Spoken Sanskrit and Spoken Sanskrit

[George Hart]

Years ago, the late highly learned Sanskrit scholar Dr. Janaki stayed  
at our house.  She showed me a column she had written in Sanskrit  
about the McEnroe - Borg tennis competition.  Her command of the  
language was awesome -- she was capable to expressing just about  
anything, using the full resources of the language.  I still remember  
getting up one morning about 6:00 and encountering a bright-eyed  
Janaki chattering away in fluent (and extremely rapid) Sanskrit, and  
struggling with little success to process what she said in my still  
numbed state.  The problem, I feel, with the kind of spoken Sanskrit  
we're talking about is not that it borrows Hindi words or Tamil  
syntax.  As Adheesh says, Sanskrit has been borrowing or innovating  
since the beginning (many of its most common words are Dravidian).   
The problem is that spoken "Sanskrit" is incapable of expressing a  
complex thought -- "How many Idlis did you eat today" is not exactly a  
profound idea.  Real languages are highly complex because they need to  
be used to express complex ideas.  Sanskrit is no exception.  As Prof.  
Nair notes, languages such as Malayalam can make use of the entire  
Sanskrit vocabulary to express thoughts that are extremely complicated  
(one might also remark that Malayalam, which was a dialect of Tamil  
1000 years ago, also retains a huge inherited Dravidian vocabulary).    
If one goes to a village and encounters the (rare) illiterate  
Malayali, one would discover that while that person might not know all  
the Sanskrit words used in a scholarly essay, he or she can still use  
the language for expressing quite complicated ideas.  Sadly, neo- 
Sanskrit seems incapable of being used this way.  It is a consciously  
dumbed-down language that eschews its own grand tradition.  If people  
enjoy learning it in a rudimentary way to express simple things,  
obviously there's nothing wrong with that.  The problem as I see it  
lies in the fact that these "Sanskrit" speakers often think that just  
because they use the language in a rudimentary way, they are somehow  
connecting with the great intellectual tradition that the language  
contains.  Or, worse, that they are embodiments of some "Hindu-ness"  
that is inherent in the language.  Their rudimentary use of the  
language fosters a kind of arrogance and sense of superiority that is  
unwarranted.  I remember reading the Rasagangadhara with Pandit  
Seshadrinathan and remarking on the breathtaking boldness of the  
beginning verses.  When I suggested that Jagannatha seemed a bit  
arrogant and overbearing, Seshadrinathan remarked "sthaane."  Yes, if  
someone knows Sanskrit 5% as well as Jagannatha, then he or she is  
entitled to be proud.  Saying "How many idlis did you eat today?" in  
neo-Sanskrit may be fun, but it's hardly grounds for the sort of  
overweening pride that such speakers often seem to project.

George Hart


On Aug 13, 2008, at 3:33 AM, adheesh sathaye wrote:

> Dear Profs. Hart, Nair, and Sandahl, and colleagues,
>
> With all due respect, I find it hard to accept that the construction  
> of neologisms like 'seva-phala', 'iDDali' or even misuses like  
> 'mahAla' are in any way indicative of 'ignorant Hindutva forces'. It  
> is not at all uncommon  to see vernacular words or forms used within  
> medieval Sanskrit manuscripts, and particularly when the concept  
> does not occur in classical Sanskrit. Certain MSS of zivadAsa's or  
> jambhaladatta's vetAla-paJcaviMzati, for example, appear to be  
> replete with north Indian vernacular 'loan-words' and shoddy, Hindi-  
> or Marathi-based grammatical forms. This is  just the tip of the  
> iceberg. Moreover, contemporary spoken Sanskrit is quite obviously  
> and self-consciously a simplification of classical Sanskrit, and  
> this has been done in order for the language to be more accessible  
> and appealing to young, twenty-first century students, who WOULD  
> like to express their thoughts about riding the bus, eating apples,  
> using computers, and other modern-day activities. It's actually  
> quite a fun thing to do.
>
> One must, it is true, engage in this linguistic practice knowing  
> full well that what one is speaking is a hybridized and simplified  
> form of the classical parole, and this I think is where some of the  
> Hindu nationalist ideological projects are indeed harmful, as Prof.  
> Nair points out, in representing spoken Sanskrit to the Indian  
> public as being both authentic and Hindu. What's most disturbing to  
> me about the Hindu spoken Sanskrit movement is not how the language  
> is treated, but how many textbooks attempt to naturalize (and  
> nationalize) upper-caste, puritanical Hindu practices through  
> language teaching.
>
> On the other hand, may I respectfully suggest that the idea that the  
> ancientness of Sanskrit somehow debilitates this language from  
> accepting neologisms, or makes it useless for expressing modern  
> ideas, itself might be construed as an act of intellectual violence  
> on par with 'cutting throats', 'demolishing mosques', or 'raping  
> nuns'? Clearly, as scholars of classical Sanskrit, we have an  
> obligation to continue to teach students how to read and understand  
> kAlidAsa, bANa, or perhaps even the magisterial ZrIharSa--but can  
> this teaching not occur side-by-side with an acceptance of a  
> consciously different register of the Sanskrit language, albeit  
> contrived and manufactured, for contemporary, everyday usage?  
> Perhaps the latter might serve as a kind of gateway for the former?
>
> with best regards,
>
> Adheesh
> --
> Dr. Adheesh Sathaye
> Department of Asian Studies
> University of British Columbia
> 408 Asian Centre
> 1871 West Mall
> Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2
> 604.822.5188
> adheesh at interchange.ubc.ca
>
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2008, at 8:49 , Stella Sandahl wrote:
>
>>
>> It is very sad to se how the ignorant Hindutva forces demean and  
>> make the wonderful classical language into something trivial and  
>> ridiculous. How do we stop them?
>> How can we rescue Sanskrit from these vandals? I doubt that the  
>> sevaphalAni-eating student in his mahala can read and understand  
>> even one line by Kalidasa or Bana or Jayadeva.
>> But he can cut the throat of those who cannot speak his so called  
>> Sanskrit. When he is not busy demolishing mosques and raping nuns.
>>
>> Stella Sandahl
>>
>>
>> --
>> Professor Stella Sandahl
>> Department of East Asian Studies
>> 130 St. George St. room 14087
>> Toronto, ON M5S 3H1
>> ssandahl at sympatico.ca
>> stella.sandahl at utoronto.ca
>> Tel. (416) 978-4295
>> Fax. (416) 978-5711
>>