(23) The deliberate speculation of the term Proto-Indo-European
language; and Sanskrit
It is an open fact that the phonology (the speech sound)
and morphology (the science of word formation) of the Sanskrit language is
entirely different from all of the languages of the world. There is no
comparison in any way.
1. The sound of each of the 36 consonants and the 16
vowels of Sanskrit are fixed and precise since the very beginning. It was
never changed, altered, improved or modified. So all the words of the
Sanskrit language always had the same pronunciation as they have today.
There was never any sound shift or change in the pronunciation of any word
in the history of the Sanskrit language. The reason is its absolute
perfection by its own nature and formation, because it was the first
language of the world.
2. Its morphology of word formation is unique and of
its own kind where a word is formed from a tiny seed root (called dhatu)
in a precise grammatical order which has been the same since the very
3. There has never been any kind, class or nature of
change in the science of the Sanskrit grammar as it is seen in other
languages of the world as they passed through one stage to another.
4. The perfect form of the Vedic Sanskrit language had
already existed thousands of years earlier even before the infancy of the
earliest prime languages of the world like Greek, Hebrew and Latin etc.
5. When a language is spoken by unqualified people the
pronunciation of the word changes to some extent; and when these words
travel by word of mouth to another region of the land, with the gap of
some generations, it permanently changes its form and shape to some
extent. Just like the Sanskrit word matri, with a long ‘a’ and soft
‘t,’ became mater in Greek and mother in English. The last
two words are called the ‘apbhransh’ of the original Sanskrit word
‘matri.’ Such apbhranshas of Sanskrit words are found in all
the languages of the world and this situation itself proves that Sanskrit
was the mother language of the world.
Now I will give you one example of a famous verse from
the very ancient literature, the Vedas.
It means, “Those who are the
worshippers of only materialism enter into darkness.” In this sentence
yah (those) and vishanti (enter) are the pronoun and the
main verb. The word vishanti is formed of the root word (dhatu)
vish and it has 90 single word forms, like, vishati, vishatah,
vishanti, to be used in its ten tense modes. These word formations of
nouns, pronouns and verbs were always in perfect grammatical form since
thousands and thousands of years and they are still the same without any
change, and will remain the same in future. A person living in Iceland or
New Zealand, if he knows the Sanskrit language, he will use the same words
because there is no change of dialect or inflection in Sanskrit language.
Time and space make no difference in the representation of Sanskrit
Considering all the five points as explained above and
seeing the example of the ancient Vedic verse, it is quite evident that
Sanskrit was the first and the original language of the world; and the
western linguists of the earlier times also believed in this fact. It is
so obvious that anyone who learns Sanskrit grammar knows these facts. But
still, these 18th and 19th century linguists created a term
‘Proto-Indo-European’ for the original parent language which was assumed
to be spoken about 5,000 years ago by the nomads who assumingly roamed
around near the southeast European plains. They further assumed that from
the speech of those earlier nomads came the languages of the world like
Greek, Latin, Slavic, Russian, Germanic and Indo-Iranian etc., whereas the
Sanskrit language came from the Indo-Iranian group.
Now the question is, when an original parent language,
Sanskrit, is already in existence, why was the ‘Proto-Indo-European’ term
designed, and, instead of deriving the ancestral relationship of the
languages of the world with the Sanskrit language through the findings of
the Sanskrit apbhransh in them, why was an inferior parallelism of
the Sanskrit language drawn along with the Greek and Latin languages?
Although the fact was that certain daily usable words and the numerals,
like, trya, sapt, panch (three, seven, five), and the
religious stories of India that travelled to the Middle East and to Greece
were adopted in their language and culture, that’s how certain Sanskrit
apbhransh words were found in Greek, its descendent Latin and the
Germanic languages. But this fact was altered and mutilated by vigorously
constructing extensive arguments of their own choice, not by one or two
linguists, but by a number of well known linguists, and that also for 84
years of day and night efforts from Jones (1786) to Neogrammarians (1870).
Isn’t it laughable, and at the same time a big black hole in the
history of linguistics? Why did they do so, and create such a monstrous
lie that confused and misled the sincere intelligentsia of the whole
world? (This will be elaborated in articles
32, 33) Now we should
know that apart from the Sanskrit language there is no such thing as
Proto-Indo-European language as it is self-evident from the findings
of Sanskrit apbhransh words in all the existing Asian and European