What is the difference between prakrit and sanskrit

It is interesting to note that both the languages are genealogically classified to come under the Aryan group of languages. They both come under the Indo-European family of languages.

Sanskrit is said to have been derived from the parental or the primitive Indo-European language. On the other hand Prakrit is a dialect of the Sanskrit language.

Since Prakrit is a dialect or an impure form of Sanskrit language it was used widely in literature as the language of the demons or the people of the lower class. It is important to know that Sanskrit and Prakrit are written in the Devanagari script.

Within 50 years this Buddjist Chandragupt Muriya and his successors conquered the entire Bharat territories upto Bengal and Deccan. These Murians brought a language we know as Parakrit to Bharat.

Parakrit is basically Avestani ancient Persian dialect. The Buddhist and Jain temples walls in India have extensive inscriptions of this Parakrit texts. Parakrit and Sanskirit are two different language styles which locked their horns in Bharat for survival since then.

By AD Parakrit and its successors edged out Sanskirit which remained as a language of small Brahmin-Khatri ruling elites. Average Bharatis spoke Prakrit.

Like his predecessor Chandragupt Muriya he initiated the attacks on Bharat. These Indic warlords once again brought the Persian language which was modern Avestani, and a sister language to vernacular Prakirit into Bharat. This Persian remained administrative language of Bhatat till AD while Prakrit and its derivate evolved into the modern day Lingua fraca called Urdu or Hindustani which is written in Arabic text , and its much later version called Hindi which is written in Devnagri text.

From AD onwards the British East India company was compiling the grammatical, vocabulary syntax of various dialects of Persian-Prakrit dialects spoken across Bharat. This compilation is called Urdu. The British East India company declared it as Indian official language from onwards. After their final defeats around , the Marhata, Jats, and Bengali Hindus in the payroll of British East India company replaced the Arabic Persian vocabulary from British Urdu and replaced it with the Sanskirit words.

This fusion of vocabulary of a dead Sanskirit language into the modern Urdu language is called Hindi. Needless to say this experiment never took off and Hindi is spoken and understood by none in Bharat even today. The Bharati masses still speak Urdu which is spoken and written in Arabic and is an official language of Pakistan. Bharatis call it Hindi and write it in Devnagari script which is derived from Sanskirit and this text bore a striking resemblance with Burmese-Vietnamese texts.

The modern Parakrit aka Urdu therefore lives and thrives. Sanskirit which was already dead from around BC is still a pipe dream called Hindi. It seems all comments are incorrect. Sanskrit is a Indo European language. In fact old Vedic Sanskrit and the Avesta were so close that the two speakers could communicate. Prakrit is derived from Sanskrit and is a dialect of Sanskrit. Prakrit varies from region to region which implies words of the place became part of a new language by borrowing words into Sanskrit called Prakrit.

Prakrits being older than Sanskrit has been floated but non Aryan words in later Vedic texts does support this hypothesis. It is true Jains and Buddhists preferred Sanskrit — but later on all Buddhists writing were in Sanskrit. This happened as Sanskrit left its sacerdotal barriers. There a few Jain texts in Sanskrit — but very few. In India multiple languages were used at the same time across transregional boundaries. Prakrit is the local language ofIndic people,which has connections with Dravidian languages.

Later around BCE Indo Aryan language mixed with the Prakrit and then a Code language was created to help the Kings to send communication among the ministers,Comanders and royals so as to maintain the secrecy.

This became named as Sanskrit, which means artificially created language. So Prakrit is the naturally developed language whereas Sanskrit is artificially creared language of later version. Name required. Email required. Verified technical terms except for the foreign words. Difference Between Sanskrit and Pali. Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects. MLA 8 S, Prabhat. This is totally wrong, if you have common sense Pali must be the oldest language.

Reason is, it is very clear all written languages come after a dialectical language. The words in Pali have a very special quality that is the sound it self explain the quality of what it refer. It is visible in both languages that the Sanskrit words have no original sense at all. Sanskrit has formed from pali by stupidly defacing original pali words. Sanskrit is totally unusable language roughly fabricated from pali. You can see every pali word has its original pure meaning and smooth pronunciation which can sound even without tooth.

Pali is the eternal language use in heavens and brahmas in higher planes of gods… Languages of all Buddhas speaking is Pali. Lord Buddha preached in the language which was wildly spoken by people. Sanskri was spoken by very few. Moreover when vedic Ariyan entered India the natives spoke a language. What is that one? That should be the oldest. It was after Panini standardized Sanskrit grammar, Sanskrit became the widely used language in it oral form.

You are absolutely right sir, pali language and literature was destroyed purposefully. You said it all brother there is no written rock inscription which is older than rudradamam saka king inscription of AD and much before that many edicts written in palli by Maurya kings. This Sanskrit is definitely a foreign language. It is true that Pali language is much older than Sanskrit. There are genuine evidences in favour of Pali where as there are no such evidence in favour of Sanskrit.

Scriptures on ancient monuments, Stambhlekh, Silalekh, Bhittilekh, Guhalekh etc. Sanskrit is forcefully added at some places at a very later stage under Pali text, that too after BC after tratorship of Pushyamitra Shunt with his noble king who had full faith on such a sick person, Even not a single monument was created by the people using Sanskrit language.

Everybody knows that languages are developed in a long time and in early stages these are in Very primitive stage and at later stages grammar and vocabulary rich sofisticated language is developed. Sanskrit is developed from Pali language and as such Pali is older than Sanskrit. Lot of coins Karsapan were found in various excavations are also strong evidence in favour of Pali language bring the older language.

I think foregoing evidences are much more sufficient to prove that Pali language is much older than Sanskrit. Merely saying or fraudulently righting in any book that Sanskrit is crore years old can not be believed by anybody else as now almost every literate person know when papers and ink are invented. Sanskrit is forcefully added at some places at a very later stage under Pali text, that too after BC after tratorship of Pushyamitra Shung with his noble king who had full faith on such a sick person, Even not a single monument was created by the people using Sanskrit language.

Very interesting article and comments.