New Message (aryan invasion)

[Girish Beeharry]

Gail Coelho wrote:

>>>Created? How? And as far as "passionate objection" is concerned -- no one in

Das Menon  wrote:

>>Are you saying that a language with the complexity and elegance of the
>>Sanskrit language evolved naturally? I do not think that an evolutionar
>>process could have accounted for it. If it did, we need to  date the origin
>>of the language to much further back!

Das Menon is only saying what tradition says. The language comes from the Vedas
(written portions of which are still extant). The Vedas are 'out of time' and
to 'see' them one needs R^ishhis. Now the tradition may be right or wrong but
to decide that one needs to investigate the matter thoroughly. As for his use
of the word 'created', I really don't see why it can't be so. For example, the
laws of physics are 'there' because the physical universe has already been 
running smoothly quite independently of whether physicists 'create' or 
'discover' theories to explain physical phenomena. Most don't ask how or why 
physicists discover such 'laws' because these questions are quite difficult to
answer satisfactorily. Can anyone on the list give details on what is thought 
about the 'origins' of Sanskrit please? Apart from the 'Indo-European language'
connection, are there any other avenues being explored?

Lars Martin Fosse wrote:

>I think you must make a difference between language as a set of phonetical
>and grammatical rules on the one hand, and language as the medium for
>literary products. Everywhere in the world, the latter is more refined than
>the language spoken by ordinary users. But if we look at some of the simpler
>texts, such as parts of the Brahmanas or of the Epic, Sanskrit does not come
>across as less complicated or more elegant than, say, texts written in
>Slavonic languages. The artificiality of Sanskrit, however, increases
>considerably with the use of long compounds. 

In my opinion, this view largely results from the way Sanskrit is taught in the
West. The whole emphasis is on the written texts and oral teaching is 
practically completely absent. Now, the effectiveness of this language relies 
a lot on the spoken word (chanted or not). The cadence, pitch etc is used a as
a 'tool' in vedic ceremonies for instance. This assertion :'the latter is more 
refined than the language spoken by ordinary users.' simply does not apply and
in fact the contrary is what I have seen. The way this language is spoken is
very important to the persons using it. Those of you who have learnt dozens and
dozens of shlokas by listening to them and repeating will know what I am 
talking about. :-)) I really wish more emphasis be put on the oral, re 
professors!:-)

Bye,

Girish Beeharry