Do you want more of these linguistic based videos? ERRATUM: I used pitch and tone synonymously here, but they are not the same. Vedic Sanskrit had a PITCH system, not a TONE one.
This is not a possibility, but a certainty. The use of pitch/tone as an accent(compare english íncrease and ínsight, and increáse and incíte, using volume instead of pitch) is a consensus among phonologists.
How old are you? Mad respect for your research. You are like a nerdy childhood friend I used to have 😊 Really happy to find your videos. Seems like you are based out of the US, born to an Indian immigrant family. Your interest and balanced perspective differentiates you from the propagandists! Keep up the great work 👍🏼
As I understand, Pāṇini was successful because he described the current state of the spoken language rather than prescribing how it should be spoken. He also included descriptions of variants that could be found in Vedic texts. It is natural that the variety of a language spoken at one point in time is less than its variety over a long period of time.
@user-ig8pd9qn5h That's an excellent point. It's very interesting to think that even a generative grammar can be a snapshot. It unites the singular with the infinite.
Declaration of Return to UA-cam: Simply History We, the loyal viewers and subscribers of Simply History, hereby declare our earnest desire for the triumphant return of Simply History to the UA-cam platform. Recognizing the invaluable insights, educational content, and captivating storytelling that Simply History has brought to the historical community, we firmly believe that their presence on UA-cam is vital for the enrichment of our understanding of the past. The meticulous research, engaging narration, and profound analysis provided by Simply History have not only enlightened us but have also fostered a deep appreciation for history among fans. In light of the positive impact that Simply History has had on our knowledge and appreciation of the past, we, the undersigned, implore Simply History to reconsider any hiatus or absence and to resume their UA-cam activities. We understand the challenges of content creation, but we believe that the educational value and inspiration Simply History brings to their audience are irreplaceable. To signify our unwavering support, we, the viewers, pledge to actively engage with Simply History's content, share their videos across social media platforms, and contribute positively to the historical community they have cultivated. We are confident that the return of Simply History to UA-cam will not only reignite the curiosity of existing fans but also attract new enthusiasts who seek the unique blend of historical knowledge and storytelling expertise that Simply History consistently delivers. In conclusion, we hereby declare our collective desire for Simply History to make a triumphant return to UA-cam and continue the legacy of exceptional historical content creation that has endeared them to a dedicated and appreciative audience. Signed, SB-3368 2/19/2024
Classical sanskrit speakers did not pronounce ऋ as 'ri', hindi speakers and most north Indian indo aryan speakers articulate it as ri, which spills into spoken sanskrit today. Original classical sanskrit speakers treated it as a vowel, not a syllable, and most definitely pronounced it as 'rr'. There is a sandhi rule 'अ + ऋ' gives अर् followed in classical sanskrit as well.
You ought to mention in your video that the optative in Classical Sanskrit replaced much of the semantic function of the Vedic subjunctive. The subjunctive does survive in the aorist, although this will die out too. The Bhagavad Gita does have a couple of aorist subjunctives (as opposed to present subjunctives).
Very nice video. Concerning the sandhi, "sympathy" is not a good example for English, since it comes from Greek, where "sýn" (the ypsilon was pronounced like the german ü in the classical athenian pronunciation) or "sún" (archaic pronunciation) means "with", and "páthos" (the th was an aspirated t in Ancient Greek, and later became the voiceless dental fricative) means "passion" (see also "pathētikē phōnē" - stressed in the final syllables- which means "passive voice). "An apple" is also not the best example, since "an" is the original form, so "a tree", for example, would be more appropriate. Now, concerning the diphthongs, "ai" has turned into e in Greek as well, although into the more open /ε/ sound, starting in the two centuries after the death of Alexander the Great. A similar change had happened in Boeotian Greek since the early 4th century BC, but, unlike Attic Greek, it was /ε:/, not /ε/.
Wow, thanks for your feedback on Sandhi. I am aware of the similar sound changes in Greek as well, it seems almost as if most diphthongs monophtongize at some point in their later evolution. Cheers!
Again i knew something about which i never read i felt like that Panini standardized the language I am so intelligent bina bataye sari baat apni logical reasoning se pata kar leta hu
Great video. One correction. Dont over expected the final a like the words in veda Its a very short a not a full ā like you pronounce. So veda not vedā Other than that, keep up the good work and upload more frequently
English, too, has the subjunctive like German. In fact, would/should/might/could/must are the subjunctive forms (and past forms) of will/shall/may/can/mote.
