isn't sanskrit considered indo-european? wikipedia says it is
-
-
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 -
Point being, Sanskrit is rich, evil great-uncle not direct ancestor. I suspect same is true of other "classical" elite languages like Latin.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Do we know that Dravidian languages were in fact "sanskritized"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nishaspillai @vgr
by "sanskritised" do you mean deliberate and systematic insertion of sanskrit vocabulary?
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If you visit Bali, you can see the process of brahminical-sanskritic syncretic creep kinda weirdly arrested in mind-trajectory
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.