[srean]

> Sanskrit was widely spoken and understood just like Latin or Avestan

Is that so ? I am not knowledgeable myself but some of my family members are (professor s in Sanskrit) and from what I have absorbed from their conversation is in direct contradiction to your claim.

The language of interpersonal communication were vulgarised forms, aka the vernacular languages. Sanskrit was used were a need for formality, respect, speciality was felt.

Regarding your claims about secularity, you are very correct.

[FlyingSnake]

With all due respect, are they historians of Sanskrit linguistics or professors of Sanskrit language? That makes a big difference.

Diglossia is very common in Indian culture and it is not far fetched to imagine Indians speaking Sanskrit and Prakrits fluently and switching them based on context.

You can find minor examples of it even today if you look at public announcements, which are done in Sanskrit inspired verbiage.

[srean]

Prof of Sanskrit with dissertation on historical changes in Sanskrit used in the Vedas.

> not far fetched to imagine Indians speaking Sanskrit and Prakrits fluently and switching them based on context.

Any evidence in the form of records that this indeed happened. You are promoting a nonstandard position, so the burden of proof will be on you.

[FlyingSnake]

This isn’t a black and white case where “proofs” exist. Indian history is notoriously hard to study due to lack of primary sources.

> historical changes in Sanskrit used in the Vedas.

This is just one small corpus of Sanskrit linguistic traditions. It hardly gives them expertise over the rest of the traditions spanning few millennia.

Jains, Buddhists and various other Sramana movements were championed by lower varnas and they all used Sanskrit as a liturgical language.

I have already mentioned the widespread presence of edicts, danapatra, inscriptions, secular literature created for wider public which hints that Sanskrit was widely understood and Sanskrit/Prakrit Diglossia is not too far fetched.

[srean]

> This is just one small corpus of Sanskrit linguistic traditions.

That was just what her dissertation was on, not the sum total of her expertise. I was responding to your question about familiarity with history in addition to linguistics of Sanskrit. In any case it's expert vetted piece of research, not claims about far-fetchednesd by someone on the internet.

Far fetchedness is hardly the the standard for wannabe scientific claims. If it was, there are many bridges that people can sell.

If proof free speculations are your thing, speculate away. There's a large population of similar proof-free quacks and hacks one can join. I have nothing more to add.

[FlyingSnake]

> If proof free speculations are your thing…

Funnily enough I’ve given enough examples and sources already in this thread. I think it’s better than “I know someone who knows” and “it’s expert vetted research”. I’ll stick to my theory about Sanskrit/Prakrit diglossia for now.

In the end we are two lay people arguing about a topic we’re not experts in and speculating how things would have been few millennia ago. It’s fine to have diverse perspectives! I’m not sure which quacks you deal with but I wish you all the best.

आ नो भद्राः क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वतः