top
Sanskrit is an ancient language of India. It is the oldest language of the Indo-Aryan language family; a sub branch of the Indo-Iranian, which in turn is a branch of the Indo-European family of languages. Therefore, it is closely connected with the Indo-Iranian on the one side and Indo-European on the other.
Regarding the history of Indo-Europeans, it is said that "Bands of Indo-European speakers seem to have emerged from the country north of the Caspian Sea into the Middle East in the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C. Some of them with often various vicissitudes settled in Iran where their language developed into Iranian languages called Old Persian, Avestan, middle Persian and later pahlavi, Persian and others. The other branch seems to have experienced various wanderings". From proper names and other material in their records, some are known to have formed an element in the Mitannian and Kassite kingdoms of northern Syria and Mesopotamia (about 16th - 14th centuries B.C). Their much better known linguistic brethren went east toward India and invaded the Indus valley, probably in the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C; the chronology is very uncertain. Here, these horse and cattle nomads seem to have met a set of people with a highly developed urban civilization (the Harappan culture). Apparently, they destroyed what they found and enslaved the people.
The invaders were Indo-Aryan speakers and the native people were possibly Dravidian speakers. The Indo-Aryans finally settled for a time in Punjab (upper Indus valley) and there produced at least the earlier parts of the Vedic ritual literature. They spoke a number of dialects, one of which is the nucleus of the old Vedic language. There are however, traces of other dialects in this literature. For example, it is usually held that both 'l' and 'r' of Indo-European became 'r' in the basic Vedic language, but that in another dialect of the time both 'l' and 'r' became 'l', and that some words with 'l' were borrowed from this dialect into the basic Vedic language.
As time went on within the Vedic period, which probably is to be considered as ending about the middle of the Ist millennium B.C, there was expansion of the Indo-Aryan speakers eastward down the Ganges valley. In time and space, new dialects evolved among all classes of the people. The language spoken in everyday life diverged more and more from the old language of the ritual, and even before the end of the Vedic period, many speakers of Indo-Aryan were using dialects that had features later found in Middle Indic (Prakrit). Some forms of this type were even used when new ritual literature was composed, and some of the latest ritual compositions were included even in the first of the compilations known as the Vedas - the Rigveda (The Rgveda). There was also borrowing into the Vedic language of words from the Dravidian languages of the original population, both the people of the Harappa culture and the inhabitants of the Ganges valley whom the invaders met in their eastward expansion.
A concern for verbal accuracy in ritual utterances seems to have troubled the Vedic people very early. At some time in the Vedic period, this concern led to the growth of a technique for preserving accuracy-namely grammar in the sense of describing accurately the sounds and forms of the desirable utterances and in the further sense of prescribing what was desirable and teaching what was to be avoided. A long series of Vedic Grammarians, whose works are the prātiśākhyās, culminated, through stages whose details are far from certain, in Pāṇini (about the 5th century B.C). He however, described in his grammar – the Aṣṭadhyayi or 'eight chaptered work' - his own spoken language, which was not quite the same as the old Vedic and was also not the middle Indic that some communities were already speaking. He was interested in some Vedic forms but gave them only as divergences from the dialect that he spoke and was primarily interested in describing. His language was as much a true old Indic as Vedic was but somewhat different dialect. He was born in salatura in what is now the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan, but his fact throws little light on the nature of the local dialects of his time.
From Pāṇini’s time on, spoken dialects diverged more and more from the norm he had described, but with minor exceptions all who wrote with an eye to acceptance by the learned followed his description. They wrote and even learned in their schools to speak in a literary language that was less and less the language of everyday life. To this literary language they gave the name Sanskrit (saṃskrta), the "polished" or "cultivated" or "refined"; or "perfected" language, as opposed to the everyday languages, which they called "Prakrit" (Prākrta) the natural languages. The literary Sanskrit, as the heir of the Vedic religious tradition, became the vehicle of Hindu culture and has remained down to the most recent times the language in which the traditional Hinduism of India has found its expression through its learned custodians, the Brahmans. The situation is very like that of Latin which was the vehicles of the classical and medieval culture of Europe and still lives today in the liturgical and other writings of the Roman catholic church” (M.B.Emeneau pp.232)
Regarding the original home of Indo-European community, scholars have made lot of research and advocated their views. There are traditional scholars in India who argue and believe even today that Aryans did not come from outside and they were the native people of India. When these scholars argue like this, they do not give the proper picture of the then India. In order to find out the proper location of the Aryans or the Indo-Europeans we should not see India with its present geographical boundaries, but we should see the geographical vastness of India or Bharath in the ancient time. From this point of view let us see what scholars say on the location of Indo-European.
(A) Prof. Satya Ranjan Banerjee in his book "A handbook of Sanskrit Philology" says about the term Indo-European and their location as follows: "The term Indo-European was originally coined by Thomas young, a well known physician and physicist, who in his article published in the tenth volume of the Quarterly Review (October 1813) had used the word without any remark. This term was not very popular at that time. Later on in the absence of any adequate term and to avoid some other terms, this term was used to designate a group of languages, and it is accepted nowadays by the American, English, Italian and French Philologists. Peter Giles (in his short manual of comparative philology, 2nd edition, London, 1901 pp. 7-9) has objected to use this term on two grounds: first, it will leave out the Iranian, the Armenian and the Tokherian. Secondly, one part of the term denotes a continent, while the other a country. But on the whole, this term is least objectionable and it does not denote any language as such, but the names of the areas (Indo-India and Europe). In fact, the meaning of the term is free from any ambiguity and hence this term may be chosen in preference to others."
Originally, Indo-European family of languages was spoken in the South-Western Asia as well as in the North-Eastern India and in almost all of Europe. But now-a-days, owing to foreign colonization, it is spoken in the form of superimposed languages in almost all parts of the globe. Hence, the number of speakers of this language through their descendants is more than 1000 millions.
Much has been written on the problem of the original home of Indo-Europeans. But none has come yet as decisive conclusion to be accepted. Different parts of Asia and Europe has been suggested as the original home, but all seem to be a mere guess-work. Some say it is neither Asia nor Europe but a midland between the two should be sought for the I.E people, others think that it is in Asia Minor. Below are given the names of the places, which have been suggested, as the original homeland of the Indo-European people. The parts, which are considered to be the homeland of the Indo-European are India, Mesopotamia, old Bactria between the Hindukush and the river OXUS and Belu-dagh, Armenia, the steppes of Turan or the north of Caucasus, the plateau of Central Asia or Central Asia, the Punjab in the Asiatic land, South Russia, Danube, Germany, South-Eastern Baltic region, South-Eastern Europe, Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia, south and west of the Volga and finally Austria-Hungary in Europe, this shows that problem is still unsolved.
Prof. Banerjee lists so many places and comes to the conclusion that the problem is still not solved. Similarly, the question still remains that whether the Aryans came from outside or they were the residents of India. Let us see the views of the scholars on this.
(B) N.S.Ananth Rangachar in his book written in Kannada "Vaidika Sāhitya Charitre"(History of Vedic Literature)says as follows (translated from Kannada text).pp. 7
"Modern critics and Historians" arguments are like this:
(i) Ancestors of Aryans must have come from outside Āryavratta only. Their original place may have been Middle Asia. They migrated in different groups and settled in India and Europe, etc.
