Learning to Unlearn - for Sanskrit

When learning a new language, after getting familiar with some common words and basic grammar, one starts getting to know about the idiosyncrasies of that language - the phrases, idioms, the style of usage. While the initial learning of words and grammar can be done through resources like books and the internet, the nuances of the language come with practice and are greatly enhanced by living among the natives of that language. Many times, this step involves unlearning some of the ways in which the learner's native tongue is used. This unlearning could be a big challenge and many times a mental block as the learner's mind is conditioned for a long time. Language learning is influenced by the native culture, as languages are deeply interwoven with the cultures of the people who are native to it.

Learning Sanskrit is no exception to this. There are numerous books - ancient, old and new - available on the subject of grammar and meanings of words. Once those basics are learnt, however, a Sanskrit learner faces a big problem - namely, absence of people whose native language is Sanskrit. Though almost all the languages in India have their origin or relation to Sanskrit, each language has its own distinct and definitive culture. Sanskrit language has a big disadvantage here, as it has no "real speaking natives". So a Sanskrit learner, after the basic learning, is left wondering on how to go about the next steps of learning the nuances.

With the given history of Sanskrit's disappearance as a spoken or mass language for quite some time, any efforts to revive the language is bound to be an uphill task, aggravated by the encompassing influence of today's languages and people speaking them. Naturally, change is difficult.

Fortunately, Sanskrit has lots (really lots) of olden (say before 1950) literature still preserved to-date. And that is golden for us. That vast amount of literature gives us the idea of the language usage and its style. The expectation out of the learners and practitioners is to keep an open mind, shed the egos,  respect the language, and stop trying to impose the localized cultures.

All the talk so far would not be complete without some illustrations on how the local cultures are influencing Sanskrit usage in recent times. Here are some examples.

