काचित् जिज्ञासा

[Sumanta Chowdhury]

पाणिनीयव्याकरणं descriptive grammar मध्ये अन्तर्भवति उत prescriptive grammar मध्ये इति ज्ञातुमिच्छामि। उभयोर्भेदमपि कृपया ज्ञापयतु।

--

$UM@NT@

[Nagaraj Paturi]

This descriptive - prescriptive classification itself is a problematic one.

The sUtras of AA are all descriptive only, none of them prescriptive in their syntax/structure/mood.

But its users used it as an anus'aasanam with rakshOhAgamalaghvasandEhAh as prayOjanam.

The definition "vyAkriyantE  anEna s'abdAh iti vyAkaraNam"  gives a descriptive view of it.

Since both are from Bhagavaan Patanjali only it may be seen that AA has been viewed as both a descriptive book and anus'aasanam simultaneously in the same tradition.

Is it a contradiction?

No.

Because many good descriptions have been taken prescriptively and many books (such as Dharmas'Astra books) which are being talked about as prescriptive books (vidhi books), when you take a closer look at the sentence structure/mood are turn out to be descriptive only.

This is true with many modern western books not limited to the fields of grammar and the like.

One good example that comes to my mind is the theory of bureaucracy of Max Weber. What he did was only description of bureaucracy as one of the social organizations only. But it so turned out that as long as Classical Bureaucracy was prevalent in business management and public administration, his description was used as almost a prescription.

That is how it happens.

When this nature of things is not realized, some books, particularly ancient books, particularly grammars are blamed for being prescriptive (quite often without any evidence in their expression) and modern books are claimed to be descriptive and it is taught to students that writing grammars descriptively is the right approach found in modern books which is not found in ancient books.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> उभयोर्भेदमपि कृपया ज्ञापयतु।

You may go through any source like

 http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=navigating/intro/prescriptive

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Is there actually a conflict between the descriptivists and prescriptivists. One Karl Hagen who wrote the blog I suggested to the young thread initiator has the following to say:

Linguistics takes a descriptive approach to language: it tries to explain things as they actually are, not as we wish them to be. When we study language descriptively, we try to find the unconscious rules that people follow when they say things like sentence (1). The schoolbook approach to language is typically prescriptive. It tries to tell you how you should speak and write.

Notice that there is a place for both description and prescription in language study. For example, when adults learn a foreign language, they typically want someone to tell them how to speak, in other words to prescribe a particular set of rules to follow, and expect a teacher or book to set forth those rules. But how do teachers know what rules to prescribe? At some point in time, someone had to describe the language and infer those rules. Prescription, in other words, can only occur after the language has been described, and good prescription depends on adequate description. We obviously don't want to be teaching people the wrong things about language.

In an ideal world, descriptive and prescriptive approaches to language would follow this harmonious relationship: linguists would describe the rules of a language, and pedagogues would use those descriptions to make textbooks to teach language learners. In the real world, however, practitioners of the two approaches often separate themselves into hostile camps. Prescriptivists accuse descriptivists of being anarchists who want to do away with all rules of language. Descriptivists accuse prescriptivists of uninformed bigotry. With each side posting guards at the ramparts to repel the enemy, both tend to ignore the work and concerns of the other. Grammar textbooks used in K-12 education often neglect the findings of linguistics and instead copy outdated, factually incorrect material from older textbooks. For their part, linguists frequently treat prescriptivism as a bad word but fail (with some honorable exceptions) to show how their abstract theorizing is relevant to language teaching.

The conflicts between prescriptivism and descriptivism originates in a difference in focus: scientific study versus teaching. But that difference hardly explains why the two groups are so hostile. Other disciplines don't have a similar divide 

[Shrinivasa Varakhedi]

The view expressed by Sri Nagaraj Ji is very much right. No part in Vyakarana is prescriptive in nature though the sutras formally look like prescriptive. 

In fact all our Shastras are descriptive only. They teach us the 'Niyama's (natural rules). For example, the sandhi rules in grammar book are the definition of vocal chard and its behaviour in the context of co-occurence of two syllables. In other words, Panini is explaining the the invariable relationship between the two events - the cause and affect. This is nothing but Vyapti relation between the co-occurence of two syllables and their mix during pronunciation. Thus, Panini is not at all giving any prescription how to pronounce, rather giving an explanation how our vocal chard behaves in such contexts. 

Even in the case of Dharma Shastra, which is believed to be a strictly prescriptive in nature by ruling injunctions and prohibitions, this view holds good. All such injunctions are just meant to show the cause and affect relation between the act and its results. It is very well said in philosophical texts by the term - ishta-saadhanataa (being cause for desired result). This is what the meaning of any vidhi (rule) - is the opinion of Nyaya and other non-meemammsaka philosophers.

Hence, all shastric vidhis are to be taken as descriptions. The descriptions are told in the vidhi form to make the people understand in an easy way to follow - what to do and what not to do. This does not mean that they are just Do's and Dont's ; They are descriptions. 

with best regards,

shrinivasa varakhedi

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

warm regards,
shri.varakhedi
-----------------------------------------
Prof. Shrinivasa Varakhedi, Ph.D
(Recipient of Presidents Award)

Professor in Shastra and Dean (Academics)

Karnataka Samskrita University,

Pampa Mahakavi Road, Chamaraj Pet,

Bengaluru - 560018

Mobile : +91-94853-01353
Ph Off :  +91-80-26705596
Land Res: +91-80-26794258

Former Director, Sanskrit Academy, 

Osmania University, Hyderabad 07

Former Faculty of Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Tirupati.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

How did this word 'prescriptive' enter as an unjustifiably pejorative description of our classical grammars in India?

It is the excitement born of the newly introduced discipline linguistics. The new initiates who included highly respectably learned professors of the generation of my teachers, were enjoying their initiation into the new discipline through their repeated satires and fun makings about  the 'prescriptive' nature (purely based on their wrong perception of them as prescriptive) of the classical grammars. One such highly learned fine linguist did it so often that I was not able to help reacting.