In Veda, there are references in several places about the original place of the Aryans thus, "Anu prathnsyaukasō huwe tuwi pratim naram| yam tee pūrvam pita huwē " (Rg. Saṁ’ I. 30.9)
In this Mantra, the word "prathnsyaukasaḥ" denotes their ancient place.
(ii) Aryans who migrated from Middle-East were settled in Europe, Iran, India and some other countries. The languages that they developed by settling in these countries have many common similarities. On the basis of this, all these languages can be said to belong to one common source. That common source is Indo-European. These Indo-European languages developed in different countries under different conditions and contacts. As time passed, they became independent languages as if they were not related to each other. Comparative linguists consider all such language speakers as belonging to one single common community.
(iii) In the Persian’s ancient work "Zend-Avesta" in the chapter on "Vendidad" there is a description of a country. While describing that country called "Airyanambōjō" it is said that the said country was full of snow. This may be the original place of Parsis. There is a close similarly between the points mentioned in the Avesta and Veda. Worshipping of the fire is an example for this. The names of the gods that occur in Veda are also found in Avesta. Therefore, these people also may be the residents of "Airyanambōjō".
(iv) Frequent quoting of the Northern part of Himalaya by the Aryans as the sacred place also indicates that Aryans might have come from the region of Central Asia. The following mantra supports this.
"Ud̄icyām diti prajnatatara vāgutpadyate udanca u vāvyanti vacam śikṣhitum yō vā tat āgachhati tasya va śuśruṣati iti ha smāhaiṣā hi vācōdik prajnāta." (Kauṣī takī Brāhmaṇa 1.7.6)
(v) In Ṛgvēda also, Mantras like "tōkam puṣyēma śatam himah", "sumnam madēma śatahimam suvī raḥ" support that Āryan’s original settlement was that country which was full of snow (हिम). The Central Asia, which was predominantly covered by the snow, the people of that region used to start the New Year from that season in which snow fall takes place. Therefore, Aryans may be the original residents of this region.
(vi) In satapatha Brahmaṇa, there is a reference which says "uttaram girimatidudrāva" which indicates that Aryans came by crossing the Himalaya. This also supports that Aryans must have come from Central Asia.
(vii) The point that the original people like Greeks and Romans must have come from the North-East (iśyānya part) and settled in Italy and other places also supports the claim that Aryans came from Central Asia.
Thus, Historians and Modern Critics have tried to solve this problem.
(C) Bal Gangādhar Tilak claimed that Aryans were the original residents of North-pole (उत्तरध्रुव) and from there they went to different countries including India. His arguments were as follows:
Ancient Aryans were the residents of the North-pole (उत्तरध्रुव). The special feature of this North-pole is:
(1) Sun rises in the south
(2) Stars appear and do not disappear and rotate around the pole once in 24 hours.
(3) In a year there will be darkness for six months (night) and sunlight for remaining six months.
(4) For the entire year there will be only one morning and one evening. The rays of the sunrise and sunset would be rotating along the horizon for nearly two months.
(5) Here, a year consists of three parts. Continuous one long day and one long night, in between the juncture of time there will be night (Ahōrātra). All these features which are even today were also there thousands of years before. This reference comes in Vēda. Therefore, Aryans were originally residents of the North-pole. The following Mantra refers to all these points.
"Amiya Ṛkṣhā nihitāsa uccā Naktam dadrsrē kuhaciddvēyuḥ Adabdhāni Varuṇāsya Vratāni Vicākaśccandraṁā nakta mēti" (Ṛgsaṁ 1-24-10)
[Ṛkṣhā śaptaṚṣiGaṇa’ is kept above in the sky on our head by the creator. These appear in the night, they disappear somewhere during the daytime. Moon also shines in the night only. All these are permanent activities of Varuṇa].
In this mantra it is said that "Sapta Ṛṣi Maṇḍala" always appears in the sky on our head.
"Sa sūUryaḥparyurū varāsyēndrō vavrtyādrthyēva cakra" (Ṛg saṁ x-89-2)
As the Sārathi, the driver of chariot moves the wheels of the chariot, like that the mighty one and important one called Indra rotates several planets. The point that comes regarding the rotation of the stars refers only to the North-pole and does not apply to any other place.
Mantras refer to the long day of this region. This point is mentioned herewith: tānī dahani bahulānyāsan yā prācī namuditā suryasya | yataḥpari jaraivācaram tyuṣhō dadrakṣhē na punaryatī va | | (Ṛg. saṁ vii-76-3)
"From the pre-dawn to the sunrise how many days have gone like beloved circling the lover ūṣhe in rotating". It is said like this:
tasya vēnī ranuvrata muṣastisrō avardhayannnabhantā manyakē samē. (Ṛg. saṁ viii-41-3)
In this Mantra, there is a description of thirty (30) uṣas. it can be said that these thirty uṣas are the thirty parts of the same long dawn.
Morning meditation of the mantra "purā śakunivādādānubrūyāt" has to be uttered one thousand times during pre-dawn period (उषःकाल). It is not possible to read/utter one thousand times in any other region except this region.
The description of the thirty feet of Uṣha Dēvi in Veda applies clearly to 24 hours a day and thirty days a month.
The reference to long night and long day in Vēda refers to the उत्तरध्रुव (North Pole).
The description of the killing of Vratrāsura refers to the rising light after a long night. It was believed that water, sun and uṣhas were prevented from going up from the lower region. After the killing of Vratrāsura it is said that the sun appeared and water also started moving from the atmosphere.
With all these evidences, it becomes clear that Aryans were the original residents of the North-pole. After the clearance of the snow they started their journey from that place and came to India and settled here. Thus, Bālagangadhar Tilak had put-up his arguments that Āryans came from outside.
(D) Sri. Avinash Chandra Das while discussing the original place of the Aryans says that Aryans were the original residents of "Āryavratta" and had not come from any outside source. His arguments are as follows:
(1) The Punjab region, which was called as"Sapta sindhu" region, was the original place of Āryans. In the Ṛgvēdic period, the area from Rajputana to Assam was covered by sea. In those days, South-India was an Island. During that period, perhaps India had spread upto Australia. After the Ṛgvēdic period, due to several earthquakes, several Southern parts of South-India had merged into sea and the present India emerged. Due to such high-density earthquake, Rajputana emerged from the bottom of the sea. Due to this, Aryans got a way to enter the south. Legendary story of sage Agastya which is referred in puranās that sage Agastya drank the seawater refers perhaps to the Rajputana region.
(2) In the Sapta sindhu region, right from the ancient period to the creation of human beings and further, several ideas have emerged from the Geologists. It is not possible to decide when Āryans were in this region and how long they were; hence, this region must be the original place of the Āryans. While seeing the sea and the mountain, which are very difficult to cross over, it is very difficult to say that Āryans came from Central Asia or from the North-pole. Hence, as the Kols and Dravidians were the natives of South-India so the Āryans were the residents of the 'Saptasindhu' region.
