An old question (was Re: G.B. Walker on Sanskrit)

[Jacob Baltuch]

Ashok Aklujkar wrote:

> The answer to the old question whether Skt was a spoken language obviously
> depends to some extent on how one defines Skt. (Did a significantly large
> number of people speak the language found in the long sentences of Baa.na's
> Kaadambarii or in the fully worked out p.rthvii-lak.sa.nas etc. of Navya
> Nyaaya? Obviously not.). However, there is no reason why, *for example,* the
> predominantly  post-Vedic language described by Paa.nini, or the language
> employed by the bards of the Mahaa-bhaarata or the language attested in
> Pata;njali's Mahaa-bhaa.sya cannot be called or Skt or could not have been
> spoken.

Do you equate "spoken language" with "language having *native*
speakers"?