Once he was at it again during one of his guest lectures in my department. He was addressing the post-graduate students of Telugu and started his gleeful fun makings and satires about Balavyakaranamu of Chinnaya Suri (of 19th century) being prescriptive. ( This book, in fact, like AA, has only descriptive rules for classical Telugu which was the standard dialect of those diglossia days, with a very few prescriptive statements in his own vrittis.)

Incidentally this linguist was the language advisor of a Telugu newspaper and during his tenure in this role he did a commendable work of writing a style manual for that daily. That book has very clear imperative sentences as rules.

That day, I raised my hand and asked him "Sir, can you explain why the rules in this book are imperative sentences?" The gigantic scholar , a great sahridaya as he was , paused for a while in introspection and then said, " Yes, I am able to see your point.  Now I am able to see that just as my book is meant for the standardization of the language of that daily, Suri was also standardizing the standard variety of his times."

Never later I heard him  making fun of Suri. That was probably also because highly learned scholars of those days were great human beings too.

[G S S Murthy]

Dear scholars,

AS an aside to the discussion going on through this thread, may I express my unorthodox views?

Panini built a magnificent artificial structure to explain and expand Sanskrit as he knew. It has stood the test of time and will be there for long.

However, with the technology available through computers and programming, we could look at Sanskrit in a new way.

1. Try to list usages of Sanskrit words in major classics like Ramayana, Mahabharata and Mahakavyas. It would be a gigantic data base. I believe the database will cover the vocabulary that is adequate enough for most purposes.

2. Using techniques of data-analytics and data mining, arrive at rules that can be discerned through the usage.The rules arrived at would not be based on Paninian structure. It could be entirely different.

I believe such an approach is feasible although it may be a large and major project running over several years.

The sceptic may say, "Why waste our efforts when Panini has done it for us?" My answer is " We don't know. The project may come up with a simpler form of grammar and many may be attracted to Sanskrit. Sanskrit may become a dynamic, living language" 

Scholars may like to give a thought to the idea. 

Regards,

Murthy

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

[mattoo_k]

Yes it is true that none of our shastras are prescriptive. They are narrative in post modern terminology but now and then when natural course of action is diverted or distorted then it becomes prescriptive. 

The good examples we find in dharma sastras (which is applicable in all respects) where the gap between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ Is taken care of.  What we naturally do is ‘is’ when we go against that it is prescribed like ‘one should act in that manner’. 

Since we are human beings the gap remains between ‘is’and ‘ought’. It will be there. In Kantian structure only divine being is free from this conflict. We human beings suffer from this dilemma of ‘is’and ‘ought’which is very much natural to us.  If anybody can overcome this dilemma forever then for him there will be no ‘prescription’. For him everything wil be part of his nature.  He cant be prescribed for anything. 

But the big question is where is such person? Nowhere! 

So,  for us, human beings, shastras are prescriptive. By nature we are ditched with this dilemma. Shastras are there to show us the path. It functions in both ways -descriptive and prescriptive. 

Sent from Samsung Mobile

[Bijoy Misra]

Yes it is true that none of our shastras are prescriptive.

While I enjoyed this thread for its exposition, I think this last statement is too general.

Even Panini creates description as he observes locally or uses material seen by Yaska and

others before him. He takes them further to create "rules.".  This extrapolation is bold and

appears analytic.  We just went through the example  दाशरथी in a different thread.

This is where Panini's prescription comes into language use.  

So would be the story of Astronomy.  Some observations are descriptive.  But from them

one creates a prescriptive system for the future.  Such system could hold and may get

modified depending on the assumptions applied.  New observations might contradict the

prescription.  Not so with the language.  The prescription creates it.  That the prescription

had held so far and we champion its validity simply puts Panini as a stern teacher.

He is kind occasionally to create exceptions when he heard that people were using 

words differently.  There is no astronomical prescription of a yellow moon versus an 

orange moon.

The prescription continues in mathematics, geometry and health sciences.  How we may

discover general rules from a sample of observations is the triumph of insight.  What i wanted

to suggest was the language becomes an imposed phenomenon, while nature continues

to generate new samples.

Best regards,

BM    

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. Descriptive grammar rules of a language when read by the mother tongue/first language speaker are taken as descriptive. But the same are taken as prescriptive by the second language speaker of that language.

2. Overtly prescriptive rules are provided to the first language speaker too for pedagogical  standardization purposes.

3. Descriptive rules are used as prescriptive rules by the mother tongue speaker of the described language too when the variety of the mother tongue described, say classical variety, is not the variety spoken by the speaker, but the speaker wants to use.

4. When Panini uses, say, Chandasi, to whom is he prescribing that usage? No one can newly create Chandas, the Veda.

5. It can not be said that in 'Chandasi' he is descriptive and in 'Bhaashaayaam' he is prescriptive. Following the principle of consistency one has to agree that all bhaashaayaam rules are descriptive just as chandasi rules are.

6. > That the prescription had held so far and we champion its validity simply puts Panini as a stern teacher.He is kind occasionally to create exceptions when he heard that people were using words differently. 

As shown under #4 & #5 above, since Painini's rules are clearly descriptive, taking them as descriptive or prescriptive depends on the contexts /cases #1, #2 & #3.

Since taking it prescriptively is the user's act , sternness or kindness do not belong to Panini.

So Panini listing alternative usages to the 'mainly' described usage only further confirms that what the book is doing is doing is description of vyavahaara.

7. The word vyavahaara occurs so frequently in Vakyapadiyam and Hari emphasizes vyavahaara of the s'ishTa (and not even of a rishi) is binding for the rule-maker so vehemently that it very clearly establishes that AA is looked at as vyavahaara-describing book. Whose vyavahaara is described ? Of the s'ishTas. If s'ishTa whose first language / mother tongue is the described language, the consequence of the use is standardization. 

8. Those who are taking it as prescriptive are doing so because the language described is not their mother tongue.   

[N.R.Joshi]

---------- Original Message ----------
From: G S S Murthy <murt...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} काचित् जिज्ञासा

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:16:44 +0530

Dear scholars,

AS an aside to the discussion going on through this thread, may I express my unorthodox views?

