But you missed this:
Sanskrit is also the ancestor of the Prakrit languages of India, such as Pali and Ardhamagadhi.
That's why I said there are (at least) two different schools of scholars that believe two different things now, as opposed to one who taught the students that Sanskrit is the mother of all Indian languages.
So are we back to square one again? :)
Not so fast, C'da. I think I actually confused (or will) you by my findings on the traditional belief of Sanskrit being the origin of all the Indian languages. :)
I just produced sites here that have both sides and and find it hard to come to a conclusion without finding out why the other side is so convinced to what they are saying. So the confusion over a "done deal" (of a traditional thinking that Sanskrit is the original language) still goes on, as far as I am concerned, sorry. :)
From: "Barua25" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alpana B. Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <assam@assamnet.org>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:36:55 -0600
> The word Sanskrit means completed, refined, perfected. Sum (Complete) + krt (created). Virtually every Sanskrit >student in India learns the traditional story that Sanskrit was created and then refined over many generations>(traditionally more than a thousand years) until it was considered complete and perfect. The original crude language >from which Sanskrit was derived could be Prakrit.Alpana:You are right. The above statement is taken from one of the websites you referred. The above statement seems to explain it better. The original crude language from which Sanskrit was derived could be Prakrit. Our modern Indian languages also are derived from this original crude lanugae called Prakit. So from the same original crude Prakit language one branch(es) became our modern Indian languages and the other branch became more refined and structured and became Sanskrit.Now if we keep our conception to this, everything would seem clear. But the problem is sometimes some scholars would throw the word Sanskrit even to the poriginal Prakit and thrhow statements that all our languages are actually derived from Sanskrit. That is when people get confused. But once we know the basics, it should be clear.At least that is how I undertstand. Thanks for the sites. Those are great.Barua----- Original Message -----From: Alpana B. SarangapaniSent: Friday, March 10, 2006 3:55 PMSubject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speakingBarua: Thanks for your note.
I might have to get back to you later if these simple sites are not convincing. In simple words, Sanskrit was too hard for the commoners, so they had to use some 'aprabhramsha'(?) - words in simpler form were created which in turn became 'Prakrits' - meaning actual words instead of them being abstract. But the origin of these still came from Sanskrit.
There is a new school of philosophy comprised of different researcheres, who believe that the 'Prakrits' are as original as Sanskrit, to which like many traditional thinkers (who have provided enough evidences), I don't apparently :) belong.
Please refere to this web site: http://www.fact-index.com/s/sa/sanskrit.html, where it says "Sanskrit is also the ancestor of the prakrit languages of India."
Also this: http://www.fact-index.com/p/pr/prakrit.html., - it says: "We might say that the Prakrits are to Sanskrit as Vulgar Latin and the Romance languages are to Classical Latin."
From: "Rajen Barua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rajen Barua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"Alpana B. Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <assam@assamnet.org>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:52:33 -0600
Alpana:I hope you could see and clarify the point I was making. Modern Indian languages did not come through Sanskrit. These came through the Pakrits. Sanskrit remained fixed in time as a written language because people stopped speaking it on the street. It is only in modern times that these Indian languages are using Sanskrit as a rich source of old words which were retained by Sanskrit. Thus when I say Sanskrit is a dead language I did not say that in a derogatory sense. A language is called dead, ie not living, when nobody claim that language as a mother tongue. No mother speaks in Sanskrit to her child today. That is it. Otherwise, yes, there is a huge literature in Sanskrit not to speak of huge Hindu scriptures (which is however in Vedic Sanskrit language). I have also heard there some Sanskrit speaking clubs. I wrote this because I got the impression that you may be thinking I am writing against the Sanskrit language itself. That is far from it. I love Sanskrit. I think you have seen the following tribute to the Sanskrit language by Sir William Jones:"The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could not 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 the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family..."But my point is let not this beautiful language try to change our simple Assamese language from the top because that will create a huge gap what people are speaking on the street and what is being written by the scholars. A language should develop and flow from and by the people on the street. If Assamese are to loose the X sound tomorrow, let the people on the street loose it, but not because some Sanskrit lover Assamese scholars are Sanskritising the Assamese language from the top. Xongkordev was a great Sanskrit scholar, but he chose to write in Assamese-Brojawoli and he did it without any influence from Sanskrit. Probaly you know that he was the first to use the word OXOM in the Kirton.That is my point.Barua----- Original Message -----From: Rajen BaruaSent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 1:19 PMSubject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking>They had to come through Sanskrit (panini's grammar 600-650 B.C.).Alpana:No. This is not correct. Please read that chart again. The Sanskrit (Panini's grammar 600-650BC) is actually shown as a dead end. The languages are actually coming from the other branch (where Sanskrit is not there) the old Prakits : Sauraseni, Prachya etc and ultimately Magdhi, Rajasthani, etc.Please read the chart again again and you will see what I am saying. Even than if you have question, I can clarify.Thanks for the site.Barua----- Original Message -----From: Alpana B. SarangapaniSent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:21 AMSubject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking>history of the Indian languages carefully. It is tricky. Sanskrit, by definition, is a dead >language, which means it ended in itself. As such none of the Indian >regional languages are derived from Sanskrit. None. Assamese, Bengali, Oriya and all >the Indo-Aryan languages in India are derived from different Pakrit languages like
http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/B_0137.HTM
Please see the chart in the above web site.