(3) When Rājputānā sea became a place of settlement, there must have occurred "Mahāpraḷaya" (Devastation by water) which has been described as Manu’s water devastation (¨मनुजलप्रळय). This heavy water must have flown towards north and destroyed the "Airyanamboijō" or North-pole. There is a description that yama and his associates must have driven away their people towards north. After the Ṛgvēdic period some groups of Āryan people might have gone towards North Pole. Hence, Āryans of the Ṛgvēdic period did not come from outside.
(4) In the beginning, due to the presence of sea, 'saptasindhu region' must have been very cool. Therefore, in the beginning of the year it was referred as "Himavartu" (covered by snow). After the conversation of the Rājputānā Sea into a land of settlement, its name was changed to "sharat". This may be due to the excess of heat occurring in that region. Due to this reason only the rivers like Saraswathi and Drashadvati must have dried.
(5) The people referred to by the term "Dās" or "Dasyu" during that period may hint to some hill people or people believing in atheism and were against the performing of Homa (Sacrificial fire) and do not refer to the Dravida, Bhil or Kōl tribes.
(6) The people referred to, as "paṇi" in the Saptasindhu region were businessmen who were cruel people and used to steal cattle etc. They were not interested either in the Vedic religion or in the Vedic Gods. After being defeated by the Aryans, these "paṇis" started living overseas. After the drying of the Rājputānā Sea, these people might have settled in places like Gujarat, Malabār etc. Due to this, these people must have come into contact of pandyas, kols and other such people. Afterwards, these paṇi’s along with kols must have come to "chēlḍiya region". They might have built independent Babylonian kingdom in Mesopotamia. Another branch belonging to the same group must have settled with pāndyās and must have gone to Iran, Arabia and Egypt and settled there. Those who migrated like this were none else but "Āryan paṇis" and it becomes clear that they migrated from India.
(7) Iraniyans who were the ancestors of Persians were the real Āryans and they were speaking Āryan language only. "paśu yajna" (sacrificing animal) was not acceptable to them. These people were split from the Āryans. The quarrels between them were referred as the war between 'Dēvasur' (between God and Demon). In the end, these people must have left the Saptasindhu region and settled in the "Aairyanambojō region".
If we consider all these things, it is proved that Āryans must have been originally in the sata sindhu region and must have spread to different places from this region.
(8) Scholars like Satyavrata Samasrami and Dharma Mārtāṉda Lēlē have strongly objected the point that North-pole was the original residence of the Āryans. They claim the 'Āryāvaratta' was the original place of Āryans. For this, their arguments are as follows:
(a) Āryans were the original residents of India (भारत) only. The rivers and mountains that are mentioned in the Vedas are not found in the North-pole. All of them are in India.
(b) The examples of Vedic mantras given by Bāla Gangadhar Tilak to justify the North Pole as the original place of the Āryans do not give the correct meaning of the Mantra. They have different meanings. These Mantras do not indicate Saptarshi Gaṇa and Nakshatra Bhramaṇa.
(c) Medication of "prātarunuvāk" (one thousand times) is not said in Ṛgvēda. This occurs in Aittarēya Brāhmaṇa, therefore, can it be said that the Authors of Aittarēya Bramaṇa were in the North Pole? The method of meditating the "prātaranuvāk" before the bird’s noise refers to the main part of the mantra, other parts were repeated afterwards.
(d) In the North-pole region, one night and one day put together makes one year. When the condition is like this how it is possible to count for one hundred years. What is the method for the calculation of the month? What is the duration of a year? One year of the Human beings is equal to one day of the Gods; here also there is no reference of North Pole. Due to these reasons, North Pole cannot be the original place of Āryans. The original place of Āryans is 'Āryavratta' only. For this they give the following reasons:
(a) Āryans original settlement was southern Himalaya region called "suvāstu region". In the Ṛgvedasaṁhita "suvāstvā adi tugvan" (VIII-19-37) refers to this region. Yāska in his Nirukata says that "suvāsturnadī tugva tirtham bhavati" (Nirukta. IV-15-2)- Suvāstu region was quite suitable for settlement. Present day "svāt" river must have been the ancient suvāstu river opines Mr.Kanningham.
(b) Most influential Rasa River might be the northern boundary of the Āryans; Kubha River (present Kabul River?) may have been the western boundary. Saryū River may have been eastern boundaryt - 'the area below the Kubha River' and the meeting point of 'k̄ramu-sindhu region' may have been the southern boundary. This is referred in the Ṛgvēda as follows:
"Māvō rasa nitabhā kubhā krumurmāvaḥ sindhurniriramat | Māvaḥ variṣhṭhātsarayuḥ pūrī shiṇyasme itsumna mastuvah"̣ | | Ṛg. veda saṁ. V-3-9 and 1-104-4)
(c) Āryans settlement started spreading gradually in the sāraswat region. Yāska says that sage Vishwamitra came along with sudāsa and others followed them in the vipāṭ-śatadru union (sangama) place. What is said in Ṛgvēda regarding the conversation between Viswamitra and rivers refers to this one. This sāraswata land had been described as "yāgabhūmi" and is most pious place. "This region is most beautiful on the earth. Crops grow plenty and I have established fire in this region in a special form. This pious area is located between the rivers of Draṣhadvati and Saraswati, and you can enlighten freely" as said in the following mantra,
"Nitvā dadadhē vara ā prathivyām ilāyāpadē sudinatvē ahnām | Draṣhadvatyām manuṣha apayāyām saraswatyām revadangnē dī dihi |" Rg. Saṁ. III-23-4.
In the Dialogue of Saramapāṇi, Rasanadi was the northern boundary.
Mūjavan Mountain is referred in Ṛgvēda. It is wrong to say that Āryans first lived there. During the Ṛk Samhita period, Mūjavan Mountain and Iran were parts of Āryavratta.
From the present day Persia to Northern Asia Minor towards East, Western part of Ganga region, Southern part of Mūjavan Mountain where Sindhu River merges into the sea, its northern parts the Āryavratta was spread. This was the original settlement of Āryans.
Thus, there are different arguments claiming different places as the original settlements of Āryans. Therefore, the question of the original settlement of Āryans needs further research on solid grounds.
Sanskrit is an ancient language of India. The name "saṁskrata" was not used in the beginning. Vedas, which are the ancient scriptures of this country, do not refer the name Sanskrit. They are called Vedas and which are four in number, viz: Ṛgvēda, yajurvēda, samavēda and Atharvaṇavēda. Ṛgvēda being the earliest does not contain any reference to the term Sanskrit.
Professor Satya Ranjan Banerjee on this issue states as follows:
The name "Sanskrit" as a distinct type of language is of late origin. It does not occur in this sense in the Vedic literature, nor is it mentioned by Pāṇini (4th century B.C) himself. In the Ṛgvēda (1.164.45), Taittiriya Saṁhita (vi.4.7.3), Maitrāyiṇi Saṁhita (1.11.5) and other Vedic texts references are found for four types of speeches but specifically the name Sanskrit is not mentioned among them. In the satapatha Brāhmana (IV 1.3.16) also we have different references to the diversity of speeches, or to the different kinds of Aryan Speech (ārya bhāṣa) but the name Sanskrit is not recorded there. A story in the S̀B (III.2.3.15 & XI.4.1.1) tells us that in the North, there is a type of speech which is much better than that of the other places and people used to go to the North to learn that better language. But what is the name of that better language is not clearly stated there, though scholars assume that – that language was Sanskrit. In the Aitareya (III.2.5) and sāṇkhyāṇa Āraṇyakās (VIII.q), Aryan speech (āryā vāk) is specifically mentioned for the first time. This āryāvāk is also otherwise known as brāhmanya vak (A.A.15.2). But still the name Sanskrit is not categorically mentioned.
