Sanskrit/Udru/Hindi (Re: Did you hear this?)

[Yashwant Malaiya]

Rohit Chopra wrote:

>I believe Sanskrit was an elitist language, akin to Latin or Greek.
>It was a Brahmanical language and the language of the people, at specific
>historical moments were other languages, such as Pali.

It was indeed an elitist language, used largely by scholars for past
15, maybe 20 centuries. It could be called brahmanical because often
Brahmins specialized in it. But its use was not limited to the Brahmanic
(Vedic/Puranic) traditions, it was used by Buddhists and Jains, even
Sikhs.

>In fact, Hindustani - the language with words with Sanskrit, and
>Urdu roots as well as Persian and Arabic etymological connections is a
>more representative North Indian language than the completely artifical
>Sanskritized Doordarshan Hindi which unfortunately has become the
>only 'authentic' version of Hindi that the Indian state endorses.

Urdu, in its modern form (full for Farsi/Arabic words) was perhaps
introduced by Vali (1667-1707). It became popular as a replacement
of Farsi in Delhi. If You look at older forms of what is called "Urdu",
you will see a lot less Farsi/Arabic. The poetry of Amir Khusrow
is related to modern Hindi and not Urdu. Throughout much of India,
Sanskrit words are much more easily understood than Farsi/Arabic
ones.

There is a lot of old literature in Hindi that modern English-medium
educated Indians are unaware of.

You can take the works included in Adi Granth as an example of what
language was most easily understood, when it was compiled, in Punjab,
as well as much of North and central India.

Yashwant