Panini built a magnificent artificial structure to explain and expand Sanskrit as he knew. It has stood the test of time and will be there for long.

However, with the technology available through computers and programming, we could look at Sanskrit in a new way.

1. Try to list usages of Sanskrit words in major classics like Ramayana, Mahabharata and Mahakavyas. It would be a gigantic data base. I believe the database will cover the vocabulary that is adequate enough for most purposes.

2. Using techniques of data-analytics and data mining, arrive at rules that can be discerned through the usage.The rules arrived at would not be based on Paninian structure. It could be entirely different.

I believe such an approach is feasible although it may be a large and major project running over several years.

The sceptic may say, "Why waste our efforts when Panini has done it for us?" My answer is " We don't know. The project may come up with a simpler form of grammar and many may be attracted to Sanskrit. Sanskrit may become a dynamic, living language" 

Scholars may like to give a thought to the idea. 

Regards,

Murthy

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

How did this word 'prescriptive' enter as an unjustifiably pejorative description of our classical grammars in India?

It is the excitement born of the newly introduced discipline linguistics. The new initiates who included highly respectably learned professors of the generation of my teachers, were enjoying their initiation into the new discipline through their repeated satires and fun makings about  the 'prescriptive' nature (purely based on their wrong perception of them as prescriptive) of the classical grammars. One such highly learned fine linguist did it so often that I was not able to help reacting.

Once he was at it again during one of his guest lectures in my department. He was addressing the post-graduate students of Telugu and started his gleeful fun makings and satires about Balavyakaranamu of Chinnaya Suri (of 19th century) being prescriptive. ( This book, in fact, like AA, has only descriptive rules for classical Telugu which was the standard dialect of those diglossia days, with a very few prescriptive statements in his own vrittis.)

Incidentally this linguist was the language advisor of a Telugu newspaper and during his tenure in this role he did a commendable work of writing a style manual for that daily. That book has very clear imperative sentences as rules.

That day, I raised my hand and asked him "Sir, can you explain why the rules in this book are imperative sentences?" The gigantic scholar , a great sahridaya as he was , paused for a while in introspection and then said, " Yes, I am able to see your point.  Now I am able to see that just as my book is meant for the standardization of the language of that daily, Suri was also standardizing the standard variety of his times."

Never later I heard him  making fun of Suri. That was probably also because highly learned scholars of those days were great human beings too.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Shrinivasa Varakhedi <shri...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

____________________________________________________________
New Testosterone Booster Takes GNC by Storm
There’s a new supplement at GNC that’s got executives interested. Find ...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/579bc92588403492509cast01vuc

[N.R.Joshi]

July 29, 2016

 

I agree with you Shree G.S.S. Murthy. N.R.Joshi

Affordable Wireless Plans
Set up is easy. Get online in minutes.
Starting at only $9.95 per month!
www.netzero.net

[mattoo_k]

Dear scholars

I once again emphasis that our shastras are though descriptive in nature looking from the high pedestal (tattavik)but when it comes to common platform where human nature is destined to error the shastras come out to be prescrptive. Just as a doctor prescribes medicine only when there is some deficiency in my body-function. If i would have a perfect body(? )no question of being prescriptive but once it is deficient he has to prescribe so the narrative vis-a-vis descriptive shastras have prescriptive tone. 

The dual function has to be accepted from this point of views. 

Regards

Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Nagrajji,

I speak Oriya.  Languages like Oriya allow high flexibility in the formation of words

and so there is yet to have a prescriptive grammar.  There are broad indicators of space 

and time which are descriptive possibly from very early days.  Such considerations lead 

to the use of vowels in communication.  While Sanskrit has a signature of its own due

to Panini, Oriya is flooded with dialects, where each dialect may appear as a separate

language   Sanskrta Bharati lately is attempting a variation of Sanskrit, which wishes

to be flexible but loses the style of the language.  Oriya does not have a standard style

and hence flexibility adds color to the language.  Similar could be true in other Indian 

languages like Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati etc.

BM

[mattoo_k]

True. Every regional languages allow much flexibility.  One cannot go on allowing flexibility infinitely. And wherever one puts the restriction one falls within the orbit of prescription.  For instance,  “so far and no further”like command.  

I do not know but it is my understanding. Every law (niyam) cut both side. 1. Description 2. Prescription 3.finally usages. 

Regards to all

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Note for @'mattoo_k'

Please include your name while posting. See rules of posting on BVP home page

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear vidwan mattoo kji,

You have been right on dot when you said  S'aastric statements have descriptive-prescriptive dual function depending on who is using it : for the one who is already perfectly dhaarmic, descriptive, for the one who is not but aspires to be, prescriptive.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> While Sanskrit has a signature of its own due to Panini, Oriya is flooded with dialects, where each dialect may appear as a separate

language.

------- Situation is the same with Sanskrit too Prof. Misra. Prakrits are Sanskrit's dialects only. 

That a language has dialects does not indicate its 'flexibility'. Oriya too has its 'standard' form , a form which is used by the speakers of all its dialects to communicate among themselves. Uniformity across the regions and relatively greater stability in comparison to the dialects are the features are the standard form of any language. These two features : uniformity across space and stability through the passage of time are required for the standard form of any language for it  to be able to perform its functions. To maintain these features of the standard form is called standardization. Grammars of the standard form play the role of this standardization. Due to this feature , standard forms always create a popular impression or illusion rather, of being frozen.

Sanskrit getting frozen due to AA is a similar popular impression/illusion.

Certainly grammars of standard forms, as part of their standardizing function do reduce the rapidity of change.

That is what AA too did to Sanskrit.

  

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Nagrajji,

The problem could be more complex.  I have difficulty in accepting if Prakrit

is a dialect to Sanskrit.  I have reason to believe Prakrit is rooted in the

oral literature of India where flexibility is a cognitive variable.  I cannot

get into a major discussion on this for a year (studying).

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra  

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>  I have reason to believe Prakrit is rooted in the oral literature of India where flexibility is a cognitive variable.