Ai and Au are the only diphthongs in Tamil. I wonder, did a:i and a:u become ai and au because of the supposed Dravidian substratum on Sanskrit? I notice that many Tamil speakers (including me) tend to pronounce the diphthongs in English words like 'Face' and 'Found' with ai and au rather than the correct a:i and a:u because Tamil does not have a:i and a:u but has ai and au. Was this the cause of the shift in sanskrit? I'm completely new to this subject, so I'm just wondering.
That’s a great question. It could very well be because of a Dravidian substratum, and it also could have been because of other native groups like the Tibeto-Burmese and Austroasiatic, or just because of simplification of the language overall. Definitely an interesting thought.
1.01 the palatal series is shown as a plosive series rather than the usual affricate series, is there any proof to that? Will it be wrong to pronounce them as affricates? And I doubt the rhotic in Vedic was like the zh in Tamizh, it is an uncommon sound only in occuring as allophones of other common rhotics in Indo-European languages, and rarely phonemic in any major except few like Chinese and Dravidian languages. It was probably like a alveolar tap/flap like in most Indian languages, and that murdhanya necessarily doesn't mean retroflex but the roof of the mouth in general, especially with respect to the tip of the tongue.
However these kinds of linear explanations are good for a 7 minute video... But you should make a whole documentary as well as commentary about this history... Because history should be seen in a more open and abstract way... Linearity can cause some issues like non acceptance and separatism could be grown... Having said that your work is appreciable and I hope you'll get a good viewer base who believes in acceptance not to hate
Didn't Farsi also have this problem of Sandhi; I think Afghan-é-stan & Pak-é-stan are a good examples; They got simplified to Afghanistan & Pakistan. The original meaning being somewhat lost.
Your statements about the visarga are just outright wrong. Many people get this wrong I guess because they hear jihvamuliya and upadhmaniya in Vedic recitation but they don't hear it usually in Classical and they assume they were Vedic only. Both upadhmaniya and jihvamuliya are described in Panini's grammar. They are present and valid in Classical Sanskrit. They are merely given as an optional change from the normal visarga, but most people I know who speak Classical Sanskrit use them. Ironically it is the historical reconstructed Vedic pronunciation that lacked them.
I think they were just allophones of the visarga in Vedic spoken by native speakers. Panini just highlighted this point. They are all voiceless sounds like the visarga.
I think examples could be better (longer?) and maybe from Sanskrit origin instead of from English or in addition to English. I still feel like I have not really grasped the difference at all. And also maybe a actual side by side sentence comparison that shows these differences (both for grammer and pronunciation). But still a good video, its always good to hear about how launguages evolve
Why do you mention both terms 'tone' AND 'pitch'. In the Vedic language, for as far back as we can go, it was only pitch. Why are you using both terms? Please explain.
According to the definition, tone (tonal) can change the meaning of a word, while pitch does not, so i am also curious about whether vedic is a tonal language or not. Maybe someone can update Wiki if it's not the case en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit#:~:text=Vedic%20had%20a%20pitch%20accent,fourth%20syllables%20from%20the%20end.
@cookiung Perhaps the language was pictographic in origin and only became a written phonetic later on? Pitch and tone are important features in, say, modern Chinese, developed from the Proto - Shang Shamanic characters.
Is there any proof, that "ri" pronunciation instead of proper "ṛ" belongs to so called "classical Sanskrit"? Or do we have any instructions from Shiksha that mere "h" should be pronounced instead of upadhmania and jhihvamulia in the standardized Paninian language? I hadn't seen any. All these kinds of deviations became a custom of our days, but we would not find Panini justifying it in his Shiksha. My idea is we should not support ignorance and justify it using the name of Panini.
For the Jihvamuliya and Upadhmaniya, these can still be heard chanted today and is quite easy to spot. Panini didn't "remove" these. Instead, it evolved over many centuries and finally became extinct. If you learn sanskrit today (classical), you don't hear these being spoken. As for the "r," this was purely pronunciation. Later, through classical sanskrit, it spread through most Indian languages. For example, "sage" in vedic sanskrit is "Rṣi", but it became pronounced as Rishi. I hope this clarifies some things.
@@simplyhistory1885 It is exactly what I'm saying about. My idea is there is no point to call all these deviations as "it evolved", since "classical Sanskrit" is standardized language of Panini and there are no ways for something standardized to evolve. The only way to call all this "ri" instead of "ṛ" and "lri" instead of "ḷ" is "d e v i a t i o n s". When Panini describes "ḷ" as one dental sound and some "teacher" explains it as three sounds dental+cerebral+wovel it is just a way to make his small contribution to the decline of culture.
