Is Sanskrit really an “Indo-European” language?

[Srinivas]

The classification only takes into account the commonality of the words, which is not correct !

These days English words are used for many things in Dravidian languages that do not mean English and Dravidian Languages originated from same common language.

Hindi and Begali evolved much after Sanskrit came into the subcontinent. So their written alphabets were probably derived from Sanskrit. Always remember that spoken language emerges well before written language. Similarly the question of when did the written alphabet of Tamil get developed is a question.

Sanskrit came into sub continent from where ?

No where in the world we see Sanskrit type of structuring except in Indian Langiages, Avestan has some common words, structure is different.

It is the structure of the language that should be the basis for classification, not the commonality of words. Words move from place to place because of migration of people, influences etc..etc..

 

[Levina]

is the structure of the language that should be the basis for classification, not the commonality of words.

I agree!
SOV which is Subject-object-verb order is how the sentences are formed in Sanskrit and Tamil whilst SVO is the order used in European languages.

 

[Sine Nomine]

@levina no doubt Human history in Indus Basin is old as 20000 years what i believe is Sanskrit is itself a great language unluckily the only speaker in my family passed some 80 years ago in very young age,According to Islam the first human was sent in India right from sky,you live abroad came across many peoples but just look from area between River Kabul and Irrawaddy you will see whole of Globe there,I am Muslim and for me Sanskrit is not scared language today but European languages may have connection with Sanskrit but it is not offspring of any language we know as for EUROPEANS they can claim anything ...

 

[Guynextdoor2]

The classification only takes into account the commonality of the words, which is not correct !

These days English words are used for many things in Dravidian languages that do not mean English and Dravidian Languages originated from same common language.



Sanskrit came into sub continent from where ?

No where in the world we see Sanskrit type of structuring except in Indian Langiages, Avetan has some common words structure is different.

It is the structure of the language that should be the basis for classification, not the commonality of words. Words move from place to place because of migration of people, influences etc..etc..

Yeah Sanskrit did not 'come' from outside, majority was a development after the Aryans came in. But the 'proto language' that gave birth to it was definitely from the west. The issue with your suggestion that 'structure' should be the basis is that 'structure' is formed only when a population has been living a settled life for a long time. Nomadic tribes and disturbed populaitons use primarily oral language (no written) and don't have much development in terms of structure. That was the case as the Aryan migrated from their native lands and headed towards India (references in Rig Veda). After they settled down of course they developed Sanskrit and other languages.

 

[Levina]

majority was a development after the Aryans came in.

The same aryans who used to live in circular houses and had no idea about planing a city???
Do you think such nomads could come up with something so scientific???
To imagine that ARYANS brought sanskrit with them is accepting the Aryan invasion theory, which has been debunked already.

 

[Srinivas]

Yeah Sanskrit did not 'come' from outside, majority was a development after the Aryans came in. But the 'proto language' that gave birth to it was definitely from the west. The issue with your suggestion that 'structure' should be the basis is that 'structure' is formed only when a population has been living a settled life for a long time. Nomadic tribes and disturbed populaitons use primarily oral language (no written) and don't have much development in terms of structure. That was the case as the Aryan migrated from their native lands and headed towards India (references in Rig Veda). After they settled down of course they developed Sanskrit and other languages.

It is the reverse, India is the birth place and some words migrated from here to out side.

He explains clearly how some words are moved from India to persia /C.Asia/ Urals due to migrations.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

The same aryans who used to live in circular houses and had no idea about planing a city???
Do you think such nomads could come up with something so scientific???
To imagine that ARYANS brought sanskrit with them is accepting the Aryan invasion theory, which has been debunked already.

yes the ones that were rag tag. The Ayan theory has not been 'debunked', its just been questioned. A key question to the Aryan theory is that they used horses (use of the word Asva in the Rig Veda. Contrast it with the IVC. None of the artefacts there indicate they used horses. The idea is that the Aryans migrated from Europe using horses and chariots and overran the local cultures who had little use of them.

I agree!
SOV which is Subject-object-verb order is how the sentences are formed in Sanskrit and Tamil whilst SVO is the order used in European languages.

No no- Sanskrit has the feature that you can shift orders between SVO and SOV as you like. Besides these features you're talking about were formed much later than the original proto langauge.

 

[Levina]

yes the ones that were rag tag. The Ayan theory has not been 'debunked', its just been questioned. A key question to the Aryan theory is that they used horses (use of the word Asva in the Rig Veda. Contrast it with the IVC. None of the artefacts there indicate they used horses. The idea is that the Aryans migrated from Europe using horses and chariots and overran the local cultures who had little use of them.

1) the physical evidences show that Aryans(if that was them) made a very late entry, almost 500 yrs after the river saraswati had dried. By then the ppl living on its banks had moved westwards (towards Ganga). So chances of influence are very low.
2) SSC script has not been decoded till now. So never know if the word Ashwa was used by them or not??