At a later stage between 700 B.C and 400 B.C, the saṃskr(ta as a language is also not mentioned, though the explicit references to different dialects may be gleaned out. In the Nirukta (5th cent. B.C) it is stated that in different places different roots are used for the same type of expression (Nik. 11.2), and the same is repeated in the introduction of the Mahābhaṣa of patañjali (150 B.C) with a little more elaboration, but the name Sanskrit is not mentioned there. In Pāṇini’s (4th Cent. B.C) Aṣṭādhyayi no reference to Sanskrit as a language is found, though he describes the Vedic language as chandaḥ, which has been described by later writers as Mantra, yāska (5th cent B.C) and Pāṇini (4th cent B.C) also refer to a language known as bhāṣā whose actual significance has not yet been ascertained. Probably they might have referred to a non-Vedic spoken Sanskrit speech current in their time which was quite different from chandaḥ or Vedic. Some however consider bhaṣa of Pāṇini as a spoken speech. It appears from the above discussion that whatever may be the reason, it is true that from the time of Ṛgvēda (1500 BC) down to Pāṇini (4th cent B.C) the very name saṃskṚata as a distinct type of language is not mentioned.
In the sundarākāṇḍa (V.30, 17-18) of the Rāmāyaṇa it occurs for the first time as a type of language which is fit for a Brahmin:
ahaṃ hyatitanuścaiva vanaraśca viśeṣetaḥ | vācaṃ codahariṣyāmi mānuṣim iha saṃskṚtām | | yadi vācaṃ pradāsyami dvijātiriva saṃskṚtām | rāvaṇam manyamānā mām sitā bhitā bhaviṣyati | |
Hanūmān was hesitating whether he would adopt Sanskrit language for his secret news to be communicated to Sita.Otherwise, Sita might misunderstand him as Ṛāvaṇa who was in the habit of speaking Saṃsḳrtā vāk.
Kālidāsa (4th or 5th cent A.D, if not earlier) is the first, as far as it is known to us, who considers Sanskrit as a distinct type of Language side by side with Prakrit. In his opinion, Sanskrit is a "purified, refined speech" (Saṃskārapūtāvāk), whereas Prakrit is a language "Easy to understand" (sukhgrahya Bhaṣa). This idea of his is reflected in his kumāra Saṃbhava (1.28) while glorifying Himalaya for the birth of pārvati – "Saṃskāravatyeva girā maṇī sī tayasa putaśca vibhūşitaśca"- "He (i.e. Himalaya) is purified and ornamented by her (birth) like a learned man embellished with purified and refined speech".
In one verse of kumārasambhava, (VII. 90) kālidāsa must have suggested the two languages – Sanskrit and Prākrit side by side. On the occasion of the wedding of śiva and Umā, the goddess Saraswati addressed the newly wedded couple in two different languages:
dvidhā prayuktena ca vaṅmayena saraswati tam mithunaṃ nunāva | saṃskāraputena varaṃ vareṇyam vadhum sukhagrāhya – nibandhanena | |
- By using language in two different ways Saraswati hailed the couple the adorable bridegroom by speech purified by perfection or refinement (=Sanskrit) and the bride in verses (or composition) easy to understand (=Prākrit).
That Sanskrit is to be pronounced with proper articulation and accent in order to get its result is stated in the Raghuvaṃśa (x.36).
Purāṇasya kaves tasya varnasthāna-samiritā | babhuva kṚta - saṃskārā caritārthaiva bhāratī | |
- The speech of that primeval bard pronounced (articulated) from (by the help of) the different organs of speech and therefore becoming distinct and correct was certainly successful (had gained its end) (Nandargikar).
Though the names Saṃskrata or prākrta are not positively mentioned by kālidāsa, it can easily be inferred from the above references that kālidāsa has referred to these two languages.
Rhetoricians, beginning from Bharata (3rd cent A.D), down to Jagannatha (16th cent A.D) have mentioned Sanskrit as a distinct type of Language, when they have classified literature language-wise into Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabhramsa and others.
In the Indian tradition, Sanskrit has been regarded as Devabhāşā or the language of the Gods. Saraswati is considered as the Goddess of knowledge.
Modern philologists call Sanskrit as an Indo-Aryan language and do not give divine picture of the same. The reason for giving divinity to Sanskrit language by the Traditional Indian Scholars is that all ancient Shastras (scriptures) right from Vedas to Puraṇas etc are in Vedic Sanskrit or Sanskrit.
Sanskrit is written from the beginning in the Devanagari script. However, there is a practice of writing the Sanskrit language in the regional scripts such as Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu etc. Sanskrit is also written in Roman script. Script was the later invention. During the Vedic period, Vedas were transmitted from one generation to other orally.
Satya Ranjan Banerjee (vii) says modern philologists have used the term Indo-Aryan in a special sense to designate the Aryan language of India by one single term covering a period of 3,500 years. To them, Indo-Aryan Language means the Vedic and classical Sanskrit as well as Prākrit and Pāli and modern languages of Northern India such as Assamese, Bengali, Oriya, Maithili, Hindi, Punjabi, Sindhi, Rajasthāni, Gujarāti, Marāthi and others. All these languages do not belong to the same period. They have originated in different places and times. Hence, the linguists have divided this Indo-Aryan language into three broad periods, each of which is again sub-divided into many groups. These three divisions are old, middle and new. Historically, Sanskrit including Vedic belongs to the oldest period of the Indo-Aryan line, hence it is known as old Indo-Aryan (=OIA) which extends from 1500-500 B.C, covering a period of one thousand years. Similarly, the middle period of Indo-Aryan languages like prākrit, pāli, some inscriptional prakrits and Apabhrmśa generally designated by the term Middle-Indo-Aryan (=MIA) which covers a period of fifteen hundred years from 5th century B.C down to 1000 A.D. While the modern period of Indo-Aryan Language is the New Indo-Aryan Languages of Northern India, known as NIA, which started from1000 A.D.
Though the immediate antecedent of Indo-Aryan is Indo-Iranian, the pre-history of Indo-Aryan can be traced from Indo-Hittite whose date is approximately considered between 3000-2500 B.C, after which it was split into Hittite and Indo-European through an intermediate stage of primitive Indo-European.
The dates of Indo-Aryan stages are in accordance with the development of Indo-Aryan from Vedic down to the present time. In each stage, some sorts of new characteristics of Indo-Aryan are noticed, and these are either absent or lost altogether in other stages. The middle and new Indo-Aryan stages are also shown side by side to note the interactions of the two stages. The approximate date of the Middle Indo-Aryan stage is reckoned from 6th or 5th cent B.C which date is connected with the birth of Mahavira and Buddha who were supposed to have spoken in their own tongue in Ardha-Māgadhī prākrit and pāli respectively, though Middle Indo-Aryan Linguistic features can be traced from the Vedic times. The New Indo-Aryan stage shows how the Neo-Sanskrit period is greatly influenced by the then vernacular of North-India.
