The text written in Sanskrit is an exercise from comparative linguistics subject. Below is the translation I found somewhere on the Internet.
Snuṣā havate – daughter-in-law calls
Avikā ravati – sheep cries.. ravati: Belarusian – Раўці , Russian – Реветь
Devaras etām avikām mārayanti – [One of the ] husband’s brother kills the sheep. Mārayanti: Belarusian – марыць, Russian – морить.
Snuṣā meṣam darati – daught-in-law pulls fur (skins the animal). Meṣam – . мѣхъ . Darati- дерѫ, дьрати.
Vidhavā sūnum havati: “Vaha madhu!” iti nodayati – Widow calls: Take honey , – [she] asks.
Nodayati – nudný/nudny/нудный? English: nag or whine?
Sūnus ravati: “Nūnam, mātar!” – Son cries (says in context): Now, mother.
Sūnus madhu vahati – son takes honey.
Vidhavā sinum sādayati – widow sits down her son.
snuṣā devaram pāyayati – daughter-in-law gives a drink to husband’s brother. Pāyayati – to drink.
Nūnam catvarās adakās sīdanti – Now, four eaters are sitting. Ada – eda (food?)
mansam adanti – eating meat
madhu giranti – fressing [drinking in context] honey . Giranti – жраць in Belarusian. To fress in English.
Madhu-pitis jivayati, matar» iti ravanti – Honey drinking makes you livelier (stronger), mother![they] say.
Jivayati is verb formed from Jiv (alive)
Forum member @Ингва provided a translation
I will write down some cognates in their Proto-Slavic basic forms, please correct me if there are some mistakes:
dame, damas – *domŭ ‘house’
vidhavā – vĭdova ‘widow’
jīvati – *žiti ‘to live’,
navas – *novŭ ‘new’
asti – *estĭ ‘is’
agni – *ognjĭ ‘fire’
tāpayati – *topiti ‘heat’
Catvāras – četvoro, *četvero ‘four’
sinavas – *synove ‘sons’
na – *ne ‘not’
santi – *sǫtĭ ‘are’
avikās – *ovĭca ‘sheep’
pāsanti – *pasti ‘pasture, herd’
prastāre – *prostorŭ
snuṣā – *snŭha ‘daughter-in-law’
budhyate – *bŭděti ‘be awake’
supyate – *sŭpati ‘sleep’
bodhayati – *buditi ‘awaken, arouse’
Paca – *pekti ‘bake’
mānsam – *męso ‘flesh, meat’
Devaras – *děverĭ ‘husband’s brother’
bharata – *bĭrati ‘take’
Katarām – *kotorŭ, *koterŭ ‘who, which’
Sūnus – *synŭ ‘son’
mātar – *mati
I am not sure about these:
Navā – *nova ‘new’
Tām – *ta ‘that one’
tanukām – *tĭnŭka ‘thin’
Trayas – *trĭje ‘three’
dhūme – *dymŭ ‘smoke’
vartayati – *vĭrtěti ‘turn’
As my historian friend says – interpretation of history was always a political thing. It was in 1982 and it is now. I still believe that Balts and Slavs have a lot in common.
Some historical events and their interpretations often were politically motivated. I remember reading a recorded interview of Valentin Sedov – the leading Russian archaeologist and historian on early Slavs and their archaeological cultures – that some Soviet historians and archaeologists were not accepting the fact that Baltic archaeological cultures existed in Belarus promoting the idea of unity of early eastern Slavs.
But not every piece of research was politicised during Soviet era. I don’t believe linguistics and ethnography were politicised to the same extent as some history subjects. O. Toporov researching Baltic languages and V. Trubachev researching Slavic languages published a major work on hydronyms in Belarus in the 60s finding more than 80% hydronyms were of Baltic origins. I don’t think it could be case with Jūratė Laučiūtė’s research on Baltisms in Slavic languages either. Why would her work be politically motivated? To hide the fact that Slavic languages have more Baltic loan-words? Slavic languages have Germanic, French, Greek , Latin, Turkic, Iranic and loan-words from other languages , which was well-known in academic circles and discussed in academic literature.
This map shows Baltic hydronyms based on academic research