No no- Sanskrit has the feature that you can shift orders between SVO and SOV as you like. Besides these features you're talking about were formed much later than the original

Prove it!
Anyways Sanskrit is a very flexible language unlike the European counterparts.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

1) the physical evidences show that Aryans(if that was them) made a very late entry, almost 500 yrs after the river saraswati had dried. By then the ppl living on its banks had moved westwards (towards Ganga). So chances of influence are very low.
2) SSC script has not been decoded till now. So never know if the word Ashwa was used by them or not??


Prove it!

I don't know how Saraswati comes into this. IVC is not Sarawasti civilization, this is the Harappan culture.

1) the physical evidences show that Aryans(if that was them) made a very late entry, almost 500 yrs after the river saraswati had dried. By then the ppl living on its banks had moved westwards (towards Ganga). So chances of influence are very low.
2) SSC script has not been decoded till now. So never know if the word Ashwa was used by them or not??


Prove it!

The more established forms of Sanskrit and it's usage comes much later than the Aryan invasion theories. People like Panini codified the usage of the language and its structure- now that happens much much later than the invasion.

 

[Viny]

yes the ones that were rag tag. The Ayan theory has not been 'debunked', its just been questioned. A key question to the Aryan theory is that they used horses (use of the word Asva in the Rig Veda. Contrast it with the IVC. None of the artefacts there indicate they used horses. The idea is that the Aryans migrated from Europe using horses and chariots and overran the local cultures who had little use of them.



No no- Sanskrit has the feature that you can shift orders between SVO and SOV as you like. Besides these features you're talking about were formed much later than the original proto langauge.

Seriously some data corruption here.

Some images from IVC/Harrapan civilizaton

Horse bones from Surkotada (in Kutch)

Horse figure from Mohen-ja-daro

Terracotta wheels from Banawali and Rakhigarhi, displaying spokes painted or in relief



I would suggest reading following article, it has very substantial evidences
The Horse and the Aryan Debate by Michel Danino | Archaeology Online

Conclusions

That the invasionist scholars should have skirted such important issues, as regards both findings and methodology, does little to inspire confidence. Clearly, the whole question of the Vedic and Harappan horse has been treated simplistically. To sum up:

1. Several species of Equus, including the true horse, existed in the Indus- Sarasvati civilization, probably in small numbers. Some of them may have entered India over a much longer time span than is usually granted, in the course of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization’s interactions with neighbouring areas, but certainly not through any Aryan invasion or migration, which in any case has already been rejected by archaeological, anthropological, genetic, literary and cultural evidence.70

2. This process continued with a gradual but slight increase after the end of the mature phase of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization right up to early historical times. There was no epoch exhibiting a sudden, first-time introduction of the animal.

3. The Rig-Veda has been misread; it tells us strictly nothing about a sizeable horse population, and rather suggests its rarity. The animal was important in symbolic, not quantitative terms.

4. The Rig-Veda also tells us nothing about conquering Aryans hurtling down from Afghanistan in their horse-drawn “thundering” chariots and crushing indigenous tribal populations; it is high time we abandoned once and for all those perverse fancies of nineteenth-century scholars, even if some of their peers hang on to such myths even today.

The hypothesis I have put forward is testable: if correct, we should expect further excavations of Harappan sites to come up with more horse remains and depictions, although nothing on the scale that the Aryan invasion theory wrongly expects of a Vedic society — and has failed to document in post-
Harappan India.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Seriously some data corruption here.

Some images from IVC/Harrapan civilizaton

Horse bones from Surkotada (in Kutch)

Horse figure from Mohen-ja-daro

Terracotta wheels from Banawali and Rakhigarhi, displaying spokes painted or in relief



I would suggest reading following article, it has very substantial evidences
The Horse and the Aryan Debate by Michel Danino | Archaeology Online

I used the word 'not extensively' and 'very little' , not 'completely unknown'.

 

[mooppan]

I agree!
SOV which is Subject-object-verb order is how the sentences are formed in Sanskrit and Tamil whilst SVO is the order used in European languages.

Borrowing words is a common phenomenon in all world languages..A lot of English words have Dravidian origin(not just from Sanskrit or other),specially from Malayalam-Tamil languages..
Mango came from Malayalam/Tamil root word 'Manga'..
Same for Coir(kayar-Malayalam/Tamil),Teak(Thekk-Malayalam/Tamil),Cobra(koppara-Malayalam/Tamil),Rice(Arisi/Ari-Malayalam/Tamil)..etc etc..

 

[Shan-e-ibrahim]

English -Mother : German- Mater : Sanskrit- Mata/ Matru
English -Father : German- Pater : Sanskrit- Pita / Pitru
English -Brother : German- Bruder : Sanskrit- Bhrata

Contrast with Tamil (Dravidian)
Mother - Amma : Father- Appa : Brother- Anna/ Thambi

Enuff said @levina

in german
Mother = Mutter
Father = Vater (fater )

K in english....ka in sanskrit and other Indian languages.
View attachment 224822

in German K = Kaa
A = Aaa
B = Bey
c = Sey
D = Dey
E = Aey
more closer to persian or urdu.

