Talk:Sanskrit

Brigade of requests to change "South Asia" to "Indian subcontinent" or similar

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2026

Sanskrit Originated in Ancient India ~2026-37596-31 (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Some reliable resources

1. Encyclopædia Britannica describes Sanskrit as the sacred language of Hinduism and discusses its earliest form, Vedic Sanskrit, in the context of ancient India rather than merely as a language of the modern geographical region "South Asia." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sanskrit-language

2. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages (Edited by Roger D. Woodard, Cambridge University Press)

3. Macdonell, A History of Sanskrit Literature, Preface p. vii: “Sanskrit literature… embodies” the “life and thought of Ancient India.”

4. Macdonell, p. 22: “This later phase of the ancient language of India was stereotyped by the great grammarian Panini…” Mariyam-PK (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Origin of Sanskrit

Sanskrit was born in Ancient India and is a part of Indian Vedic civilization. South Asia is a geopolitical term used to represent a particular geography since 1990s. Alvinbarry48 (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

To add to this, South Asia is a VERY imprecise term because it is a VERY large area that encompasses areas from Balochistan to Bangladesh and from Ladakh in India to Sri Lanka. Its like saying French language originated in "Western Europe" instead of Northern France (refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language).

It has roots in northwestern parts of Indian subcontinent. 71Ceremony (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2026 (2)

I would like you to change the south asian term it was never called south asia it is ancient Indian language it was created there and living there through the people so it is Ancient Indian Language ~2026-37628-70 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Describing Sanskrit as an ancient Indian language would be more historically accurate as South Asia is a modern geopolitical term

1. Encyclopædia Britannica describes Sanskrit as the sacred language of Hinduism and discusses its earliest form, Vedic Sanskrit, in the context of ancient India rather than merely as a language of the modern geographical region "South Asia." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sanskrit-language

2. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages (Edited by Roger D. Woodard, Cambridge University Press)

3. Macdonell, A History of Sanskrit Literature, Preface p. vii: “Sanskrit literature… embodies” the “life and thought of Ancient India.”

4. Macdonell, p. 22: “This later phase of the ancient language of India was stereotyped by the great grammarian Panini…” Mariyam-PK (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Correct. I am not sure how are these sudden changes being made to the terminologies. I hope admins intervene. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be treated as one. These revisionist terms are very likely a spillover effect of what is happening in other "social media" platforms. If they are describing it as "South Asia", they better explain how did the term came to be. Ritwik Deuba (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

In any case, I have simply replied here so if anyone has suggestions on the matter, I can be notified too. Cheers. Ritwik Deuba (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Correction request: Change "South Asia" to "Ancient India" in the lead section

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello editors,

I would like to suggest a correction regarding the geographic origin of Sanskrit in the lead section and the infobox of this page. Currently, it states the region of origin as "South Asia". While South Asia is the modern geopolitical term, historically and academically, Sanskrit originated and developed in Ancient India (specifically the Indian subcontinent during the Vedic period).

Using "Ancient India" provides a more precise historical and cultural context for a classical language, similar to how Latin is associated with "Ancient Rome" or Ancient Greek with "Ancient Greece," rather than just modern continental terms.

I request an authorized editor to update "South Asia" to "Ancient India" (or "Ancient India / Indian subcontinent").

Suggested Change:

• Current text: Region: South Asia
• Proposed text: Region: Ancient India (Indian subcontinent)

Supporting Reliable Sources for Reference:

1. Macdonell, Arthur Anthony (1900). A History of Sanskrit Literature. (Defines Sanskrit's development in ancient India).
2. Burrow, Thomas (2001). The Sanskrit Language. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. (Discusses the linguistic evolution within the ancient Indian context).

Thank you for your time and for maintaining the accuracy of this page. ~2026-37799-72 (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of Sanskrit's historical origin

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The current lead describes Sanskrit as “an ancient Indo-Aryan language of South Asia.” I understand that “South Asia” is a modern geographic descriptor. However, I would like to propose adding historical context, because several reliable scholarly sources also describe Sanskrit/Vedic Sanskrit in relation to ancient India or the Indian subcontinent.

For example, A. A. Macdonell writes in A History of Sanskrit Literature that Sanskrit literature embodies the “life and thought of Ancient India” (Preface, p. vii). He also describes Sanskrit as a later phase of “the ancient language of India” standardized by Pāṇini (p. 22), and identifies the Rigveda as the oldest and foundational Vedic text (p. 30). Jamison and Brereton’s Oxford translation describes the Rigveda as The Earliest Religious Poetry of India and states that “The R̥gveda is the oldest Sanskrit text… known as Vedic or Vedic Sanskrit” (Introduction, p. 3).

I suggest that the lead could be made more historically precise by adding a phrase such as: “Sanskrit is an ancient Indo-Aryan language of the Indian subcontinent. Its earliest attested form is Vedic Sanskrit, the language of the Rigveda.”

This would preserve the current modern geographic wording while also reflecting the historical context described in several reliable scholarly sources.