Before you get ready into a discussion,  let me add a few points to ponder over:

1. Languages are not rooted in literature ,it is the other way round.

2. The Vedas are the oral literature whose medium is the Vedic language.

3. Researchers look at a huge amount of Sanskrit literature to be written documentation of oral Sanskrit literature.

4. Prakrits have oral and written literature both.   

[mattoo_k]

Dear Nagarji

Thanks  you have briefed me correctly. 

Madhu Kapoor. (Mattook)

[Bijoy Misra]

We have these in mind.

Our approach is more towards the theory of a language.

I will report.  We reported some preliminary work in Bangkok last year.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Vidvatkavi Sri GSSMurtyji,

Your suggestion is not so unorthodox.

In fact, it is well accepted and well established idea of Sanskrit (and as an influence of that) idea of Indian tradition that lakshaNa is not necessarily what is found in the book of lakshaNa, it is the set of rules running through a corpus of lakshyas of a system, say, a language.

It is also a traditional idea that there are two ways of knowing /learning lakshaNa: 1. through one's own observation of the lakshyas 2. through a lakshaNa book.

It is such a traditional idea that such a staunch custodian of tradition as his holiness Jagadguru S'ankaracharya Sri Sri Sri Bharati Tirtha swami himself in one of the videos recently shared on BVP that there can not be a language that is able to function as a language that does not have grammar irrespective of whether that grammar is written down /formulated in the form of a set of rules or not.

All those who are able to speak grammatically correct English can be said to know English grammar. All of them need not have learnt it from a grammar book such as Wren and Martin. Most of them, particularly nowadays learn grammatically correct English, by that stretch English grammar, just by observing /reading/listening grammatically correct English.

All such people can be said to have learnt English directly from lakshyas, not with the help of a lakshaNa book.

To take the help of a computer in creating a lakshaNa of the language, afresh, directly from lakshyas is not a bad idea. In fact that can be done for all the languages, why only for Sanskrit.

As you have already noted, in the case of each rich language, it is going to be a very big project, that can keep many people all over the world busy.

Some may look at this exercise as reinventing the wheel. Some may predict that we may just be validating Panini and other laakshaNikas at the end of the whole laborious exercise.

But it does not hurt to collect all the facts /observations that have been generalized as various disciplines such as physics and create the disciplines all over again, afresh, right from the scratch. Who knows? There could be many useful and pleasant surprises from and through the process.    

[G S S Murthy]

Dear Prof.Nagaraj Paturiji, 

I am thankful for your detailed well-argued response to my earlier posting .While I am also thankful to you for addressing me with an unearned epithet the burden of which is too heavy for my lean shoulders, I would be grateful if I am just addressed as Murthy or Murthyji. 

I am very glad that my suggestion is not orthodox and there are other votaries to the view..

I also agree that any language could be analyzed by building up a data base and analyzing its characteristics. I believe something similar is being done in machine translation of languages.

 However to say that in a similar manner one could study natural phenomena (domain of science) ab initio is not meaningful. Science is a quest for truth that is amenable to human sensory perception and logic. Although much in the field of science is mapped, much more remains unmapped. Language on the other hand evolves over millennia like an organism and at any given point of time has defined characteristics, with some spread due to dialects. It is therefore meaningful to catch those characteristics through computer analysis. 

As regards discerning the characteristics of Sanskrit through computer analysis of its usage in Ramayana, Mahabharata and other classics, pioneering work has been done by several universities, notably in Germany and Japan, by digitizing the texts. It may not be difficult to study usage of words (nouns, verbs, indeclinables etc) and syntax  in a digitized text. 

All said and done, Sanskrit is a difficult language to master and but for Panini who was able to provide a strong and durable structure through his epoch-making work, it might have become one of the many lost languages. But Panini’s work is also of formidable complexity and many eager students of Sanskrit flounder while climbing the mountain of Ashtadhyayi and fail to learn either Panini or Sanskrit . 

It is this which prompts me to suggest that usage of Sanskrit in well-known works of Sanskrit be analyzed so that we could arrive at a vocabulary and a set of rules of grammar that will suffice for all practical purposes.

Warm Regards,

Murthy

[Amba Kulkarni]

Dear Sri Murthy,

It is this which prompts me to suggest that usage of Sanskrit in well-known works of Sanskrit be analyzed so that we could arrive at a vocabulary and a set of rules of grammar that will suffice for all practical purposes.

I would like to mention here that Prof. Tirumala Kulakarni from Purnaprajna Vidyapeetham Bangalore has been using various online tools for analysing Sanskrit texts, and has come up with a book

सरल कठिन संस्कृतम्

that equips a learner (within 15 hrs of intense study)  to read and understand Sanskrit books.

More on this at http://http://sksedu.net/?page_id=2

With regards,

Amba Kulkarni

--

Fellow,
Indian Institute of Advanced Study,
Shimla

आ नो भद्रा: क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वत: ll
Let noble thoughts come to us from every side.
- Rig Veda, I-89-i.
Prof. (On leave)
Department of Sanskrit Studies
University of Hyderabad

Prof. C.R. Rao Road 

Hyderabad-500 046

(91) 040 23133802(off)

http://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/scl
http://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/faculty/amba

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Vidvatkaviji,

I am happy to see that I was able to communicate my point.

Coming to simpler and easier tools to learn Sanskrit, there have been, from time to time, a very big number of attempts towards this purpose, many tools have been created as a result.

Right from the days of the modakaistaadaya story of kathaasaritsaagara, there is a reflection of such an urge for shorter made easy tools.

Books like siddhaanta kaumudi, their large, medium and small versions, Kos'as like Amara's, S'abdamanjaris and Dhatu tables etc. etc. are all results of such efforts only.

I shared details of many contemporary attempts in this thread of BVP.

As Prof. Amba Kulkarni informed us using computer for corpus collection work is also on.

Yoursuggested program I hope will contribute to such attempts in a new big way.

Regards,

Nagaraj

[G S S Murthy]

Dear Prof.Amba Kulakarniji

Many thanks. It is an eye-opener for me. I shall go through the contents of the web site you have referred to. I shall try to get a copy of the book too.

