nature of Sanskrit

Colonial Indian linguistics wrongly believed without evidence that all
Indian languages were degraded forms of the merely liturgical Sanskrit,
a fantasy in academic cover. The hangover persists.

The word `’Sanskrit’ does not occur anywhere in the Vedas. whereas
the word Tamiz occurs in Tolkappiyam itself. The Vedic language was
Chandasa. Panini wrote his grammar for Chandasa and not the liturgical
‘`Sanskrit’. Sanskrit did not even exist at the time of the Buddha.

Ramayana, written in the years ACE refers to Sanskrit and that was when the liturgical language was developed.

All 30 4th century BC inscriptions by the Mauryan King Ashoka are
in Prakrit and not in Sanskrit. . The script utilised is not ‘
Devanagari, but Brahmi script, while 2 inscriptions are in Kharoshtri.
They are in various Prakrits and some in Afghanistan are in Greek and
Aramaic.

Sanskrit is not Prakrit and vice versa. Sanskrit is a recently
developed language and is less than 2000 years old. It cannot be
compared to Tamil which is the oldest or one of the oldest language(s)
in the world. Prakrits were natural languages that pre-existed
indepenently all over the north. They were the vada dravida languages
which together with Tamiz supplied the raw materials used to build
Sanskrit.[/tscii]

This entry was posted in etymology. Bookmark the permalink.

மறுமொழியொன்றை இடுங்கள்

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / மாற்று )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / மாற்று )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / மாற்று )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / மாற்று )

Connecting to %s