The article says: ... but Panini states firmly at the beginning of Ashtadhyayi that he was born in Salatura, an area that has always produced warriors of the finest order.
Fact: śalātura is used once in the Aṣṭādhyāyī by Pāṇini, in the rule tūdīśalāturavarmatīkūcavārāḍḍhakchaṇḍhañyakaḥ (4.3.94).
Did the author even open the Aṣṭādhyāyī once before writing that?
Further, a comment on the page says this:
a wikipedia reference after reading this article revealed that some sentences are a direct lift from the wiki article on paanini; nevertheless kudos to the writer to take up the cause of a site that reminds present day pakistanis of a past they dont want to acknowledge.
Posted: Sunday, February 10, 2013 by suresh bindhumadhav from bengaluru, india
This raised eyebrows and I thought of cross-checking. I could quickly find two instances of "lifting":
Wikipedia: Pāṇini is known for his Sanskrit grammar, particularly for his formulation of the 3,959 rules[2] of Sanskrit morphology, syntax and semantics in the grammar known as Ashtadhyayi (अष्टाध्यायी Aṣṭādhyāyī, meaning "eight chapters"), the foundational text of the grammatical branch of the Vedanga, the auxiliary scholarly disciplines of Vedic religion.
Salma Mahmud: Panini's Ashtadhyayi formulated 3,959 rules of Classical Sanskrit morphology, syntax and semantics, and in its 8 chapters it was the grammatical branch of the Vedanga, the auxiliary scholarly branch of Vedic religion.
Wikipedia: It is the earliest complete grammar of Classical Sanskrit, and in fact is of a brevity and completeness unmatched in any ancient grammar of any language. It takes material from the lexical lists (Dhatupatha, Ganapatha) as input and describes algorithms to be applied to them for the generation of well-formed words. It is highly systematised and technical.
Salma Mahmud: Panini's work is of a brevity and completeness unmatched in any ancient grammar of any language, and is highly systematic and technical.
Smells like plagiarism.
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 2:36:29 AM UTC+5:30, Madhav Deshpande wrote: