“Sanskrit: Some Insights As A Computer Programming
4th International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research & Practice (4ICMRP-2017)P a g e 179“Sanskrit: Some Insights as a Computer ProgrammingLanguage”Kinjal V PatelResearch Scholar in the Sanskrit DepartmentDepartment of Mathematics, Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University, Patan, Gujarat, IndiaAims to explore how the Sanskrit Language can be used as a Natural Processing Language.Abstract: Now a days it is in the “Sanskrit World”, heard thevoice that “Sanskrit is the best language for computerprogramming”. Being some familiar with computerprogramming, I wondered if there was any truth to thatstatement. The claim is based on this paper by Rick Briggs,published in AI Magazine [1]. The paper talks about usingSanskrit in natural language processing (NLP). The idea of usinga natural language for computer programming is to make iteasier for people to talk to computers in their native tongue andspare them the pain of learning a computer friendly languagelike assembly/C/Java. In this paper we exhibited all theenvironments related to Sanskrit Language, ComputerProgramming Language and Natural Language, Processing sothat the Sanskrit Scholar can be categorize the promises of thelanguage suitable for NLP as an AI.Keywords: Sanskrit, Computer, Natural Processing Language,Programming Language, AI- Artificial Intelligence.I. INTRODUCTIONThere was a paper by Rick Briggs, a NASA researcher,published in the spring issue of Artificial Intelligencemagazine in 1985 (Volume 6 Number 1), entitled „KnowledgeRepresentation in Sanskrit and Artificial Intelligence‟. It canbe found here on AAAI‟s website [1]. The Rick Briggs' papermakes a case that natural languages are not that difficult touse for computer programming. He cites Sanskrit as anexample as its grammar can be easily translated to a formunderstandable by a computer. But nowhere does it say thatSanskrit is the best way to program a computer. Hence wesay, if somebody manages to create a computer languagebased on Sanskrit, then the question arises that: How likely isit that it will get adopted by non-Sanskrit speaking people?I spend a lot of time on the internet searching forinteresting things to learn for my research topic: “e-Resourcesof Sanskrit”. The search isn‟t specific and neither is the inflowof information. I happened upon a few articles recently thatsuggest Sanskrit, the ancient nigh dead Indian language, isgood for computer programming and that NASA uses it toprogram artificial intelligence[2][3][4]. A peek at theheadlines triggered my bullshit alarm – we should all haveone – but, in those moments of curiosity, I perused theircontents. They were so very devoid of rationality, I had towww.rsisinternational.orgsearch for a fun little activity to take my mind off it.Betteridge‟s law [5],[6] of headlines did the trick. TheBetteridge’s law state that “If the headline to an article is aquestion, the answer is always no.” Also on the internet, Ifound the best comments for Rick Briggs is that: „RickBriggs‟ at best is a pseudonym [5]. There are absolutely noother works in related fields attributed to this name.It begins with Briggs describing the current state ofevents surrounding artificial intelligence. It had been quite anundertaking to design unambiguous representations of naturallanguages for the purpose of computer processing. Naturallanguages – the way humans communicate with each other –had not been easy to parse and transform into information thata machine could understand. Even if they could overcome thatbarrier, there was the issue of ambiguity – statements couldmean different unrelated things, depending on the context. Ahuman who spoke the language wouldn‟t find it hard tounderstand what was actually meant, but computers would. Itled to the belief that there might not be a way to effectivelyexchange information with machines without the help of anartificial language [7].Briggs, in his paper, challenged that belief by drawingattention to the fact that there has existed at least one naturallanguage which could, in theory, be used as an artificiallanguage. It had a logical structure that mapped on to certainknowledge representation schemes perfectly. That language,of course, was Sanskrit.II. THE CONTENTS OF THE PAPER.The paper provides a whole lot of compelling arguments thatshow it is indeed possible for a natural language to work as anartificial one. That‟s it. It does not at all claim that Sanskrithas to be that language. Sure, it uses Sanskrit as a case study,but that‟s all there is to it. A quick read of the 8 page pieceshould make that clear. Here‟s a gist of the points he tried tomake. I‟ve used my natural intelligence to summarize it. It‟snot chronological but exhaustive.A. A perfect natural language must have these characteristics. A statement should be easy to break down into asemantic net or an array of semantic dataISBN: 978-93-5288-448-3
