The Godly Language

Finding the Roots of Sanskrit-Part 4/4

...Continued from Part 3/4

The hypothesis point #8: Panini has accepted many words without derivation.

• Panini’s Ashtadhyayi, has many sutras just to derive a single special word. Panini could have easily written a few more sutras for those accepted without derivation. We need to keep in mind that by the time of Panini, many of the verb roots and etymologies were already lost.

The hypothesis point #9: The old-generation grammarians were more accommodative about changes to the Sanskrit language. This is evident by the works of Katyayana. And even Patanjali was open to this idea of revision of the grammar. The grammarians of the later era like Bhartrihari elevated Panini, Katyayana and Patanjali to the status of maharshis, thereby stopping the ability to question their work.

• Actually, we should be grateful to the trio - Panini, Katyayana and Patanjali who established a solid framework that survived through all the tumultuous times of history. And we should be grateful to those grammarians who kept this framework alive by rigorously following it. If not for such measures, the language would have lost its very nature with the foriegn invasions. Even if there could be traces of some external influence on this language, it was very limited. And that too happened within a homogenous family of languages which had a similar culture. Just like there are no Vedic seers in these times, there are no shishtas (authoritative people) for this language now. Those interested to pursue the language, should take a serious look at what we got from our great ancestors and appreciate its very existence in that form. It is prudent to make a sincere attempt to preserve and adopt to it, rather than destroying it in the name of modernization and evolution.

The hypothesis point #10: In the works of the likes of Bhavabhuti etc., many words that are not in conformity with the grammar of Panini. Who are we to question such word forms? We should be ok to use such distorted word forms in our usage also.

• Now-a-days, it is a fashion to talk about “evolving” the Sanskrit language. Sadly, Sanskrit being nobody’s native language is the harsh target of such attempts. In this age of fast forward and instant-gratification, such people might be finding it hard either hard for themselves or thinking it is hard for others to learn the language and use it. It is like - the Vedas are hard to remember and recite, so let us just change their style of composition so it would be easy for everyone. For that very reason, the many great works and songs were written in other languages to bring out the message of the Vedas. The insistence of wanting to use or speak in Sanskrit by distorting is uncalled for.
  If anyone and everyone starts imitating or doing what great or well-known people do, then there will be chaos. First, everyone is not at that level of likes of Bhavabhuti. Secondly, the well-known literary works have their own reasons to deviate - sometimes it could be to fit the verses to a desired metre, sometimes out of rebellion, sometimes mere negligence, or it could be the error of the scribes. Such non-confirming usages are very rare like 1%. Ignoring the 99% of the conforming usage, why should anyone itch to use the 1% portion?

The hypothesis point #11: Then there is a quote from Mahabhashyam of Patanjali that - Sanskrit was not spoken in the households for regular conversation, but only used for special purposes like in yajna etc. This raises the question: was Sanskrit ever a real spoken language amongst the commoners and for daily use?

• Consider the theory that the Prakrit dialects existed for ever, either predating Sanskrit or in parallel with it. The term “Prakrit” itself is a Sanskrit word meaning “natural” or “original”. That hints at the “Sanskrit” language being a made up or refined language - probably adopted for some special purpose. Otherwise, what was the need for such refinement? And what could be that special purpose of this adoption? Though it can be used as an everyday spoken language, could it be that its main purpose was for use with quest for higher achievements of mankind? As a disciplined linguistic construct in pursuit of intellectual and spiritual goals? Literally, गीर्वाणभारती a godly language?

Head In The Sand

Finding the Roots of Sanskrit-Part 3/4

...Continued from Part 2/4

The hypothesis #4: An example quoted of word creep from Prakrit: The word पुरुष is broken down in Sanskrit as पुरि शेते. In that case, it should have become पुरिश or पुरिष, rather than पुरुष. In Prakrit, there is a word पुरुस. So, पुरुष of Sanskrit must have come from पुरुस of Prakrit.

• This argument considers only one etymology of the given word. There are multiple etymologies for पुरुष in Sanskrit. One of them is पुरु स meaning पुरु (ब्रह्म) सरति (गच्छति) that is ब्रह्मज्ञानं प्राप्नोति. Nothing wrong if it comes from Prakrit. Many verb roots and etymologies are lost or have become less known over time. Those should also be researched and considered when doing such studies.

The hypothesis #5: It seems that the women and men used variation of the words to refer to the same object. For example: In Kalidasa’s Shakuntala play, the lead actress Shakuntala uses the word वृक्षक to refer to trees, whereas her father Kashyapa uses the word वृक्ष.

• In the Sanskrit grammar, it is well documented that the “क” pratyaya (suffix) is used to refer to the smaller form of any object. वृक्षक here refers to a small tree – a plant. In the play, it is depicted that Shakuntala and her friends are watering the plants. They wouldn’t be watering a big tree. On the other hand, Kashyapa is saying – let us get to the shade of a tree. Obviously, a small plant won’t have a shade. He would be using वृक्ष, not वृक्षक. There are many words like this: बालः/बालकः, बाला/बालिका etc. Not sure, why this is being portrayed as a men-women thing. 

The hypothesis #6: Panini defined the ten lakaras in his grammar, each one with a different purpose. The argument is that over a period of time, these special meanings of the lakaras were lost. This shows that in the olden days the Sanskrit language went through changes. As an example: in Ramayanam, use of these lakaras do not conform to these definitions.

