Post 325:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I was wondering if it (Samskrit grammar) can be used to improve English language.
Is there a right and more correct way to construct a sentence in the English language, as per the rules of Panini?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->My, how innocently you ask this, as if you were asking the time of day. I consider it the most insidious, certainly most dangerous, request I've come across for a while (but only if any were to comply, that is). But even with compliance you can not succeed, fortunately.
Are you asking this out of real ignorance or by undisclosed motivation? I most surely prefer you to be unwitting rather than malevolent, but the latter seems far more likely considering the types floating about. You can't be wholly ignorant about the gravity of what it is you ask, not to such an extreme, when your username indicates you're of Indian origin ('Surya').
But as it's customary for good people to presume someone's innocence, I'll grudgingly do the same and answer your question to some extent - it is as much as you'll get out of me, in any case.
(1) You'll have to introduce grammatical constructs into the English language that aren't yet there. This you can not do, not with the permission or acquiescence of any person who values and respects English, because you will mar the language as it is now and have destroyed its (mostly) natural evolution up to this stage.
But why would anyone ruin that same English which Shakespeare has shown the capabilities, usefulness and expressiveness of?
(2) Why English of all European languages? Of those I know, it is the furthest removed from Samskritam's grammar. Dutch has more grammatical sense, so too French. German would have more chance than either (though still nill, I think) because it has die Faelle. But as a German scholar once remarked in admiration of English, English is precisely to be desired/appreciated over German because it does not have these excessive grammatical trappings. It is a language one may still understand, but one that is easier to learn and hence more uniting of peoples. (But in my view, Dutch is the better language according to those criteria.)
Latin (and perhaps Greek?) would be your best bet. But you'd still be betting on the wrong horses for this race.
I understand you believe that English will remain the lingua franca of the world. (Others before you have mistaken the same about different languages like Latin - no one can predict the fall of empires, but what <i>is</i> known is that they all fall eventually).
And I understand that that is possibly why you might wish to make English more 'worthy' of being so, when at present it is the common language of many only by an accident of history and not by any virtues peculiar to itself.
(3) Constructing a new language would be the way to go. But what is the point in that when you'll end up cloning the grammar of Samskrit? Samskrit already exists.
(4) And why would you ask any Hindu Indian to help in making English more like Samskritam? This is not colonial times when our people were all still naive in thinking European interest in us and our languages was genuine and sincere.
The English were largely responsible (though some other European nations share significant blame in this also) in trying to wipe out the language of Hindu Dharma, Samskritam, from our country. And they did so in full consciousness and it was wholly premeditated.
Do you still think it sensible to ask for Hindu/Indian help in this matter?
(5) Hindus are also sick of appropriation. Isn't the theft of neem and now the attempted theft of turmeric enough? (Couple that with the present calculated discrediting of Ayurvedic medicine so that they can later reintroduce and patent it under their own pharmaceutical labels, as they have done with the native American natural and wholesome sweetener Stevia.)
Samskritam grammar is forever copyrighted, patented, trademarked, what-have-you by Dharmic peoples - with which I mean that its <i>our</i> intellectual property and we don't take kindly to those seeking to appropriate or abuse/misuse it.
Besides, the west is by now known for never crediting Indians (or other human populations) with our ancestors' accomplishments, while they are all too willing to appropriate these, copy them or even steal them. So why in the world would we help in this matter?
I find your question most offensive. And if in your ignorance/limited knowledge about Indian history you think this answer extreme and unwarranted, I suggest you find out more before you continue in that presumption. Ignorance is no excuse.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I was wondering if it (Samskrit grammar) can be used to improve English language.
Is there a right and more correct way to construct a sentence in the English language, as per the rules of Panini?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->My, how innocently you ask this, as if you were asking the time of day. I consider it the most insidious, certainly most dangerous, request I've come across for a while (but only if any were to comply, that is). But even with compliance you can not succeed, fortunately.
Are you asking this out of real ignorance or by undisclosed motivation? I most surely prefer you to be unwitting rather than malevolent, but the latter seems far more likely considering the types floating about. You can't be wholly ignorant about the gravity of what it is you ask, not to such an extreme, when your username indicates you're of Indian origin ('Surya').
But as it's customary for good people to presume someone's innocence, I'll grudgingly do the same and answer your question to some extent - it is as much as you'll get out of me, in any case.
(1) You'll have to introduce grammatical constructs into the English language that aren't yet there. This you can not do, not with the permission or acquiescence of any person who values and respects English, because you will mar the language as it is now and have destroyed its (mostly) natural evolution up to this stage.
But why would anyone ruin that same English which Shakespeare has shown the capabilities, usefulness and expressiveness of?
(2) Why English of all European languages? Of those I know, it is the furthest removed from Samskritam's grammar. Dutch has more grammatical sense, so too French. German would have more chance than either (though still nill, I think) because it has die Faelle. But as a German scholar once remarked in admiration of English, English is precisely to be desired/appreciated over German because it does not have these excessive grammatical trappings. It is a language one may still understand, but one that is easier to learn and hence more uniting of peoples. (But in my view, Dutch is the better language according to those criteria.)
Latin (and perhaps Greek?) would be your best bet. But you'd still be betting on the wrong horses for this race.
I understand you believe that English will remain the lingua franca of the world. (Others before you have mistaken the same about different languages like Latin - no one can predict the fall of empires, but what <i>is</i> known is that they all fall eventually).
And I understand that that is possibly why you might wish to make English more 'worthy' of being so, when at present it is the common language of many only by an accident of history and not by any virtues peculiar to itself.
(3) Constructing a new language would be the way to go. But what is the point in that when you'll end up cloning the grammar of Samskrit? Samskrit already exists.
(4) And why would you ask any Hindu Indian to help in making English more like Samskritam? This is not colonial times when our people were all still naive in thinking European interest in us and our languages was genuine and sincere.
The English were largely responsible (though some other European nations share significant blame in this also) in trying to wipe out the language of Hindu Dharma, Samskritam, from our country. And they did so in full consciousness and it was wholly premeditated.
Do you still think it sensible to ask for Hindu/Indian help in this matter?
(5) Hindus are also sick of appropriation. Isn't the theft of neem and now the attempted theft of turmeric enough? (Couple that with the present calculated discrediting of Ayurvedic medicine so that they can later reintroduce and patent it under their own pharmaceutical labels, as they have done with the native American natural and wholesome sweetener Stevia.)
Samskritam grammar is forever copyrighted, patented, trademarked, what-have-you by Dharmic peoples - with which I mean that its <i>our</i> intellectual property and we don't take kindly to those seeking to appropriate or abuse/misuse it.
Besides, the west is by now known for never crediting Indians (or other human populations) with our ancestors' accomplishments, while they are all too willing to appropriate these, copy them or even steal them. So why in the world would we help in this matter?
I find your question most offensive. And if in your ignorance/limited knowledge about Indian history you think this answer extreme and unwarranted, I suggest you find out more before you continue in that presumption. Ignorance is no excuse.