America age dating manufacts


There is a difference between the two uses of the term "classical".--dab , 14 July 2010 (UTC) saṃskṛtabhāṣā would be a compound. The point is that no reference is cited for either.Shreevatsa (talk) , (UTC) I would like to invite those interested to join me in improving the standard of this article to featured article levels of objectivity and presentation.I see a lot of places where improvements are possible.Its protected status will be an aid to those who fear wanton acts of sabotage, cruft and edit warring that this article has attracted in the past.To start with, let us identify the sections which can be trimmed down, and those that need better clarification.Please do not make significant changes to the article before they are discussed and agreed upon by the group. Srkris (talk) , (UTC) While I don't have the time or expertise to improve the article, I do see a number of small mistakes and omissions (one omission is a discussion of Sanskrit calligraphy, using a pen with a special-cut nib, which is the basis of the morphology of devanagari); I would be willing to help review specific changes.



Today Sanskrit is seen as a language by itself (since the vulgar "Prakrit" dialects are long extinct) and may therefore be called saṃskṛta bhāṣā.Please note that Classical Sanskrit is a classical language, as opposed to Vedic Sanskrit or Epic Sanskrit, which are pre-classical."Sanskrit" otoh is a "Classical language of India", which is just some label the government of India slapped on a couple of languages since 2004 in order to pacify the communalists.If I may say so, saṃskṛtabhāṣā is itself not very good Sanskrit, it appears to be a karmadharaya or "nominative-tatpurusha" compound (like "maharaja"). The difference between a compound or non-compound is not the space character ("saṃskṛta bhāṣā" vs "saṃskṛtabhāṣā"), it is the agreement of adjective and noun (saṃskṛta-bhāṣā vs saṃskṛtā bhāṣā).

The formation of these compounds is mostly due to people being uncertain about inflecting adjectives, i.e. The composition is only one half of the problem, though, the other is that bhāṣā wasn't really used of Sanskrit in the first place.

Again, I am perfectly willing to submit to proper references.