[ashishb]

> Sanskrit was widely spoken and understood just like Latin or Avestan, in its heyday. Otherwise it wouldn’t be part of the liturgical traditions of Buddhism, Jainism and Nastika traditions.

I think, and it is just my speculation, that for most of Indian History, Sanskrit was the link language.

Just like "Latin" in the USA and Europe of the early 17th and 18th centuries, when all academic instructions were carried out in Latin!

So, nobody used Sanskrit as the primary language, but everyone could or knew someone who could convert Sanskrit to the local dialect.

It is almost like how Chinese and Colombian traders might sign a contract for coffee purchase in English. Neither might use English in most of their daily operations.

[IAmBroom]

> I think, and it is just my speculation, that for most of Indian History, Sanskrit was the link language.

> Just like "Latin" in the USA and Europe of the early 17th and 18th centuries, when all academic instructions were carried out in Latin!

You're suggesting that Sanskrit became a scholarly language, which no one was disputing. You're even using as a metaphor Latin, which started out as a vulgate tongue - which is the argument you are doubting.

Edit: It also applies to your English comparison. English IS spoken by millions, just not by the people you are referring to. Are you actually claiming English isn't a mother tongue to anyone?

[ashishb]

> Are you actually claiming English isn't a mother tongue to anyone?

I gave a specific example where neither the coffee wholesaler nor the buyer probably operates day to day in English. But they would still use English for the official agreement.

That does not take away from other benefits of English like being spoken by millions as a primary language and probably billions as a second language

[DiscourseFan]

Yes this makes a lot of sense, if I recall correctly the first grammar of Telegu was written in Sanskrit, and many South India languages use a lot of Sanskrit words, but of course they are not intelligible if you don't know the grammar.

[goobatrooba]

Not sure why you are speculating or what your background would be to do so, when the info is easy to find. Yes it was a link language given its prominence, but also

> Sanskrit was a spoken language in the educated and the elite classes, but it was also a language that must have been understood in a wider circle of society because the widely popular folk epics and stories such as the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata Purana, the Panchatantra and many other texts are all in the Sanskrit language, while many Sanskrit dramas indicate that the language coexisted with the vernacular Prakrits.[115] Thus, Classical Sanskrit with its exacting grammar was the language of the Indian scholars and the educated classes, while others communicated with approximate or ungrammatical variants along with other natural Indian languages,[114] with the cities of Varanasi, Paithan, Pune and Kanchipuram being centres of Sanskrit learning and debate until the arrival of the colonial era

(Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit )

[FlyingSnake]

Comparing Sanskrit to the status of Latin in 17th CE is bit disingenuous and a sign of presentism.

Sanskrit enjoyed scholarship since 6th BCE and it was prevalent and commonly used for more than a millennia after that.

The various inscriptions found across the subcontinent, and meant for common people are in Sanskrit which disproves this idea that it was not widely used.