not connected to any of those, are they?
-
-
Well, they managed to show Sanskrit as a lonely little node off the main trunk. But their idea of "South India" is Goa and Deccan.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Can't have been that difficult to include these four - connected to Sanskrit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nishaspillai @vgr
isn't sanskrit considered indo-european? wikipedia says it is
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
but that the dravidian languages are structurally unrelated to the entire indo-european family
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But the vocabulary is heavily Sanskrit derived. Hard to accept that they're completely unconnected, with Sanskrit such a lonely little node.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @nishaspillai @zem42
It doesn't claim to be all languages (Chinese and African languages are missing), only proto-indo-European (PIE) descended.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Sanskrit is a small side node because it is a dead classics language so few living speakers. The chart is speaker-population-sized
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
An interesting q is "Sanskrit derived" vocabulary. I suspect pop notion of common languages being "derived" from scholarly is 100% backwards
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Modern commoner langs are derived from dead commoner languages. "Sanskritization" is likely 75% shared historic roots rather than "descent"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The other 25% from political control. Sanskritization of Hindi by government committees is only one within living memory (post independence)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.