Regards,

Murthy

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Amba Kulkarni <ambap...@gmail.com> wrote:

[BVKSastry(Gmail)]

Namaste

 

A thread of interesting discussion, where   divergent views on  ‘Why and How of  Sanskrit Study ’ – are presented.

 

This opens up several critical questions on perception of ‘What is Samskrutham: The language of the documents used in ‘Bharateeya Shaastra -Vidwat paramparaa ? ( I am  deliberately  avoiding the  use of  the expression Vedic , Indian, Sanskrit – in relation to  keep the focus on ‘language’ and  ‘grammar’ part of the  debate. My friend Dr. N R Joshi asks this simple question - -(संस्कृतं नाम किम्)  ).

 

Here are my notes with requests for additional clarifications. I believe this will build critical inputs to define the linked issue  of ‘Battle for Sanskrit’ and   proposal of ‘Swa-Deshi  Indology’ as  ‘ battle –ammunition’. 

 

It is a long post, with multi-scholar input, all connected. The consolidation of earlier posts is placed at the end of this post( *).

Please bear with the long post. There are no one –liner questions and half-word answers in such a serious and complex deliberation.

 

I am  consolidating* several posts by scholars as they present,   to facilitate  a frame for the < Big Project Challenge>  of discovering and restoring < Yoga way of learning Samskrutham=   Vak-Yoga= Yoga-Samskrutham>.

 

1.    My  arguments are built around two words: ‘Darshana –Shaaastra  and Bhaashaa-  Shaastra,  which are  well known and in practical use.  (   This was the criterion pointed in an earlier post by Professor Korada, to choose the words for deliberation. At this stage, you may   take my below statements as a  hypothesis, if it facilitates smoother reading ).

 

Statement -1 (Using the word ‘Darshana –Shaaastra) : Shaastra teaching should yield Darshana as Experience.  Darshna is  Analytically documented as Shaastra.

                              ((शास्त्राध्ययनफलं दर्शनम् ;  शास्त्रम् नाम  दर्शन -व्याख्यानं , दर्शन-व्याकरणं  , विधि -नियम –निषेध विशेष बोधकः,   विनियोगार्थं अनुशासनम्,  इष्टकामार्थ सिद्धये ; ) )

 

        (All) Shaastra’s are  deeply and integrally connected with ‘ Visioning (Revelation, a transcendental process that forms the base and basic of language). Darshana gets expressly articulated as Shaastra. The teaching of Shaastra is to facilitate the ‘ (Shuddha –Sampoorna -SphuTa) Darshana’ as an experience (Anubhava).

 

Statement -2 (Using the word  ‘Bhaashaa-  Shaastra / ‘ bhaashaa-prayoga’   ) : The language of Shaastra determines the Standardization and Standard usage  of Language. Bhashaa -Shaastra teaching should yield Bhashaa-Darshana as (Vak-Yoga)  Experience.  

                             ((;  शास्त्रेण नियमः क्रियते,  भाषा शास्त्रेण भाषा-नियमः क्रियते ; व्याख्यानतो शास्त्रज्ञानम् , तपसा दर्शनम्  ) )

                        The pedagogy of language-usage  for engagement with  Shaastra needs to have an excellence of ‘Yoga’ ( covering Unification, Integrity, In-connectedness, Application :: The  clarity on  VI-NI- YOGA (विनियोग) – as my friend Dr. Yadu Moharir keeps stressing ; a word which comes in Yoga-Sutra   ).

 

2.  In relation to these two well known words, which are  poorly translated as ‘ Discipline of Philosophy (Darshana Shaastra)- making the deliberation a hyper cerebral verbiage creation and  Linguistics ( Rules and convention of  Practical Social, Street usage of language, under which ‘ rules of  literary and technical usage of language are positioned  for assessment and course correction as Standard’. ), I seek the following clarifications:

 

2a) Amba Kulkarni  : Who decides the sufficiency of vocabulary,  rules of grammar and practical purpose to fit in a 15 hour study ?  The programmer, the software designer , content provider, the  university, or the user community ? (कस्मै देवाय  संस्कृत भाषया विधेम  )    It is tricky debate like how much cloth and what type of cloth is ‘ necessary and sufficient’ to pass the test of ‘ not naked’ ?  which is totally different from asking the question: What are the norms of ‘  well dressed and appropriate for the occasion’ ? (  (अनग्नता - कौपीनमात्रः - वस्त्रालंकार- संयुक्तः - It is analogous to the debate of  differentiating  Prakrutham from Samskrutham?)

 Can this be program be applied to one target sentence  < श्री-राम-नामाऽहं दाशरथिः, भवन्तं अभिवादये   > and Train the learner to get acquainted with  sufficient rules of grammar to form similarly communicative sentences ?  in 15 hour study program ? 

 

The expectation of  design pedagogy under  language education program is to  facilitate the learner to learn the standard usage of language ( not limited to specific sentences and contexts only) and apply it in a language-context  appropriate way. The program should help to build a ‘ Speaker of language’ and not  force a ‘ learner to be  machine –program dependent’.  ((वाक्य / काव्य सुभाषित -तात्पर्य-ग्रहणं भाषा-ग्रहण -प्रयोग व्याख्यान कौशलात् भिन्नम् ) .  The purpose of ‘lakshya –lakshana samanvaya’ pedagogy that the machine program needs  has to be ‘ defect free (अदोष - निर्दुष्ट  ).  

 

2b-1) Nagaraj Paturi:     On <  lakshaNa, it is the set of rules running through a corpus of lakshyas of a system, say, a language>   What are the ‘ lakshyas’ that should get covered in developing such a ‘ Simplified Practical Sanskrit learning’? – On What criterion should the filtering be done ? Can ‘ Vishwamitra Gayatri mantra’  and ‘ starting simple  prayer, say  – namaH sUryAya chandrAya’  be clubbed together, as they are widely used ‘ lakshyas?  How to teach the difference between the two kinds of ‘ lakshya’s’ here ?  Which of the two ways of tradition <  of knowing /learning lakshaNa: 1. through one's own observation of the lakshyas 2. through a lakshaNa book.> would you recommend ? for a global usage?  

