Sanskrit No Comma No Punctuation!

I came across an interesting article on Sanskrit where it lists the greatness of Sanskrit ,by demonstrating how no punctuation is required for effective communication!

Here it is..

Sanskrit Numerals flipped over 786.jpg
786 Sanskrit Numerals

a section from mahAbhArata, where Arjun explains to Krishna his logic of not fighting the war. Apart from the literary, philosophical and poetic content, one thing is starkly conspicuous in this. Where are the punctuation marks?? No commas, no quotations, no semi-colons and no exclamation marks !! All we see are the single and double vertical lines viz. and . If they are punctuation marks, then why are they appearing at such regular intervals ?

अर्जुन उवाच
यद्यप्येते न पश्यन्ति लोभोपहतचेतसः । कुलक्षयकृतं दोषं मित्रद्रोहे च पातकम् ॥
कथं न ज्ञेयमस्माभिः पापादस्मान्निवर्तितुम् । कुलक्षयकृतं दोषं प्रपश्यद्भिर्जनार्दन ॥
कुलक्षये प्रणश्यन्ति कुलधर्माः सनातनाः । धर्मे नष्टे कुलं कृत्स्नमधर्मोऽभिभवत्युत ॥
अधर्माभिभवात्कृष्ण प्रदुष्यन्ति कुलस्त्रियः । स्त्रीषु दुष्टासु वार्ष्णेय जायते वर्णसंकरः ॥
संकरो नरकायैव कुलघ्नानां कुलस्य । पतन्ति पितरो ह्येषां लुप्तपिण्डोदकक्रियाः ॥
दोषैरेतैः कुलघ्नानां वर्णसङ्करकारकैः । उत्साद्यन्ते जातिधर्माः कुलधर्माः  शाश्वताः ॥
उत्सन्नकुलधर्माणां मनुष्याणां जनार्दन । नरकेनियतं वासो भवति इति अनुशुश्रुम ॥
अहो बत महत्पापं कर्तुं व्यवसिता वयम् । यद्राज्यसुखलोभेन हन्तुं स्वजनमुद्यताः ॥
यदि मामप्रतीकारमशस्त्रं शस्त्रपाणयः । धार्तराष्ट्रा रणे हन्युस्तन्मे क्षेमतरं भवेत् ॥


Q) So, if that is the case, how do you writeflowers, leaves, cows and elephants in Sanskrit ? What substitutes for the comma ?
A) In Sanskrit,
पुष्प = flower
पत्र = leaf
गो = cow
गज = elephant
Hence to write flowers, leaves, cows and elephants, all the words will have to be converted to their plural-first-vibhakti forms viz. पुष्पाणि, पत्राणि, गावः and गजाः which effectively translate to flowers, leaves, cows and elephants respectively. Then these vibhaktified words should be arranged sequentially to form the sentence.

पुष्पाणि पत्राणि गावः गजाः ।

Since there is no ambiguity of any kind, we don’t require commas here.

Q) Are you sure there is no ambiguity ? Let me show you, there is. In the article Similarities between Sanskrit and Programming Languages, you explained that words having the same vibhakti represent the same object, hence the 4 words viz. पुष्पाणि, पत्राणि, गावः and गजाः should represent the same object and not different objects, since they have the same vibhakti viz. first vibhakti. Am I not making a point ?
A) Actually, you are.  Words having the same vibhakti indeed represent the same object. And they represent the same object even here. So पुष्पाणि पत्राणि गावः गजाः । would mean that flowers, leaves, cows and elephants are one and the same thing. To prevent this from happening, we add a  in the end.

So पुष्पाणि पत्राणि गावः गजाः । would mean that flowers, leaves, cows and elephants are one and the same thing, but
पुष्पाणि पत्राणि गावः गजाः । would mean that flowers, leaves, cows and elephants are different things (though they have the same vibhakti). So we see that  is a kind of indicator that tells us that the words preceding it represent different things even if they have the same vibhaktis. There is no word in English that matches the role played by च,but it is often loosely translated by and. The difference between  and and is that while the former negates the effect of vibhakti and usually occurs at the end of the list of objects, the latter is not at all related to vibhakti (since there are no vibhaktis in English!) and occurs before the last word in the list of objects. So the correct translation of
flowers, leaves, cows and elephants is
पुष्पाणि पत्राणि गावः गजाः 
So the word च, along with the vibhaktis, compensates for the absence of commas in Sanskrit! (The word , used in the above passage from mahAbhArata in the manner explained here, has been marked in bold.)

