Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Nearly all European languages and the number system can be traced to their Sankrit origins.
This is not enough to make Sanskrit the original IE language. It was one of the salient facts that lead researchers to propose that there was an Indo-European Language family in the first place of course. I am not sure if this link will work but here is an illustration on some of the divergences of the Indo-European language family. This paper supports an anatolian origin for the IE language family, however I tend to favour an 'IE Homeland' around the caspian. There are several divergences before the India languages diverge on their own here. I think most linguists would agree that Sanskrit is a very ancient language, but defintily not the source of all other surviving E languages or even the original 'ie' language.
Sankrit is the most advanced scientific language in existence. This is corroborated by Sankrit scholars and scientists.
The very idea of one language being more advanced than others is just plain silly and pretty well meaningless. More importantly, it is not supportive of there being advanced high technology in ancient india. High technology does not require sanksrit.
Sankrit predates the European languages.
This, as I have mentioned before, might well be true, although the above research sees to indicate that it is not. It, however, is uninformative as to whether or not the ancient indians had advanced high technology.
Your assertion: Cities from 9000 years ago were primitive.
Evidence:
The Mahabharata which speaks of a very advanced culture, not only records the construction of the city of Dwarika, but also it's sinking. Therefore the civilization 9000 years ago was not certainly not primitive.
An erroneous conclusion. Besides, i was talking about other 9,000 year old settlements, not this Dwarika one. The recording of its building and destruction in a mythological text is uninformative. The writers of the text needn't have even been there to write it. All they needed to know was that it was there and destroyed. What evidence suggests that the site Rao discovered is 9,000 years old anyway?
It is known by thousands of Sankrit students and scholars.
Preceisely, its a dead language, as dead as latin is, and as dead as latin was when all the churches were using it in their masses. Modern indians do not converse on the street in sanskrit. No one has conversed in sanskrit, except outside of scholarly experiments and the like, for a very long time. Its exceedingly likely that the modern preists reading and singing their hymms would not be understood by the original authors of those hymms, but this of course is untestable and irrelevant.
That just makes you look very ignorant.
Making silly statements like 'sanskrit roxors!!!!111!!!' is ignorant and meaningless. Some linguists think sanskrit is the bomb, others german, still other hebrew. There is no objective standard of 'goodness' for languages, its subjective opinion. If the greatest linguists have the greatest admiration for sanskrit, well, what of it? Besides which, they do not in this case. Sanskrit scholars, unsurprisingly, think sanskrit is great.
The fact that sanskrit words have parallels in other languages is meaningless, at least so far as being informative on the 'original language'. Latin and Sanskrit are extraordinarily similiar, apparently. But that doesn't let us know that one is older than the other. Simiilarly, the fact that many english or german words have forms that are similar in sanskrit merely means that they are all related languages, not that the one is an offshoot of the other.
No, it is not meaningless. It is only meaningless to someone who wants uphold dogma and deny evidence.
I am tired of this silliness. You've constantly accused me of advocating some non-existant dogma or propaganda or whatever, and your use of the site slogan is far too ironic to bear. You obviously have no interest in having a rational discussion about the topic.