 

2b-2) Nagaraj Paturi:     On On   the observation  < All those who are able to speak grammatically correct English can be said to know English grammar. All of them need not have learnt it from a grammar book such as Wren and Martin. Most of them, particularly nowadays learn grammatically correct English, by that stretch English grammar, just by observing /reading/listening grammatically correct English. ….  < All such people can be said to have learnt English directly from lakshyas, not with the help of a lakshaNa book. >      Can this argument be extended to language of Darshana-Shaastra as above ?  Does it mean that there is only one standard English Usage ?  That expectation is far from True ! Here is the current understanding of what is ‘Standard English’ -  Standard English (SE) refers to whatever form of the English language is accepted as a national norm in any English-speaking country.  It encompasses grammar, vocabulary and spelling. In the British Isles, particularly in England and Wales, it is often associated with: the "Received Pronunciation" accent (there are several variants of the accent) and UKSE (United Kingdom Standard English), which refers to grammar and vocabulary. In Scotland the standard is Scottish Standard English. In the United States it is generally associated with (though controversially) the General American accent and in Australia with General Australian. Unlike the case of other standard languages, however, no official or central regulating body defines Standard English.( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English   ) What counts as Standard English will depend on both the locality and the particular varieties with which Standard English is being contrasted. A form considered standard in one region may be non-standard in another, and a form that is standard by contrast with one variety (for example the language of inner-city African Americans) may be considered non-standard by contrast with the usage of middle-class professionals. No matter how it is interpreted, however, Standard English in this sense should not be regarded as being necessarily correct or unexceptionable, since it will include many kinds of language that could be faulted on various grounds, like the language of corporate memos and television advertisements or the conversations of middle-class high-school pupils. Thus, while the term can serve a useful descriptive purpose providing the context makes its meaning clear, it should not be construed as conferring any absolute positive evaluation.

 

 

2b-3) Nagaraj Paturi:     On < To take the help of a computer in creating a lakshaNa of the language, afresh, directly from lakshyas is not a bad idea. In fact that can be done for all the languages, why only for Sanskrit. >  For this,  one has to begin with the acknowledgement of the difference between ‘Human and Machine Modes of  working with the Language  for Processing,  Articulation, Comprehension, Storage and Recall, Filtering the good and bad usage (प्रक्रिया , उच्चारण, शब्द-ग्रहण, स्मृति, धारणा, शुद्धाशुद्ध विवेक    ).  The next step is to have these defined for the ‘Sanskrit’; and then write a code.  

 

In the present phase and state of Technology covered under  to AI, IS, Speech Systems, Computational Linguistics et al  the ground reality is different.  The research is ongoing work, where English is used as a ‘Standard by default (? - (मान-दण्डः)  to assess ‘all other languages of the world, including Sanskrit .

 

In the present phase and state of Human Languages used in Society, including English, used widely in web –programming  the ground reality is different.   The technology to design a Digital web page in all human languages ( despite the character display and hypes of on line translation and transliteration)  is a work in progress. Sanskrit grammar rules are being ‘ digested’ in to ‘ Anglo-phobic Programming languages’ , which work is being eagerly facilitated by Sanskrit Native speakers.  

 

In the present phase and state of linguistics of Sanskrit gloriously bordered with the statement –‘ Sanskrit is best suited language for computers ( circa 80’s – NASA Scientist)   the ground reality is different.  There is a lot more work needed to understand the ‘ Design of Paninian rule base’, which is a bridge-book, placed  around 700 BCE, which facilitates the  understanding of Samskrutham language usage  around 3100 to 10,000 BCE ( a range of time between Mahabharata and Vedas) and   STANDARDIZES  the Sanskrit Language usage  in post period of 700 BCE till say 20^th century.

 

 

2b-4) Nagaraj Paturi:      You have already noted  < in the case of each rich language, it is going to be a very big project, that can keep many people all over the world busy …   Some may look at this exercise as reinventing the wheel. Some may predict that we may just be validating Panini and other laakshaNikas at the end of the whole laborious exercise. But it does not hurt to collect all the facts /observations that have been generalized as various disciplines such as physics and create the disciplines all over again, afresh, right from the scratch. Who knows? There could be many useful and pleasant surprises from and through the process.  >.    Now, which Nation – Corporate –Language user community – Religion group should work and invest in this ‘ big project’ – Why? How will the 15 hour program provide a  ‘ Sampler Taste’ of the ‘ rich language and its complexity’? to give a level playing opportunity by the side of  ‘English’ ?  

 

 

2c)  G S S Murthy :   On    <  I believe the database will cover the vocabulary that is adequate enough for most purposes. … 2. Using techniques of data-analytics and data mining, arrive at rules that can be discerned through the usage. The rules arrived at would not be based on Paninian structure. It could be entirely different. I believe such an approach is feasible although it may be a large and major project running over several years. >   

 Great suggestion ! Here are three  challenges.  What are we trying to do in this ‘ Big-Data –Analytics’?

 

<Validate Panini ? – It would be possible if ‘ our current knowledge of Panini is sufficient and accurate’ !  I am sure that many wont even make a ‘ pass mark’ on this point.  

 

<Discover, probably  a new set of rules to explain Old and Existing Vocabulary> - Well, the effort starts with the Lexicons and Koshas, Niruktas , which again make a pre-requisite of < Panini –Excellence>.

 

< Give a 21 st century new twist to Sanskrit with a version- upgrade like a software patch ?   >   To borrow your words, Murhty ji,  I am almost a skeptic and say  <  I  don't know. The project may come up with a simpler form of grammar and many may be attracted to Sanskrit. Sanskrit may become a dynamic, living language" >. Let me keep this as a wish-list that a new-Panini and PAtanjali would emerge through the I- Roto-Machine revolutions! for a < future time>! .   

 

To draw from the post of Nagaraj Paturi < just as my book is meant for the standardization of the language of that daily, Suri was also standardizing the standard variety of his times>.

