7/14/2026 at 8:31:57 PM
Taleb says that some languages are only meant for ritual.IMHO, Sanskrit quotes sound cool to those who know Prakrit languages just like Latin and Greek quotations sound cool to those who know Romance languages (and even to those who know English, like myself).
Yes, there is a revival, and an interest. But Sanskrit has always been known to the "priestly" class even though they never conversed in it. This new revival is not going to lead to actual communication, just a lot of visual art based on the script and quotations. IMHO.
by profsummergig
7/14/2026 at 9:54:20 PM
The majority of surviving Sanskrit literature is actually secular like Poems, Dramas, science and mathematics.Sanskrit was widely spoken and understood just like Latin or Avestan, in its heyday. Otherwise it wouldn’t be part of the liturgical traditions of Buddhism, Jainism and Nastika traditions.
Why would Sudraka,Vatsayana, Brhathari write in Sanskrit if no one spoke it?
by FlyingSnake
7/15/2026 at 9:36:46 AM
> Sanskrit was widely spoken and understood just like Latin or AvestanIs that so ? I am not knowledgeable myself but some of my family members are (professor s in Sanskrit) and from what I have absorbed from their conversation is in direct contradiction to your claim.
The language of interpersonal communication were vulgarised forms, aka the vernacular languages. Sanskrit was used were a need for formality, respect, speciality was felt.
Regarding your claims about secularity, you are very correct.
by srean
7/14/2026 at 10:12:12 PM
> Sanskrit was widely spoken and understood just like Latin or Avestan, in its heyday. Otherwise it wouldn’t be part of the liturgical traditions of Buddhism, Jainism and Nastika traditions.I think, and it is just my speculation, that for most of Indian History, Sanskrit was the link language.
Just like "Latin" in the USA and Europe of the early 17th and 18th centuries, when all academic instructions were carried out in Latin!
So, nobody used Sanskrit as the primary language, but everyone could or knew someone who could convert Sanskrit to the local dialect.
It is almost like how Chinese and Colombian traders might sign a contract for coffee purchase in English. Neither might use English in most of their daily operations.
by ashishb
7/15/2026 at 10:17:20 AM
Not sure why you are speculating or what your background would be to do so, when the info is easy to find. Yes it was a link language given its prominence, but also> Sanskrit was a spoken language in the educated and the elite classes, but it was also a language that must have been understood in a wider circle of society because the widely popular folk epics and stories such as the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata Purana, the Panchatantra and many other texts are all in the Sanskrit language, while many Sanskrit dramas indicate that the language coexisted with the vernacular Prakrits.[115] Thus, Classical Sanskrit with its exacting grammar was the language of the Indian scholars and the educated classes, while others communicated with approximate or ungrammatical variants along with other natural Indian languages,[114] with the cities of Varanasi, Paithan, Pune and Kanchipuram being centres of Sanskrit learning and debate until the arrival of the colonial era
(Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit )
by goobatrooba
7/14/2026 at 10:53:05 PM
Yes this makes a lot of sense, if I recall correctly the first grammar of Telegu was written in Sanskrit, and many South India languages use a lot of Sanskrit words, but of course they are not intelligible if you don't know the grammar.by DiscourseFan
7/15/2026 at 3:05:45 PM
> I think, and it is just my speculation, that for most of Indian History, Sanskrit was the link language.> Just like "Latin" in the USA and Europe of the early 17th and 18th centuries, when all academic instructions were carried out in Latin!
You're suggesting that Sanskrit became a scholarly language, which no one was disputing. You're even using as a metaphor Latin, which started out as a vulgate tongue - which is the argument you are doubting.
Edit: It also applies to your English comparison. English IS spoken by millions, just not by the people you are referring to. Are you actually claiming English isn't a mother tongue to anyone?
by IAmBroom
7/15/2026 at 6:40:48 PM
> Are you actually claiming English isn't a mother tongue to anyone?I gave a specific example where neither the coffee wholesaler nor the buyer probably operates day to day in English. But they would still use English for the official agreement.
