Talk:Vedic Sanskrit

message: 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)
thread_title: Text Removed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: references

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Injunctive? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  19th century scholarship 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  For starters, read A. A. Macdonell's A Vedic Grammar for Students (pp.4-5). Aryaman (☼) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About e and o 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: Upadhmaniya and Jihvamuliya 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vedanta and Pali 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dates are Confusing and Misleading 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Differences between the Vedas? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article lack substance and authenticity 

message: 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. , 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;  , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Prehistoric derivation and sourcing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Phonology