You can say the Indo-Aryan languages came from the Ancient Prakrit (800 B.C., Old/spoken Indo-Aryan) languages, yes. But they did not come directly from there. They were NOT Assamese or Bengali then or the other modern Indian languages that we have now. They had to come through Sanskrit (panini's grammar 600-650 B.C.).
Sanskrit is from 600/650 B.C. and the ancient Prakrit (old spoken Indo-Aryan) is from 800 B.C., which is also dead and from which Sanskrit itself came from. They themselves are dead but their descendents are the modern languages.
So the argument:
>language, which means it ended in itself. As such none of the Indian >regional languages are derived from Sanskrit. None. Assamese, Bengali, Oriya and
does not hold any water. One can say Sanskrit itself came from the ancient Prakrit languages (old/spoken Indo-Aryan). But to become the modern Indo-Aryan languages like Assamese, Bengali, Oriya, etc. they had to come through the stages of which Sanskrit was a main one.
Latin has become a dead language, but isn't it a fact that the modern Indo-European languages are descended from it??
Both Latin and Sanskrit are dead languages but are still alive in new forms.
Disclaimer: From a non- expert (on languages, in this case) who trys to dig up and put forward vaild arguments against something that sounds outrageous sometimes, but is always open to accept counterarguments. :-)
From: "Rajen Barua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ram Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], assam@assamnet.org
Subject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:46:06 -0600
Ram:Thanks for the site. It is great.Regarding Assamese and other languages coming from Sanskrit, please read the history of the Indian languages carefully. It is tricky. Sanskrit, by definition, is a dead language, which means it ended in itself. As such none of the Indian regional languages are derived from Sanskrit. None. Assamese, Bengali, Oriya and all the Indo-Aryan languages in India are derived from different Pakrit languages like Magadhi, Sauraseni, etc. Now these Pakrit languages are derived from some Vedic and pre Vedic languages. Sanskrit itself was one language which was derived from some pre Vedic language. However, Panini standardized Sanskrit and made many changes phonetically (we lost X sound) and grammatically. However due to Panini's strict rules, Sanskrit remained as a fixed written language, fixed in time forever. That is why it is called a dead language.From above, it should be very clear that Sanskrit cannot be the mother language on any of the Indo Aryan languages: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Marthi etc. Sanskrit can be strictly speaking a cousin language.But if a dead language can have power, it is Sanskrit which have been influencing the Indians greatly. Many educated Indians (I mean scholars) make the mistake again and again. How many times you will hear Indians stating that all Indian languages are derived from Sanskrit etc. Technically this is not correct. Please. Sanskrit is dead.If we consider, Panini's time (6th/7th century BC, Panini was from Afghanistan-Kandahar) to be the time of Sanskrit the way we see it today, Assamese language is much older than that. Historically it is my argument that the Assamese XO sound was there in Assamese since 3000 BC when Narakaxur (contemporary to Rama and Sita) established the first Aryan-Axur kingdom in Pragjyotishpur. (Otherwise historically it cannot get into Assamese later). If you read Kaliram Medhi, Dimbeswar Neog and others, you will find that Assamese language has still retained, besides the XO sound many characterisc of old Indo-European language like Persian etc which were lost in Sanskrit and others. With all these data, one can in fact make a convincing argument that Assamese is older than Sanskrit, a point made by Medhi and Neog. Assamese still has many pre Vedic words which were lost in Sanskrit.