I'm sure if one were inclined, one could find more material.
> Whether Sanskrit can be picked up as a spoken language by motivated people is not the point of contention. I can point you to many communities that speak in a language that was never used as a language of day to day speech by the commons.
Fair enough. That said, what kind of evidence would 'prove'
the said proposition ? Is there evidence to the contrary which would fit this standard ?
Latin for instance, may not have been spoken in its classical form, but the vulgar form is believed to have been widely spoken.
Similarly, if someone were given freedom to ontologically ground my words (say, 'common' == '> 1e4, of various diversities'; 'sanskrit' == 'paninian grammar'), merely to prove me wrong, the game is not worth playing (which circles back to my first point).
Non English publication would be fine. Its the review process that matters.
I have no problems believing that a colloquial form of Sanskrit was spoken, that would be the very definition of a vernacular. A situation not different from the Latin example you gave.
Records of a direct quote of a protagonist who is commoner, in literature or preferably in royal records etc would be acceptable evidence. Otherwise how can one differentiate it from claims that humans rode dinosaurs with wings.
BTW I don't disagree with you when you state there is a bias against such subject matter (you can look up the issue of Taylor's expansion of trigonometric functions by the Kerala school of mathematicians much before Newton). The way to address this would be do counter that with proper research results and processes.
Alas, most traditional scholars don't really bother writing papers (atleast, not in English AFAIK).
> Very little in your comment speaks to that claim, nothing in fact, except may be some part of the video.
You're correct. I don't work in the field, but a quick Google search threw this up.
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=NDrqaELkKTEC&pg=PA38&lpg...
I'm sure if one were inclined, one could find more material.
> Whether Sanskrit can be picked up as a spoken language by motivated people is not the point of contention. I can point you to many communities that speak in a language that was never used as a language of day to day speech by the commons.
Fair enough. That said, what kind of evidence would 'prove' the said proposition ? Is there evidence to the contrary which would fit this standard ?
Latin for instance, may not have been spoken in its classical form, but the vulgar form is believed to have been widely spoken.
Similarly, if someone were given freedom to ontologically ground my words (say, 'common' == '> 1e4, of various diversities'; 'sanskrit' == 'paninian grammar'), merely to prove me wrong, the game is not worth playing (which circles back to my first point).