Features of Sanskrit that make it an extra-ordinary language

This is the first of a series of articles explaining what separates out Sanskrit from rest of the languages. This will make you realize how under-developed, regressive and full of redundancies are most of the modern languages. In fact, by the end of the series you will have generated a feeling of dissatisfaction towards the languages you speak currently. Let’s start off.

The first inefficiency that creeps into the modern languages, originates from the very idea  these languages (English, Hindi, German, Japanese etc) are based upon.

That principle is Words represent objects/entities.

This seems to be a very innocent and trivial fact and absolutely harmless. But, we will see later that it is this basic principle that is responsible for many inefficiencies in the modern communication protocols (aka languages). Sanskrit, however, is not based upon the above principle. Rather, in Sanskrit, Words represent properties of objects/entities and not objects/entities themselves.

Let’s see now with the help of examples in the Question and Answer format, what does all this mean.

Q) What is a tree called in English and Hindi ?
A) In English, a tree is called Tree.
     In Hindi, a tree is called  पेड़.

Q) What is a tree called in Sanskrit ?
A) There is no word in Sanskrit for a tree!

Q) Are you kidding me ?
A) No! Let me explain in greater detail. As said above, Words in Sanskrit represent properties of objects and not objects themselves. And, since a tree is an object, there is really no word in Sanskrit for a tree. In fact, there is actually no word in Sanskrit for any object (barring some exceptions, which are finite in number).

Q) What then, is वृक्ष ? I heard that वृक्ष in Sanskrit means a tree.
A) Ah! now you asked the proper question. वृक्ष is a Sanskrit word that may be used to represent a tree. As said and repeated earlier, Words in Sanskrit represent properties, so वृक्ष also represents a property.

वृक्ष = something that is cut and felled down

The word वृक्ष can be used to denote any object that has this property. If something is usually cut and fell down, then it can be called वृक्ष. That object need not be a Tree.
Similarly,  there are many other words in Sanskrit that can be used to denote a tree. For example, तरु and पादप also may denote a tree. But even these words don’t necessarily mean a tree.

A tree drinks water by using its roots. Hence, also called pAdapa.

तरु = something that floats
पादप = something that drinks using its feet

Since a tree has the above properties, i.e. a (fallen) tree floats on water and also a tree absorbs water from the ground by its roots(feet), the above words can be used to denote a tree because a tree possesses the properties represented by these words. Not to mention that the above words may be used for other objects also, if they satisfy the above properties.

Q) Oh! I get it. So a trunk of a tree can also be called वृक्ष because, like a tree, even a trunk can be cut and felled.
A) Absolutely! You are a genius.

Q) So can you summarize ?
A) Sure! In most of the modern communication protocols, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the words and the objects they represent. But, in Sanskrit, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the words and properties.

Q) Great insight! But I still don’t understand something. Though what you told is interesting, how is it helpful ? I mean, why mess with properties of objects, when words can simply represent objects themselves. What is the use of all this ?
A) This is the question I was waiting for. Here is the answer. Take, for example English. Today English has approx. 5 lakh words (as in Oxford Dictionary), bulk of which is borrowed from other languages.
Before a car was invented, the word Car did not exist in the dictionary. But once the car was invented, somebody coined the word Car and we happily started using it. A new word which is coined has to be put in a dictionary, for new people to be able to look at its meaning. This has to be done because a word, say Car, represents an object viz. a car. In future, a new mode of transportation will be invented and then we would have to coin some new word for that new invention. By then, cars would become obsolete and possibly the word Car would get extinct (because the cars themselves got extinct). Again, the word for that newly invented mode of transportation, would have to be put in a dictionary. This has to be  done  because the words in English represent objects. In Sanskrit, even if a word is coined, it need not be put in a dictionary. A person with knowledge of Sanskrit grammar can guess the meaning of the word with reasonable accuracy, without looking into a dictionary! This is because that new word which has been coined would represent a property that a car would possess. And using the algorithms of Sanskrit Grammar (called व्याकरण), one can decode and find out exactly what property a word represents. So a Sanskrit dictionary is really redundant (in most of the cases), if one is well-versed in Sanskrit grammar!

Q) Hmmm, intriguing! So you mean to say that, if one knows Sanskrit grammar well, then he won’t need to look in a dictionary for word meanings. Any other advantage ?
A) Yes! There are other advantages as well. At any given time, there will always be a finite/fixed number of words in English. Currently, it is 5 lakh words. But, in Sanskrit, there are as many words as properties in the universe. Assuming that there are infinite properties in the universe that objects exhibit, there are virtually infinite words in Sanskrit! There are words in Sanskrit, even for the objects not discovered yet. Because the properties that those undiscovered objects will exhibit, will not be new.  For example, a fan has some properties viz. it rotates, it throws air, it has blades etc. When the fan was invented, the fan was a new object but these properties in themselves were not new.  Hence, even if a new object is invented/discovered anyone with the knowledge of Sanskrit grammar can coin a word for it, based on any property of that object and anyone with the knowledge of Sanskrit grammar can decode its meaning with reasonable accuracy!

