Immortal Sanskrit versus Global Languages
I believe that Sanskrit is the mother of all languages. The similarities it supplies with other languages are just "too" many to completely rule out the fact that other languages could have had unfolded themselves from Sanskrit.
One logical explanation is, the Sanskrit words are more detailed in sound (ex: too many samyuktakshar and dwitvakshar sounds), pertained to the counterparts in other ancient languages. The noticeable strikes to the mind that originated words are either equally complicated or easier in sound and articulation than the root word itself but seldom never more complex than the root word.
Let's explore the global ancient linguistics now. For example, Baltic and Slavic languages came out from the same Balto-Slavic language before they split. The Baltic is way more Archaic though. If someone's interested I would like to suggest that many of the words/names in Rigveda are astonishingly similar to that in Zend Avesta.
It might make it easier to figure out some meanings, but there's been a heavy drift in most languages; knowing that "Dyeus" means "God" in PIE doesn't help you to recognise the word "God" as having the same meaning in English. Similarly, many words have taken on very different meanings over time, and grammar rules have shifted.
Some may ask the question that if we can learn the Proto-Indo- European (PIE), would we be able to easily learn all of the languages that came from it? Is this the secret to learning a hundred languages? Good question. But let me clarify, Would Anglo-Saxons be able to understand the English or German of today? Can you understand Beowolf? Maybe the old biblical story about the Tower of Babel is correct. Languages get so mixed up at a certain point that they become not understandable.
The connection between Anamika and Anonymous is impressive as well. Anamika is without a name and anonymous is hidden as well.
It would be interesting to note the similarity in numerals between Sanskrit and Latin 2. Dvi (f) Duo 3. Tra (7) Tribus 4. Chataur (aaR:) Quattuor 5. Panch (you) Quinque 6. Shad () Sex 7. Saptam (Ha) Sepetem 8. Ashta (3E) Octo 9. Navam (7a) Novem 10.Dasam (7RTH) Decem
Sanskrit: sarpah English: serpent Latin: Serena.
Tikon (guntur) : Triangle Mit (Adt) : Metre or Meter Trikonmiti (fanaa : Trigonometry Bhumiti (Ai) : Geometry Ganit (Tera) : Gambit (Calculated Move or Decision. Eg. In Chess King's Gambit).
If we consider the name, Gorakshanath in Sanskrit which is complex in sound with dwitwakshar "ksha". With passing time, the same name translates to Gorakhnath, minimizing the complexity by eliminating the ksha to replace it with a simpler sound kha. This is usually how a language evolves or develops to take a completely new form and it is rather very very rare that the opposite happens.
When we get to perform research on similar sounding words in various languages based on complexity, we find that Sanskrit sounds are most complex compared to the rest like Latin or Greek. This could be one reason to safely presume that Sanskrit is certainly not a derivative of other languages like Latin or Greek, whereas vice versa could be possible.
Another interesting observation, If I pick a ton of any ten languages in the world at random, I might observe that there can be any two languages in this bunch that have nothing common in linguistics among them (like let's say Tamil and Urdu?). But with Sanskrit it is different. Almost all languages share something with Sanskrit.
(Ex: In religious scriptures, the names Adhama and Havyavathi in Bhavishya Purana becomes Aadam and Hawwa in Urdu, Adam and Eve in new English).
Likewise, some more languages and words, derivatives..
Sarpa(sanskrit) --> Serpentum(latin) --> Snake(english)
Naas(sanskrit) --> Nasus (latin) --> Nose
Patha(sanskrit) --> Pathes(greek) --> Path(english)
Danta(sanskrit) --> Dentis(latin) --> Dental(english)
Dwaar(sanskrit) --> Doru(latin) --> Door(english)
Dwi(sanskrit) --> Dio (greek)--> Two(english)
Ashta (sanskrit) --> Okto (greek) --> Eight(english)
Bhrathr(sanskrit) --> Phrater(latin) -->brother(english)
madhyam(sanskrit) --> medium(latin) --> medium(english)
Loka(place in sanskrit) --> Locus(latin) --> Locale(english)
Yauvana(youth in sanskrit) --> Juvenelis(latin) --> Juvenile(english)
Nava(means new in sanskrit) --> Novus(latin) --> Nova/New (english)
Thri(sanskrit) --> Treis (greek) --> Three(english)
vachas(meaning speech) --> Vocem(latin) --> Voice(english)
Pithr(sanskrit)-->Pater(latin)-->father(english)
Navagatha(sanskrit)--> navigationem(latin) --> navigation(english)
There is a ritual called Maha rudrabhisheka in Yajurveda of ancient times and is practised even today by some devout Hindus. Such things are seldom subjected to changes (esp in content and language). It is just not possible to replace or alter the content in such esoteric things like rituals or mantras with any other alternative. One does not simply rewrite the hymns in English verses and pass down the procedure to the next generation. It just doesn't happen that way in Hinduism. So, considering all this, it is not unlikely that the oldest religion in the world does not make use of the oldest language in the world.
Referring to both indo-Latin mythologies., Indra and Zeus have the same behaviour too. Indra is portrayed as a little arrogant, selfish and sometimes a little lustful.
Indra and Zeus are the same. Varuna and dyau are also quite similar. Indra was lustful after mortal and immortal women just like Zeus.
Diving deeper into the ancient anecdotes, we have a very interesting example of two stories both from a different civilisation.
The Mother of Achilles wanted that her son should be immortal. So she cautiously drowns her son into a river and it was believed that wherever the holy water of this river touches him nobody would be able to kill him. But the mother had held him through his ankles as babies are put into the water by holding their legs so the holy water of that river didn't touch that particular part of the baby and it was his heel. That became a weak part. And Achilles was killed by an arrow pointed on the same weaker spot. The same story is depicted in the Indian mythology popularly known as Urubhanga ( crashing of the thigh)where Duryodhana's thigh was left out during his mother's magical blessings. It was said Gandhaari's eyesight when opened from the blindfold will have such divine power that if she looked at her son he would remain unharmed in the battle. But lord Krishna sensed this unethical move and advised Duryodhana that being an adult he shouldn't present himself naked in front of his mother. He had agreed and tied a loincloth around his private parts. So those being hidden couldn't be blessed with the divine eyesight. And taking that advantage Karna crashed his thigh with his weapon and killed him.
A language is capable to protect itself through hundreds or even thousands of years if it is well structured in its inception and has a perfect life. Unlike many other languages in the world, Sanskrit has them, which is why languages like Hebrew or Aramic are out of context in today's world though being fairly ancient. This happens if the language is not perfect in structure and lipi. This imperfection in the language's configuration becomes the explanation for the confusion over some time and the language slowly subsides away because of this hole.
****************************************
Comments
Post a Comment