India wasn't the first place Sanskrit was recorded – it was Syria | Hacker News Reader

India wasn't the first place Sanskrit was recorded – it was Syria

scroll.in

47 pointsThevet24 comments

This is a really dumb argument. First of all Sanskrit has a precise definition in Indian culture. It is Sanskrit ("perfected" or perhaps more appropriately "systemized") as opposed to Prakrit ("natural") language because it is described in a descriptive grammar, the Ashtadhyayi ("eight chapters") of Panini. Paninis work was emended in some places by Katyayana in his Vartika and as both of these are in the terse, sutra format, they were explained more thoroughly by Patanjali in the Mahabhashya ("Great commentary.") These three works are the formal definition of Sanskrit. Today Brahmanas like me mostly do not study these but a 15th century reorganization called Siddhanta Kaumudi ("Moonlight of the Correct Principles") by Bhattoji Dikshita (or abridged versions thereof.) but nevertheless the formal grammar set by muni traya ("three sages") Panini, Katyayana, and Patanjali define what is Sanskrit.

So there is no such thing as Rgvedic Sanskrit and proto-Indo-European is certainly not Sanskrit even though they are obviously antecedents of it.

As an analogy take COBOL where you can have English-sounding text such as "ADD 1000000 TO BANK-ACCOUNT." Yet you would not sound very smart if you said "The first use of COBOL is in the Canterbury Tales." If you needed to lookup COBOL syntax you would not consult Shakespeare despite the fact that probably all of the words in COBOL already exist in early English literature.

An ironic thing the author could have pointed out is that Panini's birthplace was near Lahore. So in "cultural nationalist" terms one could say Sanskrit is a Pakistani language! But this is really about politics not scholarship and unfortunately politics makes otherwise intelligent people deranged.

Here is a rebuttal to the article: http://all-about-sanskrit.blogspot.in/2015/06/my-response-to... . Note that the article itself is from 2015.

Major points I could gather from the rebuttal:

- The recorded language was not "Sanskrit". There are a few Sanskrit-sounding words and a some names of seemingly Vedic-deities mentioned (along with several other non-Vedic deities).

- Some scholars even contest whether PIE was an actual language and is not just an artificial construct.

All in all, it seems to me that the writer's claim that

> Amazingly, Rigvedic Sanskrit was first recorded in inscriptions found not on the plains of India but in in what is now northern Syria.

is quite a bit far fetched. I tried locating a paper referring to the Mitanni treaties (http://sci-hub.io/10.2307/595878), but it doesn't include the text of the treaty itself (which anyway I wouldn't have been able to understand, seeing as it is not even Sanskrit). At any rate, what the HindutvavAdis seek to resurrect is mostly classical Sanskrit, which most definitely is Indian, just as English itself is, well, English, any external influences and contributions notwithstanding.

I also find these kinds of strained attacks on Hindutva extremely disingenuous and ultimately counterproductive. You want the other party to listen to you, not to shut down and shout their positions even louder, marking you as an enemy. We could begin by acknowledging some of the valid points they raise.

I for one think that there is some truth to the allegation that we (Indians) are not aware of our own intellectual traditions. I myself hadn't heard of the likes of Nagarjuna, Dharmakirti, Prabhakara, Bhartrhari, and Abhinavagupta until very recently, and I understand their theories still less.

Not very surprising, it had to come from somewhere. The Indus Valley Civilization is quite well known amongst[0] Indians, and it does predate these Mittani's mentioned in this article.

All that aside, its very interesting. Also incredibly sad to see an entire nation wearing a language as a golden cloak, with a dagger hidden beneath it for the people it deems unworthy of it.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation

Using language to centralize power or even create a nation-state where one did not exist is the rule rather than the exception I would say. See Italy, Greece, France, Germany and Great Britain for recent Western examples.

I understand that, but language that doesn't really exisit within the population anymore? Sigh.

Perhaps it's analogous to Latin I that case.

Is a language only a language if it is spoken? Sanskrit has a lot of cultural significance to Indians and it forms the basis of the vocabulary of the modern Indian languages (even the Dravidian ones.)

So it is somewhat like Latin but perhaps a better analogy for what the Indian nationalists want from it is Hebrew. That was also a language no one except specialists spoke. Until they did.

Apologies for the late reply, I was driving.

> "Is a language only a language if it is spoken?" --Certainly not, like you point out.

> "Sanskrit has a lot of cultural significance to Indians and it forms the basis of the vocabulary of the modern Indian languages (even the Dravidian ones.)"

Why do you measure the significance of a language by the effect it has as the basis of current languages, or even by the effect it has on the culture of those people? I find it quite the opposite.

I would argue the significance of the language has been lost due to its evolution into different, better versions of itself.

"Thy truth, then, be thy dower" -- nobody speaks like that anymore, because it's more tedious to do so, and I have no time to express my thoughts in such a vague manner. It's evolved, its significance has been lost to its more friendlier, quicker and (controversially) easier version.

I would argue that the culture shapes language, rather than the other way round. Texting on my phone doesn't look like full sentences, for instance. I speak better here than I do on Reddit, where my chats can be reduced to "lol" and bad puns.

