[Advaita-l] to be and to have in Sanskrit
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Sat Mar 31 18:31:44 CDT 2007
>Sri Guy's question clearly involves a grammatical question. The grammer of
>one language cannot be interspersed into another language. Sanskrit should
>not be judged from the point of view of another language. A person
>conversant with Sanskrit would have no problem conveying his ideas in that
On the other hand, the deep grammar of a language reveals something
intrinsic about thought processes of those who speak that language and
therefore has implications for the philosophical systems that they create
and subscribe to.
For example, the English language prefers direct constructions, "I am
hungry", "I am thirsty", "I own a house" etc. The "I" is not only the
doer/enjoyer (kartA/bhoktA), but also grammatically the subject of the
sentence. In any Indian language that I can think of, the expressions
involve the "I" in a more indirect way, e.g. mujhe bhUk lagI hai, mera ek
ghar hai, enakku paSikkaradu, enakku/ennuDaiya oru vIDu irukku, and so on.
The grammatical subject of the sentence is no longer the "I".
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list