Simple Sanskrit – Lesson 20
October 9, 2013
Simple Sanskrit – Lesson 20

सरलं संस्कृतम् – विंशतितमः पाठः |

It should be appropriate at this point, to appraise of some technical aspects of the process of संधि-s.

संधि is also called as संहिता. Interestingly, in श्रीगणपत्यथर्वशीर्षम् there is a मन्त्र “संहिता सन्धिः” I am left wondering of the significance of this मन्त्र in श्रीगणपत्यथर्वशीर्षम्, because, for a student of grammar, these two words of the मन्त्र are just synonyms. But what is the spiritual significance for it to be a मन्त्र in a स्तोत्रम्, an ode to the deity गणपति / गणेश ?

संधि is a coalescence of two sound-elements,

The sound-element वर्ण at the previous position is called as पूर्ववर्णः

The sound-element वर्ण at the following position is परवर्णः

Coalescence i.e. संधि or संहिता often brings forth a Resultant sound, which is often a change आदेशः

When the resultant sound is only a single sound, it is एकादेशः Most संधि-s result in एकादेश. But there are instances that it would not be so.

The change आदेशः may happen by addition आगम omission लोप or mutation विकार.

Segregating components of a coalesced word is called as पदच्छेद. It is the first step, very much essential, to be able to understand any Sanskrit text. If two elemental sounds would get coalesced in the natural process of pronouncing them, they would get so pronounced very naturally, right ? संधि is a natural process of pronouncing or speaking Sanskrit. Rather, rules of संधि are not really rules, but they are grammatical summary of, what the natural process of coalescence happens during pronunciation.

Since संधि-rules are grammatical summary of, what the natural process of coalescence happens during pronunciation, all the detailing of संधि-rules, becomes a strong evidence to establish that Sanskrit has essentially been a spoken language. This evidence stands to nullify all argument about Sanskrit ever having been a spoken language.

One may ask, “If पदच्छेद is the first step, so very essential, to be able to understand any Sanskrit text, why have I taken it so late in these lessons in “Simple Sanskrit” ? The answer is in the question itself ! Before indulging in पदच्छेद, one needs to know पद-s and how they are formed / obtained. It needed all those 16/17 lessons to discuss that, the पद-s. That discussion is far from complete. But I thought, it is not wiser to postpone discussing संधि-s.

In treatises on grammar, especially in सिद्धान्तकौमुदी by भट्टोजी दीक्षित discussion on संधि-s starts right from chapter 2.

For my lessons of “Simple Sanskrit”, I have kept the focus to be simple and step by step. Every step is not necessarily a small step. If one can compose 240 sentences from lesson 1 itself, it is not a small step. But it is not a big step either, because all those sentences are just two-word sentences. Often enthusiasm of people wanting to learn a new language is high-pitched.

Some want to be able to read and understand such philosophical / spiritual text as गीता,

Some want to start conversing, right from word ‘go’.

It is my firm conviction, that wrong or incorrect Sanskrit is not Sanskrit at all.

I keep listening to conversational Sanskrit, only with a pinch of salt. It becomes uncourteous to correct the person at every error, right ?

But if errors are not corrected, whatever Sanskrit is spoken may sound Sanskrit-like, but it would not be Sanskrit.

I for one would never like to be a party to promoting Sanskrit-like Sanskrit.

To start speaking in a new language, the language should be able to tolerate lot of colloquialism. In fact if the language is tolerant of this, it is quite efficient to learn such language, say, in the market-place or in a family. Essentially there should be an overwhelming environment, maybe 24×7, of that language falling on your ears. That is how child learns its mother-tongue. That is how I had learnt Kannada at the place where I did my schooling. That is also how I dare to speak Gujarati and some little bit of Tamil. But I would not dare do that with Sanskrit. I also learnt somewhat German. But I am at quite some unease in conversing in German. I have studied different languages, you see. So, my opinions are from such self-study, deliberations and experience. Protagonists of “Spoken Sanskrit” seem to be going by the argument about how a child learns its mother-tongue, without any bother about the nuances of grammar. To my mind they miss two points -

The language should be tolerant to lot of colloquialism

There should be an overwhelming environment, maybe 24×7, of that language falling on your ears.

Both these aspects do not apply to Sanskrit.

Language-skills are of three types – speak, read, write. By writing skill, I do not mean just the skill of being able to write the script. Writing skill is the flair to express one’s thoughts powerfully. This, generally, is the sequence, in which we learn our mother-tongue. By the way, I know a boy, Raghu, whose mother-tongue was Tamil. After I had attended a few classes to learn Tamil, I had become acquainted with the Tamil script and wrote a short greetings message. I showed it to Raghu and asked him, “Is it correct ?” He surprised me by his reply, “Uncle, I can’t read Tamil !”

Having had that surprise some 15 years back, it surprises me no more. I realize that my own American grandchildren speak Marathi, quite fluently, I would say. But they are struggling to read and write. That would be so, with many, many, many. many children, who can speak their mother-tongue, but cannot read, much less, write. That has now become a great anxiety weighing heavily on the minds of their parents. But why should the parents be anxious ? What is wrong with being able to only speak, but not be able to read or write ? To my mind, being able to read what is written in a language, connotes getting acquainted with the culture. Yes, every language connotes a culture. Every language has a rich cultural heritage to be carried forth. That cannot be more true for any other language, other than Sanskrit.