Precambrian Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 It took 150 years for Sanskrit to become completely irrelevant - Happened because under Macaulay, Sanskrit was pushed aside and English brought in as the primary language of instruction. Sanskrit is the obvious choice (other than English) because it is the root of most languages of the subcontinent. So no single linguistic group would object if Sanskrit was made the universal language of instruction (i.e. no Hindi vs. Bengali or Hindi vs Marathi or Hindi vs Gujarati). It will probably take 50-100 years (for the language to be spoken widespread in India) but if the goal is to have an indigenous national language that you go with Sanskrit. If English is your cup of tea, so be it. I just think some people are attached to their country a bit more than others. not sure abt this.. Sanskrit Nd ancient Tamil were contemporaries weren't try?
Yoda-esque Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 not sure abt this.. Sanskrit Nd ancient Tamil were contemporaries weren't try? You are stirring the hornet' s nest now:giggle: Watch this thread descend into a Northie-Southie fight
Nova Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Surajmal, live with the times bro. Sanskrit had its place in history and has now practically died. And we are now talking about a working/functional language here to represent India in the UN, if that's how you want to look at it. You want folks to translate UN speeches and documents into Sanskrit? Get real... PS. Not saying that one should not learn Sanskrit, but not as a political tool.
surajmal Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 If Sanskrit had been adopted as the national language, you wouldn't have had the rise of Tamil Nationalism and wouldn't have had to divide States along Linguistic lines rather ease of administration lines (meaning no Telangana like problems).
The Outsider Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 As for the latter, see my response to tdigi. Good Luck! :two_thumbs_up:
surajmal Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Surajmal, live with the times bro. Sanskrit had its place in history and has now practically died. And we are now talking about a working/functional language here to represent India in the UN, if that's how you want to look at it. You want folks to translate UN speeches and documents into Sanskrit? Get real... PS. Not saying that one should not learn Sanskrit, but not as a political tool. Then what is the problem with English? India is the largest English speaking Nation in the world, anyways. Hell why do we bother learning our maatra bhasha. Jump straight to English. Would make integration with the Western world easier.
surajmal Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 not sure abt this.. Sanskrit Nd ancient Tamil were contemporaries weren't try? I was proposing the most likely choice for a pan India Language (if English is too firangi for your liking). North India wouldn't accept Tamil (same with Bengal, Gujarat and Maharashtra), while Most of South India (other than Tamil Nadu) wouldn't have much problem with Sanskrit (doesn't Malayalam borrow many words from Sanskrit?).
Nova Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Then what is the problem with English? India is the largest English speaking Nation in the world' date=' anyways. Hell why do we bother learning our maatra bhasha. Jump straight to English. Would make integration with the Western world easier.[/quote'] You are confused I think. You want a language which will unite India and for that purpose you think Sanskrit is the best option. Fair enough. However, the current topic is about having a functional Indian language as one of the official languages for the UN, to be used for the purpose of business. In India we don't use Sanskrit for official purposes, and you want it to be one of the official languages for the UN? How does that make sense? Do one thing. When Sanskrit becomes the language of the masses in India, then come to ICF and open a thread at that time. I will come out of my grave and reply in your thread. :)
Lurker Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 How many people know Sanskrit? Going by your logic, how about replacing modern English with something like Latin in the UN. :D There is one village in India, where the entire population still speaks Sanskrit today. They won't object to your suggestion, for sure. :) And Laloo. He is trying to learn Sanskrit :--D
surajmal Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 You are confused I think. You want a language which will unite India and for that purpose you think Sanskrit is the best option. Fair enough. However, the current topic is about having a functional Indian language as one of the official languages for the UN, to be used for the purpose of business. In India we don't use Sanskrit for official purposes, and you want it to be one of the official languages for the UN? How does that make sense? Do one thing. When Sanskrit becomes the language of the masses in India, then come to ICF and open a thread at that time. I will come out of my grave and reply in your thread. :) Actually I was trying to bud into the Dexter/Lurker debate about having a truly "Indian" language represent India (and since Hindi isn't spoken by a considerable number - figure out a language that large majority can relate or won't object to).
Laaloo Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 And Laloo. He is trying to learn Sanskrit :--D Lol I would not recommend making Sanskrit a official language. I hope one day it would become but that sure as hell ain't happening in my life time. This issue is pretty sensitive. Language is one of the common problems in the world today. To be honest, language is what separates most people today other than religion. I have no problem with Hindi being the official language today. Most gujjus I know doesn't have a problem with it either since gujarati is hindi + che :--D Everyone is free to choose the life they want to live and in this case the language they want to learn. That's the beauty of Hinduism :winky:
Laaloo Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Yeah' date=' let's implement a language which even at it's peak did not attract anyone but Brahmins to it!:hysterical:[/quote'] 2 questions--- What peak are you referring to? And on what basis are you making the assumption that other Brahmins, it didn't attract anyone else?