It will be seen from the table below that the Indo-Aryan language has passed through three stages of development partly consecutive in time, but partly also parallel. There is no denying of the fact that at certain periods of time, at least, two stages of Indo-Aryan intersect with one another, and develop side by side influencing each other in their Linguistic patterns, and as such, all the timings, though based on some historical events of India which approximately coincide with the beginning of the subsequent stages, are nothing but approximate just for our convenience.
Below are given the divisions of Indo-Aryan language of 3500 years into three distinct periods, each of which is again sub-divided into many sub-groups. These divisions have been made in accordance with the peculiarities of languages preserved in different stages.
3000 – 2500 B.C = Indo-Hittite stage 2500 – 2000 B.C = Indo-European stage 2000 – 1750 B.C = Indo-Iranianstage 1750 – 1500 B.C = Proto-stages (i) Proto-Iranian (ii) Proto Indo-Aryan 1500 B.C onwards = Indo-Aryan stage.
Primary Secondary Tertiary Prakrits Prakrits Prakrits Old Indo-Aryan Middle Indo-Aryan New Indo-Aryan Approximate Dates (1500-500 B.C.) (600/500 B.C.-1000 A.D.) (1000 A.D.onwards) Sanskrit including Pāli, Prakrit,Inscrip- Adhunik Chandah/Mantra tions, Apabhramśa āryabhāṣha 1500 – 1250 B.C. Early Vedic (Ṛv.II-VII) 1250 – 1000 B.C. Middle Vedic (Ṛv.I, VII-X, S.V., YV; AV) 1000 – 800 B.C. Late Vedic (Brāhmaṇās) 800 – 700 B.C. Pre-classical (Aryanyakas) 700 – 600 B.C. Early classical Beginning of the (Upaniṣads, sutras) MIA 600 – 500 B.C. Formation of classical Stage (yāska, prāti- śākhyas, etc.) 500 – 400 B.C. Epic periods (Rām, Mahā.Bhā) 400 – 200 B.C. I Classical (Pāṇini) I Early MIA 200 B.C – 200 A.D II Classical/Buddhist- II Transitional MIA Sanskrit 200 – 600 A.D III Classical III Second MIA 600 – 800 A.D. IV Classical IV third MIA 800 – 1000 A.D V Classical/Jaina Sanskrit 1000 – 1500 A.D. Post Classical Stage Beginning of NIA 1500 – 1800 A.D. Neo-Sanskrit stage Vernacularism in Sanskrit 1800 – Onwards Modern Sanskrit
From the above table, it becomes clear that Indo-Aryan stage begins from 1500 B.C onwards. However, proto Indo-Aryan goes before 1500 B.C, viz: 1750 to 1500 B.C. This proto Indo-Aryan is related to proto-Iranian which goes further back to 2000 to 1750 B.C.”
According to Prof. Satya Ranjan Banerjee, "The development of old Indo-Aryan language is not static. It changes from time to time. From the Vedic till the time of Pāṇini (1500 – 400 B.C) OIA had passed through several stages before it took a final form; and even after Pāṇini certain changes were also noticed, though not in great number. These changes are recorded in the literatures of OIA developed at different places and times. These changes in grammatical forms can be accounted for "dialectal variations" influenced by the then "spoken speech" of different provincial regions." However, for our convenience, the stages of old Indo-Aryan can be enumerated below:
| Approximate Dates B.C. | Formative periods Early Vedic stage | Documents |
|---|---|---|
| 1500 – 1250 | Saṃhitā period [Formation of old Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit)] | Oldest potions of the Ṛgvēda (II-VIII Maṇḍalās) |
| 1250 – 1000 | Middle Vedic stage [Post Ṛgvēdic period] | Younger Ṛgvēda (I, VIII-X), Sama, yajur and Atharva Vēdas |
| 1000 – 800 | Late Vedic Stage | Brahmaṇās |
| 800 – 700 | Pre classical stage [beginning of Sanskrit) | Araṇyakās |
| 700 – 600 | Early classical stage | Upanī ṣads, sūtrās |
| 600 – 500 | Formation of Classical stage | yāskā, prātisākhyā pre-pāṇinian Grammarians |
| 500 – 400 | Epic period | Rāmāyaṇā (400 B.C. – 200 A.D.) Mahabharata (400 B.C. to 400 A.D.) |
| 400 – 200 | I Classical period | Pāṇini(400 B.C.) Kātyāyana (250 B.C.) |
| 200 B.C. – 200 A.D. | II Classical stage (Buddhist Sanskrit) | BṚhaddevṚ7; Ṛgvidhāna, purāṇas, patanjali (150 A.D) |
| 200 – 600 A.D. | III Classical Stage | Sanskrit court Epics and Dramas |
| 600 – 800 | IV Classical Stage | Bhāravi, Bhatti |
| 800 – 1000 | V Classical Stage Jaina Sanskrit | kumāradāsa, Māgha |
| 1000 – 1500 | Post classical stage | śriharsha etc. |
| 1500 – 1800 | Neo Sanskrit stage | Sanskrit literature influenced by vernaculars of Modern Indian Languages e.g. Sekasubhodayā |
| 1800 – onwards | Modern Sanskrit stage | In this stage, the Sanskrit Language is greatly influenced by the regional languages of Modern India mainly in their vocabulary and syntax |
| 1800 – 1900 | (a) Early Modern Sanskrit | |
| 1900 – onwards | (b) Modern Sanskrit |
In this way, Sanskrit Language has its great history from the proto-stage to the current stage.
The significant levels and points of planning started with the discovery of Sanskrit by the Europeans.
The discovery of Sanskrit by the Europeans created a revolution in the development of comparative, Historical and Descriptive Linguistics. It also enabled the west for the development of comparative Indo-European Linguistics.
The first acquaintance of Sanskrit by the western scholars came much before the period of British rule. Sir William Jone’s observation on Sanskrit made in his famous discourse in 1786 to the Asiatic society in Calcutta on the relationship of Sanskrit with Greek, Latin and other languages was not the first acquaintance. The first known Linguistic observation on Sanskrit was made in his Letter by Thomas Stephens (Stevens) - an English Jesuit in Goa, two centuries earlier in the year 1583. In his Letter, Thomas Stevens without mentioning the name of Sanskrit, points out the structural similarities between Indian Languages Greek and Latin. It was not published until 1957. In 1586, the Florentine literature and merchant Filippo Sassetti wrote from Cochin of Sanskrit’s status as the Learned Language of India, of its high antiquity and complexity and of Lexical similarities with Italian, notably in numerals 6 to 9 and words for 'god' and "snake". His Letters were published only in 1855.
