Re: the all-from-sanskritists

--- In cybalist@..., "Ash" <equinus100@...> wrote:

> Here is some rideamve-ploremve!
>
> This was posted in the yahoogroup mailing list "vediculture"

(vediculture@...).

> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:42:30 -0000
> From: Neil Kalia Robinson
> Subject: The Sanskrit Dialect Known as English
>
> By Neil Kalia Robinson

I think the posting
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vediculture/message/3170) is a very
clever joke. The statements are not actually as outrageous as they
seem at first reading! Can any one tell whether the errors in the
English are typically Indian? This name's got me puzzled. I suppose
it could be genuine. However, the posting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vediculture/message/750 , which is
signed by 'Neil Kalia', is in much better English. The errors there
are typical native errors of punctuation.

> (Abstract of Paper to be Presented at WAVES 2002 Conferance Being

held at U of Mass in Dartmouth, mass.)

>
> The Sanskrit Dialect Known as English
> In western curriculum there is a tendency to exclude Sanskrit
> as a root to the English language. Numbers and alphabet are
> categorized as Roman or Arabic. There is however recognition
> of the Indo- Aryan or Indo European language group which
> Sanskrit is admittedly an elder member.
>
> How important is the role of Sanskrit in regards to world
> languages and in this case English, possibly the most
> dominant language in the modern world?

So far so true. Modern Indian languages are normally cited as the
source for Indian loans from the days of British India.

> It is imperative to note that the English language, except
> for the current written alphabet,is as close to ancient

Sanskrit

> as Hindi, Bengali or any other dialect from India.

In one sense, I think this is actually true. Sanskrit and Hindi
probably are mutually unintelligible, just as Sanskrit and English
are. For communication, can you get more different than mutually
unintelligible?

> And yes,English Numerals are Sanskrit not Arabic or Roman.

Indeed, the digits, but not the words, are from India. (Zero is an
Arabic translation of the Sanskrit word.)

> It is helpful to understand that many English words
> have no intrinsic denominator without application or
> aid of Sanskrit.

This might be interpreted as saying that many non-transparent obscure
etymologies have been clarified as a result of studying Sanskrit (and
thereby reconstruct PIE &c, &c.) We may be hard-pushed to show that
this statement is out and out false!

> The compound word San-Skrit, San; meaning whole, equal,
> complete, total or amount and Skrit; meaning script, scribe

etc.

> Thus reveals the common basis and subtle collusion
> of English words to be non different than Sanskrit
> I.E. San ; Sum, some,syn, same, sane, saint etc. all these
> English words meaning either whole, total, equal or even.

Would an Indian get the meaning of Sanskrit so wrong? (It fits as a
British folk etymology.) I am not sure whether 'saint' fits in here.

> To opine that in time Sanskrit developed
> its refined status from a earlier more crude form of the
> Indo-European or other language family is herein questionable
> due to the vivid, concise depth of Sanskrit Syllabary
> and antiquated references
>
> An example is given that the Name for the human race "Man"
> has come from "Manu"( Manoah,Noah, Nuh) The "Manvantara"
> descendant from the Viviswan the Solar deity.
>
> The word "Man" has no sufficient origins given in English.
> According to Vedic chronology the story of Manu stretches
> so far into antiquity that it no longer finds cohesive analogy
> in English literature, except perhaps in form of the
> Biblical story of Noah.

Well, the word 'man' does go back beyond English. And Vedic
chronology goes back way before 4004 BC.

> In United States of America We have no Monarchy (Manu-Archa)
> so the title "King" can only refer to periods and places where
> where it actually did or currently exist, such as The "Queen"
> of England. Yet we still use the word "King and Queen" in
> North America, because in the past it was used frequently
> in reference to actual monarchy.

Canada currently has no king!

> Even though there are no lions in England the Kings where
> still known as lion hearted. Coats of arms often

portrayed

> Lions
> attributing the qualities of the lions to the kings such as
> courage, strength, chivalry, genorosity and resourcefulness.
>
> The old English spelling of King is "Cing" As in ancient
> Sanskrit
> apellation King, Cing, Singh, Simha or Simbha(swahili )
> for lion meaning Powerful Chief or leader.

Possibly two slip-ups here, as OE is <cyning>. Mind you, I wouldn't
be surprised at very late OE or early Middle English
spelling 'cing'. Has 'old English' cleverly been written instead
of 'Old English'? Also there is no 'h' in 'simba'.

Could there be a very subtle pun on the brand of Thai beer
called 'Singha' in English?

> The English language, full of such descendants perceived
> directly
> in relation to its sister dialects, Hindiand Bengali is no
> further
> remote from Sanskrit. Apparently Sansrkit similarly
> supplies integral structure and identifying roots of English.

Repeats himself here.

> Could the very word "Sanskrit" claim what it may well be a
> "Samskrit" or "complete alphabet" of a universal
> language originating from the subtlemost realm of
> consciouness?

Well, why not? It's only a claim!

> Even Proffesor Max Mueller had to acknowledge the greatness of
> the
> Devanagari script admitting its very perfection and realizing
> its antecedent superiority. Vedic Sanskrit of Ancient India
> very possibly may contain the "perfect" contributing
> factor providing spiritual and metaphysical roots and
> reason
> to many branches of global languages.

The 'Buddh' of 'Buddha' is a root in English. It's very interesting
that the author's presumed other posting also refers to Mueller.

Ricardus multum risi.

P.S. Should we tell the author where to find our comments?