Q) This is really COOL! But it’s too much to take in one go. Can you recapitulate ?
A) Yes. Due to the principles it is based upon, there are virtually infinite words in Sanskrit (and we do not need a dictionary in spite of this, for most of the words). The Sanskrit grammarians realized that grammar and semantics are not separate water-tight entities, but rather, are one coherent unit. In probably all the other languages, Grammar and Semantics are independent entities, but not so in Sanskrit.

Whenever you think of an object, you actually think of the properties of that object, since it is the properties that distinguish that object from rest of the universe. So if you can think of an object, you can think of its properties, so you can coin a word for it based on these properties, whether or not the object be known a priori.

This is just the surface. In later articles, we will dive deeper into what really makes Sanskrit the shortest, the most beautiful, highly sophisticated, highly systematic, highly   computer-friendly and highly admirable language. We will also analyse the mechanism by which one can form new words by using the properties of objects.

We will end this article with a subhASita that I had studied in school.
भाषासु मुख्या मधुरा दिव्या गीर्वाणभारती तस्माद्धि काव्यं मधुरं तस्मादपि सुभाषितम् ॥ which means…
The speech of India(Sanskrit), is the foremost, the sweetest and the divine among all languages. The poetry becomes sweet because of it and even the sayings become eloquent.

PS: The features mentioned in this article are not unique to Sanskrit. Property-based derivations are found in many languages. But in those, they are embryonic and need a lot more development. In Sanskrit, this feature is so much developed that it forms the bulk of it which is not the case with other languages.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Sanskrit and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

127 Responses to Features of Sanskrit that make it an extra-ordinary language

  1. senthil says:

    i have some reservations in your argument.. an object has many properties to be named.. in current context, a name to an object, represents a collection of all properties of that object.. this is perfectly fine.. this compartmentalises the knowledge system, and and IMHO, english has been able to dominate, because of this..

    There are many domains of language use.. sanskrit, latin, greek etc are best suited for knowledge documentation.. whereas for analytical, research, etc, english’s syntax is best suited to handle complexities..

    I may be wrong, and i would be happy if i stand corrected..

    • gshah says:

      Any object generally has hundreds or even thousands of properties. Giving name to object means giving name to a collection of hundreds/thousands of properties which effectively takes away advantage of naming properties in first place since no one can remember so many properties by one word.

      English has been able to dominate because of European colonization and not because of some inherent quality of English. Imagine the amount of development that can take place if the wealth of half of the world is concentrated in a tiny island nation.

      The reason for English’s and more generally Europe’s dominance is loot and not their culture or language. I think Sanskrit, Greek and other ancient languages are as good for analytical research as they are for documentation.

  2. Shrikant says:

    Really awesome article

  3. Pratyush Kumar Panda says:

    Thank you! A light hearted comment follows :)

    Given the content of the article, the title seems to be redundant.
    संस्कृतम् refers not to a language, but indeed to the great features of that language which make it extraordinary or the great features of anything well done!

  4. Ronak says:

    Excellent Article brother
    Even our names represent the good property and not an object. As soul is not an object. For example, Prakesh, Ashmitaa, Jaya, Dixit, etc..
    Names in English language simply represent object. Tom, David, John etc…

    This is the second site which impressed me after http://www.Agniveer.com

    • Arvind Sen Sarkhandia says:

      Thanks Ronak, for telling about Agniveer.

    • Claire says:

      English names can also refer to properties, though. For instance ‘David’ comes from Hebrew where I think it means ‘beloved’, which is the property of being loved, not an object.
      The only object you can say it refers to is a person who is called David, but that’s not what it *means*, and it only refers to the object ‘person called David’ to the same degree as Ashmitaa refers to the object ‘person called Ashmitaa’. (The main difference is that English likes to borrow other languages’ words, so the meaning isn’t as obvious straight away)

  5. R.Veeraraghavan says:

    Evolution of Language

    1.Language Has Sounds and Syllables.

    2.Language comprises compound expression of Sounds and Syllables.

    3.Language arises from the pointers of Subject and Object.

    4.Language is a group of words and its formation through definite syntax.

    5.Language has a lay-out.

    6.Language has forms Verbal,Written and Expressions.

    7.Syllable Structure and Syntax are Consequence of aggregation of Language in the development cycle.

    8.Voice Chord Dynamics its encryption are core issues in framing a language structure that can last for years to come.

    9.Some Languages are Nascent,Some are Old and some are Primordial.

    10.There are many and a huge set of spoken languages that never get recognised either in literary or linguistic circles,though they may be older to the currently known classical languages.

    11.None of the languages can be set in isolation,nor can a language boast an holistic approach in encryption of sounds.

  6. Debabrata says:

    A beautifully written article. Sanskrit was the spoken language of India. Every language in India, South and South-east Asia is a derivative of Sanskrit. There are literature, science, philosophy, medicine and others composed in Sanskrit. Due to the British Education policy in India, which is still prevalent, Sanskrit is no longer a spoken language. Shame on us. But younger generation is now learning Sanskrit with enthusiasm and God willing , will be a spoken language again.