Europeans were interested in the study of Indian Languages primarily for Evangelical purposes. Jesuits played major role in discovering Sanskrit in 17th century itself. After that, Roberto (de) Nobili (1577-1656) concentrated his attention on the language of the Brahminical tradition in south India in Malabar region. He knew Sanskrit but did not go for its Linguistic analysis. The first known European Grammar of Sanskrit was composed in Agra between 1660 and 1662 A.D by Heinrich Roth written in Latin in a western pattern. This was brought to Rome and thought that it was lost. However, it was traced and published in 1988. In the year 1717 Bartholomaeus Ziegenbalg, primarily a scholar of Tamil, provided Christian Benedict Michels with a syllabary for Sanskrit. French Jesuits were interested in the scholarship on Indian Languages. Jean Francois pons (1740) made a survey of Sanskrit Literature and described Sanskrit as admirable for its harmony, copiousness and energy and reported on the analysis by which native grammarians had reduced ‘the richest language in the world’ to a small number of primitive elements to which derivational suffixes and inflectional endings are added according to rules, the application of which generates 'several thousand correct Sanskrit words'. This was published in 1743 A.D. Abbe Bignon when assumed the direction of the French Royal Library in 1718 A.D, a request was issued by him to the French missionaries in Asia to send the manuscripts according to a list of desiderata drawn up by the orientalist Etienne Fourmont. In the year 1732-33 A.D, pons sent from Bengal 168 Sanskrit manuscripts which included the first five chapters of a Grammar in Latin with Sanskrit words in Bengali script. A sixth chapter on syntax completed in south India, in French with Sanskrit words partly in Telugu and partly in Roman script and was forwarded in 1772 by Gaston – Laurent Coeurcoux. Pons’s grammar was the source of the table of Bengali script in the Encyclopedia and the primer used by the first students of Sanskrit in Europe. Coeurdoux was the author of a memoir that included, besides a basic Sanskrit vocabulary, Lists of Sanskrit words that included, besides a basic Sanskrit vocabulary, Lists of Sanskrit words that have equivalents in Latin, Greek or both, prominently the numerals from 1 to 21, 30, 40 and 100, pronouns and a partial paradigm of As – to be.
R.Rocher in his article "Sanskrit, Discovery by Europeans" under the subheading 2, with a subtitle Break through; British colonials in Bengal (1768-94) says as follows: "When, in 1765, the East India Company obtained the administrative rights to Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, knowledge of India’s culture became a colonial necessity. The reluctance of pundits to instruct foreigners in their sacred language and Sanskrit’s reputation for being "amazingly copious" and for showing a 'regularity of etymology and grammatical order', induced Alexander Dow (1768) to suspect that it had been invented by Brahmins 'upon rational principles' to be "a mysterious repository for their religion and philosophy". This led Christoph Meiners (1780) to explain similarities by assuming that the Brahmans had patterned their artificial language after Greek, a notion Dugald Stewart and Charles William Wall still held in the nineteenth century.
Governor Warren Hastings’s decision in 1772 to apply native laws in courts and his patronage of both pundits and orientalists caused a break through. In the introduction to the translation (1776) of the code of Hindu law commissioned by Hastings, which underwent several editions and translations, Nathaniel Brassey Halhed gave an account of Sanskrit that interested Beauzee and monboddo among others. In his grammar of Bengali (1778), he digressed of features of Sanskrit, spelling out the importance of similarities in basic vocabulary, i.e. not in technical and metaphorical terms, which the mutation of refined arts and improved manners might have occasionally introduced; but in the main ground work of language in monosyllables, in the names of numbers, and the appellation of such things as would be first discriminated on the immediate dawn of civilization; and noting similarities in morphology, such as the conjugation in mi in Sanskrit and Greek. In a letter of 1799 (only published in 1983), he articulated a method built on Monboddo’s view that Latin was a dialect more ancient than Greek: Sanskrit, closer to Latin than to Greek, had to be even more ancient, yet, what of the existence of the dual number and the middle voice in this tongue and in the Greek, which are totally absent from the Latin? Holding, after Monboddo, that 'it is one of the last gradations of art to simplify a complex machine, he mentioned' in favour of the pretensions to priority of original in the Sanskrit (sic) language, that is contains every part of speech, and every distinction which is to be found in Greek or in Latin, and that in some particulars it is more copious than either.
Sanskrit’s copiousness noted by pons, Dow and Halhed, was emphasized again in a statement (1786) by Sir William Jones, a scholar of Persian and one of the most accomplished men of his day, who as a Judge of the supreme court in Calcutta, began to study Sanskrit to check the authenticity of legal opinions given by pundit assistants to the courts.
"The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of the them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the form of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident: so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin as the Sanskrit; and that the old Persian might be added to the same family."
Taken out of context, this was elevated later to the rank of a charter of comparative Indo-European Linguistics. For Jones, in keeping with the monogeneticism of his times, it was part of a search for the cradle of civilization from which arts, letters, science, religion, and philosophy might have spread, and which linked the Indians not only to the Persians, Goths, and Celts but also to the Ethiopians, Chinese, Japanese and even Peruvians. Less famous, yet of lasting importance, was Jones 'Dissertation on the Orthography of Asiatic words in Roman letters' (1786), informed by the Indian tradition of Phonetics, which set a standard for the transliteration of Sanskrit in Roman script.
Most noticed was the unveiling in rapid succession of Sanskrit literary masterpieces with translations by Charles Wilkins of the religio-philosophical poem BHAGAVADGī ̄TĀ and the moral fables HITOPADEśA (1785-1787), and by Jones of the play śakuntala, the erotic mystical songs Gī ̄TAGOVINDA and the "Laws of Manu" (1789, 1792, 1794). These underwent multiple editions and translations and drew enthusiastic comments: the BHAGAVADGī ̄TĀ from Schopenhauer, śakuntala from Herder and Goethe. By founding the Asiatic society in Calcutta (1784) and its organ, the Asiatic Researches (1788), Jones provided a forum for further advances and a channel to broadcast them to Europe, where they were published and translated into French and German.
European curiosity about Sanskrit was piqued, yet interpretations remained scattered. Summing up the evidence provided by pons, Dow and Halhed, Michael Hissmann (1780) still attributed similarities to borrowing into Sanskrit. Drawing from the same sources, Beauzee’s five page article in the Encyclopédia méthodique (1786) up from a few lines in Diderot’s original Encyclopédia (1765) sought to provide a model for an international scholarly language.
The discalced Carmelite, paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo (born Philip (p)) Wessdin (vesdin) returned in1789 form Malabar and undertook to catalogue oriental collections in Rome and to publish in Latin for the use of future missionaries’ encyclopedic, if polemical, works that incorporated the sum of current knowledge on India. These included a description of Indian scripts (1791) based on the ALPHABETUM BRAMMHANICUM and the ALPHABETUM GRANDONICO - MALABARICUM edited by Amaduzzi (1771- 1772): two grammars-the first grammars of Sanskrit to be printed (1790, 1804) based on manuscripts of Hanxleden: an edition of the first section of Amarasimha’s dictionary (1798) and dissertations on the relationship of zend (Avestan), Sanskrit, German, of Latin, Zend and Sanskrit (1798, 1802). They encapsulate traits of the eighteenth century: the authority still granted to testimonies of classical antiquity; an emphasis on basic vocabulary presented in tabular form for comparison; and, particularly for clerics, a wish to match linguistic evidence with biblical accounts. Explanation by contact and borrowing, however, were discarded and common origin affirmed. The connection of German and Iranian was accepted, yet, with Sanskrit added, a northern, Scythian origin was rejected in favour of an oriental cradle. Puzzlement persisted on whether to consider Sanskrit closer to Latin or to Greek with preference for the former, yet with an acknowledgement that morphological similarities such as the augment and the reduplicated perfect, point to the latter. Franzcarl Alter (1799) published the Sanskrit words in the St. Petersburg vocabularies corrected by paulinus, and paulinus’s and his comparisons of these with other oriental languages. Hervás (1801) and Adelung (1, 1806) drew heavily on paulinus’s work.
