69

No, it is not. First and foremost, there are many languages recorded long before the advent of Sanskrit, and many religions recorded long before the advent of Hinduism. The oldest surviving texts in Ancient Egyptian are from c. 3000 BCE, while the majority of the Rigveda (the oldest known Sanskrit text) was probably composed between 1500 and 1200 BCE. So ...


27

Sanskrit is not the mother of all languages. Sanskrit is not even the mother of the modern Indo-Aryan languages of the Northern India. Neither it is their father or grandfather. In fact, no language is a direct descendant of Sanskrit. Saying that Sanskrit to the modern Indo-Aryan languages is the same as Latin to the modern Romance languages is absolutely ...


26

By definition, a dead language is a language that does not have any native speakers anymore but that had native speakers earlier (the last clause is needed to delineate dead languages from constructed languages that never ever had any native speakers). Looking at the definition, Latin is definitely a dead language, and Sanskrit is a dead language, too, ...


21

The script has nothing to do with the origin of the language. In fact, every script can be used to write any language. Usually a language adopts the script that is associated with the religion and/or dominating cultural influence. For example, Malay, which belongs to the Austronesian family of languages, used the Arabic script (with some variations) when the ...


19

This is an answer not to the part about whether it is easier to learn German after Sanskrit (I don't know), but rather, a few more assorted points re. "What similarities exist between the two languages", or even more generally, "Why would people make such a claim?" As Cerberus noted, most of these claims come from people whose familiarity,...


18

No language is "more simple" than other languages. Old English had just 2 tenses, present and past, now there are 16 of them, future and future-in-the-past forms developed over the time, the continuous aspect appeared, the perfect appeared, so the verbal system acquired much more forms than it used to have. On the other hand, the nouns lost the gender and ...


11

IPA and IAST serve different purposes, as their respective names already suggest. IPA is an alphabet for phonetic rendering of speech (in the broad sense). To use it on Sanskrit we would have to agree first on how Sanskrit is pronounced correctly or have different renderings depending on traditions of pronounciation (Is, for example, भ् an aspirated stop or ...


11

Due to the study of Buddhism and its scriptures in the source language (either Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit or Pali) Japanese scholars were aware of the structure of the Indic scripts finally coming from the tradition of Sanskrit. When they created the Katakana they applied the ordering priciples of the Devanagari Script to it; the deviations (i.e., the ordering ...


11

In the dictionaries, the Sanskrit name राम (Rāma), together with most other Sanskrit words, is given in the form of the stem. राम (Rāma) is the stem, and in a sentence it can be used only as a direct address (like in “Rāma, come here!”) since the Vocative case of this noun coincides with its stem. This stem, since it ends in -a, belongs to the so-called a-...


10

From Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar (p. 20): "...as the original w has in most European languages been changed to v, so also in India, and that from a very early time: the Paninean scheme and two of the Prātiçākhyas (VPr. and TPr.) distinctly define the sound as made between the upper teeth and the lower lip -- which, of course, identifies it with the modern v-...


10

Many modern European languages are as complex as Latin, Ancient Greek, or Sanskrit. I'd point out Lithuanian but most Slavic languages are typologically similar to the mentioned ancient ones. And yes, native speakers use all constructions their language provides (all languages change, of course, so there are archaic constructions but it has nothing to the ...


10

This verse is given as an example by the author King Bhoja (aka Bhojadeva) in his rather encyclopedic ~11th-century work Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa, among (many!) other examples of word-play, specifically under the category or varṇa-citra (roughly, verses interesting because of the letters in them), under the broader umbrella of citra-kāvya ("stunning poetry"; ...


10

Not at all. Sanskrit, Latin and a few other languages had a common ancestor called Proto-Indo-European, which was prevalent around 2500 BC on the southern steppes of Russia. It is a fact that Sanskrit has enriched most Indian Languages including the Dravidian Languages such as Telugu as Latin enriched some languages like English Yes, this is true. ...


8

They are not nominative. Both of them are neuter nouns, which means that nominative and accusative look the same. In fact, they are in accusative case and you might want to call it "accusative of direction" or "goal of movement". Same holds true for amṛtam.


8

Hindi gẽd does indeed descend from Skt. genduka-. The latter is considered to be a loan from Dravidian (see Turner 4248). Armenian gund is a borrowing from Parthian or Persian gund < Iranian *gṛnda-. In Middle and New Persian gund is attested only in the meaning ‘testicle’. So the answer to your question is that they are probably not related.


