Talk:Sanskrit

Pronunciation

The table in the subsection "Pronunciation" has some issues that need to be fixed.

1. The second column has no header. Its function is unclear, and without attribution, it feigns objectivity, but actually it is just unsourced. I suggest too delete it.
2. The column attributed to Cardona has many gaps. This insinuates that in such cases, Cardona agrees with Goldman & Goldman and the unattributed first column; this is however not the case in a couple of instances (e.g. with the short high vowels). And even where it is, it won't hurt to spell out the agreement.
3. The retroflex series is transcribed as postalveolar in most cases (t̠ for ʈ etc.). There is an old debate about what a "true" retroflex consonant is, but both Goldman & Goldman and Cardona describe points of articulation that can safely be labeled and transcribed as "retroflex" (Goldman & Goldman: the tip of the tongue should be curled back further to the roof of the mouth; Cardona: located at the area immediately behind the alveolar ridge (mūrdhanya [usually translated 'retroflex'])). Cardona explicitly uses the term retroflex in the further description, not only for the rhotic and the sibilant, but also for stops and nasals.
   I suggest to use plain ʈ, ɖ, ʂ, ɳ, as in the table in "Consonants".
4. The table attributes [ɐi ~ ɛi] for ai and [ɐu ~ ɔu] for au to Cardona. Actually, Cardona writes: the Taittirīyaprātiśākhya notes that according to some the segment a in ai and au is a closer vowel than the usual a. Closer than a [ɐ] would be [ə]; Cardona does not say that it is not central like the usual a. So we should change [ɐi ~ ɛi] / [ɐu ~ ɔu] to [ɐi ~ əi] / [ɐu ~ əu], but note that this actually is an OR interpretation of the source. To be on the safe side, I suggest to only use [ɐi]/[ɐu] and a note in prose about the reported variation.

Also, I am not very happy about the use of ⟨ɑ⟩ in /ɑː/, /ɑj/, /ɑw/ for ā, ai, and au. None of the cited sources uses ⟨ɑ⟩. Only Goldman & Goldman's description for the layperson (pronounced like the o in "mom") might suggest [ɑː] for ā, but all sources that are more explicit about the exact phonetic nature of vowels describe it as central (and FWIW, Robert Goldman uses central or front [aː] when reading Sanskrit texts aloud). And /ɑj/, /ɑw/ are entirely unsupported by the sources. It's not just the ⟨ɑ⟩ that is wrong, but also the transcription of the second segment as glide; Cardona mentions that according to some traditions, the second segment was pronounced with an even longer duration than the a. Let's replace /ɑː/, /ɑj/, /ɑw/ with /aː/, /ai/, /au/.

Thoughts? If no one objects, I will change the tables in the next few days. –Austronesier (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sahitya (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Box-Headed Script

The following web-link was added:

• "Proposal to Encode the Box-Headed script in Unicode" (PDF).

Will an entry on that writing system for Sanskrit have to be made?

If so, how could it be titled? -- Apisite (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Apisite I read the document and it is good. I originally reverted thinking not relevant, and also seemed like promotional. But reading it more, it seems good, but I am not sure whether other editors will think same. Asteramellus (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2024

I want to add to the main table, where it speaks about the regions where Sanskrit is used, to write just Indian Subcontinent (which is geographically a synonym to South Asia, but more related to the concept of the Indosphere), Indianised Southeast Asia (to specify that it was parts of Southeast Asia under Indian influence), and also Tibet and Mongolia, the Indo-Tibetan cultural sphere, which in the mediaeval and early modern period received large influences from India (Mongolia through Tibet). 31.221.136.153 (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is a large change, and should be discussed here before being proposed using the Edit Request template. PianoDan (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Indian sources ignored

I don't know if this is covered elsewhere but I was wondering why this article relies almost exclusively on Western experts to the exclusion (with very few exceptions) of native Indian sources? There are so many Sanskrit scholars in India, it is taught in High School, there are Sanskrit newspapers, it is one of teh recognised official languages of India etc. But it seems that only Western sources are relied upon to give us any information on the language. Why is that? It would be like a page on English that relied only on Chinese and Japanese scholars, or scholars of any country other than those who are native English speakers. And, yes in India there are still native speakers of Sanskrit. So it seems to me that this article is a very Euro-Centric presentation that leaves out the views of those who actually use the language. I would like to see this remedied with a more balanced approach and more emphasis and input from Indian sources and much less from Western sources. 67.204.247.30 (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi - good points. You can list here such reliable sources and also start contributing from such sources? Asteramellus (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Having an imbalance in sourcing is one thing and I agree with this point, although I disagree about the "ignored" which insinuates that this is done deliberately. Any material that is up to international standards (and there is lots of it produced in India) is welcome.

The question of "native" speakers of Sanskrit is a different thing. Independent, non-promotional sources are required for this topic. "Still" is also misleading, since the oft-reported contemporary Sanskrit-speaking village are the product of a deliberate revitalization effort that is not directly related to the unbroken chain of transmittion as the language of Brahmanic tradition. –Austronesier (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Add some new information about Sanskrit

Sanskrit ( Sanskrit : संस्राम, Sanskrit pronunciation: [ˈsɐ̃skr̩tɐm] ) is a language of the Indian subcontinent . Sanskrit is an Indo-Aryan language which is a branch of the Indo-European language family. [5] Modern Indian languages such as Hindi , Bengali , Marathi , Sindhi , Punjabi , Nepali , etc. have originated from it. All these languages also include the Romani language of European gypsies. Almost all the religious texts related to Vedic religion have been written in Sanskrit. Many important texts of Buddhism (especially Mahayana) and Jainism have also been written in Sanskrit. Even today, most of the yajnas and pujas of Hinduism are done in Sanskrit only. Sanskrit means "reformed" or "changed". Sanskrit language is written in Devanagari script. Dhamma script kept improving (changing) a little with time. For example, a little difference can be seen in the words in the inscriptions and records of Maurya and Gupta period. This continued for many centuries and many scripts emerged from Pali Prakrit language (in Dhamma script) like Tamil, Telugu in the south and Bengali, Nagari Sharada in the north. The use of Devanagari script started in the 9th century and by the 11th century, Devanagari script was fully developed. If we talk about Sanskrit language, since the script of Sanskrit is Devanagari, it also came in the middle of the 9th century. Before this, no archaeological evidence of Sanskrit language was found nor is it mentioned anywhere. Hence, it proves that the oldest language of India (whose ancient name is Jambudweep ) is Prakrit Pali and the oldest script is Dhamma script (now Brahmi script). If we look at it, the oldest language and script is the language of Indus Valley Civilization which has not been read till date. Mohit atulkar (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)