Ishan

Classical Sanskrit can perhaps be regarded as the best candidate for "descendant" of Vedic Sanskrit. However, Classical Sanskrit also lacks a small number of innovations that are present in Vedic Sanskrit. For example, in Vedic Sanskrit the ending "-āsas" is sometimes used alongside the older ending "-ās" in the nom. pl. for masculine stems ending in -a whereas in Classical Sanskrit only "-ās" is permitted. In Vedic Skt., the instrumental plural in "-ebhis" has been generalized from the pronominal declension and exists alongside the older "-ais" for stems ending in "-a" whereas in Classical Sanskrit only the older form "-ais" it permitted. So this implies that some of the analogical leveling seen in Vedic may never have developed in the OIA dialects spoken by the "śiṣṭa-s." However, these are fairly subtle differences, and practically speaking it's usually sufficient to refer to "Vedic Sanskrit" broadly for all early OIA dialects and view both the Prakrits and Classical Sanskrit as its descendants.

Vedic Sanskrit bhadró bhadráyā sácamāna ā́gāt svásāraṃ jāró abhí eti paścā́t। supraketaír dyúbhir Agnír vitíṣṭhan rúśadbhir várṇair abhí rāmám asthāt॥ (RV 10.3.3) Classical ("Standard Pāṇinian") Sanskrit: bhadró bhadráyā sácamāna ā́gāt svásāraṃ jāró 'bhyèti paścā́t। supraketaír dyúbhir Agnír vitíṣṭhamāno rócamānair várṇair rāmám abhyàsthāt॥ Mahārāṣṭrī ("Standard Dramatic/Literary") Prakrit (~5th c. AD): bhaddo bhaddāe saʸamāno āgaʸo (āʸaʸo) sasaṃ jāro abhiei pacchā suppakeehi jūhi (joāhi) Agaṇī (Aggī) viṭṭhaṃto roʸantehi vaṇṇehi rāmam abhiṭṭhiʸo English: "The auspicious male (i.e. Agní), accompanied by the auspicious female (i.e. Uṣás), has arrived. The paramour follows after his sister. Agní, spreading with his luminous glow (or alongside the clear skies), has overcome the night with his brilliant colors." Although rāmá- is not typically used in the sense "darkness/night" in Classical Sanskrit and sasā- ("sister", svasṛ+ḍā, cf. svasrāder ḍā Hem. 8.3.35) is marginal in Prakrit (having largely been displaced by bhagiṇī-/bhaïṇī-/bahiṇī-), I have retained the original wording as closely as possible, with alterations made only where necessitated by grammar. For example, the verb-root √ruś in the sense "to shine" is obsolete or non-productive in Classical Sanskrit, so I have replaced it with √ruc, which is listed as anudāttet "rúcÃ," dīptāv abhiprītau ca (to shine or to be agreeable/pleasing) and therefore takes ātmanepada endings by 1.3.12. The affix -ŚátṚ̃ takes parasmaipada-sañjñā by laḥ parasmaipadam while -ŚānáC (and KānáC) take ātmanepada-sañjñā by taṅ-ānāv ātmanepadam, so "rúcÃ" must take -ŚānáC. Although the vikaraṇa -ŚaP by kartari śap is pit and hence anudātta (anudattau suppitau 3.1.4) this vikaraṇa will make the root adupadeśa such that -ŚānáC will also become anudātta (by tāsy-anudātten-ṅid-ad-upadeśāt lasārvadhātukam anudāttam ah-nviṅoḥ, 6.1.186). This will override the cit-svara (6.1.163) of ŚānáC and the dhātu will retain its udātta (6.1.162), resulting in rócamāna-. I could theoretically replace rúśadbhiḥ by rúcadbhiḥ and justify it through the paribhāṣā "anudāttettva-lakṣaṇam ātmanepadam anityam," though I'd rather not employ grammatically contentious forms. Likewise, vi-√sthā must take ātmanepada endings as per sam-ava-pra-vibhyas sthaḥ, resluting in vitíṣṭhamānaḥ for Vedic vitíṣṭhan. Prakrit grammar is freer and -nta and -māṇa can be used interchangeably for -ŚátṚ̃ and -ŚānáC (nta-māṇau, śatrānaśaḥ), so I have applied the suffixes in accordance with the original Vedic mantra. I fully agree that the Sanskrit of RV is indeed more archaic than standard Sanskrit, but the point highlighted here is that Vedic Sanskrit is just barely a distinct language from Classical Sanskrit and both languages ultimately belong to the same grammatical and typological category (i.e. Old Indo-Aryan). In contrast, Prakrits are more distinct and belong to a separate class known as Middle Indo-Aryan in which the dual number has collapsed, the dative has largely merged with the genitive, there is a tendency to merge the optative mood w/ the imperative mood (particularly in later MIA), intervocalic stops undergo voicing→ fricativization→ elision, consonant clusters are typically replaced by geminates, the past tense system has largely been reworked (i.e. the perfect tense disappears relatively early in MIA and although aorist and imperfect survive a little longer, nearly all finite past forms are replaced by past participial constructions in later MIA), the declensional system has been simplified (albeit with far greater dialectical variation), etc. Cockney English to SSBE is not a very accurate comparison for OIA to early MIA (early inscriptional Prakrit, "Ārṣa" Ardhamāgadhī, Pāḷi, etc.) and clearly not an appropriate for OIA to later MIA (Dramatic Prakrits). Homeric Greek vs. Attic Greek would be a better comparison for Vedic vs. Classical Sanskrit while Chaucerian English vs. Modern Formal English would be a better comparison for OIA vs. MIA with Shakespearean English representing early MIA.

The fact that Mycenean Greeks had zero steppe as did the Iranians and the Indians have attested inscriptions before any steppe ancestry should falsify the steppe hypothesis for good. The three civilizations with bronze age IE literature had zero steppe ancestry!

Let's talk about identity. Several people that have been colonised, raped, appropriated and ridiculed by "white culture" tend to want to identify as "whites" just like the House slave of old, when masters picked a favorite, put them in the house and had them monitor the activities of the other non-privileged slaves. Greeks, Greek culture and Hellenism are by far one of the most vilified people by diachronic white western culture systematically. From the jealousy of the middle-Ages, when they first laid upon eyes on Constantinople, to the fact they were taught to use cutlery by a Greek Princess in the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. Westerners have never stopped vilifying the Greek people. Western universities in the present day still use the English sounds of the Greek letters to teach and pronunce ancient Greek to their pupils and mock the native Greeks and their Greek language as 'divergent". A unique phenomenon in world history, where foreigner barbarians teach a fake version of Greek and claim it to be superior to the actual Greek language. The British Prime Ministers along with all their classical departments claim that the structural walls of the Parthenon are British national property. Armand D' Angour professor of Classics at Oxford and self-proclaimed expert on all things Greek, writes openly here on twitter that Oxford's theaters produce "more original theatrical performances than Epidavros in Greece". Yet a lot of uneducated Greeks along with other brown people that have only recently been upgraded to "white VIP" status, still try to identify with such people in stockholm syndrome fashion. Let it be known then, that Hellenism is not a White or a Black culture, it is a Hellenic culture that also happens to be universal. If anybody wants to be identified with it, then they should study our culture and immerse themselves in it and by that I do not mean the "classics" as taught in western universities. That only teaches them how to hate Hellenism and posture in arrogance pretending to own a "classic" like a ferrari, it is purely for narcissists and should be replaced by Hellenic studies or Greco-Roman studies. Hellenic studies are not a cat, to be called "precious". Greeks should learn at some point to be proud for who they are instead of chasing identities like "white" or "European" to hide under. If the so-called Europeans want to be identified with Greeks who invented the word Europe, they should request access from us with humility after they have immersed themselves into our culture, instead of inverting ownership, appropriating our names and then forcing Greek idiots to identify with their definitions of the words. There is a funny idea that ancient Greeks used to be very white, literally Germans basically and that modern Greeks mixed with Turks and Arabs and that is why they are darker [than Germans]. But the exact opposite is true. The default Greek colour is BROWN and the fact modern Greece has blondes is the divergence. The ancient Greeks had less R1b marker than the modern ones as they had not yet been subjected to the Varangian(Viking) and Slavic instrusions of the Middle-Ages. Aristotle in Physognomika defined the colour of the Greeks as the middle(meson) between Ethiopians and Northeners and women. Ancient Greek art celebrated the Brown Male Figure. We do not need to chase their "whiteness" they should be chasing our "brownness". In this inverted world we live in, it is up to us to set the record straight and the limits of our space and not leave it up to trolls to define who and what everybody is. If white people want to be Greek, learn our language and customs, be friendly, be brown in mind and spirit and we will welcome you in our tribe. We do not wish to be part of the "white tribe" cause there is no such thing besides its orange now. I would happily learn Swedish customs, not because they are "white" but because they are interesting. F*ck the "white" American label and let them stew in their own shite. Below, Andromeda the Ethiopian and Perseus the Greek: