Idiom and Grammar (and chariots again!)

[S Bhatta]

Dr. Farmer writes:

I spent nearly a decade editing, translating, and annotating one of the most abstruse premodern texts ever drawn up for oral debate, involving difficult issues involving Latin, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew philology.

That is wonderful; you must, and should, be quite proud of yourself.

But each one of those languages is a world in and of itself unless you are you suggesting an essentialist position and thereby wiping away the distinctness of each language, culture, time, author, etc. the list goes on.

Is this so?

The universality of language, is it that which qualifies to leave your area to wander into another?



Dr. Farmer wrote:
What makes you think that when I approach Indian texts that I'd lose my rigor?

Your ignorance of Sanskrit Dr. Farmer.

Sanskrit is not Latin, Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew.

Sir, I am not doubting your aptitude as a comparative historian in the languages which you have studied.

But then again I am not stating that you are a learned man in that area either in that I have no way of judging you in that that is not my area of expertise.

In order for me to judge you, I must first have an intimate, a superior, comprehension of that which you are studying.

Is that not so?

Must i not know the taste of sugar before I can say "this is sugar."

But you do not know the sweet taste of Sanskrit Dr. Farmer, and thus how can you state a position without this knowledge?

Have you no respect for language, culture, and time?

Sanskrit, like all other languages, is serious business and requires more than a reliance upon translations Sir.

SB












_____________________________________________________
Chat with your friends as soon as they come online. Get Rediff Bol at
http://bol.rediff.com