Q) Ok, you explained about the comma. What about the quotation marks ? How do I write, for example,  “I am great”, he said. How will you do away with the quotation marks ?
 First let us give some meanings,
महान् = great
अहम् = I
सः = he
अब्रवीत् = said

So, the sentence “I am great”, he said. would translate to महान् अहम् इति सः अब्रवीत् | We have used the word इति, and not the quotation marks, to quote महान् अहम् . But, the word इति is much more powerful than simple quotation marks. इति is like a packager, which packs the words appearing before it into a single entity and then attributes that entity to the words that follow it. So, in महान् अहम् इति सः अब्रवीत् , “महान् अहम्” is packaged into a single entity by इति and then this entity is attributed to सः |

Q) I still don’t see, how is इति more powerful than quotation marks. Can you elaborate ?
 Sure, let’s take a different example. सर्वम् ब्रह्म इति नरः सुदुर्लभः। The english translation of this sentence would be, A man who thinks/believes/knows that “Everything is brahma” is very rare. Here, इति has packaged सर्वम् ब्रह्म into a single entity and attributed that entity to नरः, hence we know that it is नरः who thinks/believes/knows सर्वम् ब्रह्म. However, in English, the quotation marks package Everything is brahma into a single entity, but do not attribute it to A man. Hence, we need to use the verbs likethinks/believes/knows to attribute Everything is brahma to A man. In Sanskrit, we do not need to use any verbs for this. इति compensates even for the verbs. Similarly, महान् अहम् इति सः could be translated to “I am great”, he says/believes/thinks.

Exercise: Translate इति गच्छति । to english.

Q) Can you give more examples? How would you do away with colons, for example ? Translate Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
A) This is very easy. What does the colon signify here ? The part of the sentence before the colon says that there are three certain things which cannon be hidden. The colon here is used to convey that those three certain things are the sun, the moon, and the truth. Hence, the colon is used to match the (unsaid) three things with their names viz. sun, moon and truth. This can be done in Sanskrit using vibhaktis. In fact, one very basic purpose of vibhaktis is to match related words. Afterall, words having the same vibhaktis denote the same objects. So the Sanskrit version of this sentence should definitely have the same vibhakti for Three things and the sun, the moon, and the truth. The Sanskrit version of this sentence is त्रीणि चिरेण अनावार्याणि  सूर्यशशिसत्यानि ।

त्रि = (property of being) three
चिर = (property of being associated with) a long time span
अनावार्य = (property of) not being able to be hidden

त्रीणि = three objects
चिरेण = for a long time
अनावार्याणि = things which cannot be hidden
सूर्यशशिसत्यानि = the Sun, the Moon and truth

The translation contains no colon because त्रीणि which means Three things and सूर्यशशिसत्यानि which means the sun, the moon, and the truth indeed have the same vibhakti viz. first vibhakti and hence त्रीणि and सूर्यशशिसत्यानि represent the same object(s). Hence, we know that the three things are indeed the sun, the moon, and the truth. In fact, since अनावार्याणि also has the same vibhakti as  त्रीणि and सूर्यशशिसत्यानि, it also represents the same objects that त्रीणि and सूर्यशशिसत्यानि represent! Hence, we know that the objects which are त्रीणि and सूर्यशशिसत्यानि are also अनावार्याणि (means they cannot be hidden).

Q) Ok. And what are । and ॥. You told that they are not punctuation marks.

A)  and  play different roles in poem and prose. In a poem, like mahAbhArata above,  and  are only used to arrange text in the form of verses so that the verses can be easily memorized. In prose,is used to mark the end of a sentence (like a full-stop) and  is used to mark the end of a paragraph. So,  and  can be called punctuation marks if you prefer to call them so. But apart from these two, there are no other punctuation marks in Sanskrit.

Finally, the words like इति and many more are those that neither represent ideas, nor properties, nor objects. There vibhaktis too do not exist. These words are finite in number and are not derivable from dhAtus. These words fall at level 3 in the scheme we developed in the last article and are not derivable from the words of the second level. They usually fall under the category of Conjunctions, Interjections and Prepositions. Given below is the solution to the exercise. In the next article, we shall bust certain misconceptions about Sanskrit. Bye!’


Check the site for interesting information on Sanskrit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s