1,500 BCE is from the Colonial Indologists, and is something based on the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory, which is quite faulty. Most likely the dates were far before 1,500 BCE.
Absolutely, perhaps a couple of thousand years before that. Some tribes from the Altai region started to migrate back toward Europe, way before the Hittites, formulated from Anatolian tribes, even began city-states. The early R1a and R1b X-haplos were moving west. This is evident in language spoken by Irish and Germans today by the sounds of d replacing the th and v replacing the bh phonetic as in Mabh and Ibhur, also the ch sound of Welsh Lloyd becoming Clyde. Definitely a strong tie to old Sanskrit.
Do you want more of these linguistic based videos?
ERRATUM: I used pitch and tone synonymously here, but they are not the same. Vedic Sanskrit had a PITCH system, not a TONE one.
dont you mean pitch? Tone is very alien to Indian languages and is more common in East asia, with few exceptions.
This is not a possibility, but a certainty. The use of pitch/tone as an accent(compare english íncrease and ínsight, and increáse and incíte, using volume instead of pitch) is a consensus among phonologists.
How old are you? Mad respect for your research. You are like a nerdy childhood friend I used to have 😊 Really happy to find your videos. Seems like you are based out of the US, born to an Indian immigrant family. Your interest and balanced perspective differentiates you from the propagandists! Keep up the great work 👍🏼
He must be just 11 or 12 standard student with curious mind
Wow! That was the best 7 minute explanation on the evolution and differences in classical and Vedic Sanskrit.
Glad you liked it!
short and comprehensive coverage . We look forward to more of such videos
Very clear diction. Flawless grammar. Please continue working on your channel.
Thank you!
As I understand, Pāṇini was successful because he described the current state of the spoken language rather than prescribing how it should be spoken. He also included descriptions of variants that could be found in Vedic texts. It is natural that the variety of a language spoken at one point in time is less than its variety over a long period of time.
@user-ig8pd9qn5h
That's an excellent point. It's very interesting to think that even a generative grammar can be a snapshot. It unites the singular with the infinite.
The Connection over the steppe between slavic and indoaryans
Declaration of Return to UA-cam: Simply History
We, the loyal viewers and subscribers of Simply History, hereby declare our earnest desire for the triumphant return of Simply History to the UA-cam platform.
Recognizing the invaluable insights, educational content, and captivating storytelling that Simply History has brought to the historical community, we firmly believe that their presence on UA-cam is vital for the enrichment of our understanding of the past. The meticulous research, engaging narration, and profound analysis provided by Simply History have not only enlightened us but have also fostered a deep appreciation for history among fans.
In light of the positive impact that Simply History has had on our knowledge and appreciation of the past, we, the undersigned, implore Simply History to reconsider any hiatus or absence and to resume their UA-cam activities. We understand the challenges of content creation, but we believe that the educational value and inspiration Simply History brings to their audience are irreplaceable.
To signify our unwavering support, we, the viewers, pledge to actively engage with Simply History's content, share their videos across social media platforms, and contribute positively to the historical community they have cultivated. We are confident that the return of Simply History to UA-cam will not only reignite the curiosity of existing fans but also attract new enthusiasts who seek the unique blend of historical knowledge and storytelling expertise that Simply History consistently delivers.
In conclusion, we hereby declare our collective desire for Simply History to make a triumphant return to UA-cam and continue the legacy of exceptional historical content creation that has endeared them to a dedicated and appreciative audience.
Signed,
SB-3368
2/19/2024
Yes yes yes 🙌
Yes, plsssss 😢😥😭
5:40 The English example is wrong. English also has a subjunctive mood and it should have been "If I were" and not "If I was"
Yes, thanks for pointing that out. That's my bad.
Amazing video. Short yet resourceful
Classical sanskrit speakers did not pronounce ऋ as 'ri', hindi speakers and most north Indian indo aryan speakers articulate it as ri, which spills into spoken sanskrit today. Original classical sanskrit speakers treated it as a vowel, not a syllable, and most definitely pronounced it as 'rr'. There is a sandhi rule 'अ + ऋ' gives अर् followed in classical sanskrit as well.