Verified usable quotations -
1. Macdonell, A History of Sanskrit Literature, Preface p. vii: “Sanskrit literature… embodies” the “life and thought of Ancient India.” https://archive.org/details/historyofsanskri00macdrich
2. Macdonell, p. 22: “This later phase of the ancient language of India was stereotyped by the great grammarian Panini…” https://archive.org/details/historyofsanskri00macdrich
3. Macdonell, p. 30: “the oldest… is the Rigveda… the very foundation of all Vedic literature.” https://archive.org/details/historyofsanskri00macdrich
4. Jamison & Brereton, The Rigveda, title/catalogue: “The Earliest Religious Poetry of India” and “Translated from Vedic Sanskrit.” https://wiswo.org/books/_resources/book-reference-pdfs/Jamison-Brereton-2014-The%20Rigveda-The%20Earliest%20Poetry%20of%20India%20all%203%20Volume%20Sets.pdf
5. Encyclopædia Britannica describes Sanskrit as the sacred language of Hinduism and discusses its earliest form, Vedic Sanskrit, in the context of ancient India rather than merely as a language of the modern geographical region "South Asia." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sanskrit-language
6. The Sanskrit Language (Thomas Burrow) — A foundational linguistic study of Sanskrit covering its origins, historical development, and relationship to other Indo-Aryan languages.
7. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages (Edited by Roger D. Woodard, Cambridge University Press) — A comprehensive academic reference providing expert overviews of the world's ancient languages, including Sanskrit, covering its historical development, linguistic classification, and earliest attested forms. Mariyam-PK (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2026

change south asia to india in this page Ram Raj Prajapati (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason was given or reliable source provided to support the proposed change. Day Creature (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

South Asia is a VERY imprecise term because it is a VERY large area that encompasses areas from Balochistan to Bangladesh and from Ladakh in India to Sri Lanka. Its like saying French language originated in "Western Europe" instead of Northern France (refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language).

Sanskrit has roots in Northwestern parts of Indian subcontinent as noted in both Encyclopedia Britanica. The earliest attested Sanskrit text is the Rigveda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda#CITEREFStephanie_W._Jamison_(tr.)Joel_P._Brereton_(tr.)2014) and earliest parts of Rigveda describes the area as northwestern Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan, Punjab and surrounding area upto Yamuna river, as noted by mainstream academic understanding (Michael Witzel : http://michaelwitzel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ejvs0104article.pdf , page 4). 71Ceremony (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: You will need to provide a reliable source that specifically states that Sanskrit originated in India. Vague references to "Northwestern parts of Indian subcontinent" and places that are not in India, such as Afghanistan, are not going to cut it. Day Creature (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2026

Replace "South Asia" with "Northwestern parts of Indian Subcontinent" in the description of region of origin of Sanskrit.

The term South Asia used in the opening "It arose in South Asia after its" is incorrect because the term "South Asia" is vague and more geopolitical. It is like saying French arose in Western Europe instead of Northern France ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language). Term "Indian subcontinent" is THE proper name of physiographic region in which Sanskrit arose, specifically in northwestern Indian subcontinent. High quality sources can attest to this:

1. Michael Witzel commenting on Rigveda the oldest attested text in Sanskrit : http://michaelwitzel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ejvs0104article.pdf , page 4

2. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sanskrit-language , Where and when was Sanskrit first used?.

There is NO consensus on South Asia being the term to be used for Indian Subcontinent in WP:IN . On the contrary, as per long existing discussions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_6#India,_Indian_subcontinent,_South_Asia), South Asia is geo-politcal term while Indian Subcontinent refers of physiographic region. The information conveyed here IS NOT geopolitical but physiographic, ie in which part of the world precisely this language arose. 71Ceremony (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Not done: South Asia is a geographical term and not a geopolitical one and its current usage in the article is apt. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  You are wrong. Refer to the article on Indian Subcontinent.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent

  " Although the terms Indian subcontinent and South Asia are often also used interchangeably to denote a wider region which includes, in addition, Bhutan, the Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka, the Indian subcontinent term is more geophysical, whereas South Asia is more geopolitical"

  Source : https://www.oed.com/dictionary/indian-subcontinent_n?tl=true

  (subsidiary remark) Also used with wider application to include Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The term is roughly equivalent to South Asia, esp. in the wider use, although Indian subcontinent is sometimes considered to be more of a geophysical description, and South Asia more geopolitical. 71Ceremony (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

   Not done: I meant to say more widely seen as a geographical region than a geopolitical region. The given statement is simply one such view. Regardless, no argument based on policies or guidelines has been provided, neither have reliable and scholarly sources been provided, enough for us to override the ones given in the article for the South Asia framing. — EarthDude (Talk) 15:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  How come Oxford English Dictionary is not considered a reliable enough source? That source is used in Indian Subcontinent article itself! Also about Sanskrit, Encyclopedia Britanica says the following on the question of Where and When Sanskrit first used?

I Quote (emphesis mine):

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sanskrit-language

"Sanskrit, meaning "adorned, cultivated, purified," is an Old Indo-Aryan language with ancient roots in **the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent**. The earliest Sanskrit texts, the Vedas, are dated to around 1500 BCE. These scriptures represent dialects from the northern midlands and eastern regions of the Indian subcontinent.

Around the 6th to 5th centuries BCE, Pāṇini codified what is now known as Classical Sanskrit in his grammar, the Aṣṭādhyāyī. From about 600 BCE onward, Sanskrit has had a continuous literary tradition." 71Ceremony (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: You have still not provided any sources that directly support the change you want to make. You have misquoted the Britannica source, which refers only to certain early texts having originated in the northwestern part of the subcontinent, and makes no general statement about where the language itself originated. While I will assume good faith and not suggest that this misquoting of the sources was deliberate on your part, it does lead me to wonder whether you are using any AI assistance in composing your posts here. Furthermore, Britannica is a tertiary source; we generally prefer secondary sources. If there are any such sources that specifically back up your claim that Sanskrit originated in a certain geographically limited area of the Indian subcontinent, please provide them. Otherwise, the article will continue to state that it arose in South Asia, which is the most appropriate general term to use. Day Creature (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)