 

2d-1 )  Shrinivasa Varakhedi :   On   < In fact all our Shastras are descriptive only. They teach us the 'Niyama's (natural rules)….   .. Thus, Panini is not at all giving any prescription how to pronounce, rather giving an explanation how our vocal chard behaves in such contexts. …  Even in the case of Dharma Shastra, which is believed to be a strictly prescriptive in nature by ruling injunctions and prohibitions, this view holds good. ... It is very well said in philosophical texts by the term - ishta-saadhanataa (being cause for desired result). This is what the meaning of any vidhi (rule) - is the opinion of Nyaya and other non-meemammsaka philosophers… Hence, all shastric vidhis are to be taken as descriptions. The descriptions are told in the vidhi form to make the people understand in an easy way to follow - what to do and what not to do. This does not mean that they are just Do's and Dont's ; They are descriptions. >

 

2d-2 )  On   < Shrinivasa Varakhedi /  Nagaraj Paturi  :   This descriptive - prescriptive classification itself is a problematic one.   The sUtras of AA are all descriptive only, none of them prescriptive in their syntax/structure/mood.    But its users used it as an anus'aasanam with rakshOhAgamalaghvasandEhAh as prayOjanam.   The definition "vyAkriyantE  anEna s'abdAh iti vyAkaraNam"  gives a descriptive view of it.  

 

 Can we say :         ((शास्त्राध्ययनफलं दर्शनम् ;  शास्त्रम् नाम  दर्शन -व्याख्यानं , दर्शन-व्याकरणं  , विधि -नियम –निषेध विशेष बोधकः,   विनियोगार्थं अनुशासनम्,  इष्टकामार्थ सिद्धये ; ) )                                                                                 

                                   ((व्याख्यानतो शास्त्रज्ञानम् , तपसा दर्शनम्  ;  शास्त्रेण नियमः क्रियते,  भाषा शास्त्रेण भाषा-नियमः क्रियते ;  ) )

 

        (All) Shaastra’s are  deeply and integrally connected with ‘ Visioning (Revelation, a transcendental process that forms the base and basic of language). Darshana gets expressly articulated as Shaastra. The teaching of Shaastra is to facilitate the ‘ (Shuddha –Sampoorna -SphuTa) Darshana’ as an experience (Anubhava). The convenience of prescriptive and descriptive is an artifact of teaching in a context.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

=========

* EXTRACT FROM ORIGINAL MULTIPLE POSTS

 

  Amba Kulkarni  : Usage of Sanskrit in well-known works of Sanskrit be analyzed so that we could arrive at a vocabulary and a set of rules of grammar that will suffice for all practical purposes. ...     Equips a learner (within 15 hrs of intense study)  to read and understand Sanskrit books.

 

Nagaraj Paturi:    Your suggestion is not so unorthodox.   ..  In fact, it is well accepted and well established idea of Sanskrit (and as an influence of that) idea of Indian tradition that lakshaNa is not necessarily what is found in the book of lakshaNa, it is the set of rules running through a corpus of lakshyas of a system, say, a language.

 

It is also a traditional idea that there are two ways of knowing /learning lakshaNa: 1. through one's own observation of the lakshyas 2. through a lakshaNa book.   It is such a traditional idea that such a staunch custodian of tradition as his holiness Jagadguru S'ankaracharya Sri Sri Sri Bharati Tirtha swami himself in one of the videos recently shared on BVP that there can not be a language that is able to function as a language that does not have grammar irrespective of whether that grammar is written down /formulated in the form of a set of rules or not.

 

All those who are able to speak grammatically correct English can be said to know English grammar. All of them need not have learnt it from a grammar book such as Wren and Martin. Most of them, particularly nowadays learn grammatically correct English, by that stretch English grammar, just by observing /reading/listening grammatically correct English.

 

All such people can be said to have learnt English directly from lakshyas, not with the help of a lakshaNa book.

 

To take the help of a computer in creating a lakshaNa of the language, afresh, directly from lakshyas is not a bad idea. In fact that can be done for all the languages, why only for Sanskrit.

 

As you have already noted, in the case of each rich language, it is going to be a very big project, that can keep many people all over the world busy.

 

Some may look at this exercise as reinventing the wheel. Some may predict that we may just be validating Panini and other laakshaNikas at the end of the whole laborious exercise.

 

But it does not hurt to collect all the facts /observations that have been generalized as various disciplines such as physics and create the disciplines all over again, afresh, right from the scratch. Who knows? There could be many useful and pleasant surprises from and through the process.   

 

  G S S Murthy :   May I express my unorthodox views?  Panini built a magnificent artificial structure to explain and expand Sanskrit as he knew. It has stood the test of time and will be there for long.

However, with the technology available through computers and programming, we could look at Sanskrit in a new way.

1. Try to list usages of Sanskrit words in major classics like Ramayana, Mahabharata and Mahakavyas. It would be a gigantic data base. I believe the database will cover the vocabulary that is adequate enough for most purposes.

2. Using techniques of data-analytics and data mining, arrive at rules that can be discerned through the usage.The rules arrived at would not be based on Paninian structure. It could be entirely different.

I believe such an approach is feasible although it may be a large and major project running over several years.

The sceptic may say, "Why waste our efforts when Panini has done it for us?" My answer is " We don't know. The project may come up with a simpler form of grammar and many may be attracted to Sanskrit. Sanskrit may become a dynamic, living language"

Scholars may like to give a thought to the idea.

 

  Nagaraj Paturi  :  How did this word 'prescriptive' enter as an unjustifiably pejorative description of our classical grammars in India?   It is the excitement born of the newly introduced discipline linguistics. The new initiates who included highly respectably learned professors of the generation of my teachers, were enjoying their initiation into the new discipline through their repeated satires and fun makings about  the 'prescriptive' nature (purely based on their wrong perception of them as prescriptive) of the classical grammars. One such highly learned fine linguist did it so often that I was not able to help reacting.

