Culture Cloning

re:#330 by einsteinwallah
Interesting post.
Only, your argument is in the reverse direction. At least that is my opinion. I am not a linguist or an expert.
Here is what i think.
The ``zh`` word (as in Tamizh as u rightly pointed out) is uniquely Dravidian in origin. All dravidian languages (including the most ancient of them viz tamizh) has this word. I was surprised to learn that Gujarathi language has this word too! Now, zh word is not there in sanskrit (despite having a vast vocabulary and 52 letters to boot!), so this must be an import from one of the dravidian languages.
Balak in hindi is balak in sanskrit. So it is with kalash.
I am not aware of more than one form of zh. There is Tamizh, Tamizhagan, Tamizhselvi, vazhaipazham (the last is a tongue twister and can put a north indian mind to a tizzy. it just means a banana!) so on and so forth. The zh in all these are the same.
Sridhar

re:#329 by mannyd
Interesting thing in that tree is the language of the Gypsies. Gypsies are known to have scattered across the globe (mostly Europe) but it is well known they originated from India.

This from a website:
(First, what we do know about them is this: they originated as a dark skinned tribe of people in northern India. Their language to this day, though it has separated into many dialects, still remains Hindi and Sanskrit roots.
.....
When they first arrived in Europe, the fair-skinned Europeans inquired where these dark-skinned people came from. Some gypsies had migrated up from Egypt so the word spread that they were Egyptians, or “Gyptians,” which became our present word, Gypsy.)
Genetic studies have confirmed their Indian origin:

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3760
Sridhar

re:#311 by mannyd
I think i gave the link to DNA studies in some former post. I will try and see if i can find it.
Sridhar

re:#298 by anil
your are just being stupid. That is all i can say. I can`t waste time on this. It is a fact that sanskrit was a spoken language even well into the 19th century, albeit by a small number of people. It was the conversational language at academic circles, much like english today.
I know this from personal experience that many pundits continue to converse in that language. Quoting anthologies etc won`t supecede personal experience.
Sridhar

Ajeya #343

{{One language splits into two, for example, when one population splits into two and moves to separate geographic locations.}}

That is one common mechanism. The split could also happen if one language becomes the specialized tongue of priests, scholars, administrators, and court poets, and the other the demotic tongue of relatively unschooled common people – even within the same geographical area.

{{So kindly spare us all this talk about Hindi ``absorbing`` from Sanskrit.}}

The problem is that a contemporary North Indian vernacular may be a direct descendant of a prakrit that split away from Sanskrit well before the full development of classical Sanskrit. A neologism synthesized in classical Sanskrit long after the split occurred would not automatically become a part of the vocabulary of the prakrit – which is a distinct language at that point. There may have been no occasion to use specialized or scholarly Sanskrit terminology (e.g. the technical vocabulary of astronomy, or trigonometry, or grammar) in the prakrit. The new word in Sanskrit may even have been coined in a totally different region and may have taken a while to enter general Sanskrit use (even among a specialized population of scholars) in all parts of India.

So a specialized word coined in Sanskrit in say 500 CE does not automatically become the property of Hindi if Hindi’s direct ancestor ca 500 CE was distinct from classical Sanskrit by that point in time. It would have to be consciously ‘imported’ or ‘absorbed’.

To make it possibly easier to see, here is a parallel from European languages. English is a Germanic language; it is descended from the tongue spoken by tribes who migrated from Germany in the 5th century CE. German words coined well after that period do not automatically become English words. Some of them – like Schadenfreude, and Bremsstrahlung, may eventually be imported and absorbed into English. The vast majority of German words remain non-English even though English used to be German at one time, has just changed to some extent, retains common core words (numbers, family relationships, etc) , and still has somewhat similar core grammatical structure.

Kaal #347: `or is it merely for wives to pray for their very mortal husbands` long lives?`

That is exactly what it is. Not praying to the `husband god` but praying to God for Husband`s long life.

Netizen: With all the fasting going on in your family, it appears you are from a very fast family of fasters. Others may be fast, but you will be faster. Ever consider running in the olympics?)

Someone please remind us what KC is all about? Is it when wives worship, as they should, their one and only true God called Husband, or is it merely for wives to pray for their very mortal husbands` long lives?

The latter purpose would be such a comedown....
.

Netizen

Thanks bro. With friends like you around, one cannot even fancy oneself as God. What`s next? Doing dishes??

zahraj#333:

I thought that you would have asked this question off-chowk. But since you asked, here is my answer. I have always told my wife to stop this yearly ``paakhand``. It had no effect at first but for the last few years, it has worked. But for some reason, wives consider this day as special and look forward to this ritual. The only real thing is that this is one day when even the most nagging wife is nice to her husband.