You ought to mention in your video that the optative in Classical Sanskrit replaced much of the semantic function of the Vedic subjunctive. The subjunctive does survive in the aorist, although this will die out too. The Bhagavad Gita does have a couple of aorist subjunctives (as opposed to present subjunctives).
Very nice video. Concerning the sandhi, "sympathy" is not a good example for English, since it comes from Greek, where "sýn" (the ypsilon was pronounced like the german ü in the classical athenian pronunciation) or "sún" (archaic pronunciation) means "with", and "páthos" (the th was an aspirated t in Ancient Greek, and later became the voiceless dental fricative) means "passion" (see also "pathētikē phōnē" - stressed in the final syllables- which means "passive voice). "An apple" is also not the best example, since "an" is the original form, so "a tree", for example, would be more appropriate.
Now, concerning the diphthongs, "ai" has turned into e in Greek as well, although into the more open /ε/ sound, starting in the two centuries after the death of Alexander the Great. A similar change had happened in Boeotian Greek since the early 4th century BC, but, unlike Attic Greek, it was /ε:/, not /ε/.
Wow, thanks for your feedback on Sandhi. I am aware of the similar sound changes in Greek as well, it seems almost as if most diphthongs monophtongize at some point in their later evolution. Cheers!
Again i knew something about which i never read i felt like that Panini standardized the language
I am so intelligent bina bataye sari baat apni logical reasoning se pata kar leta hu
Great video. One correction. Dont over expected the final a like the words in veda
Its a very short a not a full ā like you pronounce. So veda not vedā
Other than that, keep up the good work and upload more frequently
English, too, has the subjunctive like German. In fact, would/should/might/could/must are the subjunctive forms (and past forms) of will/shall/may/can/mote.
Please make video about rig vedic battle of Varsagira and its possible impact on division of Vedic & Iranian cultures
Will do.
@@simplyhistory1885 yeah, I want to know how old Persian & Vedic Sanskrit were so similar
There are two "parents" to what was Ancient Persian: one was "Old Persian" and the second was Avestan.@@shivamtiwari1547
Ai and Au are the only diphthongs in Tamil. I wonder, did a:i and a:u become ai and au because of the supposed Dravidian substratum on Sanskrit? I notice that many Tamil speakers (including me) tend to pronounce the diphthongs in English words like 'Face' and 'Found' with ai and au rather than the correct a:i and a:u because Tamil does not have a:i and a:u but has ai and au. Was this the cause of the shift in sanskrit? I'm completely new to this subject, so I'm just wondering.
That’s a great question. It could very well be because of a Dravidian substratum, and it also could have been because of other native groups like the Tibeto-Burmese and Austroasiatic, or just because of simplification of the language overall. Definitely an interesting thought.
1.01 the palatal series is shown as a plosive series rather than the usual affricate series, is there any proof to that? Will it be wrong to pronounce them as affricates?
And I doubt the rhotic in Vedic was like the zh in Tamizh, it is an uncommon sound only in occuring as allophones of other common rhotics in Indo-European languages, and rarely phonemic in any major except few like Chinese and Dravidian languages. It was probably like a alveolar tap/flap like in most Indian languages, and that murdhanya necessarily doesn't mean retroflex but the roof of the mouth in general, especially with respect to the tip of the tongue.
However these kinds of linear explanations are good for a 7 minute video... But you should make a whole documentary as well as commentary about this history... Because history should be seen in a more open and abstract way... Linearity can cause some issues like non acceptance and separatism could be grown... Having said that your work is appreciable and I hope you'll get a good viewer base who believes in acceptance not to hate
Didn't Farsi also have this problem of Sandhi; I think Afghan-é-stan & Pak-é-stan are a good examples; They got simplified to Afghanistan & Pakistan. The original meaning being somewhat lost.
Your statements about the visarga are just outright wrong. Many people get this wrong I guess because they hear jihvamuliya and upadhmaniya in Vedic recitation but they don't hear it usually in Classical and they assume they were Vedic only. Both upadhmaniya and jihvamuliya are described in Panini's grammar. They are present and valid in Classical Sanskrit. They are merely given as an optional change from the normal visarga, but most people I know who speak Classical Sanskrit use them. Ironically it is the historical reconstructed Vedic pronunciation that lacked them.
I think they were just allophones of the visarga in Vedic spoken by native speakers. Panini just highlighted this point. They are all voiceless sounds like the visarga.
I think examples could be better (longer?) and maybe from Sanskrit origin instead of from English or in addition to English. I still feel like I have not really grasped the difference at all.