 

[scionoftheindus]

The author hasn't produced any evidence to prove the relation between Sanskrit and Tamil..All he said was Hindi which is the daughter language of Sanskrit has a flexible word order just like south Indian languages which is absent in other indo European languages..but the author himself said that Russian and Czech languages also are flexible like Indian languages in their word order..as I already said all indo European languages need not have same grammar to group them into one family..it is just that they were all born from same language long back.even today many of the verbs in almost all indo European are derived from the same root..here is a link which shows relation between Russian and Sanskrit verbs
http:// Russian – Sanskrit verbs | borissoff
You can find the similarity of Sanskrit verbs with any other indo European language .. The mistake people do while comparing Sanskrit with other indo European languages is they compare it with English..I doubt if today's english can be called a IU language since many verbs aren't common with other IU languages..but even in English we can still find many similarities with sanskrit.
Though Hindi and many other Indian languages share Sanskrit roots(like Hindi)they don't always have the same grammar as Sanskrit.
In Hindi we say ladka jaa raha hai
Ladki jaa rahi hai
Notice how the verb changed according to gender(jaa raha and jaa rahi)
But in Sanskrit verb won't change with gender
Baalaka gacchati(the boy goes)
Baalika gacchati(the girl goes)
It is just like English (only in this aspect)
Even in malayalam verb doesn't change according to gender but it doesn't mean it is IU.
Aval pogunnu
Avan pogunnu(hope I am correct)
But in Sanskrit unlike malayalam the verb changes according to person and number
Te gacchanti(they go- verb changed according to number)
Aham gacchaami(I go -verb change according to person)
In malayalam the verb won't change with person and number
Ex:nyaan pogunnu(first person)...aval pogunnu(third person)...avar pogunnu(plural)
Of course in Telugu the verb changes with gender,person and number.
Dravidian languages verb roots are entirely different from indo European word roots.of course we sometimes use Sanskrit nouns and convert them into verbs..ex:premisthaanu(I love)..here prema is a Sanskrit abstract noun which we in Telugu transformed into a verb by adding a Telugu inflection.Tamil verb padi is also derived from Sanskrit noun pathana.

 

[Srinivas]

The author hasn't produced any evidence to prove the relation between Sanskrit and Tamil..All he said was Hindi which is the daughter language of Sanskrit has a flexible word order just like south Indian languages which is absent in other indo European languages..but the author himself said that Russian and Czech languages also are flexible like Indian languages in their word order..as I already said all indo European languages need not have same grammar to group them into one family..it is just that they were all born from same language long back.even today many of the verbs in almost all indo European are derived from the same root..here is a link which shows relation between Russian and Sanskrit verbs
Russian – Sanskrit verbs | borissoff
You can find the similarity of Sanskrit verbs with any other indo European language .. The mistake people do while comparing Sanskrit with other indo European languages is they compare it with English..I doubt if today's english can be called a IU language since many verbs aren't common with other IU languages..but even in English we can still find many similarities with sanskrit.
Though Hindi and many other Indian languages share Sanskrit roots(like Hindi)they don't always have the same grammar as Sanskrit.
In Hindi we say ladka jaa raha hai
Ladki jaa rahi hai
Notice how the verb changed according to gender(jaa raha and jaa rahi)
But in Sanskrit verb won't change with gender
Baalaka gacchati(the boy goes)
Baalika gacchati(the girl goes)
It is just like English (only in this aspect)
Even in malayalam verb doesn't change according to gender but it doesn't mean it is IU.
Aval pogunnu
Avan pogunnu(hope I am correct)
But in Sanskrit unlike malayalam the verb changes according to person and number
Te gacchanti(they go- verb changed according to number)
Aham gacchaami(I go -verb change according to person)
In malayalam the verb won't change with person and number
Ex:nyaan pogunnu(first person)...aval pogunnu(third person)...avar pogunnu(plural)
Of course in Telugu the verb changes with gender,person and number.
Dravidian languages verb roots are entirely different from indo European word roots.of course we sometimes use Sanskrit nouns and convert them into verbs..ex:premisthaanu(I love)..here prema is a Sanskrit abstract noun which we in Telugu transformed into a verb by adding a Telugu inflection.Tamil verb padi is also derived from Sanskrit noun pathana.

What is your conclusion then?

There are some commonalities between Sanskrit and Malayalam(Dravidian Language) and then there is commonality in structure in between Russia and Sanskrit.

Todays Dravidian languages also went through many changes like Sanskrit ! So this argument is not valid considering India went through some glorious ages in which many changes occurred languages.

In the my previous post I have posted a video, in which the author argues that It is India that is the birth place of Vedic Sanskrit and it spread towards west , He also gave many proofs and logical conclusions!