The second question is quite irrelevant. My daughters have a mind of their own and they`ll probably do the opposite of what I ask, including who to marry. There is not even a remote chance of my asking them to do KC.

zahraj#333:

I thought that you would have asked this question off-chowk. But since you asked, here is my answer. I have always told my wife to stop this yearly ``paakhand``. It had no effect at first but for the last few years, it has worked. But for some reason, wives consider this day as special and look forward to this ritual. The only real thing is that this is one day when even the most nagging wife is nice to her husband.

The second question is quite irrelevant. My daughters have a mind of their own and they`ll probably do the opposite of what I ask, including who to marry. There is not even a remote chance of my asking them to do KC.

Re: #312 by ahmadzai

[Re: # 296

I would like to thank Ajeya on producing the chart in his post.]


Thank you. You are welcome.



[However, I think there is a disconnect between Indians and Pakistanis on the debate going on here.

Some fine points about Urdu - influences, script, alphabets, exotic pronounciation, etc.

What we have been suggesting is the origination and development of Urdu (by T. Ahmed) and influence on it (by myself). We never questioned the origin of Urdu, because almost all languages of this part of the world are classified as Indo-Iranian in origin.

What my point was is that Pakistani culture, quite idiosyncratic at this point, has come about as a mixture of Indian, Central Asian and Middle Eastern cultures.

Urdu, too, may have originated as one of the languages under Indo-Iranian groups,....]




No. Urdu DID originate from - not just any Indo-Iranian groups - BUT SANSKRIT!


Yes. Try this. Say the word ``Sanskrit`` out loud a few times. Swish it around your tongue - gargle with it for a while.

Yes, Sanskrit - the language of the Vedas and the Upanishads - that ``other`` religion!

Try it! It may be painful at first, but you`ll get reconciled to it gradually.

Go on! Give it a try!

I see that a there is a lot of writing on this forum by different people about Hindi ``absorbing`` stuff from Sanskrit.

Linguistically speaking, of course, this is sheer nonsense.

One language splits into two, for example, when one population splits into two and moves to separate geographic locations. Because in the past, travel was slow and cumbersome, there was much less population exchange between the two new communities. Therefore, the SAME language EVOLVED in two different directions, eventually to the extent that the two languages sounded very different - e.g. Bengali and Hindi. The core grammatical structure however, and core words etc. are still the same. Even this similarity gradually lessens over time, and becomes fainter and fainter. Linguists therefore look for traces of similar grammatical structure and core words when they compare languages separated by vast stretches of time and geographic location.

The point of the above paragraph, for those in a hurry, is that when two languages split from a mother language, they DO NOT ABSORB from it - they ACTUALLY USED TO BE that mother language, they have just changed to some extent.

So kindly spare us all this talk about Hindi ``absorbing`` from Sanskrit. Hindi has ``absorbed`` words from Turkish, Persian, Arabic, English etc., but it USED TO BE SANSKRIT at one time.


IS THIS DISTINCTION TOO DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND?

#329 by mannyd on November 25, 2005 1:35pm PT


[Thanks again Ajeya, You need to compile this for a separate FP article, rather than let it lie under Shaista`s complaint.]


You are welcome, Manny. And what`s the point writing an article - this is pretty basic stuff that`s been well known for decades about which there is no controversy even - somehow people like to stir up mud over an issue, and then try to give an angle to any subject that their heart desires - like this desire on the part some people on this website to desperately try to drag Urdu away from its Hindustani roots and show it as a Middle-East-originated (in keeping with their Islamic heritage) language.

Go figure!

#319 by kaalchakra

[Ajeya

Your have presented the best-considered opinions today. Best in the sphere of linguistics, and on Chowk. ]


Thanks. But I really cannot take any credit for it. This is standard stuff that everybody knows, and has known for decades now. There is not even any controversy about the relationship of Hindi and Urdu to Sanskrit and to each other.



[That`s why the aggressive tone of a couple of your addresses to Anil was not necessary. ]

Actually, if you read my post # 277, which is what you are referring to, it is more frustation than anything else. I cannot comprehend why obviously educated people would start dishing out a bunch of personally-held beliefs and guesses with such a pedantic air. Sincere mistakes I can respect. Intentionally and knowingly dishing out bullshit is an insult to my intelligence and everybody elses.



[Ofcourse, if we draw inspiration from our Indian culture, of which we are all so proud, we make a good effort to be respectful to our elders. Anil is one of our elders. Perhaps you were unaware of that fact, in which case, please accept my sincere apologies for this rant. ]

This is an anonymous forum. You should be judged by what you say. Age is immaterial here, because this is an artificial cyber-community.



[Returning to your disagreement with Anil, over the specific usasge of the word `import,` you have my support. Very perceptively, you have zoomed in on something which both Anil and I may have been taught to overlook.

Or out of a sense of political correctness, may still be unwilling to publicly acknowledge. `Derivation` is clearly not quite the same as `import.` Particularly when the issue of language is turned ideological. ]

I`m glad you realize it.