Lurker Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Lol I would not recommend making Sanskrit a official language. I hope one day it would become but that sure as hell ain't happening in my life time. This issue is pretty sensitive. Language is one of the common problems in the world today. To be honest, language is what separates most people today other than religion. I have no problem with Hindi being the official language today. Most gujjus I know doesn't have a problem with it either since gujarati is hindi + che :--D Everyone is free to choose the life they want to live and in this case the language they want to learn. That's the beauty of Hinduism :winky: Arre I was doing masti Laloo. But it still would be funny to see ek gaaon aur Laloo fighting for Sanskrit as National language. :cantstop: Waise Gujrati is not very different to Hindi, you are right about that. I am not sure why but a lot of Indians tend to think Gujjus, Bengalis, Marathis, punjabis etc speak only their native langiage but far as I know all these folks easily know and converse in Hindi.
Laaloo Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Arre I was doing masti Laloo. But it still would be funny to see ek gaaon aur Laloo fighting for Sanskrit as National language. :cantstop: Waise Gujrati is not very different to Hindi, you are right about that. I am not sure why but a lot of Indians tend to think Gujjus, Bengalis, Marathis, punjabis etc speak only their native langiage but far as I know all these folks easily know and converse in Hindi. Pata hai mujhe And I can assure you most gujjus might not be able to speak hindi, but they sure as hell can understand it. P.S Going to India in a few months, and will be conversing full time in Gujju. Can't wait B->
Laaloo Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 'satarkta'/'chauksi' is the right word here. Now I remember. Chauksi :two_thumbs_up:
The Outsider Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 2 questions--- What peak are you referring to? And on what basis are you making the assumption that other Brahmins, it didn't attract anyone else? I recommend reading: Ideology and status of Sanskrit : contributions to the history of the Sanskrit language / edited by Jan E.M. Houben It gives a comprehensive and detailed account of the evolution and impact of the language from different perspectives. Sanskrit in the Pre-Islamic Sociolinguistic Context of South Asia. Hock, Hans Henrich; Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. International Journal of the Sociology of Language16 (1978): 11-25. gives a briefer account with evidence that Sanskrit was the language of the educated and not of the masses.
Nova Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 2 questions--- What peak are you referring to? And on what basis are you making the assumption that other Brahmins, it didn't attract anyone else? I am of the understanding that Brahmins used to say that Sanskrit was the language of the only select few. Brahmins thought that it was only their right to learn Sanskrit. They really took advantage of the whole caste system to stay in power. Prakrit, considered a lower form of a group of languages by the Brahmins, was in fact the language of the common people. Disclaimer: No offense intended to any Brahmins. :P
Trichromatic Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Will Sanskrit become Sanslish and will we demand for revival of Hindi once Sanskrit is made official language?
maniac Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 I am of the understanding that Brahmins used to say that Sanskrit was the language of the only select few. Brahmins thought that it was only their right to learn Sanskrit. They really took advantage of the whole caste system to stay in power. Prakrit, considered a lower form of a group of languages by the Brahmins, was in fact the language of the common people. Disclaimer: No offense intended to any Brahmins. :P No more power 'brah'... Also not going on the defensive here but i know most blame has to go to the bhramins for some power hungry mistakes but at the same time most of the people who rebelled and tried to save the culture with social reforms are also Bhramins :--D So let that be a debate for history buffs but now saving our languages is in our own hands.
Laaloo Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 I recommend reading: Ideology and status of Sanskrit : contributions to the history of the Sanskrit language / edited by Jan E.M. Houben It gives a comprehensive and detailed account of the evolution and impact of the language from different perspectives. Sanskrit in the Pre-Islamic Sociolinguistic Context of South Asia. Hock, Hans Henrich; Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. International Journal of the Sociology of Language16 (1978): 11-25. gives a briefer account with evidence that Sanskrit was the language of the educated and not of the masses. Thanks, I'll definitely keep a note of this and see if I can get my hands on it. I checked amazon and prices are pretty expensive. Now that I think about, you're right. I'm not sure about akarshak part but yes with regards to Sanskrit not being of the masses. Sanskrit takes a really long time to learn and master. That's why the likes of Kalidas, Gnaneshwar, Kumaril Bhatt, Shankaracharya are still known today. They were able to preserve Sanskrit during their times. Then not too long ago, there's also Ramji Krishna Verma or someone with the name Krishna made efforts to preserve Sanskrit. With regards to Kalidas, he was able to make it really easier for people during those times because being a poet, he was able to portray the characters perfectly. Some of his works are astounding.
Recommended Posts