Talk:Kalash language

Untitled

If Kalasha is a Dardic language, then it has no Sanskrit basis. Instead, Sanskrit and Kalasha would be related only through Proto-Indo-Iranian. I have removed the table accordingly. CRCulver 17:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Fussmann, Gérard: 1972 Atlas linguistique des parlers dardes et kafirs. Publications de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient.--Vikramsingh (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You bastard do not know anything about linguists , kalasha is 100 percent dardic language of khowar group. dardic is now a days not considered a separate branch of indo-iranian but just an abberant form of indo-aryan (sanskrit is one ancient indo-aryan language). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.58.115.25 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who want to see that table, here is the link: [1].--Imz 21:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the stated classification matches the table, the table is of interest to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.222.109 (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic/sanskrit derived

A living language cannot be archaic. It can possibly preseve some archaic features of its protolanguage that other languages descended form the same protolanguage does not. However such a claim would need to be sources to specific reliable sources on the topic and not just by inserting an impressionistic table showing likeness between two languages. Further more Kalasha is not derived from sanskrit but from proto-dardic which was derived in turn from proto-indo-aryan. Sanskrit was also derived from proto-indo-aryan through proto-indic so the two languages are not mother/daughter, or even brother/sister but rather somewhat distant cousins. Comparing the two languages in a table is not informative but rather misleading.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]