(23) The deliberate speculation of the term Proto-Indo-European language; and Sanskrit morphology.

It is an open fact that the phonology (the speech sound) and morphology (the science of word formation) of the Sanskrit language is entirely different from all of the languages of the world. There is no comparison in any way. 1. The sound of each of the 36 consonants and the 16 vowels of Sanskrit are fixed and precise since the very beginning. It was never changed, altered, improved or modified. So all the words of the Sanskrit language always had the same pronunciation as they have today. There was never any sound shift or change in the pronunciation of any word in the history of the Sanskrit language. The reason is its absolute perfection by its own nature and formation, because it was the first language of the world. 2. Its morphology of word formation is unique and of its own kind where a word is formed from a tiny seed root (called dhatu) in a precise grammatical order which has been the same since the very beginning. 3. There has never been any kind, class or nature of change in the science of the Sanskrit grammar as it is seen in other languages of the world as they passed through one stage to another. 4. The perfect form of the Vedic Sanskrit language had already existed thousands of years earlier even before the infancy of the earliest prime languages of the world like Greek, Hebrew and Latin etc. 5. When a language is spoken by unqualified people the pronunciation of the word changes to some extent; and when these words travel by word of mouth to another region of the land, with the gap of some generations, it permanently changes its form and shape to some extent. Just like the Sanskrit word matri, with a long ‘a’ and soft ‘t,’ became mater in Greek and mother in English. The last two words are called the ‘apbhransh’ of the original Sanskrit word ‘matri.’ Such apbhranshas of Sanskrit words are found in all the languages of the world and this situation itself proves that Sanskrit was the mother language of the world. Now I will give you one example of a famous verse from the very ancient literature, the Vedas. It means, “Those who are the worshippers of only materialism enter into darkness.” In this sentence yah (those) and vishanti (enter) are the pronoun and the main verb. The word vishanti is formed of the root word (dhatu) vish and it has 90 single word forms, like, vishati, vishatah, vishanti, to be used in its ten tense modes. These word formations of nouns, pronouns and verbs were always in perfect grammatical form since thousands and thousands of years and they are still the same without any change, and will remain the same in future. A person living in Iceland or New Zealand, if he knows the Sanskrit language, he will use the same words because there is no change of dialect or inflection in Sanskrit language. Time and space make no difference in the representation of Sanskrit language. Considering all the five points as explained above and seeing the example of the ancient Vedic verse, it is quite evident that Sanskrit was the first and the original language of the world; and the western linguists of the earlier times also believed in this fact. It is so obvious that anyone who learns Sanskrit grammar knows these facts. But still, these 18th and 19th century linguists created a term ‘Proto-Indo-European’ for the original parent language which was assumed to be spoken about 5,000 years ago by the nomads who assumingly roamed around near the southeast European plains. They further assumed that from the speech of those earlier nomads came the languages of the world like Greek, Latin, Slavic, Russian, Germanic and Indo-Iranian etc., whereas the Sanskrit language came from the Indo-Iranian group. Now the question is, when an original parent language, Sanskrit, is already in existence, why was the ‘Proto-Indo-European’ term designed, and, instead of deriving the ancestral relationship of the languages of the world with the Sanskrit language through the findings of the Sanskrit apbhransh in them, why was an inferior parallelism of the Sanskrit language drawn along with the Greek and Latin languages? Although the fact was that certain daily usable words and the numerals, like, trya, sapt, panch (three, seven, five), and the religious stories of India that travelled to the Middle East and to Greece were adopted in their language and culture, that’s how certain Sanskrit apbhransh words were found in Greek, its descendent Latin and the Germanic languages. But this fact was altered and mutilated by vigorously constructing extensive arguments of their own choice, not by one or two linguists, but by a number of well known linguists, and that also for 84 years of day and night efforts from Jones (1786) to Neogrammarians (1870). Isn’t it laughable, and at the same time a big black hole in the history of linguistics? Why did they do so, and create such a monstrous lie that confused and misled the sincere intelligentsia of the whole world? (This will be elaborated in articles 32, 33) Now we should know that apart from the Sanskrit language there is no such thing as Proto-Indo-European language as it is self-evident from the findings of Sanskrit apbhransh words in all the existing Asian and European languages.