180 P a g e Sanskrit: Some Insights as a Computer Programming Language[8],[9],[10].(He referred to the array as series oftriplets.)It should be easy to compile a natural languagestatement from the data array. It should be humanreadable and understandable.The statements coming out should be about the sameas the ones going in. It shouldn‟t sound weird, norshould it loss or gain information.Deviations if any should be minimum.B. Sanskrit, as it turns out, does all of that. It has anextremely logical structure. Its grammar rules allow a kindof precision unmatched by other languages. It has a nearunchanging syntax.C. The computer readable data representation of a Sanskritstatement can be obtained by simply placing the individualwords of the sentence in an array. This is aided by the factthat word order simply makes no difference in Sanskrit.D. That very sentence can be reconstructed by puttingtogether the contents of the array.E. The language is extremely concise. It has perhaps thehighest information to word count ratio [11]. There are noredundancies.Besides above, we also find the following from the lastparagraph of Briggs‟ paper.It is interesting to speculate as to why the Indians found itworthwhile to pursue studies into unambiguous coding ofnatural language into semantic elements [12]. It is tempting tothink of them as computer scientists without the hardware, buta possible explanation is that a search for clear, unambiguousunderstanding is inherent in the human being.Here note that the conclusion of the paper was thathumans are capable of using an extremely preciseunambiguous language. That should save you some back andforth when we debunk baseless claims.III. SOME TRUTHS ABOUT SANSKRIT:Sanskrit is a brilliant language. I‟m not kidding and neither isI being ironic. It really is the most precise language inexistence, with Latin being a close second [13]. However, itisn‟t a perfect language and it isn‟t natural either.i.Sanskrit’s Efficiency:Sanskrit makes use of declensions in nearly every part ofspeech [14]. This means the ends of words, every single oneof them, change depending on the part of speech they‟resupposed to be. Even proper nouns aren‟t exempt. The ends ofpeople‟s names change in a sentence depending on whetherthey‟re the subject or the object. This is a bit of a problem forpeople whose names don‟t end in a vowel as there is noprovision for that in Sanskrit.The rules of inflections are precise. Just by knowing the endsof a word, one could know its role in a sentence. This makeswww.rsisinternational.orgword order a non issue. A three word sentence could bewritten six different ways and a four word sentence in twentyfour. None of the permutations would alter their meaning.Because of the use of declensions, a lot of information ispacked in fewer words. This makes transmission ofinformation extremely efficient in speech. Sanskrit is not theonly language that can do this though. Latin, an equally deadlanguage, also allowed word order independent sentences in asimilar way. Latin too had quite a complicated set of grammarrules. It, like Sanskrit, isn‟t spoken very much becausehumans naturally tend to deviate toward simplicity.ii.Storage Capacity:Despite the arguably best verbal efficiency, there are a fewissues with the language in actual knowledge representation.Sanskrit has a glyph based script rather than the alphabetbased script as with Latin and its derivatives.Latin alphabets take one byte of space each. Sanskrit writtenin the current character set for the Devanagari script ishowever not an efficient way of storing information. Here‟s alist of why that is. Vowels or consonant glyphs with the inherent voweltakes up 2 bytes of space each.The combination of a consonant glyph and adifferent vowel takes 4 bytes.A consonant with a suppressed vowel is 4 bytes.A double consonant glyph is 6 bytes.A double consonant glyph combined with a vowel is8 bytes.Latin script, on the other hand, is consistent. Youspend exactly the same number of bytes in conveying amessage as the number of letters it contains. My name,„Denver‟, takes up 6 characters, 6 keystrokes and 6 bytes inthe Latin script. The crude and borderline