Once he was at it again during one of his guest lectures in my department. He was addressing the post-graduate students of Telugu and started his gleeful fun makings and satires about Balavyakaranamu of Chinnaya Suri (of 19th century) being prescriptive. ( This book, in fact, like AA, has only descriptive rules for classical Telugu which was the standard dialect of those diglossia days, with a very few prescriptive statements in his own vrittis.)

 

Incidentally this linguist was the language advisor of a Telugu newspaper and during his tenure in this role he did a commendable work of writing a style manual for that daily. That book has very clear imperative sentences as rules.

 

That day, I raised my hand and asked him "Sir, can you explain why the rules in this book are imperative sentences?" The gigantic scholar , a great sahridaya as he was , paused for a while in introspection and then said, " Yes, I am able to see your point.  Now I am able to see that just as my book is meant for the standardization of the language of that daily, Suri was also standardizing the standard variety of his times."

 

Never later I heard him  making fun of Suri. That was probably also because highly learned scholars of those days were great human beings too.

 

Shrinivasa Varakhedi :   The view expressed by Sri Nagaraj Ji is very much right. No part in Vyakarana is prescriptive in nature though the sutras formally look like prescriptive. In fact all our Shastras are descriptive only. They teach us the 'Niyama's (natural rules). For example, the sandhi rules in grammar book are the definition of vocal chard and its behaviour in the context of co-occurence of two syllables. In other words, Panini is explaining the the invariable relationship between the two events - the cause and affect. This is nothing but Vyapti relation between the co-occurence of two syllables and their mix during pronunciation. Thus, Panini is not at all giving any prescription how to pronounce, rather giving an explanation how our vocal chard behaves in such contexts.

Even in the case of Dharma Shastra, which is believed to be a strictly prescriptive in nature by ruling injunctions and prohibitions, this view holds good. All such injunctions are just meant to show the cause and affect relation between the act and its results. It is very well said in philosophical texts by the term - ishta-saadhanataa (being cause for desired result). This is what the meaning of any vidhi (rule) - is the opinion of Nyaya and other non-meemammsaka philosophers.

Hence, all shastric vidhis are to be taken as descriptions. The descriptions are told in the vidhi form to make the people understand in an easy way to follow - what to do and what not to do. This does not mean that they are just Do's and Dont's ; They are descriptions.

 

Nagaraj Paturi  :    This descriptive - prescriptive classification itself is a problematic one.   The sUtras of AA are all descriptive only, none of them prescriptive in their syntax/structure/mood. 

But its users used it as an anus'aasanam with rakshOhAgamalaghvasandEhAh as prayOjanam.   The definition "vyAkriyantE  anEna s'abdAh iti vyAkaraNam"  gives a descriptive view of it.  

Since both are from Bhagavaan Patanjali only it may be seen that AA has been viewed as both a descriptive book and anus'aasanam simultaneously in the same tradition. 

Is it a contradiction? 

No.

 

Because many good descriptions have been taken prescriptively and many books (such as Dharmas'Astra books) which are being talked about as prescriptive books (vidhi books), when you take a closer look at the sentence structure/mood are turn out to be descriptive only. 

This is true with many modern western books not limited to the fields of grammar and the like. 

One good example that comes to my mind is the theory of bureaucracy of Max Weber. What he did was only description of bureaucracy as one of the social organizations only. But it so turned out that as long as Classical Bureaucracy was prevalent in business management and public administration, his description was used as almost a prescription. 

That is how it happens.

When this nature of things is not realized, some books, particularly ancient books, particularly grammars are blamed for being prescriptive (quite often without any evidence in their expression) and modern books are claimed to be descriptive and it is taught to students that writing grammars descriptively is the right approach found in modern books which is not found in ancient books.

 

Sumanta Chowdhury  : पाणिनीयव्याकरणं descriptive grammar मध्ये अन्तर्भवति उत prescriptive grammar मध्ये इति ज्ञातुमिच्छामि। उभयोर्भेदमपि कृपया ज्ञापयतु।  

 

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

पाणिनीयव्याकरणं descriptive grammar मध्ये अन्तर्भवति उत prescriptive grammar मध्ये इति ज्ञातुमिच्छामि। उभयोर्भेदमपि कृपया ज्ञापयतु

                                               -- Vidvan Sumantha Chaudhary

A doctor pre-scribes a medicine - a teacher pre-scribes a text book - it is a must .

De-scribe a function / a lady / a scholar / देवता --  explain in detail .

पाणिनीयव्याकरणम् is both prescriptive and descriptive ---

व्याकरणम् -- व्याक्रियन्ते अपशब्देभ्यः साधुशब्दाः पृथक्क्रियन्ते अनेन इति व्याकरणम्

व्याकरणम् is an instrument , that separates ( साधु-) शब्दs from असाधुशब्दs .

Why to separate ? By employing शब्दs one would get धर्म , that leads to मोक्ष।

सिद्धे शब्दार्थसंबन्धे लोकतः , लोकतः अर्थप्रयुक्ते शब्दप्रयोगे शास्त्रेण धर्मनियमः क्रियते ।

सिद्धे = नित्ये - शब्दे अर्थे संबन्धे च ( otherwise one cannot compile a व्याकरणम् )।

So Panini prescribes - गौः etc thus separating अपशब्दs (with the same meaning) like - गावी , गोणी , गोता , गोपोतलिका etc.

So व्याकरणम् is not Grammar , rather it includes grammar - for the people of other cultures we may use the term Grammar as a rough (without claim to accuracy)translation.

It is  descriptive also --

शब्दानुशासनम् -- शब्दाः अनुशिष्यन्ते प्रकृतिप्रत्ययविभागरूपेण विविच्य बोध्यन्ते अनेन इति शब्दानुशासनम् ।

When Panini wants to prescribe शब्दs even one thousand divine years are not sufficient . Therefore he wanted to employ a device - 

येन अल्पेनाल्पेन यत्नेन महतो महतः शब्दौघान् प्रतिपद्येरन् ।

For that - किञ्चित् सामान्यविशेषवत् लक्षणं प्रवर्त्यम्।

Take a root and apply seven kinds of प्रत्ययs - you will get thousands of शब्दs.

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

--