Thread by @AdiShloka

संस्कृत अनुबन्धनम्~ sanskŕt series - iv

Đ Efficiency of Sanskrit : Less words more meaning - ii

Let’s now try to understand, why the seemingly indispensable words in the English versions of the sentences are redundant in the Sanskrit counterparts.

#Thread

Unnecessary Noun after a number :

Three things must be done before dying. => त्रीणि कर्तव्यानि प्राङ्मरणात्।
Consider the above sentence. Why don’t we have a word for 'things' in the Sanskrit version ?

Specifically, why is the Sanskrit translation not त्रीणि वस्तूनि कर्तव्यानि प्राङ्मरणात्।
Is the translation containing the word वस्तूनि (which means things) wrong ? Actually not.
Well, both the translations are correct. But the word वस्तूनि is redundant and does not add any new

meaning to the sentence. This is because त्रीणि itself means Three objects or Three things. Unlike in English (or Hindi), where three represents merely a number, in Sanskrit, त्रि represents a number while त्रीणि, which is the first vibhakti of त्रि, represents not the number

three, but three objects. There is nothing alien about this. Afterall, the very purpose of a vibhakti is to convert a word representing a property (here, that property is the property of being three in number) to a word representing an object(s) (three objects in this case).

In fact, this observation can be extended to many cases where a noun follows a number. In such cases, the noun usually becomes redundant!

As another example, त्रीणि पर्यटनीयानि प्राङ्मरणात्। would mean…
Three places should be visited before dying.
Again, the Sanskrit version

does not contain the word for places!

Unnecessary words for depicting a collection of objects :
A group of boys is playing. => एके बालाः खेलन्ति।

eke bAlAH – Many boys but one unit.
Consider the above sentence. Why don’t we have a word for group in the Sanskrit version ?

Specifically, why is the Sanskrit translation not एकः बालानाम् समूहः खेलति।
Is the translation containing the word समूहः (which means group) wrong ? Actually not. Well, both the translations are correct. But the word समूहः is redundant and does not add any new meaning to the

sentence. Why so ? Let’s see.
एकः बालः means one boy.
Here, both एक (one) and बाल (boy) are in their singular first vibhakti forms. Hence, एकः बालः represents a single boy.
बहवः बालाः means many boys.
Here, both बहु (many) and बाल (boy) are in their plural first vibhakti forms.

Hence, बहवः बालाः represents many boys.

Now consider..
एके बालाः which means a group of boys.
Here, बाल (boy) is in its plural first vibhakti form and एक (one) is also in its plural first vibhakti form.
How can एक, which means one, exist in a plural form ? Again 'vibhakti' comes

to the rescue. Recall that, एक represents the property of being one. But एके, which is the plural first vibhakti form of एक, represents objects which are many (plural) and still have the property of being one. D objects are many, still they are considered one i.e. एके represents

one group of many objects! Since, बालाः (boys) and एके (one group of many objects) have the same vibhakti viz. first vibhakti, they represent d same objects viz. a group of boys!
Hence, एके बालाः खेलन्ति। means A group of boys is playing.

This kind of application of 'vibhaktis'

can be extended to many cases where words representing a collection of objects become redundant!

One such application occurs in BhagawadGita (18|3).
त्याज्यं दोषवद् इति एके कर्म प्राहुः मनीषिणः। which means…
One class of thinkers says “Actions must be abandoned just as defects

are abondoned”. Here again the Sanskrit version has no word for class!
I remember, my school textbook of Sanskrit said that only d singular vibhaktis of the word एक exist since it means one. But the sloka 18|3 of BhagawadGita refutes this claim by using the plural vibhakti form.

This also sheds some light on the quality of school books that the students have available to study the language. The school course of Sanskrit seems to intentionally hide the charms of the language and let the Indians remain unaware of the intellectual capacities of their

ancestors. Even those who are genuinely interested in learning the language seem to lose interest after they are forced to memorize the 'vibhakti' tables.
It's sad that the British+LeftMarxistNehruvian thugs with their policies achieved their sinister aim by degrading not just

our education system/standard but also made us aloof from our own language which is called as The Mother of All Languages !
But now after almost 100 years of this exploitation, there is slowly a revival of Interest taking place in Sanskrit !

To be continued in Part - iii,,...

@RituRathaur @ikkmurugan @Mishti_in @shallakaul @BeenaPP1 @IshaSattva @geetaraavi @kachnarr @apparrnnaa @ushanirmala @lokagatha @bangadvedant @aneelgs @VamseeJuluri