terrible Devanagaritransliteration, „डे न्वर् ’, takes 3 glyphs (in some renditions, itmight look like four – in that case, the two in the middle are asingle glyph), 7 careful keystrokes and 14 bytes.If the character set were redone to start withDevanagari characters rather than the Latin ones, they couldreduce space consumption to about a half. Unfortunately, thatwould mean I‟ll be spending a byte more to write my name inthe wrong script and still have it screw up the pronunciation.Sanskrit is phonemically precise in that the pronunciation ofwords don‟t deviate. It does not have a universal phonology.A native speaker of a Sanskrit derived language will find ithard to sound in other languages.iii.Sanskrit’s Naturalness:The fact is that Sanskrit, unlike other languages,hasn‟t had a natural evolution. Nearly everything aboutSanskrit, as is known today, was codified sometime aroundthe year 500 BCE by one person, Panini, who was bent onmaking it as precise and concise as was humanly possibleISBN: 978-93-5288-448-3
4th International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research & Practice (4ICMRP-2017)[15]. Sanskrit didn‟t simply happen to have the requiredcharacteristics of an artificial language by coincidence. It‟sthere by design. It is indeed the work of a primitive computerscientist without the hardware. This is not to say Paniniintended for his language to be used with machines. At best,his work caught the eye of a pattern seeking human in need ofan answer to a difficult, perhaps unsolvable problem – it wasbound to happen sooner or later.The Sanskrit of today, the one reportedly spoken by afew tens of thousands, is about the same as that codified twoand a half millennia ago[4]. The language doesn‟t evolve, itcan‟t evolve. Unlike natural languages, speakers of Sanskritcannot be classified as proficient or eloquent as its precisiondoes not allow gradations. You either speak the language oryou don‟t; there is no grey. Even artificial languages do notsuffer that restriction.Sanskrit was never widely spoken. During the pasttwo and a half millennia, Sanskrit scholarship was anexclusive club. None other than the Brahmins were allowed touse it. That all literary works in Sanskrit was made accessibleonly to the Brahmins, spelt its doom [16]. The thing aboutlanguages is that, like living organisms, languages too evolveby natural selection.Natural languages thrive by fitting the need of theera. The flexible of the lot flourish organically forcing the lessprominent ones to wither away. Sanskrit‟s resistance tochange was the reason of its demise. This is essentially whyevery attempt to revive the language will fail, no exceptions.IV. THE INSIGHT FOCUS ON THE CLAIM:The paper does not at all contain any claim, mentionor indication that Sanskrit can be used as a programminglanguage. In fact, the one and only instance of the word„program‟ was in an example sentence meant to illustratesemantic nets. Every single use of the word „code‟ orvariations thereof have been used to describe sentenceconstruction rules or grammatical syntax. Notice that in mysystematic summarization of Briggs‟ piece, the word„program‟ doesn‟t appear once.The question Briggs tried to answer was whether itwas possible for one to create a perfect language forknowledge representation. If a computer scientist were tocodify a new language humans could use just as well as amachine, what would the end result look like? He then showshow Sanskrit manages to fulfil all of those requirements. Tohim, it was astonishing to find that someone who lived a longwhile ago could accomplish such a feat of brilliance; theentire piece is a recurring acknowledgement of that fact.Even after all of that, he never once suggested thatSanskrit should be used for knowledge representation. Heinsisted however that if anyone attempted to create such alanguage, they would do well to follow a similar pattern ofprocesses as Panini did with Sanskrit.www.rsisinternational.orgP a g e 181V. SANSKRIT AS A COMPUTER LANGUAGE/NLP:There is a lot of difference between Sanskrit beingsuitable for NLP and it being the best or perfect language forcomputer programming. For Sanskrit to be truly a bestlanguage for computer programming, a majority of computerusers should be fluent enough in it. Otherwise it is mucheasier for them to learn a computer friendly language than tolearn Sanskrit and then use it for programming a computer.By that logic, we off course fail to see how it is the bestlanguage for programming a computer when the number ofpeople who are fluent in C outnumber the number of peoplewho are fluent in Sanskrit. Its natural things but that did notstop some Indians from expanding their chests with pridebased on a false premise. They are so lacking in knowledge ofhistory of India, that even when there are other real reasons toproud of Sanskrit such as its influence on modernlinguistics or its similarity with Backus-Naur form [17], theyignore them and spout second hand nonsense toinflate,,their,egos.Perhaps the people who originate these kinds offalsehoods expect everyone all over the world to recognize thetechnical merits of Sanskrit and throw away their nativetongues and instead adopt Sanskrit. If that really is the case,their hypocrisy is mind boggling. These are same people whoare likely to make a stink about "western" elements destroyingtraditional Indian elements. Yet they would like other culturesto throw away their cultural artefacts just because a researcherpublished a paper saying that Sanskrit is a good language touse in NLP.It's computer friendly in the sense of ArtificialIntelligence not writing a program. Sanskrit is a verypredictable language. It is easy to formulate sentences and getmeanings from words. It is easy to make words plural. Thismeans that a computer can inherently formulate sentencesvery easily. Just compare this to English for instance. If wewant a computer to formulate sentences we have to teach it allthe grammar rules plus the exceptions. For instance, tellingthe computer that adding “s” to a word does not always meanplural. We have to put in the case of child and children etc.Add to that all the context based meanings and usage of wordsand it becomes very complicated to program that in. Sanskritis very formulaic in this sense and the sentences which acomputer will formulate given a few set of rules are veryaccurate.By the way programming has nothing to do withscript. Latin script is mainly used because the West happenedto be where computers got popular first so it dominated aschoice. All that happens when you load a program is that abunch of capacitors are charged up. This charging up can bedone by any means necessary. With respect to currentcomputer language, if someone ask a question: Is c# better orJava or Python?. But truth is that, every computer languagehas its advantages. We can't really pick one for all purposes.In this thread, many are either computer illiterates orISBN: 978-93-5288-448-3
182 P a g eSanskrit: Some Insights as a Computer Programming Languageprogrammers commenting on natural language processing.NLP requires both an in-depth knowledge of the language andrelevant computer literacy.Sanskrit is a language that has not been explored forNLP like English or Spanish or even Hindi. Absence ofevidence is seldom the evidence of absence. In my opinion, anatural language is more of a computer-buddy if it is simplelike you say. The thing with Sanskrit, as I understand is thatthe all sentences can be very simple, thereby making it easyfor the semantic parsers. However, research with proof needsto be presented for which research needs to be done for whichsome agency should come up with this motives to initiate thisresearch, may required huge amount of grants.It's not computer friendly or programmer friendly inthe practical sense. That's just what people who don'tunderstand this say. The structure of the language is such thatit can be easily interpreted by a computer if someone had tomake an interpreter for Sanskrit. Knowing Sanskrit won‟tmake you a better programmer.My opinion, this is one of them shitty myths. Whatthis probably originates from is that, Sanskrit is highlycompositional, i.e. there are a few basic concepts and rootswhich can be combined in many complex ways to come upwith new words and ideas. And while there are many"exceptions" to rules and all, it is still very consistent. Thinkhow every rule in English grammar has 100s of commonexception, Sanskrit usually doesn't. This is probably becauseSanskrit has pretty much always been a "scholarly" language.So, if you want to design some kind of natural language(NLP) system for computers which relies on hard coded rulesand all then Sanskrit would probably be a better choice thanEnglish or Hindi. But the thing is, for the last three decades,AI researchers have found that the older rule-basedparadigms-the Chomsky school of thought has diminishingreturns with increasing complexity and moreover is not howhuman brains work either [18]. So there has been a huge moveto statistical methods that rely on huge amount of texts beingavailable. Until 2005 or so, most statistical