Paulinus’s first printed grammar provided a means to learn Sanskrit, which the publications from Calcutta made a subject of literary, philosophical and Linguistic interest, not just of evangelical or colonial necessity. In 1802 the Paris Collections, the richest in Europe attracted at the same time European scholars eager to learn Sanskrit and a member of the Asiatic society returned from Calcutta eager to teach it. Detained in Paris by war between Britain and France, Alexander Hamilton catalogued new Sanskrit manuscripts in the French National/Imperial Library with their keeper, Louis Matthiéu Langles and introduced all those who were interested to Sanskrit. Of the first consequence was his daily tutoring of Friedrich Schlegel, which provided a foundation for Schlegel’s UEBER DIE SPRACHE UND WEISHEIT DER INDIER (1808). In this complex, sometimes paradoxical book, which blends Linguistic, Literary, Historical, Philosophical and Theological themes, Schlegel was already retreating from the first enthusiasm that had him exclaim that Sanskrit is 'the actual source of all languages, of all thoughts and poetry of the human spirit; every thing, everything without exception stems form India' yet he still viewed Sanskrit as the most perfect, spiritual, quasidivine language, the oldest and possibly the parent of 'organic' inflectional languages, which he considered superior to the 'mechanical' agglutinative languages. Deeming lexical similarities inherently inconclusive, he focussed on morphological similarities as the determining criterion for establishing genealogy.
Schlegel’s example demonstrated that Sanskrit could be learned in Europe. It inspired Antoine-Léonard de chézy, who, self taught with the grammars of paulinus and pons and other manuscripts in the French National/Imperial Library became in 1814 the first incumbent of a chair of Sanskrit, at the college de France. August Wilhelm schlegel (see schlegel, August Wilhelm) followed in the foot steps of his younger brother, learning Sanskrit in Paris followed in the foot steps of his younger brother, learning Sanskrit in Paris before initiating its teaching in Germany (Bonn 1818). Franz Bop, Ithmar Frank and others went on from Paris to London to consult manuscripts in the East-India company Library founded in 1801 according to a plan proposed by Charles Wilkins, who became its first Librarian. Thanks to collections made in India by the likes of Colin Mackenzie and Henry Thomas Colebrook (the first author of a Sanskrit grammar in English, which remained incomplete, and the first Sanskrit scholar some of whose works are still read for other than antiquarian purposes), the London holdings soon eclipsed those in Paris, however, Britain was slow in recognizing Sanskrit as more than a colonial necessity. Hamilton, upon his release from France in 1806, taught Sanskrit at the East India College, but no mainstream British University offered it until 1832, when the Boden chair was created at oxford. Thanks to a bequest by a former military officer of the East Indian Company. The chair’s first incumbent, Horace Hayman Wilson who had learned Sanskrit from pundits in India, was embroiled in a dispute with A.W.Schlegel, who had learned Sanskrit in Europe, about the qualifications required for a Sanskrit scholar, thus epitomizing the extent to which Sanskrit had become appropriated by Europeans, particularly on the continent.
More than joining the academic mainstream, Sanskrit took pride of place in the development of comparative Indo-European grammar. Though, unlike Friedrich Schlegel, Bopp never referred to Sanskrit as the parent language. He made it the centerpiece of his comparative studies of conjugational and other grammatical systems, and, although he did not share schlegel’s Romantic enthusiasm but bore down on matters purely linguistic, he likewise appended translations of Sanskrit texts to his CONJUGATION SYSTEM (1816) Sanskritocentrism remained the norm for generations of comparatirists. So significant was the discovery of Sanskrit in the development of comparative Indo-European Linguistics that it has been felt necessary of late to voice reminders that it was not a prerequisite-as the works of Rask, Grimm, and others demonstrate. Accounting in part for the magnitude, of this impact are the quality, quantity, antiquity, and longevity of Sanskrit literature. Yet more important was the fact that Sanskrit was first taught to Europeans directly or mediately-according to the enduring tradition of rigorous analysis by Pāṇini (see Pāṇini) and other Indian grammarians and phoneticians. The identification of the root as the smallest common denominator of derived forms, vocalic alternation, derivational and inflectional suffixes, substitution rules, zeroing etc and the description of articulatory processes were the procedures according to which Europeans learned Sanskrit from pundits. While this created an illusion that Sanskrit is more regular and transparent than other languages, the fact that the same procedures could serve to analyze cognate languages provided framework that facilitated comparison”.
c) Others: After the discovery of Sanskrit by the Europeans like French, German, British and others, this was studied in depth by many scholars like Max-Muller, Burrow, and others. In America, many Linguists showed interest in the study of Sanskrit. Scholars like Bloomfield, J.Cardona and Kiparsky have studied Sanskrit in depth. P. Kiparsky in his paper on Sanskrit (Pāṇinian) Linguistics writes the importance of Pāṇini’s grammar and its contribution to modern Linguists as follows:
"Pāṇini’s grammar (c.a. 350 BCE) seeks to provide a complete, maximally concise and theoretically consistent analysis of Sanskrit grammatical structure. It is the foundation of all traditional and modern analysis of Sanskrit, as well as having great historical and theoretical interest in its own right. Western grammatical theory has been influenced by it at every stage of its development for the last two centuries. The early nineteenth-century comparativists learned from it the principles of morphological analysis. Bloomfield modeled both his Classic Algonquian grammars and the logical positivist axiomatization of his POSTULATES on it. Modern Linguists acknowledge it as the most complete generative grammar of any language yet written, and continues to adopt technical ideas from it."
Thus, Europeans/ westerners gradually became more and more aware of Sanskrit and they worked on it.
Sanskrit is the cultural language of India. Eventhough it is not spoken as mother tongue by many, it is spoken as second language by many scholars of Sanskrit. It is the language of the unity among the different ethnic groups of the country.
During the Vedic period, Sanskrit was the language of communication, worships, debate and discussions. Vedic literature which has come down to us is even today the living example. Dr.H.S.Ananthanarayana (2000 A.D) says that "Sanskrit was a spoken language and the vast literature in this language is a solid testimony to this fact. It was not limited to any particular area, but was spoken throughout the length and breadth of the country. Regional peculiarities observed by Pāṇini and others confirm this thesis. It was spoken not only by the Brahmins but was equally used and understood by other social classes. If the work samskrta is taken in the meaning 'polished', 'purified', 'correct speech', it may then be thought of as the speech of the educated class of the Aryan society. Others must have spoken substandard form and may have even mastered it so as to use it on occasion. The fact that Sanskrit and Prakrit were used side by side suggests that they were mutually intelligible and the people were bilinguals. Within their class, the members may have used their own speech as a mark of identity and whenever it involved members of the upper class".
