Wednesday, May 02, 2012

Is English, a dialect of Sanskrit!?

Contributed by Neil 'Kalia' Robinson
(Abstract of a Paper Presented at the World Assocaition for Vedic Studies (WAVES) Conference held at U of Mass. in Dartmouth, Mass.)
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? 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. And yes, English numerals are Sanskrit not Arabic or Roman.

It is helpful to understand that many English words have no intrinsic denominator without application or aid of Sanskrit. 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.
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 Vivasvan, 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.
In United States of America we have no monarchy 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.
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, generosity and resourcefulness.
The old English spelling of King is "Cing" As in ancient Sanskrit appellation King, Cing, Singh, Simha or Simba (Swahili) for lion meaning powerful chief or leader.
The English language, full of such descendants perceived directly in relation to its sister dialects, Hindi and Bengali is no further remote from Sanskrit. Apparently Sanskrit similarly supplies integral structure and identifying roots of English. 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 consciousness?
Even Professor 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.

No comments: