Tamil roots of sanskrit words

[mms]

Dear Friend,
Your View that Samskrit is pure and developed self is as much wrong as FSG aND bISMALA. RigVeda as per Professor Burrows who is the Editor of Dravidian Etymological Dictionary has around 10- 20 words.

Classical Sanskrit has burrowed much more.

Tamil uses nearly half the words burrowed from Sanskrit, Pali and Pragrit.
mms

[bis_mala]

Firstly, Samskrith is, without any arguements, is the oldest refined language in the world.

Please go about thinking logically about the Sanskrit language. The necessity for such a refined language arose only after the class of persons known as BrahmaNa were ordained for their priestly job all over India to spread their creed.

There is no evidence that any race or linguistic group in India spoke this language which is known as Sanskrit today as a home language at any time in history.

About one third of Sanskrit has very close linguistic relationship with the oldest Iranian dialect. Hence it is a foreign language which grew to "perfection" by devouring local pre-existing languages of Indian subcontinent.

[shoyonika]

Dear MMS,
As far as my views are concerned, do check Mr Burrow`s views once more because Samskrith has more forms than ever.
Firstly, there was never a categorization as classical and vedic Samskrith before in India, until under the influence of the european race. They separated(ofcourse we do not) Samskrith because they found LAET lakaar very difficult to understand.
Now coming to borrowed words, as against your thoughts,Samskrith is the root of all languages(chinese,japanese,korean and thai being no exception) including european ones.
So instead of recognizing Mr Burrow`s views, use your own
instincts and go through our own Indian Scholastic works where you can find not one or two but examples running through more than thousands that Samskrith is not a receiving but a gifting language.
How can you propose the views of a foreigner about Samskrith?
Confusions created by their ancestors about Aryans invading India from europe and Rgveda being written in second century bc are more than enough to prove their ever-demanding supremacy.
Aryans never invaded India as there was no need to as they were as Indians as you and me. And Vedas are timeless, might be written and preserved as a need might have rosen to do so due the incapable memory of humans in the later stages and that does not imply that vedas are from 2nd century bc( that would sound as funny as bismala talking sense just joking).
Lastly, YES, Samskrith is the purest language, and has not taken source from any language whether some believe it or not!
Good-luck everyone.
Bye.

[bis_mala]

So instead of recognizing Mr Burrow`s views, use your own
instincts and go through our own Indian Scholastic works

Yes use your own instincts. Putting aside all the scholarly views you will find that Samskrith was a language of the mantravathis , who came into subcontinent from Iran side. It came as a dialect from that area and further, was developed in the subcontinent to become a "refined language". It is pure in the sense they have washed it up.

Belief and devotion to a language is one thing; history and linguistics are another matter.

I am not saying it is not pure, Anything crude can be refined....Language is not an exception.

[shoyonika]

hi,
dialect means A regional or social variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists: Cockney is a dialect of English.
A variety of language that with other varieties constitutes a single language of which no single variety is standard: the dialects of Ancient Greek.
I now think there is no need to explain that Samskrith is no dialectic form of any language.
Now what did you say? belief and devotion and blah blah blah........
all that holds true even in your and gandhi`s(not mahatma gandhi)case.
If you two appraise your own language with such devotion and provenance, then why cant people who can prove their point much more than you praise the mother of all languages, that is Samskrith?

[thenRalkAththu]

If you two appraise your own language with such devotion and provenance, then why cant people who can prove their point much more than you praise the mother of all languages, that is Samskrith?

Simple! Because Sanskrit is not a mother language. It is a composed and refined script!

[bis_mala]

hi,
dialect means A regional or social variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists

As the nomad “mantravaathis” who entered Afghan area had a form of speech and no writing, it is not easy to accord the status of a “language” to their then speech. Thus they spoke a dialect or more than one dialect. This dialect (or dialects) then fused with local words of Northern Dravidian and Munda to become a liturgical language, which we call Rigkrit (Rig Veda language). This language was different from the other language which later developed and was called “Sanskrit” by the Ramayana period.. These were not actually “languages” in the real sense but are called languages merely by analogy with real spoken languages. About 1/3 of the lexical base of Sanskrit is traceable to ancient Iranian or other Indo-European.

Samskrith is not a real language. The ancient Iranian dialect (which fused with local elements and gave rise to the liturgical form) is now dead.

If you two appraise your own language with such devotion and provenance, then why cant people who can prove their point much more than you praise the mother of all languages, that is Samskrith?

By all means, sing praises of your Samskrith. We love to hear it!! Did I or FSG deny anyone such facility in this hub? Mother Sanskrit Theory was much in the news during the times of Maxie and Willie but we hear little of it today. After India became independent, the British were seemingly no longer enthusiastic to promote it any further. Some in India are still suffering from the hangover. The linguistic theory was then expected to pacify and retain India. Voltaire and other intellectuals of Europe also were interested in it to deprive the Church of its hold on Europe and the influence of the Jews

You are welcome to revitalise the theory but please produce the proof that Sanskrit is the mother of all world languages. A simple statement of claim or assumption is not good enough. We warmly welcome if you open a thread for that purpose. I do not think the moderators here will object.

[shoyonika]

Simple! Because Sanskrit is not a mother language. It is a composed and refined script!

Samskrith needs no ones signature to become a mother language, but some languages have been made classical on protests and request from people of that particular language.
Refined language? yes ,composed language? no.
By the way Samskrith for your kind information, had changed scripts more than 3 times from its refinement from old Samskrith(not dravidian roots) the devanagari being the newest script!

[shoyonika]

As the nomad “mantravaathis” who entered Afghan area had a form of speech and no writing, it is not easy to accord the status of a “language” to their then speech. Thus they spoke a dialect or more than one dialect. This dialect (or dialects) then fused with local words of Northern Dravidian and Munda to become a liturgical language, which we call Rigkrit (Rig Veda language). This language was different from the other language which later developed and was called “Sanskrit” by the Ramayana period.. These were not actually “languages” in the real sense but are called languages merely by analogy with real spoken languages. About 1/3 of the lexical base of Sanskrit is traceable to ancient Iranian or other Indo-European.

1. no vEdic people entered BAratha(as India was called previously) from irani side as they were already present here.
2. Samskrith needs no categorization from any fools.
3. there was no language as a northern dravidian at all!
4. Samskrith at the time of Ramayana was different from previous Samskrith.
5. actually

About 1/3 of the lexical base of Sanskrit is traceable to ancient Iranian or other Indo-European

this is the vice-versa of the truth

By all means, sing praises of your Samskrith. We love to hear it!!After India became independent, the British were seemingly no longer enthusiastic to promote it any further. Some in India are still suffering from the hangover. The linguistic theory was then expected to pacify and retain India. Voltaire and other intellectuals of Europe also were interested in it to deprive the Church of its hold on Europe and the influence of the Jews

not hangover, but love towards mother language.
facts are stranger than fiction but truth alone triumphs. Though of late, people will recover from the novel hangover that dravidian language is older to Samskrith

[kannannn]

Mala, it is futile arguing with people like shoyonika who don't want to believe the facts and are hell bent on thinking that there should be a cultural or linguistic binding factor for a nation to be united. shoyonika, sorry to burst your ego, but have you actually heard the gods speak in sanskrit? If you say it is just your belief, sorry again, but beliefs maketh not science.