n this article, we shall see how Sanskrit
increases its efficiency by removing unnecessary, good-for-nothing
words from a sentence which the other languages are forced to carry just
as a host carries parasites with itself. By the end of this article,
you will realize that the language you currently speak contains many
redundant words that needlessly lengthen your speech.
Though this analysis may apply to many
situations, here we shall analyse only a few of them, by taking
examples. Our sample sentences with their translations are given below.
1) Three things must be done before dying. => त्रीणि कर्तव्यानि प्राङ्मरणात्।
2) A group of boys is playing. => एके बालाः खेलन्ति।
3) Ponds of water are drying. => जलानि शुष्यन्ति।
4) A beautiful woman carries away one’s heart. => सुन्दरी मनः मोहयति।
2) A group of boys is playing. => एके बालाः खेलन्ति।
3) Ponds of water are drying. => जलानि शुष्यन्ति।
4) A beautiful woman carries away one’s heart. => सुन्दरी मनः मोहयति।
All the above translations have a striking feature in common. The Sanskrit version of each sentence is missing some key word(s) of its English counterpart.
In (1), the Sanskrit version does not contain the word for things.
In (2), the Sanskrit version does not contain the word for group.
In (3), the Sanskrit version does not contain the word for ponds.
In (4), the Sanskrit version does not contain the word for woman.
In (2), the Sanskrit version does not contain the word for group.
In (3), the Sanskrit version does not contain the word for ponds.
In (4), the Sanskrit version does not contain the word for woman.
Let’s now try to understand, why the
seemingly indispensable words in the English versions of the sentences
are redundant in the Sanskrit counterparts.
Unnecessary noun after a number
Three things must be done before dying. => त्रीणि कर्तव्यानि प्राङ्मरणात्।
Consider the above sentence. Why don’t we have a word for things in the Sanskrit version ? Specifically, why is the Sanskrit translation not त्रीणि वस्तूनि कर्तव्यानि प्राङ्मरणात्।
Is the translation containing the word वस्तूनि (which means things) wrong ? Actually not.
Well, both the translations are correct. But the word वस्तूनि is redundant and does not add any new meaning to the sentence. This is because त्रीणि itself means Three objects ot Three things. Unlike in English (or Hindi), where three represents merely a number, in Sanskrit, त्रि represents a number while त्रीणि, which is the first vibhakti of त्रि, represents not the number three, but three objects. There is nothing alien about this. Afterall, the very purpose of a vibhakti is to convert a word representing a property (here, that property is the property of being three in number) to a word representing an object(s) (three objects in this case).
Is the translation containing the word वस्तूनि (which means things) wrong ? Actually not.
Well, both the translations are correct. But the word वस्तूनि is redundant and does not add any new meaning to the sentence. This is because त्रीणि itself means Three objects ot Three things. Unlike in English (or Hindi), where three represents merely a number, in Sanskrit, त्रि represents a number while त्रीणि, which is the first vibhakti of त्रि, represents not the number three, but three objects. There is nothing alien about this. Afterall, the very purpose of a vibhakti is to convert a word representing a property (here, that property is the property of being three in number) to a word representing an object(s) (three objects in this case).
In fact, this observation can be
extended to many cases where a noun follows a number. In such cases, the
noun usually becomes redundant!
As another example, त्रीणि पर्यटनीयानि प्रङ्मरणात्। would mean…
Three places should be visited before dying.
Three places should be visited before dying.
Again, the Sanskrit version does not contain the word for places!
Unnecessary words for depicting a collection of objects
A group of boys is playing. => एके बालाः खेलन्ति।
eke bAlAH – Many boys but one unit.
Consider the above sentence. Why don’t we have a word for group in the Sanskrit version ? Specifically, why is the Sanskrit translation not एकः बालानाम् समूहः खेलति।
Is the translation containing the word समूहः (which means group) wrong ? Actually not. Well, both the translations are correct. But the word समूहः is redundant and does not add any new meaning to the sentence. Why so ? Let’s see.
Is the translation containing the word समूहः (which means group) wrong ? Actually not. Well, both the translations are correct. But the word समूहः is redundant and does not add any new meaning to the sentence. Why so ? Let’s see.
एकः बालः means one boy.
Here, both एक (one) and बाल (boy) are in their singular first vibhakti forms. Hence, एकः बालः represents a single boy.
Here, both एक (one) and बाल (boy) are in their singular first vibhakti forms. Hence, एकः बालः represents a single boy.
बहवः बालाः means many boys.
Here, both बहु (many) and बाल (boy) are in their plural first vibhakti forms. Hence, बहवः बालाः represents many boys.
Here, both बहु (many) and बाल (boy) are in their plural first vibhakti forms. Hence, बहवः बालाः represents many boys.
Now consider..
एके बालाः which means a group of boys.
Here, बाल (boy) is in its plural first vibhakti form and एक (one) is also in its plural first vibhakti form.
How can एक, which means one, exist in a plural form ? Again vibhakti comes to the rescue. Recall that, एक represents the property of being one. But एके, which is the plural first vibhakti form of एक, represents objects which are many (plural) and still have the property of being one. The objects are many, still they are considered one i.e. एके represents one group of many objects! Since, बालाः (boys) and एके (one group of many objects) have the same vibhakti viz. first vibhakti, they represent the same objects viz. a group of boys!
