Bharatvarsh, i shall attempt to answer.
1. vedic sanskit is quite different from shastriya sanskrit. vedic is the natural sanskrit which represents probably how it was spoken at one time, and its progression and development over time.
2. knowing shastriya sanskrit is no guarantee one would accurately understand Vedic. As like knowing Hindi one may still not understand Tulsi' Manas. Both skts follow different frameworks.
4. Yask and after him Panini, were great scientists who saw the problem that with the natural modification in language over the passage of time and change of place, the literature and knowledge had a risk of becoming disconnected with people, or had the risk of being misinterpreted or even lost. so they evolved mathematical-like rules of grammar and language to be followed while writing or speaking skt. this became shastriya skt.
5. Reading any skt literature written after this, one has to follow panini grammar since that is what was mostly followed by writers. So panini's ashTAdhAyi is the decoder of that literature, and our password to the treasure chest of our ancient knowledge body. thats why orientalists, witzel and all want to obliterate AshTAdhyAyI, try to write off Panini, or underestimate its importance.
6. Many writers did not strictly adhere to panini's rules. like Kautilya Arthashastra does not follow Panini at many times. This may be due to the fact that some content to it came from earlier than Panini, or also because Kautilya himself was very unorthodox. Others, especially "modern" poets of their times have also done experimentations like mixing then-spoken languages and dialects into skt, eg. in mahaviracharitam.
7. Panini has also cearly explained how vedic should be interpreted as well. And he is the authority, as he is the one who signaled the transition from one to the other. So all the vedic misinterpretations like that of Max Muller are not valid if they do not follow Panini. DN Jha's misadentures with Go-ghna meaning Cow-slaughter or offering cow meat etc, are flat misinterpretations since Panini explicitly says otherwise.
Gangadevi has followed classical skt, so not difficult to understand or accurately interpret her work Madhuravijayam.
1. vedic sanskit is quite different from shastriya sanskrit. vedic is the natural sanskrit which represents probably how it was spoken at one time, and its progression and development over time.
2. knowing shastriya sanskrit is no guarantee one would accurately understand Vedic. As like knowing Hindi one may still not understand Tulsi' Manas. Both skts follow different frameworks.
4. Yask and after him Panini, were great scientists who saw the problem that with the natural modification in language over the passage of time and change of place, the literature and knowledge had a risk of becoming disconnected with people, or had the risk of being misinterpreted or even lost. so they evolved mathematical-like rules of grammar and language to be followed while writing or speaking skt. this became shastriya skt.
5. Reading any skt literature written after this, one has to follow panini grammar since that is what was mostly followed by writers. So panini's ashTAdhAyi is the decoder of that literature, and our password to the treasure chest of our ancient knowledge body. thats why orientalists, witzel and all want to obliterate AshTAdhyAyI, try to write off Panini, or underestimate its importance.
6. Many writers did not strictly adhere to panini's rules. like Kautilya Arthashastra does not follow Panini at many times. This may be due to the fact that some content to it came from earlier than Panini, or also because Kautilya himself was very unorthodox. Others, especially "modern" poets of their times have also done experimentations like mixing then-spoken languages and dialects into skt, eg. in mahaviracharitam.
7. Panini has also cearly explained how vedic should be interpreted as well. And he is the authority, as he is the one who signaled the transition from one to the other. So all the vedic misinterpretations like that of Max Muller are not valid if they do not follow Panini. DN Jha's misadentures with Go-ghna meaning Cow-slaughter or offering cow meat etc, are flat misinterpretations since Panini explicitly says otherwise.
Gangadevi has followed classical skt, so not difficult to understand or accurately interpret her work Madhuravijayam.