Mm, no, I’m not sure it is. A pervasive tradition of literacy could arguably slow linguistic evolution in general, but the mere survival of one or more canonical religious texts in an archaic form of a language would not necessarily retard change in the spoken, living, language.
As Johanna noted above, the more likely consequence of such a situation is diglossia: the form of the language enshrined in the sacred text becomes fixed and archaic, while the language as she is spoke simultaneously evolves out from underneath it.
And in fact, that’s exactly what happened to Old Indo-Aryan or Vedic Sanskrit: the content of the sacred Vedic texts (and thus the linguistic form of Vedic Sanskrit) became canonically fixed around 3000 BP, as you note, while non-liturgical Sanskrit just kept on metamorphosing through Late Vedic and Epic to Classical forms.
Classical Sanskrit (which happens to be the classical language that I personally know most about, although Sanskrit linguistics per se isn’t my field) then was assigned a canonical grammatical structure of its own (around the same time as the introduction of writing) and became a more linguistically conservative learned language (although still changing somewhat over time). Middle Indo-Aryan vernaculars or Prakrits then continued the process of evolving as living languages.
OK, we were arguing at cross-purpose. I didn’t claim that the religious text would slow language change in general, but would have the effect of apparently retarding vocabulary change which is the criterion used for the PIE date estimates. Languages substitute new words frequently and, to me, it seems hardly farfetched that an Indo-Aryan language might borrow a word from the Vedic texts. The closeness of the languages might be enough for speakers to voluntarily adopt the sort of sound change that would hide the borrowing.
I’ve not tried to estimate the portion of borrowed words that would need to come from the ancient text to account for the effect in the dating. But, as we seem to agree, this would apply for Indo-Aryan only to the 3000-2000 BP period, not 2000-present.
The written word definitely slowed down language change. Dictionaries and style manuals slowed it down more, especially WRT spelling standardization. And international TV broadcasts dampened changes in the spoken word, or rather dampened global variation.
OTOH, there will always be slang. But this is more or less on the periphery, often regional or temporal, and doesn’t have a huge influence on the base formal/traditional tongue. For the most part, there will be for the foreseeable future, a mostly unchanging official vocabulary, and a smaller always changing unofficial vocabulary.
The main exception to this is growth. While writing/global broadcast has grounded vocabulary, the exponential technological growth has accelerated additions to it. I think grammar and basic concepts will remain relatively unchanged, but our lexicon will continue to expand to include new words to describe new technologies.
While it is true that writing was introduced quite late - i.e. around the Asokan period - a Sanskrit corpus of texts was codified long before this. Many Sanskrit works show a greater stability in their oral forms than most written text recensions from other parts of the world.
Sanskrit vocabulary can be considered “conservative” or relatively “stable” in one sense of the word, but on the other hand the amount of possible meanings ascribed to different words expanded historically to a point where many texts are simply incomprehensible without a commentary work to illuminate the meaning.
I don’t think it retards it enough. Many examples, but here’s one: anything relating to smell tends to degrade over the years until it denotes an offensive odor rather than just a scent. Example: “stink” used to just mean “odor.” And now “odor” even kind of has a negative value. This is in a couple of hundred years.
Certainly the vocabulary of the archaic sacred text itself would stop changing, but I don’t understand why that would be likely to retard the pace of change of the vocabulary of the simultaneously-used living spoken language. I don’t think diglossia works that way.
Even though the evolving post-Vedic Sanskrit did use words from the sacred Vedic texts, it still went merrily on its way borrowing new loanwords from non-Indo-Aryan donor languages and modifying its existing words and so on, the way living languages do. I don’t see how simultaneously retaining some Vedic words in post-Vedic speech would slow or hide that process to any significant extent.
I mean, to invent a simple analogy, I know various archaic English expressions meaning “Goodbye” that I’ve picked up from canonical literary or liturgical texts, and in some situations I use them. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t also sometimes use the Spanish loanword “Adios”, a more recent import into colloquial English, to mean the same thing.
Vocabulary change isn’t a zero-sum game: you don’t avoid acquiring a new or modified word from a contemporary source just because you’ve already got one from an older source that serves more or less the same function. (Hell, I’ve even used “totes” in place of “totally”, and you can’t get more silly-arbitrary-neologism-for-the-sake-of-neologism than that. ;))
Yup, I know. However, as I pointed out above, this was a fixed corpus of sacred texts that was preserved unchanged at the same time that the non-liturgical version of the language kept evolving in ordinary use.
I don’t think so.
Language (the “peolple’s communication”) continues to evolve no matter what is preserved. In my mind, it’s like scientists running with pins after butterflies. You might skewer the flyer, but do you know what lifted it’s wings? (WHY a particular phrase came about & why it’s already changing?)
I’m making a leap here, from your question to mine:
Did different languages develop according to (and conforming to) their geopgraphical settings? (Long ooo vowels that would travel from peak to peak. Soft sylibants (sp) exchanged in the bush.)
Let’s talk.
True. I merely wanted to add the detail that referring to Sanskrit as a *written *language is (partly) wrong, even though the preservation of the “texts” were highly accurate.
I agree with your overall point. I hope that was clear before as well.