That does not take away from other benefits of English like being spoken by millions as a primary language and probably billions as a second language
by ashishb
7/14/2026 at 11:24:11 PM
I grew up in India and till grade 8 (or 9? Can't remember), it was mandatory for me to take Sanskrit lessons along with English and Hindi.by busymom0
7/15/2026 at 10:45:26 AM
Our state only had Sanskrit in 10, 11 and 12 and it was not taught properly.by leosanchez
7/14/2026 at 10:55:42 PM
My favorite use of Sankrit is the plant 'Ashwagandha'. Sounds fancy but it means 'Smell of a horse' as that is what it smells like.by ColdStream
7/14/2026 at 10:26:26 PM
The revival of Hebrew is a counter example, of a "ritual" language that managed to become a practical daily language for written and spoken communication.by lioeters
7/14/2026 at 10:51:10 PM
Biblical Hebrew has no vowel markings (well it does, but they are an interpretation), so it cannot be used in daily speech. Modern Hebrew is distinct from Biblical Hebrew. Sanskrit itself does not have much use as an actual language because it lacks a lot of the features that, say, Hindi or English or Ancient Greek have, it has 7 past tenses that are basically identical and it does not make fine distinctions between moods, which it does not have enough of. Only Vedic Sanskrit could actually be used as a language, but similarly to Ancient Greek there are relatively few extant texts in Vedic Sanskrit and certainly the task of learning the language to fluency would be monstrous compared to studying a living language; and one that few, if any, would be willing to devote their life towards, especially considering that Classical Sanskrit already works fine enough as a literary language and is only so practical for that purpose because it has such a strictly defined grammar.by DiscourseFan
7/15/2026 at 12:40:19 AM
> Biblical Hebrew has no vowel markings (well it does, but they are an interpretation), so it cannot be used in daily speech. Modern Hebrew is distinct from Biblical HebrewThe same can be said about Latin (of which we do not exactly know how they used to pronounce words), or any other language. How to pronounce letters or words is always "interpretation" (or more accurately, tradition).
by dinkelberg
7/15/2026 at 10:00:58 AM
Well the difference is that different vowels can signify not only different cases or declensions but even different words entirely in afroasiatic languages. So, yes, missing vowels means that the edition that does have vowels (developed in the 10th century I believe) is a particular interpretation of the work.by DiscourseFan
7/15/2026 at 3:11:43 PM
The mathematical study of the evolution of vowels in languages is quite well developed, and we can say with huge certainty that we know how classical Latin was pronounced. Yes, there absolutely were regional dialectal differences, but we do not rely on "tradition" to say that a long "i" sound (/i:/) was pronounced like the vowel in modern English "tree".by IAmBroom
7/14/2026 at 11:21:06 PM
I see, very interesting, thanks! I've been curious about Sanskrit "indirectly" from learning about root words in Slavic (and other) languages, as they call it proto-Indo-European roots. Similarly with ancient Greek or Latin, I enjoy learning the etymology of many of the words in modern languages like Spanish, French, etc.by lioeters
7/14/2026 at 8:42:58 PM
There's always Lithuanian.by smokeyfish
7/14/2026 at 8:45:19 PM
Or Koshur - it still retains archaic word forms, syntax, and roots that fell out of other Indo-Iranian languages.by alephnerd
7/14/2026 at 10:11:24 PM
Context?by ralfd
7/15/2026 at 12:31:00 AM
Lithuanian underwent fewer changes than other European languages languages from the same root language that begat all the proto-Indo-European languages. So it shares a lot of similar words with Sanskrit which is extremely well preserved.https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/C4D22AQGncdnVV2H6Mg/fee...
Other languages like English mutated too much so it shares fewer similarities to Sanskrit.
by ivewonyoung
7/14/2026 at 10:18:44 PM
It's a small language that has everything: a complicated case system, genders, a unique vocabulary, and even freaking tones.by cyberax
7/15/2026 at 12:09:50 AM
A famous example (similar to the ones you can find between West Frisian and modern English):Vedic Sanskrit: Devas adadat datas; Devas dat dhanas.
Lithuanian: Dievas davė dantis; Dievas duos duonos.
English Translation: God gave teeth; God will give bread.
by senderista
7/15/2026 at 12:20:25 AM
Just to save anyone the trouble of a web search:West Frisian: Bûter, brea, en griene tsiis is goed Ingelsk en goed Frysk.
Modern English: Butter, bread, and green cheese is good English and good Frisian.
by senderista
7/15/2026 at 4:07:19 AM
It's kind of interesting that you contradict much of what the article concludes, even though the article gives a lot of examples. Maybe your prediction will be true.by ccgreg
7/14/2026 at 8:36:48 PM
> This new revival is not going to lead to actual communication, just a lot of visual art based on the script and quotationsThis, but also social sciences and interdisciplinary research (especially in the NLP, CompLing, and ML space).
by alephnerd