(When you read Banikanta Kakaoty, please read with caution. Being a student of Dr Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, he did not contradict anything of his master. Compared to him, I think Neog, Medhi and Bharali are much more original Assamese scholars.)The bottom line is, even Bani Kanta Kanoty has never stated that Assamese originated from Sanskrit. If he did, read his wording again, because he cannot mean that. But if you find any reference, I would like to see, and would appreciate if you would forward these.As you can see, in Assam there is hardly any scholars left today. Have you seen any leadership role being played by Oxom Xahityo Xobha? The one genuine scholar left in Assam, Dr Golok Ch Goswami is probably so frustrated that he decided not to speak in such mundane latters. But what I am saying, he supports me specially regarding the X sound and the use of W for W-kar in Roman script.Another point is that Assamese has only one O and one Ah. Hindi and Sanskrit have A=Horso Ah, then AA=Dirgho Ah. So when they write A, the sound is always short Ah like U=Up. Assamese say Onil, in Hindi they say Anil with Ah. All the Assamese names like Anjana, Ajanta, Archana, Anil etc, in Assamese we pronounce with O. But the same words are pronounced with Ah by the mainland Indians in Hindi, Sanskrit. That is why when we write Asom, an Assamese might pronounce Osom, but Hindi and Sanskrit will pronounce Usom. See the spelling of the word Dalda in Hindi. It is written as Dolda but pronounced as Dalda.All these are happening because (litikai) Assamese are trying to follow the Hindi, Sanskrit group blindly without real that Assamese language is a much more simpler language like Pail, and that it has its separate originality and beauty.We need to retain the lost originality of the Assamese language. We need to stand up and say, we no longer follow you mainland India blindly. We have our originality which we need to retain.Anyhow these are is my points. I hope I am not confusing you.Rajen Barua.----- Original Message -----From: Ram SarangapaniTo: Rajen BaruaSent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 11:39 AMSubject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speakingHi Barua,I am glad the Statesman publised your article. It is quite informative and one can lear a lot. But reading the papers and letters to the editor, one gets the inpression, ASOM is here to stay and the GOA is backing it up.While browsing, I did come across several references to Assamese as derivative of Sanskrit (you of course do not agree with this). Some of the sources refered to Bani Kanta Kakati, Hemkox etc.I can send you some of these if I come across them. I don't know how authentic they are.BTW: Here is a link that may interest you and others regarding the "voiceless velar fricative "The link is very interesting and refers to Assamese also. Interestingly, it seems the English language sometimes also uses the voiceless velar fricative.Here is the link.Hope it is useful to you.--Ram
On 3/7/06, Rajen Barua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Thanks.The Statesman, Kolkata has already published it. A friend from Kolkata sent it to me.We will have to keep on fighting."Amar Oxom" Editor Dr Nagen Saikia, Ex Oxom Xahityo Xobha President, is preparing to publish my article in Assamese and contunue the debate.I think this is an issue for Assamese lifeline.Many have not seen it as such yet.Let us see.Thanks for your support.Rajen----- Original Message -----From: Chan MahantaSent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:04 AMSubject: Re: [Assam] Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
Good note Rajen. Hope they publish it.
c
At 8:33 AM -0600 3/7/06, Rajen Barua wrote:Letters to the editorTHE STATESMAN, KOLKATA 4 March 2006Asom or Oxom, phonetically speaking
Sir, I am writing this letter with reference to a decision by the Assam government to change the name of the state to Asom. This is a wrong decision for certain reasons. Asom is a Sanskritised spelling and not an Assamese spelling. The proper Assamese spelling in the Roman script should be Oxom. The Assamese gutteral kh sound is a well-recognised velar fricative, and is also found among other languages including Greek and Russian. The International Phonetic Association has designated the Greek letter, 'X', for this Assamese sound. This sound is not represented by the letter, 'S', as written in the word Asom. As such it is 'X' and not 'S' that should be used. Again, the first letter should be 'O' and not 'A'.
The letter 'A' is used in Sanskrit and Hindi where they have two 'A's. In Assamese we have only one 'A'. The correct vowel for the Assamese pronunciation should be 'O'. The Assam government by taking a decision to use the Sanskritised form of spelling Asom instead of Oxom is trying to kill the proper Assamese ethnic sound 'XO'. This will be a great letdown for the entire Assamese people, and we request the Assam government not to meddle with the Assamese language. If it has to change the name, it should adopt the correct spelling, i.e. Oxom.
Yours, etc., Rajen Barua,
Katy (Texas), USA, 4 March.
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>assam@assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org