• But the Ramayanam was composed long before Panini. So, how could the lakaras definitions of Panini get mixed up in Ramayanam? Such mixed usage of lakaras is found through out the Sanskrit literature. Panini is only enumerating them and clarifying their original purpose. It is somewhat similar to English where “I go to a shop” sometimes intends the future tense, though grammatically the verb is in present tense.

The hypothesis #7: Then there is a story quoted that a girl not using the word for eye (अक्षि) and foot (पाद) in dual number, but using them in plural form. There is no dual number in the Prakrit language; so it is ok to for the woman to not to use the dual number in Sanskrit also. The grammarians despise this kind of usage. There is also a reference about the current “hybrid” nature of many Indian languages. Many Indian language speakers now-a-days rampantly use English words mixed with native languages. Similar "broad-minded" approach should be taken with Sanskrit too.

• With this kind of approach, why even bother learning a language properly? It is like using the Sanskrit words in one’s own language. Like the dual number, many other constructs of the Sanskrit language are also apparently superfluous. Get rid of all those 10 verb forms, 10 verb classes, three genders randomly assigned to different nouns etc. Perhaps create a new language with simple structure borrowing the Sanskrit words. The English creep in the native languages is the result of generations of British education in the Indian subcontinent and the continued mental slavery even after the independence. Instead of cleaning up the mess, if this kind of corrupt usage is construed as an acceptable form of a language, then such a language is doomed.

Continued to Part 4/4...

The Primitive Vedic Period

Finding the Roots of Sanskrit-Part 2/4

...Continued from Part 1

The hypothesis point# 1: The Vedas have the language that predates the later version of the Sanskrit language. And it was probably influenced by regions that are north-west of India or some other lands. Some of these theories take the Aryan migration theory as their basis, and some do not. The similarity of many words in some European, Central Asian with the words in the Sanskrit languages has given rise to the manufacturing of the proto-Indo European (PIE) language being the mother of all these languages. The words similar to पर्दते exist in the European languages as “fart”. But this word is not seen in Sanskrit usage.

• But this theory works on the assumption of taking the fake PIE language as the base and mapping the other languages against it. In such an assumption, Sanskrit language can also be taken as the base to map the other languages. Also, the composition Vedas dates back at least 40,000 years. And we all know what was the state of human living in other parts of the world in those times. This does not conform with the PIE hypothesis. As for the existence of the words in usage, each and every word from Sanskrit koshas and dhatupathas (noun and verb collections) may not be found in the works that are available today.

The hypothesis point# 2: In addition, the Sanskrit language was influenced by other languages like the old Persian language. The example quoted is: कृ changing to कृणोति - retained in the Persian, and supposed to be the “original” or the Vedic Sanskrit. And its variation करोति - is an adoption based on the Prakrit dialects.

• There are two different verb roots of कृ listed in the धातुपाठः - collection of verb roots by Panini. The currently available (धातुपाठः) from Panini lists just under 2000 roots. However, it is well known that many of the verb roots were lost by the time Panini documented them. By the way, Persia or Iran was also part of the ancient Bharata Varsha. 

The hypothesis point# 3: In the Vedas, it is said that there are four types of languages - men speak only the fourth type. That indicates there were many layers of the Sanskrit language.

• This part of the Vedas could have a different meaning, and may be referring to four stages of the speech generation in a human being.

In summary: The Vedas are our highest spiritual texts that are revealed only to the capable sages when they are in a deep meditative state. In that transcendental state, the speech follows a different pattern and defies the regular linguistic framework. Trying to put them in a humanly perceivable context and trying to disprove a theory like that of Sheldon Pollock is going to get into a trap because such theories operate on a very different plain.

Continued to Part 3...

Finding the Roots of Sanskrit-Part 1/4

Many researchers have tried to study the various realms of the Indic sciences from the perspective of what they call “modern” or “scientific” approach. The definition of this term “scientific” means something that can be conceived to, something that can be verified by the human sensory organs. Everything in the universe has to fit in this boundary for it to be “scientific”. Something that cannot be explained becomes a mystery and is termed “mythical”. Researches with this approach to find the roots of many Indic sciences - like that of the vedas, the origin of Indic culture etc. have made to a very limited progress, and at best are left with guessing various hypothesis. Some linguistic experts have tried (and will try in future) to find the roots of the language called Sanskrit. The Sanskrit language is inseparable from the Indic roots. Traditionally, the Indic or the Vedic culture is thought to be very ancient, often times attributed to be ever-present. Many guesses have been made as to how ancient this culture could be. Many recent scientific researches have put the Vedic times not later than at least 40,000 years and even going as back as 75,000 years. The world history mostly tells us, in that timespan, there were ice ages, humans were dwelling in caves, hunting and gathering. The idea of existence of a culture already sophisticated in various facets of life that long ago goes beyond the hunters and cave-dwelling community.

The linguistic research community tries to fit the Sanskrit language in the same measuring scale as the other languages and attempts to connect the dots. That abundantly relies upon many assumptions. One assumption is: just like the other parts of the world where the history shows the humans and the communities evolved from hunters to farmers, similar thing happened in the Indian subcontinent. Recently, I came across a talk by Prof. Madhav Deshpande based on such hypothesis and analysis. The salient points in that talk are:

1. The primitive nature of the Vedic people

2. The etymological and regional connections

3. Vedas v/s the poetry

4. Evolution of the Sanskrit language

5. Openness of the earlier Sanskrit grammarians and the “highbrow” attitude of the later grammarians

In this 4-part series, I share my thoughts on these points.

Continued in Part 2...