And also maybe a actual side by side sentence comparison that shows these differences (both for grammer and pronunciation).
But still a good video, its always good to hear about how launguages evolve
Why do you mention both terms 'tone' AND 'pitch'. In the Vedic language, for as far back as we can go, it was only pitch. Why are you using both terms? Please explain.
According to the definition, tone (tonal) can change the meaning of a word, while pitch does not, so i am also curious about whether vedic is a tonal language or not. Maybe someone can update Wiki if it's not the case en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit#:~:text=Vedic%20had%20a%20pitch%20accent,fourth%20syllables%20from%20the%20end.
@cookiung Perhaps the language was pictographic in origin and only became a written phonetic later on? Pitch and tone are important features in, say, modern Chinese, developed from the Proto - Shang Shamanic characters.
You deserve more subscribers.
Bro is about to hit 2k subs
Great video
Hey can you make videos on Dravidian languages?
This is like the coolest guy how r u so gpod at history?
dhanyavad
👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿
Make a video on proto Indo-European language
I’ll put that on my list!
Since when did hit 300 aubs
Is there any proof, that "ri" pronunciation instead of proper "ṛ" belongs to so called "classical Sanskrit"? Or do we have any instructions from Shiksha that mere "h" should be pronounced instead of upadhmania and jhihvamulia in the standardized Paninian language? I hadn't seen any. All these kinds of deviations became a custom of our days, but we would not find Panini justifying it in his Shiksha. My idea is we should not support ignorance and justify it using the name of Panini.
For the Jihvamuliya and Upadhmaniya, these can still be heard chanted today and is quite easy to spot. Panini didn't "remove" these. Instead, it evolved over many centuries and finally became extinct. If you learn sanskrit today (classical), you don't hear these being spoken. As for the "r," this was purely pronunciation. Later, through classical sanskrit, it spread through most Indian languages. For example, "sage" in vedic sanskrit is "Rṣi", but it became pronounced as Rishi. I hope this clarifies some things.
@@simplyhistory1885 It is exactly what I'm saying about. My idea is there is no point to call all these deviations as "it evolved", since "classical Sanskrit" is standardized language of Panini and there are no ways for something standardized to evolve. The only way to call all this "ri" instead of "ṛ" and "lri" instead of "ḷ" is "d e v i a t i o n s". When Panini describes "ḷ" as one dental sound and some "teacher" explains it as three sounds dental+cerebral+wovel it is just a way to make his small contribution to the decline of culture.
@Vrajasundara Das evolution is natural, it has nothing to do with perceived "decline of culture".
@@simplyhistory1885 It is deviation. It is not evolution. Sanskrit is standardized. No evolution.
@@vrajasundara_das such a stance would be completely ignorant of the nature of language. This can be observed even by a layperson.
Very Informative
Glad you think so!
Bro became one of this missing children from FNAF
1,500 BCE is from the Colonial Indologists, and is something based on the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory, which is quite faulty. Most likely the dates were far before 1,500 BCE.
@forest3064
Agreed. I am shocked that people today in 2023 still display this date.
@@paulthomas281inferior indians got conquered by Superior Europeans since ancient times
How for example? You tell me.
Absolutely, perhaps a couple of thousand years before that. Some tribes from the Altai region started to migrate back toward Europe, way before the Hittites, formulated from Anatolian tribes, even began city-states. The early R1a and R1b X-haplos were moving west. This is evident in language spoken by Irish and Germans today by the sounds of d replacing the th and v replacing the bh phonetic as in Mabh and Ibhur, also the ch sound of Welsh Lloyd becoming Clyde. Definitely a strong tie to old Sanskrit.
@@johnruge1218 did they migrated from india?
did you like quit youtube cuz like you havent uploaded a video in 3 months
why you quit youtube
I have a new video planned for fall!
@@simplyhistory1885 epic
yo you better upload a video cuz im like about to pass you in subscribers
Good for you!
BRO HOW DID YOU OVERTAKE ME IN SUBSCRIBERS YOU LITERALLY HAVENT MADE A VIDEO IN 10 MONTHS
Vedic Sanskrit is Much Older than 1500 BC
Greetings, Rishi shall thou please giveth me a shoutout
Thy channel is quite ye distaste. I shalln’t giveth thou a shout-out.
Vedas are wayy older than 1500 bce
Vedic sanskrit is Avesta isn't?
It's not Avestan
Avestan is derived from Vedic Sanskrit
Sanskrit is wayyy older than 1500 bce
Narration could be better.