Now, more than ever. One beings to understand why dalits were created.
Yeah.... truth is subject to "consensus" like the communist party ..... not any actual evidence
Guess what ? That poor substitute for logic does not fly anymore. lol.
Truth is no more the repository of a select few who claimed to be the door keepers to the "truth by consensus". Its now a servant of Facts and Logic. Not political might.
So much for the Internet Hindu header. Now let's turn to the garbage, to turn it over and see what we have.
WRONG.
Panini is just the one who put it together and propagated it. The grammar clearly evolved from debate and thoughts of the thousands of users who discussed it in great depth.
To claim that Panini wrote the grammar is as foolish as to claim that Veda Vyas wrote the Vedas
The language drift in the vedas over time is what prompted this standardization of Sanskrit.
It introduces rules for Sandhi which did not strictly agree with the Vedas, but it sacrificed variations for accuracy. It was a trade off that was widely appreciated and did more to preserve the language, before the written text was introduced.
Without it, the language and the text would have been corrupted completely and would not have survived for thousands of years. So to call something as significant as that "artificial" is the height of ignorance and Hubris.
Which passage clearly shows that you know what the word 'hubris' means, and nothing more. What you have said is merely to paraphrase my summary: it was a putting into strict rules what was earlier a free-flowing, evolving language. What constitutes 'corruption' was defined in sociological terms by the scholars then, not, originally, in grammatical terms; verbs used by the tribes and people further out than the Punjab were the ones generally discarded (this was in 600 BC or so, when the civilisational centre had shifted well into the Gangetic Plain, and the political centre was moving towards the biggest Mahajanapada, Magadh).
The result of the tightening of the rules was to bring in differences from the original Indo-Aryan of the Vedas, what you term 'drifting', and as you admit 'did not strictly agree with the Vedas'; you go on to say that it sacrificed variations for accuracy, without considering that the choices made were choices that the composers of the hymns might not have made, in fact, did not make. If that does not create an artificial language that ceased to evolve, what would have been the sense of your writing '...it sacrificed variations...', or that '...it was a trade-off...' or that these changes '...did more to preserve the language...'? Precisely so; it preserved it in formaldehyde. It stopped all change, all development.
As for the role of Panini, he did author the changes, and it was his changes that remain and prevail; do we have any idea of what transpired between scholars before he brought in the changes, or even if the changes he brought in were appreciated by his contemporaries? We only have the records of those who followed him and got their name for scholastic virtue by developing his themes or commenting on the work.
If what he did was not artificial, was it natural? Was it not exactly the reverse of natural, the 'drifting' that you termed it? Instead of obstinate defence of the wrong position, it would have done you a lot of good to consider the matter in linguistic terms, rather than in rhetorical ones.
Anybody who has read charles dickens and shakespeare would know that wren & martin eliminated a good part of english language for ever.
Are you seriously saying that a textbook of grammar written for India and for the use of English-speaking children being educated in India, a textbook itself based on other authoritative ones, influenced the mainstream language in England? And you consider that their textbook was equivalent in impact, not to Johnson, but to Panini?
We get a good feel for your approach to the subject from these considerations.
More Rubbish. That would be impossible since Ramayan and Vedas are in Sanskrit and not in Prakrit.
One can only sigh at the quibbling.
This, after explaining in great detail that 'Sanskrit', Panini's Sanskrit, was a pulling together of the drifting form that the Vedic language had taken. That is precisely the point; what was the language of the Vedas is no longer acceptable and valid in Panini. Prakrit did not descend from Sanskrit, as that variant of the language was only promoted from Panini onwards, by which time, the increasing spread of the Indo-Aryan speech had made certain that there were local variants and dialects. It is this that we know as Prakrit; it was alive and well through the nearly 900 years in which Vedic Sanskrit changed; to think that the population throughout the length and breadth of Aryavarta spoke Vedic Indo-Aryan, or that they held their breath until Sanskrit was put into its strait jacketed form and published by Panini speaks about the naivete of the thinker.
Sure Prakrit was devolved sanskrit, and so is all Indian languages.
Unless we assume that Sanskrit was there before 600 BC, or unless we deliberately conflate Vedic Indo-Aryan with Sanskrit, this is obviously logically impossible.
Which was my point.
The gupta's of bengal has very little to do with the Gupta of north India.
I thought your point was that there WERE no Guptas in Bengal. Now that it appears that there were, and are, your point now has become one of there being a distinction. You would probably have a better game of it if you played it, rather than spending most of your time gallopping around in all directions with the goal-posts.
You revisionist Hindutva-wallahs do have a gloomy view of Indian history and sociology; everything is as the British taught you in their text-books, including your comical 'original' thoughts about grammar, and sociology, and history, after having forgotten about these for centuries. How much, for instance, of Savarkar would have been possible without the foundation of European philosophy promoting racism and apartheid that it rests on? And how much of your own teen-aged revolt against authority would have been necessary if you hadn't read Dickens and Shakespeare?
