The Hindus believe that "Sanskrit is the mother of all Languages".

It is a fact that Sanskrit has enriched most Indian Languages including the Dravidian Languages such as Telugu as Latin enriched some languages like English

Since Hinduism is believed by some people to be the oldest recorded religion in the world and Sanskrit was the Language of the people Those days, Do Linguists agree that Sanskrit is the mother of all languages or do they consider it a myth?

Do you think that there must be a common language for our

ancestors who might have spoken a language though it might not be Sanskrit?

No, it is not.

First and foremost, there are many languages recorded long before the advent of Sanskrit, and many religions recorded long before the advent of Hinduism. The oldest surviving texts in Ancient Egyptian are from c. 3000 BCE, while the majority of the Rigveda (the oldest known Sanskrit text) was probably composed between 1500 and 1200 BCE. So that's a difference of a millennium and a half!

Sanskrit is an Indo-European (sometimes called Indogermanic) language, which makes it a relative of English, Spanish, Russian, and many others. But Sanskrit isn't the ancestor of those languages, any more than the composers of the Vedas were the ancestors of all modern Europeans. Rather, Sanskrit and those other languages all share a common ancestor, called "Proto-Indo-European" (or "Proto-Indogermanic"), which was spoken somewhere between 4500 and 2500 BCE.

There are no surviving records of Proto-Indo-European (PIE for short), but scholars have been able to reconstruct it by comparing the languages that are attested, and working backward from there. There are some striking similarities, which make it clear that the languages are related. But:

• Sanskrit preserves some features that disappeared in other branches: for example, the injunctive is well-attested in Vedic Sanskrit, but is uncommon in Homer's Greek, and disappears entirely by Plato's time.


• And other branches preserve some features which have disappeared in Sanskrit: Hittite retains a phoneme that disappeared entirely in Sanskrit (but left plenty of traces showing that it must once have existed).

There are dozens and dozens more correspondences like these, where features disappeared in one branch but survived in another, or were innovated in one branch but not in another, and so on. So while it's clear that Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Hittite, and so on are related, it's also clear that none is "mother" to the others: they're more like "siblings" or "cousins", with a common ancestor.

Do you think that there must be a common language for our ancestors[?]

Now this question is harder to answer.

The techniques I mentioned above, called the "comparative method", are really useful for reconstructing languages that must once have existed but aren't directly attested. But this method can only go back so far. Past a certain point, the comparative method just can't say anything particularly meaningful.

So while we know that there was an ancestor to all Indo-European languages, and an ancestor to all Afro-Asiatic languages ("Proto-Afro-Asiatic"), and an ancestor to all Sino-Tibetan languages ("Proto-Sino-Tibetan")…we can't really say anything definite about what came before those. They might all descend from an ancient sort of "Proto-World", or they might have all come about independently. There's just not enough evidence to say one way or the other.

Sanskrit is not the mother of all languages. Sanskrit is not even the mother of the modern Indo-Aryan languages of the Northern India. Neither it is their father or grandfather. In fact, no language is a direct descendant of Sanskrit.

Saying that Sanskrit to the modern Indo-Aryan languages is the same as Latin to the modern Romance languages is absolutely wrong. The Romance languages are direct descendants of Latin, but the modern Indo-Aryan languages are not direct descendants of Sanskrit. The best European analogy is the role Ancient Greek played for the modern European languages: Ancient Greek affected them all, filled them with lots of words and syntactic structures, but none of those languages is a direct descendant of Ancient Greek, naturally with the exception of modern Greek.

If to continue the family analogy, to the modern Indo-Aryan languages Sanskrit is a cousin grandfather who was their teacher, their guru. The Indo-Aryan languages descend from grandfather's siblings, but grandfather himself had no children.

Speaking more linguistically, there are actually two languages called Sansktit: the Vedic Sanskrit aka the Vedic language (ca. 1500 to 500 BCE), and Sanskrit proper aka Classical Sanskrit (ca. 200 CE to 1300 CE), the latter being a refined and artistic, highly elaborate version of the former. The Vedic language was once a vernacular, but since the texts in it were holy and highly revered, the language was later standardized and it underwent polishing by Indian sages and philosophers giving rise to Sanskrit whose name can be translated as "well prepared, pure and perfect, polished". But apart from Sanskrit proper, the Vedic language gave rise to its sister languages, not so refined, not so polished, but which were really vernacular languages in the times when Sanskrit bekame the language of educated philosophers, brahmanas, and poets. Those sister languages are called Prakrits, "natural, original, unpolished", the main ones being Maharashtri, Gandhari, Shauraseni, and Magadhi. Pali can also be considered a Prakrit, although later they did polish it very much. The Prakrits are the Middle Indo-Aryan languages, it is from them that the Modern Indo-Aryan languages developed.