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...