If I followed your [language -->(leads to)-->culture] statement,

I would have to ask the question, who's culture?I know, it's quite well woven into the culture of the practising Hindu's (I cannot find any numbers on practising vs non-practising to argue further into it), I know that the most Muslims in India have literate knowledge Arabic/Urdu that extends as a tangent to their culture(none into Sanskrit for sure)... I don't know enough about the roots of Christianity in India to speak about it publicly (I suspect the British certainly had some hand in it).

But again the population ratios are heavily skewed towards Hindu's so you can argue that their momentum drives the culture. But I think my first point stands, the language has been dragged through the mud to appease convoluted political interests, and this language serves no more modern purpose.

> "perhaps a better analogy for what the Indian nationalists want from it is Hebrew. That was also a language no one except specialists spoke. Until they did."

Ah the Hindu Nationalists, how many remember how they ran through the streets cutting the Muslims up[0]. It instantly normalised all religious thoughts in my head. We're all just disguising our issues into a "My Dad is much stronger than Your Dad" fight. Nobody is better.

It took a world war for the Israeli's to get their own land, and they guard their's almost too fiercely. These Nationalists have their land (Hindustan), and yet they incite violence and stir the pot, under the pretence of being the white blood cells of the country.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_riots

PS: Thank you for bringing up such good points btw, It's been a while since a thread made me stay up late to reply to. It's not often I think about these subjects, it was a good change of thought.

The real objectives of such sites and authors is not to actually educate or provide facts, data, verifiable data, but to convey a message, in a subtle but sarcastic way, most people will not bother to actually click and verify the hyperlinks, but will just read the initial paragraph.

The message conveyed is in the headlines and in first paragraph.

" so sacred that lower castes (more than 75% of modern Hindus) weren’t even allowed to listen to it being recited."

He provides NO data, facts, to support this claim, but wants the readers to actually believe this.

I would rather read wikipedia.

Let us debunk the this article, point by point, step by step.

1 - >Sanskrit is the liturgical language of Hinduism, so sacred that lower castes (more than 75% of modern Hindus) weren’t even allowed to listen to it being recited.

Dog barking, no source or authenticity of the claim.

2 - > The earliest form of Sanskrit is that used in the Rig Veda

Again, no source for this claim ?

3 - > a dynasty called the Mitanni ruled over the upper Euphrates-Tigris basin, ...............

Hers is the wiki link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni

Here is the wiki link for

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrian_language

Here is when the author writes like the edgy teens .

"magine that: the irritating, snot-nosed Subandhu from school shares his name with an ancient Middle Eastern prince. Goosebumps. (Sorry, Subandhu)."

This is the problem with such authors, instead of posting, exact point by point details, they pump in their own opinions.

Here is when the author starts attacking others,

>;Were PN Oak and his kooky Hindutva histories right?;

Here is when the author starts making up facts and building upon facts he has not proven yet.

>;Popular national myths in India urgently paint Sanskrit as completely indigenous to India.;

Again, he is debunking something the opposite of which he has not been able to prove yet.

>;, has not a shred of supporting evidence, either linguistic or archeological”;

Why would I read website which constantly publishes fake news and provocative headlines?

This website constantly abuses and produces fake headlines.

Here are examples.

Please watch out for yourself.

http://www.opindia.com/tag/scroll/

This is gonna ruffle some feathers in BJP and RSS.

Based on the comments, feathers already got ruffled here.

You don't know many BJP and RSS people do you? This "shocking revelation" was known by nationalist historians long ago and only "proves" that Indian culture is the most ancient and once ruled the world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni-Aryan

> Imagine that: the irritating, snot-nosed Subandhu from school shares his name with an ancient Middle Eastern prince. Goosebumps. (Sorry, Subandhu).

That is an insult and stereotyping.

Nice piece of fiction by SHOAIB DANIYAL! SHOAIB - common muslim name, DANIYAL - common christian name. No wonder why the article is full of crap.

Actually your comment is crap and comes out as Xenophobic outburst. Rather than critiquing the article you resort to belittling someone's name and religion which is deplorable.

I am critiquing the article. The author of article is doing exactly that, belittling the base of Hindus beliefs with personal agenda. I see no other explanation other than that. This has became a common theme by non-Hindus in India to come up with crappy evidences to attack the roots of Hinduism in disguise of decent looking articles like this one and fool the intellects which should be stopped.

It's very hard to see how you're critiquing the article by starting with an analysis of the author's name.

It's actually simple, no one wastes so much time on digging a 2000 to 3000 bc evidence to attack the roots of Hindu beliefs other than the one who has a personal agenda attached to it. Did the author actually an archaeologist and dug the proof himself? Or he's merely mentioning some remote to unknown evidence only he magically came across when the whole world is believing the opposite till now?1

In the article, the author clearly provides clickable references in the form of hyperlinked text. I don't think he claims "he dug the proof himself".

He also did link to his old article on same topic - https://scroll.in/article/732899/video-an-animated-map-which...

- in which the last paragraphs clearly highlights his intentions.

That's called academic skepticism. Maybe you're unfamiliar with it.

I understand that & I did that too for my dissertation, but the author made some sarcastic and furious wording in the last paragraphs in his old article giving a unambiguous peeking into his actual intentions on his view of people whose beliefs he's attacking.

I think you're reading way too much into this. If the author has an opinion on the subject that doesn't mean they're wrong. You can be completely correct and also a dick.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com