Thus, Sanskrit was the most important language of Ancient India.
During the British rule in India, many Europeans came to India and studied Sanskrit and translated Vedas and epics into English and other European languages. Sir William Jones’ lecture about the importance of Sanskrit in relation to the other European languages generated interest among the Europeans for the comparative study of European languages with Sanskrit which resulted in the development of comparative Linguists and the reconstruction of proto Indo-European.
After the independence, India was divided into different Linguistic states under the states re-organization act of 1956. Government of India gave lot of importance for Sanskrit and declared it as a classical language of India.
Under the Linguistic states re-organization, Sanskrit became the language of India and not confined to one particular state. Government of India has established a National Institute of Sanskrit called 'Rashtriya Sanskrit Samsthan' for the development and propagation of Sanskrit. Government established Sanskrit universities and Research Institutes for the study of Sanskrit.
Sir William Jones, an English jurist in India, made an observation in his historical speech that Sanskrit is related to the Greek and Latin and other European languages. After this, many European scholars started comparison of older forms of English and German with Latin, Greek, Sanskrit and other European languages. This systematic comparative study resulted in the classification of these languages into Indo-European family and to the development of historical linguistics. Comparison of basic numerals and other basic nouns helped the Linguists to reconstruct the proto Indo-European. The concept was that originally there was one Proto Indo-European language and all other languages developed out of it and are generically related languages. On the basis of the comparative study, world languages were divided into 7 larger families as follows:
(1) Indo-European (2) Afro-Asiatic (3) Sino-Tibetan (4) Altaic (5) Dravidian (6) Austro-Asiatic (7) Finno-Ugric
As seen in the previous page, languages were classified on the genetic relationship which is also called the genealogical classification. This was done on the basis of genetic and historical connection between languages on the basis of their phonological and morphological correspondences.
In typological classification, attempts were made to classify the languages on the basis of their types rather than their origins and relationships. In the year 1818 or so August von Schlegel proposed a typological classification which was widely followed and elaborated in the 19th century.
Winfred P. Lehmann (P. 51) says "According to this (typological) classification, languages may be analytic (isolating or root) languages (Chinese, with no inflection, is the generally used example), or they may be synthetic, inflectional, like Latin and Greek. A transitional class is agglutinative or affixing, like Turkish or Swahili; agglutinative languages are differentiated from inflectional languages because they maintain bases and affixes distinct from each other."
After August Von Schlegal, many linguists worked on typological classification of languages. Sapir, Finck and Greenberg contributed for this type of classification. This was based on the systems of the languages like phonological, Grammatical and semantic.
Finck assumed eight types. On one side stood the languages like Turkish in which a work indicates several elements of a situation; on the other, the languages like English in which a word indicates less than one element of a situation. Chinese provides an ideal fit between any situation and its restoration in language represented one element with one work. Finck arranged his eight typical languages as follows:
Eskimo, Turkish, Georgian, Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Samoan, and Subiya. Finck classified these eight languages into three groups as follows:
Isolating Chinese -- Root Isolating Samoan -- Stem Isolating Inflected Arabic -- Root inflected Greek -- Stem inflected Georgian -- Group inflected Elements not Subiya -- Juxtaposing Combined with Turkish -- Agglutinative Base Eskimo -- Polysynthetic or Incorporating
Greenberg modified Sapir’s classification and classified languages by selected structural features rather than by the entire language. Selected structural features involved phonological classification in which languages were classified on the basis of number of phonemic inventory. Sanskrit has a large number of stops, few fricatives and a symmetrical arrangement of aspirated and non aspirated stops. In morphological classification, Greenberg indicates the ratio of morphs per word in a given language.
Thus, the chief aim of typology is classifications of languages on one criteria or the other.
According to David Crystal, "Areal is a term used in Dialectology for any geographical region isolated or the basis of its Linguistic characteristics. The study of the Linguistic properties of 'areas' – the analysis of the divergent Forms they contain and their historical antecedents – is known as Areal Linguistics. An Areal classification would establish areal types (or groups), such as Scandinavian languages or the London-influenced dialects – cases where it is possible to show certain Linguistic features in common as a result of the proximity of the speech communities. Such a classification often cuts across that made on purely historical grounds. It is often possible to identify a focal area, the region from which these Linguistic characteristics have spread to the area as a whole (as in the case of London) and several other significant parts of an area have been terminologically distinguished (e.g.) the traditional areas which occur between adjacent areas, the relic areas which preserve linguistic features of an earlier stage of development."
In Sanskrit, areal differences are noticed and they have been described by Ancient Indian scholars. Yaska (5th century B.C) in his work 'Nirukta' explains how words give different meanings in different regions as follows:
śavati gatikarma Kambojeshveva Bhaṣyate Vikaramaryartheṣhu Bhaṣante śava iti. Datirlavaṇarthe pracyeṣu Datramudecyeṣu” Nirukta – 2.2
The Verb 'śavati' in kamboj (North Western of present Punjab) was used to mean 'going' but its nominal form 'śava' was used by the Aryans in different meanings. In Eastern part of the country, the word 'Dat' meant cutting but the people of the North use 'Datra' in ironical sense.
Sanskrit spoken during the period of Pāṇini (4th century B.C) differs from that of the period of Katyayana (2nd century B.C.)
Word accent which was the peculiarity of Vedic language was lost in the later period. Thus Areal changes are very well noticed in Sanskrit.
On the basis of Areal classification, Sanskrit can be classified as spoken in the east, north or North-west and south due to the peculiarities found in their speech.
REFERENCES:
1. Ananthanarayana, H.S. 2000
'Sanskrit and Indian Heritage' in 'Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia',
Edited by Omkar N.Koul and L.Devaki published by the
Central Institute of Indian Languages, Manasagangotri, Mysore-6. (pp. 245-246)
2. Anantharangachar, N.S. 1968
'Vaidika Sahitya Caritre' (History of Vedic Literature) in Kannada, published by
Mysore University Prasaranga, Manasagangotri, Mysore-6.
(Introduction)
3. Banerjee, Satya Ranjan, 1987
'A Handbook of Sanskrit Philosophy'
Published by Shri.A.burman, the Sanskrit book depot, (p) ltd, 28/1, Bidhan Sarai,
Calcutta – 700 006. First Edition
4. David Crystal (Ed.) 1985
'A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics' First published by Basil Blackwell Ltd.108 Cowley Road,
Oxford Oxy, IJF. U.K.
5. Emeneau, Murry. B.
'Sanskrit'
Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 24, Pages. 232 – 233.
6. Lehmann, Winfred, P. 1966
'Historical Linguistics: An Introduction' published by oxford - IBH publishing Co.,
Calcutta, Bombay, New Delhi.
7. Murti, M.Srimannarayana, 1984
'An Introduction to Sanskrit Linguistics' (Comparative and Historical) D.K. Publications, 29/9,
Nangia Park,Shaktinagar, Delhi – 110 007.
8. Rocher, R.
'Sanskrit, Discovery by Europeans'
Published in concise Encyclopedia of Language and Religion, Edited by
John F.A.Swayer and J.M.Y.Simpson, PP. 380 – 384.
Copyright CIIL-India Mysore