    Some people in this forum have read a little from western books/Internet and consider themselves competent to write against Sanskrit. This reflects their low knowledge and lower self-esteem.

  7. Carl says:

    uttamam! bhadram te!

  8. R.Veeraraghavan says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit_grammar

    Verbs
    [edit]Classification of verbs
    Sanskrit has ten classes of verbs divided into in two broad groups: athematic and thematic. The thematic verbs are so called because an a, called the theme vowel, is inserted between the stem and the ending. This serves to make the thematic verbs generally more regular. Exponents used in verb conjugation include prefixes, suffixes, infixes, and reduplication. Every root has (not necessarily all distinct) zero, guṇa, and vṛddhi grades. If V is the vowel of the zero grade, the guṇa-grade vowel is traditionally thought of as a + V, and the vṛddhi-grade vowel as ā + V.
    Grades
    Vowel (zero) grade a, - i, ī u, ū ṛ, ṝ ḷ
    Short diphthong (Guṇa) grade a, ai ai au ar al
    Long diphthong (Vṛddhi) grade ā, āi āi āu ār āl

  9. x says:

    Natural Languages or dialects for instant do not structure for encryption and they are seamless and very individual , it is when one lay emphasis on encryption the structure, generation and manufacture come into being which does not make the Language natural.

  10. R.Veeraraghavan says:

    Do you know, to qualify the criteria of a language ,a system in vogue needs an encryption mechanism-Alphabets,else it will be a dialect,should have speakers else it will be called undeciphered script or deciphered and unspoken script.
    In addition to achieve a literay classical status it should endeavour a grammer and volumes of literature flowing continuously throught the ages.
    The tradition should leave some physical evidence to ascertain antiquity.
    In this sense Sanskrit do not qualify for speakers hence a unspoken intelligent script-also known as deva bhasha(not those spoken by humans),possibly an alien delivery!!

  11. R.Veeraraghavan says:

    Next important distinction of a manufactured sanskrit is the Orders or degrees of consonents(Four Orders).
    Vocal Chord simulation produces sounds and each sound forms a encryptable syllable distinctly,encryption dynamics fail when it limits the way sounds produced are encrypted.
    Every encrypted language phono-syllable lays the limit of recording the sounds produced.Sanskrit limits consonents in four orders for the consonents.To say sanskrit has seamless and the right source of encryption of the sounds produced is an over simplification of encryption dynamics.
    Infact in sanskrit due to four orders of consonental recording a Cow-Gow can be recorded in four ways as the pronounciation and vocal delivery varies,Now Gow is a natural name or represents a property of a cow is another issue to be debated.Why Cow and not Low is a fantastic assumption.
    Inessence Sanskrit cannot defeat natural languages with limit of assigning property to represent a object.

  12. R.Veeraraghavan says:

    Chandas-Meter is what it was called earlier.
    Volumes of meteres are available in this unspoken script which are highly mantric and tantrik texts.
    Right to say is a very high level programming.
    It is often referred at later stages of history as Deva Bhasha.
    To qualify a language status it should be spoken and speakers should be prevalent in the current or immediate past.No evidence of mother language takers.
    It is a set of codified edicts for the elite which later was tempered down to the intelligence of common man.
    The fact in the article it talks about two distinct character-1.Verbless 2.Focus on properties makes the programme called sanskrit stay apart from natural language evolution hence manufactured in the laboratories of Rishis from yester years who spoke their own mother languages such as Prakrit and Tamil.

  13. क्रिस् says:

    Really great articel ! This feature of Sanskrit – expressing properties instead of labeling things, it may lead even to the rediscovery of understanding by the sound instead of understanding by a dictionary.

  14. Pingback: ஆரிய திராவிட புளுகுமூட்டை | Gnana Boomi

  15. amalagaura says:

    Wonderful writeup, thank you for sharing this, I did not realize this simple fact about Sanksrit and the logic about the properties finally makes sense!

  16. manik says:

    could you please also enlist some of these other languages that you allude to

    • gshah says:

      The phrase “other languages” occurs at 3 places in the article. For which specific occurance do you want me to enlist the names ??

  17. Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava says:

    Prperties of the Sanskrit should be propagated.

  18. Amitkumar says:

    we talked a lot on Sanskrit but now let us do something for Revival of this Devbhasa

  19. भवत: कार्य सराहनीय अस्ति । यदि मात्रृभाषायाम् भवेत् तर्हि उत्तमम् ।अधिकाधिक ज्ञातुम् शक्नुवंति ।

  20. Sudharshan says:

    Firstly i would like to say the article is really well written. It is absolutely sad that we are not able to appreciate the greatness of this magnificent language.

  21. ishan says:

    I too was intrigued with the greatness of sanskrit when some researcher presented some paper on it in NASA. Those pros and the advantages of sanskrit as a programming language were really compelling. But then i was saddened by the thought that this language originated in india and yet we are not doing much about it other than just trying to keep the language alive. We really need to get out mental standards up..

Express yourself..

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s