एके बालाः which means a group of boys.
Here, बाल (boy) is in its plural first vibhakti form and एक (one) is also in its plural first vibhakti form.
How can एक, which means one, exist in a plural form ? Again vibhakti comes to the rescue. Recall that, एक represents the property of being one. But एके, which is the plural first vibhakti form of एक, represents objects which are many (plural) and still have the property of being one. The objects are many, still they are considered one i.e. एके represents one group of many objects! Since, बालाः (boys) and एके (one group of many objects) have the same vibhakti viz. first vibhakti, they represent the same objects viz. a group of boys!
Hence, एके बालाः खेलन्ति। means A group of boys is playing.
This kind of application of
vibhaktis can be extended to many cases where words representing a
collection of objects become redundant!
One such application occurs in BhagawadGita (18|3).
त्याज्यं दोषवद् इति एके कर्म प्राहुः मनीषिणः। which means…
One class of thinkers says “Actions must be abandoned just as defects are abondoned”. Here again the Sanskrit version has no word for class!
त्याज्यं दोषवद् इति एके कर्म प्राहुः मनीषिणः। which means…
One class of thinkers says “Actions must be abandoned just as defects are abondoned”. Here again the Sanskrit version has no word for class!
I remember, my school textbook of Sanskrit said that only the singular vibhaktis of the word एक exist since it means one. But
the sloka 18|3 of BhagawadGita refutes this claim by using the plural
vibhakti form. This also sheds some light on the quality of school books
that the students have available to study the language. The school
course of Sanskrit seems to intentionally hide the charms of the
language and let the Indians remain unaware of the intellectual
capacities of their ancestors. Even those who are genuinely interested
in learning the language seem to lose interest after they are forced to
memorize the vibhakti tables. Its sad that the British achieved their
aim by degrading our education system and making us aloof from our
language (and even our nation).
Unnecessary words for depicting samples of uncountable things
Ponds of water are drying. => जलानि शुष्यन्ति।
jalAni – ponds of water
Consider the above sentence. Why don’t we have a word for ponds in the Sanskrit version ? Specifically, why is the Sanskrit translation not जलस्य सरांसि शुष्यन्ति। Is the translation containing the word सरांसि (which means ponds)
wrong ? Actually not.Well, both the translations are correct. But the
word सरांसि is redundant and does not add any new meaning to the
sentence. Let’s see why ?
जलस्य सरांसि means ponds of water.
जलानि, which is the plural first vibhakti form of जल, means samples/collections/ponds of water. How can water, which is uncountable, be plural ?
Again vibhaktis come to the rescue. जल means (the property of) being water.
जलम् , which is the singular first vibhakti of जल, means an object having the property of being water i.e. a collection/pond of water.
जलम् , which is the singular first vibhakti of जल, means an object having the property of being water i.e. a collection/pond of water.
जलानि , which is the plural first vibhakti of जल, means objects (plural) having the property of being water i.e. collections/ponds of water.
Hence, जलानि शुष्यन्ति। means Ponds of water are drying.
This can be extended to other
situations where masses of uncountable things are being spoken about. In
such cases, the word for the mass of the uncountable thing becomes
redundant!
Unnecessary nouns after adjectives
A beautiful woman carries away one’s heart. => सुन्दरी मनः मोहयति।
Consider the above sentence. Why don’t we have a word for woman in the Sanskrit version ? Specifically, why is the Sanskrit translation not सुन्दरी नारी मनः मोहयति।
Is the translation containing the word नारी (which means woman) wrong ? Actually not.
Well, both the translations are correct. But the word नारी is redundant and does not add any new meaning to the sentence. Let’s see why ?
Is the translation containing the word नारी (which means woman) wrong ? Actually not.
Well, both the translations are correct. But the word नारी is redundant and does not add any new meaning to the sentence. Let’s see why ?
The answer is similar to the previous answers. सुन्दर means (the property of) being beautiful.
सुन्दरः , which is the masculine first
vibhakti of सुन्दर, represents a male object (a man) having the property
of being beautiful. So सुन्दरः would mean a handsome man.
सुन्दरी , which is the feminine first
vibhakti of सुन्दर, represents a female object (a woman) having the
property of being beautiful. So सुन्दरी means a beautiful woman.
Hence, सुन्दरी मनः मोहयति। translates to A beautiful woman carries away one’s heart.
This kind of application can be
extended to all the cases where a man / woman / male animal / female
animal having certain quality is being described. In such cases, the
gender-representing words like man, boy, lady etc become redundant.
These were just four examples. In your
study of Sanskrit literature, you will find many such patterns which
eliminate important looking redundant words. This is also one of the
reasons that newbies in Sanskrit have difficulties in translating it
because they find the sentences to be incomplete due to missing words,
though the sentences are actually complete. The reason that they appear
incomplete is that the reader has not fully grasped the concept of
vibhaktis.
Also, when you speak in your native
tongue the next time, try to figure out which words are really needed
and which ones are useless.
That’s it for now. Bye.
Source : http://uttishthabharata.wordpress.com
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें