Could you kindly quote exactly what the book said? As far as I can tell, Wolverine is certainly right, and you probably misunderstood the book.But I disagree, Wolverine. 'Matra', 'mother' and 'mater' are not actually cognates, at least not 'matra'. I have read in the book "History of the English Language" that Latin 'mater' and 'pater' were derived from Sanskrit 'matra' and 'pitra' respectively.
This is what the online version of OALD says:You can check in the OALD that 'mother' ( a comparatively very modern word)was indirectly derived from Latin 'mater'.
I guess you mean Mandarin, tonyspeed jii; "Chinese" is a group of languages, and I have many doubts if all of them have the word "mama" for mother (by the way, as far as I knew, it's "mama" in Mandarin; "maa" is just the short form). I have no idea why the word for mother in Mandarin should be of any concern in this post. There is no "ancient word" in question across the different language families of this world: the more probable reason is a baby's first prattle. See here. (There are still languages like Gujarati, where mother is "baa", and not "maaN".)The word maa/maaN seems to be an ancient word that spans languages. It is also maa in Chinese.
Because borrowing between languages happens not in thin air: rather, there has to be some history. I do not recall such great bonhomie in history between the Romans and ancient Indians that the former would start borrowing words from India!littlepond, why is it impossible for Sanskrit to have lent a word to Latin (or any other language)??? You simply search Sanskrit words in Latin/English/ etc. and you will come to know of it.
1) This is an opinion. A language is perfect or most precise according to whose standard? Your own?to be precise, is Sanskrit, the most perfect, grammatical, logical and clear language in the world. .
I am not saying that Latin cannot have absolutely no loanwords from Sanskrit. It is possible, though I'd expect them to be very few, contextually specific and late. It will be interesting to find some. Actually, I know a close example - not exactly a loanword, but a (mis)-translation which gave our modern words of sine and cosine in mathematics, via Arabic (Original Skt: jyā/jīvā ~ koṭijīvā).Dib, I haven't misunderstood the book at all and it does say the Latin words in question originated from Sanskrit.
Actually, calling Sanskrit "Indo-European root" is equivalent to ignoring a couple of centuries of scholarship. I am sure, OALD knows better. There are very obvious problems with calling Sanskrit the "IE root". Vedic literature already gives ample evidence that (Vedic) Sanskrit was undergoing normal evolution, like any other language in the world. So, it would be absurd to use the name Sanskrit for the form of the language a couple of millenia older than Rgvedic. Yet, by the middle of 2nd millenium BCE we have ample attestation of a very divergent form of Indo-European speech (Hittite), which should be an age similar to some form of Vedic. Now, you do the math. How long ago they must have diverged, and whether it would be reasonable to call that ancestral common form Sanskrit.However, the OALD just refers to it as Indo-European root, which, to be precise, is Sanskrit
I agree with tonyspeed here. There is no reason other than religious and cultural for such a claim. Within the limited scope of this forum, I'll just take two points ("logical" and "clear") for illustration - I don't even know what it means for a language to be the "most perfect" or "most grammatical" (all languages are grammatical, duh!):... Sanskrit, the most perfect, grammatical, logical and clear language in the world.
I do find PIE a reasonable explanation of a set of observations in a set of languages, of which I am reasonably familiar with a significant subset.You seem to be supporting the Proto-Indo-European theory in denying the fact.
Okay, about the ancient bit. What is his argument for calling Sanskrit more "ancient" (whatever that means) than, e.g. Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian, which had been written down already in early to middle 3rd millenium BCE? What is the definition of "perfect language" used? (I am just doing my due-dilligence check, before I spend time and energy in reading him. I hope, you are familiar enough with his writings to answer these seemingly basic questions on his behalf.)For that and for the confirmation that actually Sanskrit is the most ancient and perfect language and the source of many words in the languages of the Indo-European family, read these articles by Stephen Knapp: 1. Sanskrit: Its Importance to Language, 2. The Proto Indo- European Language. Here the theory of PIE falls flat.
Just to say, "OMG"!!! I bet I am younger than you but surely in my school in 5th standard, we learnt about Alexandra, The Great's invasion in India, I seriously can't believe you didn't know that.^ Englishmypassion jii, I also don't desire to waste any further time on such an apparent thing as where you are coming from. Alexander? Haha.
I object to the first part of the statement. I don't see really much evidence to suggest that Panini deliberately "changed" and made Sanskrit "logical". It is quite obvious looking at the grammar of Classical Sanskrit that it defies just as much "logic" as any other natural language. I think it is reasonable to assume that he was simply describing the educated "speech/talk" (bhāṣā < bhāṣ- = to speak/talk, as he calls it) of his day (and region). To take one small example: He certainly didn't try to logically "rectify" the gender of "bhaya-" (fear) from the popular neuter (as attested since the Vedic days, e.g. RV 9.67.21) to a more logical (from the point of view of Paninian scheme of derivations) masculine. For that matter, he also retained (i.e. simply documented) many paradigmatic irregularities without trying to make Sanskrit grammar look more logical.3) The reason Sanskrit is so logical is because Panini changed it and made it logical. When it was a normal spoken language it was not so and evolved organically like every other language,
I didn't have to study in a school to know that, Mansi jii: but how Alexander fits into this discussion is what was amusing. It is no suprise though that people who claim some language to be the "most grammatical" would also bring in a curry of half-baked knowledge. Like Dib jii, I am also wondering how any language in the world can be "more grammatical" than any other.Just to say, "OMG"!!! I bet I am younger than you but surely in my school in 5th standard, we learnt about Alexandra, The Great's invasion in India, I seriously can't believe you didn't know that.
Oh.... K, tht makes more sense to me now, thx for clarifyingI didn't have to study in a school to know that, Mansi jii: but how Alexander fits into this discussion is what was amusing. It is no suprise though that people who claim some language to be the "most grammatical" would also bring in a curry of half-baked knowledge. Like Dib jii, I am also wondering how any language in the world can be "more grammatical" than any other.
Coming back to the core issue of the topic, I am quite certain that maaN is the standard word or perhaps the most used nowadays however there is MAA too. I heard it in several bhajans and also it is there in Urdu, even in Platts you can find maa-baap along with maaN-baap. The bhajans I can't recall at this moment but "he maa" is certainly there. So according to my observations and experience, I would say that there are both variations, maaN and maa in Hindi (Urduu too).There is no word "ma" in Hindi, Isidore jii; the word is "maaN". Yes, it means "mother" again, though the more usual wording in this context is "Kali maataa" ("maataa" again means mother).
I don't think there is any need to discuss an off-topic thing further. But just pointing out that there is nothing (grammatically) wrong in "a dress red" in English (or "une rouge robe" in French): context can very well dictate those choices.In English one would say "a red dress" whereas in French one would say "une robe rouge" which literary translates to "a dress red" and is grammatically right in French but not English ...
But those aren't meaningless, either, they're causatives:
Oh, my ignorance is infinite.