#301 by rsridhar

[re:#296 by Ajeya
I have no problem accepting that hindi is derived from sanskrit. Anybody saying otherwise does not know what he is talking.
However, i do have a lot of problems accepting that language tree(s) that u posted as the gospel truth.
It has been taught in academic circles for more than a century now that European and Indic languages (barring dravidian languages) are derived from a common source.
This kind of theory was first propounded by people like Max Mueller, William Jones etc who saw many commonalities between say sanskrit and Latin (max mueller must have seen a lot in common between sanskrit and german) and were puzzled as to how this was possible in a remote corner (which is what India was for them) and in a country that to them was in utter decay. They were unwilling to accept that perhaps their own languages were influenced by sanskrit. They invented this common source and called it Proto-Indo-European. One need not worry about this common source much as it was deemed to have existed at some point of time and disappeared at some point of time later.
I will say: how convenient!
Of course these fine gentlemen also invented the Aryan Invasion Theory. This has now been totally discredited in academic circles. Genetic studies have proved that the gene pool of for eg Indian populaiton is uniquely Indian with nothing much in common with Iranian or European genes (some commonalities are inevitable. Scientists look for genes that will be statistically much more common in a populaiton that could be explained only by migration from outside). South Indian brahmin genes (i think the study included Telugu brahmins) for eg is uniquely Indian.
Better anthropological, archeological techniques along with gene mapping, satellite imagery etc have sounded a death knell for the AIT. It will take sometime for people to forget just because it has taken such a hold on people`s minds even in India.
When there was no AIT, where is the question of a common root?
In all probability, sanskrit was the oldeste of all languages and influenced other cultures heavily in the past.
Sridhar]


Well Sridhar, these are two SEPARATE issues:

1) Whether Hindi is derived from Sanskrit, and

2) Whether there was an Aryan invasion, or whether there was a migration of language from inside India outwards.

About the first one (point 1), there is no debate.

About the second (point 2), there is MUCH debate.

But since you did bring this up, regardless of whether there was an inflow or an outflow of language and population from India, linguistically speaking, the European Languages and the North Indian languages fall under the same umbrella. I do not know if you have studied linguistics, or about the methods used to classify languages, but if you did, you would be left with no other conclusion. There is NO DISPUTE between the linguists in this regard.

Re: # 337

``I know of no husband who forces his wife to do this.``

yeah me too.

i think it is something like a girly thing. my sister, when unmarried, used to do some other fasting to please shankar bhagwan so that she would get a suitable husband. no one in the family made her to do that. i didn`t even know how she would pick up the days. i would know that she is fasting when she would eat some fruits for lunch.

Re. the question of which modern Indian languages are more closely ‘related’ to Sanskrit and which are less so:

It’s very common to hear people whose mother tongue is a regional language other than Hindi – be it Bengali, Marathi, Telegu, Malayalam – claim that their language is ‘closer’ to Sanskrit than Hindi is. Often this takes the form of someone relating how he was complimented by his Hindi teacher for using a word, a familiar everyday colloquial word from his mother tongue, which turned to be not so familiar to native speakers of colloquial Hindi.

I believe these commonly expressed – if imprecisely stated – opinions are grounded in something real, concerning the vocabularies of these languages. It might be worth zeroing in on what it probably is.

Sanskrit-related words in Hindi are classified as either ‘tatsam’ (entering Hindi directly from Sanskrit) or ‘tadbhav’ (entering Hindi from a Sanskrit-related language – a Prakrit or Apabhramsa). The ‘tadbhav’ words typically have a more colloquial flavour compared to the ‘tatsam’ words.

What seems to be the case is that many languages other than Hindi, when they use a Sanskrit-related word, commonly employ the ‘tatsam’ word, i.e. the ‘pure’ Sanskrit word, in preference to a ‘debased’ derivative. In some cases, such as Malayalam, Telegu (which are not of Indo-European origin), this may be because of wholesale direct imports from Sanskrit. In other cases, it may be because the language always retained the tatsam word in common usage. In still other cases, it may be because - at some period in the past - reformers, systematizers, promulgators, propagandists, or other scholars and innovators of the language, made a conscious decision to return to or re-emphasize the Sanskrit roots (in two senses) of their language, which may have fallen into comparative disuse, and thereby re-popularised the ‘tatsam’ words. [Since Sanskrit was the scholarly lingua franca of classical (i.e. pre-Islamic) Indian civilization, it would be the natural and obvious first source to turn to to find or coin words for complex concepts.] In general it would have been a combination of all three processes in different proportions.

As a consequence of this absorption or retention of Sanskrit words in regional languages, it turns out that the overlap in vocabulary between Hindi and, say, Malayalam, will be found largely or almost exclusively in the ‘Sanskritised’ vocabulary, i.e. in the tatsam words of Hindi. The tadbhav words in Hindi would be unrecognizable or barely recognizable to a native speaker of Malayalam; the Arabic, Turkic, and Persian-derived words common to Urdu would be indecipherable, with rare exceptions.