1. वा: Mostly heard at the end of any question - भवान् गच्छति वा? त्वं पठसि वा? As वा means "or" (alternatively), these sentences mean - (do) you go or? (do) you read or? Instead, it is better to use भवान् गच्छति किम्? त्वं पठसि किम्?
2. Vibhaktis: The seven types of vibhakti suffixes (declensions) in Sanskrit are used on a noun primarily to indicate the noun's relationship with the action (verb) in a sentence. The style of usage may be different compared to other languages. For example:
   Rama is angry towards Ravana. रामः रावाणाय क्रुध्यति |
   The use of 4th declension on रावण may throw some off.
3. Showing respect: In most of the Indian cultures, a person is considered to be treated respectfully only if a plural form is used to address the person. If addressed in singular, it is considered disrespectful. But in English language, the singular or plural indicates just the number. It has nothing to do with showing respect. For example: When a president of the nation arrives in the city, it is said "President arrives in the city", not "Presidents arrive in the city". The second sentence clearly means there are more than one presidents. If some respectful attributes need to be added, it could be "Mr. President...", or "His highness..." But the number never changes. Same thing goes with Sanskrit. वचन of a शब्द is just a number indicating the quantity, having no relationship with show of respect. Use of plural word for one person as a mark of respect is not the Sanskrit way. This is a big mental block in the Indian speakers of the recent times. So we hear bizarre usages like: for a teacher comes: अस्माकं गुरवः आगच्छन्ति, for a pontiff speaks: स्वामिनः भाषणं कुर्वन्ति | On the other hand, there is a widespread myth that the word भवान् implies respect and त्वम् does not. On top of that, there are usages heard like: भवन्तः आगच्छन्तु for one person. Double respect! Additionally, there is this Hindi effect too - suffixing a name with जी - मोहनजी, कृष्णाजी, सीताजी, especially while addressing.
4. स्वागतीकरोमि: Sanskrit has these not very uncommon usages like स्वच्छीकरोमि, भस्मीकृत्य, शुद्धीकुरु, सज्जीभव etc. Such usages are clearly defined in Sanskrit grammar. Let us take an example in a sentence. अहं वाहनं स्वच्छीकरोमि | Meaning: I clean the vehicle. It is implied that the vehicle was not clean, and becomes clean. Note that it is the वाहनं which is turning (into the state of) स्वच्छ. Similarly, त्वं सज्जीभव - you become ready - meaning you (त्वम्) are not ready (सज्ज), but you turn ready. That is how this usage works. However, incorrect usages like एकत्रीकरोमि, स्वागतीकरोमि are in seen and heard. अहं फलानि एकत्रीकरोमि - I turn fruits into (a thing/state called) एकत्र (at one place, not oneness). अहं अतिथिं स्वागतीकरोमि - I turn the guest into welcome. Oops! Not desirable for the guest.
5. Past tense alternates: Sanskrit is a language where every letter, every sound has its purpose. In this fast-paced world, many students go through fast-paced introductions to Sanskrit, with the usages such as गतवान्, उक्तवती (क्तवतु forms) as the replacements for actual past tense verb forms as अगच्छत्, अवदम्. The challenge here is that most of these learners find it difficult to transition from क्तवतु forms to the verb forms and remain under the impression that those forms totally mean the same thing. What is the problem in using them interchangeably? क्तवतु forms are adjectives to nouns. Let us take an example:
   बालकः शालां गतवान् | In this case, the verb अस्ति is assumed and the complete sentence becomes बालकः शालां गतवान् अस्ति which may be translated as the boy has gone to the school. Where as with the verb form - बालकः शालाम् अगच्छत् may be translated as the boy went to the school. The usage बालकः शालां गतवान् आसीत् is also correct, which would mean the boy had gone to the school or the usage बालकः शालां गतवान् भविष्यति which would mean the boy would be going to the school. These usages are possible because गतवान् is the adjective of बालक and the actual verb could be in any tense - अस्ति, आसीत् or भविष्यति. Compare this with बालकः शालाम् अगच्छत् - which is purely in the past tense. Other example:
   अहं देवालयम् आगतवान् अस्मि - I have come to the temple. अहं देवालयम् अगच्छम् - I went to the temple.
   In most of the works written and published recently, क्तवतु forms are seen to be the only words used to represent the past tense, thankfully sparing आसीत् अभवत्. 
6. Present tense mess up: If that was about the past tense traps, the botch up with present tense is even bigger. This time with शतृ and शानच् forms. Example: बालकः गच्छन् अस्ति | रामः वदन् आसीत् | पिता वीक्षमाणः अस्ति | - supposed to mean: boy is going, Rama was talking, father is looking. Such incorrect usages stem from the fact that the Indian regional languages have different usage forms for present/past/future continuous tense,  whereas Sanskrit does not. In Sanskrit, there is only one present tense form. So to get that feeling of continuity, such combination of शतृ/शानच् with the verb root अस्  are coined. These usages are so widespread that even some of the grammarians somehow try to find support in grammatical treatises for such usage. But one only has to only look at the literature (contemporary to the age when Sanskrit was in vogue). It also helps to understand how the शतृ and शानच् suffixes are applied. Note that शतृ and शानच् word forms are adjectives. These are to be used as attributes of the doer (कर्ता) in conjunction with another action being performed by the doer. For example:
   रामः गच्छन् वदति = गच्छन् रामः वदति = रामः गच्छति, रामः वदति | Rama, who is going, speaks. Note that the going action happens in the same tense as that of the speaking action.
   पिता वीक्षमाणः अहसत् = वीक्षमाणः पिता अहसत् = Father, who was looking, laughed. Note that the looking action happens in the same tense as that of laughing.
   So, what do the following sentences mean then?
   बालकः गच्छन् अस्ति = बालकः गच्छति, बालकः अस्ति = Boy, who is going, is (just exists).
   रामः वदन् आसीत् = वदन् रामः आसीत् = Rama, who was speaking, was.
   पिता वीक्षमाणः अस्ति = Father, who is looking, is.
   Does not make sense. अस्ति is useless in these sentences and they should just be बालकः गच्छति, रामः अवदत्, पिता वीक्षते.

The present age is fortunate enough to have many great Sanskrit grammarians and literary minds. But they need not be passive onlookers in the pretext that the language is owned and developed by people and correcting the usage is not their purview. But those days of Sanskrit are gone, well in the past. No native speakers now. While the zeal of the Sanskrit enthusiasts is commendable, let our guide be the unadulterated, beautiful Sanskrit literature and its heritage. We can do it, together.

|| ॐ असतो मा सद्गमय ||