8

The etymology is not entirely certain. The historical linguist Manfred Mayrhofer in his Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen (vol. 1, pg. 37) essentially says (this is paraphrased from German): nā́raka (often with lóka) is most likely from the vriddhi form of nar- "man" which perhaps implies that nā́raka is the final place for flawed (?) men, in ...


8

As commonly reconstructed, PIE had three different types of "velar-ish" plosives: "Palatal velars" (probably plain velar): *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ "Plain velars" (probably uvular): *k, *g, *gʰ "Labial velars" (probably labial-something): *kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ We're not sure exactly how they were pronounced; I believe the distinction was probably velar/uvular/labiovelar ...


7

This is most likely true. Voicing and aspiration does not contrast before an obstruent (they are written with the same voicing as the following C, and are written as unaspirated). It's most likely that Buddha etc did not have two releases, but we can't tell about breathy vocal fold abduction during the closure of the first consonant, since that requires ...


7

Sangha is from Sanskrit *saṃ- (PIE *sem) "together" + *han- (PIE *gʷʰén) "strike, kill", and originally in Sanskrit meant "struck, put together". Hansa (referring to the Hanseatic league) is reconstructed to Proto-Germanic *hansō, and deeper relations are speculative. Germanic *h would derive from either PIE *k or *k'; PIE *k becomes Skt. [k] and PIE *k' ...


7

There are three different series of guttural sounds reconstructed for Proto-Indogermanic, that are usually represented by *k' (the k that gets satemised), *k (plain k that stays k), and *kʷ (that has many different developments in the different languages, the outcomes include p (Ancient Greek ποῖος (poîos) from *kʷoyo), kw or kv, or plain k. As the ...


6

Not a single dictionary, but you could get the effect by chaining together resources. I suggest starting with Bopp's Glossarium Sanscritum which is a Sanskrit-Latin Glossary. After a few pages of that, you will probably be convinced that for etymological study, you don't want a Sanskrit-X dictionary, you probably want a dictionary of Sanskrit with ...


6

You are demonstrably wrong in your belief. Apart from the fact that your definition of "complexity" is far too simplistic and not subject to any kind of measurement, the question of language commensurability has long been settled in linguistics. Perhaps most famously, Sapir summarized the position thus in 1921: When it comes to linguistic form, Plato ...


6

It is the sacred syllable “om” in a rather stylised Devanagari script. In plain unicode text: आँ


6

ἆρα is considered to be cognate with the interrogative particle in Baltic languages (Latvian ar, Lithuanian aȓ). Persian āyā does not have a known ancestor in Old or Middle Persian. In early New Persian it does occur, alongside ay اى with the same function. From the viewpoint of regular sound correspondence, any connection with ἆρα is quite out of the ...


6

Burrow’s The Sanskrit language (1955) is still very good (though pre-laryngealist). There is also an English translation of Mayrhofer’s Sanskrit-Grammatik, which is short but also very good.


6

From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Indo-Iranian it has been theorized that *e, *o, and the sometimes reconstructed *a all merged into *a (some exceptions such as Brugmann's law--*o > *ā in open syllables--apply). This probably happened sometime around the 3rd millennium BCE when the Indo-Europeans began to split up, with the Indo-Iranians moving towards the ...


5

We don't know why Latin, ancient Greek, and Sanskrit had the grammatical systems that they did, or why modern languages related to these have developed different grammatical systems. It's difficult to measure the overall "complexity" of a language. The other answers give some idea of how people have tried to address this question, but as far as I know there ...


5

Highly unlikely. Where PIE /*g *gw/ had shifted to /g/ in Sanskrit, they had shifted to /k/ in Armenian. Also, Armenian /u/ comes from PIE /*ō *u *uH/, so the vowels don't line up. It might, on the other hand, be a borrowing from an Iranian language into Armenian, but they are not native cognates.


5

I proofread for publication a recent article on spoken Sanskrit: McCartney, Patrick. 2017b. Jhirī: A ‘Sanskrit-speaking’ village in Madhya Pradesh. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 4, 2:167–209. (See the pre-proofread version on academia.edu, and a Medium summary by the same author.) To supplement the answer by @prash: Neo-Sanskrit is not ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible