A quote from philologist Sir William Jones (1746 – 1794)
The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-21 21:08
; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-22 0:47
Yes.
They are members of the first established and most-well studied language family called Indo-European.
All of those languages, Sansrkit, Latin, Greek, Old Persian (but he probably meant Avestan), Gothic, and all Celtic languages (though he probably meant Gaulish specifically) are related.
>>4
It's like >>5 said, Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language.
It was spoken in Anatolia, circa 7000 BCE.
It's being reconstructed from child languages, and although the reconstruction is quite well until now, it's not yet "speakable".
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-26 14:36
Sanskrit and Greek life, good and very important, and South America.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-28 7:11
>>6
It's a hypothetical, reconstructed form of the language, ya silly man.
But just because it's "proto" doesn't mean it's just guessing. Proto-Germanic is well attested for example: look at reconstructions such as kuningaz, hrengaz, sairaz which exist as loanwords in Finnish from waaay back (kuningas = king, rengas = ring/circle, sairas = sick), which in Modern English exist as king, ring and sore.