Spoken Sanskrit and Spoken Sanskrit

[hhhock]

The thread on spoken Sanskrit has been very interesting, and some  
points strike me as quite a propos. First, I don't see any problems  
with neologisms. Even if we ignore the sometimes controversial  
examples of supposed Dravidian borrowing in early Vedic and the much  
less controversial ones in later Vedic and post-Vedic (such as  
niira-), or the late borrowings from North Indian languages in late  
Sanskrit texts, there is evidence for borrowing at many other stages,  
and in many different spheres (consider e.g. (tri-)koNa, horaa and  
the like, from Greek). Moreover, if Sanskrit is to be used in a  
modern context, not only to discuss fine points of philosophy or  
grammar, it has to be modernized to make it possible to talk about  
trains, apples, and the like (and hybrids like relayaana strike me as  
much more felicitous than words such as agniratha(...)yaana). There  
is a problem, however, as far as the lexicon goes, namely the whole- 
scale importation of Sanskrit-derived Hindi, Marathi, etc. words into  
Sanskrit, with their modern meanings, rather than the use of  
established Sanskrit words (consider the use of aarambha instead of  
utsava in the Hindi-speaking area). While Sanskrit needs to be  
modernized, it does not need to be intellectualized, thank you; it  
always has been perfectly capable to deal with intellectual issues.

Second, I agree that the kind of spoken Sanskrit that is being  
propagated by Hindutva organizations is grammatically, lexically, and  
intellectually without merit, not far removed from a pidgin form of  
the language. The fact that it does not provide a useful entry to the  
full form of the language, as found in the philosophical, religious,  
and literary tradition of India (not to speak of the vast range of  
technical literature), supports the view that the motivation for this  
enterprise is not to connect modern Indians with their traditions but  
to give Hindus (or better: Hindutvavaadins) a false, manufactured  
sense of identity. (I should add that the founders of this movement,  
such as Krishna Shastri, had a much fuller grasp of the language and  
spoke it very well.)

Best wishes,

Hans


On 13 Aug 2008, at 9:27, George Hart wrote:

> 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
>>>