation, there are a couple of content snippets I wanted to address. (This section was first created in 2010 in this series of seven edits, and still contains the three refs originally added at that time.)

In this edit, a paragraph was added on the separation of the liturgical from the spoken language, but this was unsourced. Dbachmann, I know this is a stretch because of the long time lapse, but from your edits at the article, I can see you wrote a good chunk of it going back to 2005, and it sounds like you are knowledgeable on the topic, and/or you had some sources in front of you while you were editing. Can you find the sources you used for the paragraph in question? Or even if not, are you able to source it now?

The material in that section was further extended in this edit, asserting that the term Vedic Sanskrit is a misnomer. This material is also unsourced; Nakashchit, this material was added only just today; if you have a source for this, can you please comment below? Where did you find the information about the meaning of the term, or are you basing this on your own personal knowledge of Vedic Sanskrit? Adding User:Ms Sarah Welch. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead with the cleanup and revisions. Nakashchit: please cite peer-reviewed scholarly and equivalent sources with your contributions in the future. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mathglot and Ms Welch. First, I do appreciate your courteous tone, so I will persevere with these edits where I have tried to correct a few errors. I will discuss these one at a time over coming days. 1) To write संस्कृतम्, saṃskṛtam, is an error because (as I explained when I made the edit) this is the inflected nominative and accusative singular form. (For neutral nouns ending in ‘a’, schwa, the two are the same). The convention when referring to a Sanskrit noun in the abstract both in Sanskrit and in English is to use the stem form of the noun, which is the dictionary form, just as the convention for English is to use the singular form rather than the plural. If you consult a Sanskrit dictionary the only form that you will find is saṃskṛta, not saṃskṛtam, not saṃskṛtām (nominative and accusative plural) not saṃskṛtena (instrumental singular) etc, just as when we consult an English dictionary we find an entry for ‘horse’, not for ‘horses’, in accordance with English convention. In a Latin dictionary you will find an entry for ‘equus’ (nominative singular) not for equi (nominative plural), etc, in accordance with Latin convention.

This convention is followed in all articles on Sanskrit words. We have an article on ‘Sutra’, where the Sanskrit word is given as sūtra, the stem form; not sūtram, the nominative and accusative singular. Similarly the article Krishna gives the Sanskrit as Kṛṣṇa, the stem form; not Kṛṣṇa, the nominative; nor Kṛṣṇam, the accusative. I cannot find a source to attest that this is the convention, any more than one could find a source to say that there should be an entry for ‘horse’ rather than ‘horses’. It is simply a convention that is always observed. Moreover, you will quite assuredly be unable to find a source to say that the nominative/accusative form of sanskrit should be used. Should an error with no reference be allows to stand simply because it is there first? I do not think that is a Wikipedia principle. Or should we delete the unsupported (erroneous) inflected form of the word without replacing it with the stem form? If one were to do this across the board all references to Sanskrit words would have to be deleted.

You can verify this convention by checking the entries in Sanskrit Wikipedia, or in any dictionary (they are all online at https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/) and compare these entries with the declension engine at https://sanskrit.inria.fr/DICO/grammar.html. You will observe that the declension engine requests the reader to provide the stem form, in accordance with convention.

Now, if you do not mind, I will wait for a couple of days to give you time to consider this and, if necessary, verify what I write, and then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakashchit (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Nakashchit: Wikipedia is not a blog, and article talk pages such as this one are not a forum. I asked you for specific peer-reviewed scholarly and equivalent sources (which means page numbers and other cite details that can verify whatever you wish to revise/add). You didn't. I have removed the unsourced content you added in this article. On "saṃskṛtam", please discuss it on the Sanskrit talk page (again, there too, please try to provide a specific page number with other details of sources, plus address the comments on that page). Else we must ignore you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Phonology

The section dealing with segmental phonology needs improving. For a start, there is a lack of clear distinction between phonemes and allophones. While allophones are given in square brackets as recommended by the International Phonetic Association, phonemes are printed in italic, without brackets. This is at variance with the Phonology section of Sanskrit grammar. The opening statement comparing Sanskrit development with that of Ancient Greek needs a supporting citation (this is not to say that it is untrue).

• The first bullet point contains the word 'appeared' in a position where it seems meaningless.
• The second bullet point is really badly written: the retroflex lateral approximants are presented with no indication of whether phonemes or allophones are being described, and, if the latter, what phonemes they are allophones of. The phrase "with the corresponding plosives ... instead" is clumsily written. The clause "it was also metrically a cluster" is confusing because it is not clear what "it" refers to, given that the section starts by talking about two consonants.
• The third bullet point talks of "pure monophthongs", but there is no such thing as a monophthong which is not pure. "Diphthongal behaviour", while having an obvious meaning, is an odd usage: "quality" would be better than "behaviour".
• The word "correspondingly" is twice used redundantly in this point.
• An Alveolar consonant is made with the tongue tip or blade in contact with the alveolar ridge, not the roots of the teeth. The word "pure" is unnecessary in referring to dentals. "Systems" is an odd word to use where "authorities" would be more suitable.
• No mention of the possible phonemic status of [r] is given.

I intend to correct all the above infelicities apart from the second bullet point, which should in my opinion be rewritten by an expert on Vedic Sanskrit (which I am not). RoachPeter (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)