research alsofocused on automatically learning "rules" from huge textcorpuses, but in the last 10 to 15 years, with the advent ofmethods like deep learning, we are moving to purelystatistical models.In these modern methods, the size of available textcorpus is the most important factor, so Sanskrit doesn't reallyhave any particular advantages. It has very strict grammarrules, which means there are very few or practically noexceptions to the rules. Hence it is easier for artificialintelligence systems or language interpreting compilers todeal with such languages rather than English which has lotmore exceptions hence the compiler need to be more complexto understand the language without errors. Actually anyIndian language will fare better than English.But the above restriction is no longer a concern asthe computing power is now greatly improved and compilerwww.rsisinternational.orgcomplexity is not a big issue. Moreover there is no point inusing a dead language for computing as you will still have totranslate it to a modern language. English is the best choice asit is spoken by many. Infect any Indian language would be abetter choice than Sanskrit as the number of speakers will bemore.Those who boast about Sanskrit being the bestlanguage for computing should instead implement an artificialintelligence system based on Sanskrit and demonstrate theadvantage of Sanskrit vs English with proper benchmarkingmeasurements.Interpreting the language is only a small componentof realizing AI systems. There are many more aspects that arefar more complex like understanding a joke, insult, sarcasmetc. And no language will have an edge for these aspects.Hence you don't reduce the AI complexity much by switchingto a particular language. Suppose one translator program thatcan understand Sanskrit and another one that understandsEnglish & both have to read the Sanskrit and English versionson the same novel and translate it to a common thirdlanguage. Measurement of the time taken will settle the debateforever. Unless this is done, such prod claims have the samecredibility as the ancient plastic surgeons and headtransplants.When people say computer friendly, they mean it issimpler to create AI generated sentences, without worryingabout context or grammar mistake. So, an AI can generate fullnovel in Sanskrit and it will be free of any grammatical error.Compared to English, there will be less contextual errors aswell. So, if a human can understand Sanskrit, computers willfind it easier to generate responses using simple rules. Sadly,as for programming, Sanskrit or any natural language willhave same problems. So, unless the whole use of computers isto generate a lot of text, any natural language is adisadvantage.In simpler terms, a novel writing bot will work betterin Sanskrit than any contextually complicated language. Butthat's all the advantage of using Sanskrit. At the same time,disadvantage includes asking users to learn an outdatedlanguage, along with reprogramming literally every piece ofsoftware we have.We know that the Sanskrit is the most structuredlanguage which has well defined set of rules for grammar & Itis also a language which is naturalized by default. Thesethings make it a good language for computer programming.BUT Sanskrit is also one of the most ambiguous languagese.g. What we call tree in English has many words for it inSanskrit e.g. vriksha, taru, padap, naga, kuja, phalada etc.which makes it not good for programming. So unless thisambiguity is removed, Sanskrit can not be used for computerprogramming.If we want to make a computer which could beprogrammed using vernacular language then in order toISBN: 978-93-5288-448-3
4th International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research & Practice (4ICMRP-2017)compile that information you'd need to design a whole lot ofrules for the computer to interpret everyday sentences andwords. The problem with most modern languages is that therearen't many consistencies in the syntax of sentence creation.Therefore its almost impossible to create a perfect compiler tocompute vernacular language. However, since Sanskrit andother older languages had a more strictly defined syntax, theyare technically more computable. That's not exclusive toSanskrit though.We also know that the Computing has two aspects: Logicaland Language. understand why Sanskrit is associated with NLP. Panini'sgrammar is what modern linguists call a generative grammar,and that is what they use to describe language grammarsthemselves; and, as it happens that is also the way computerscientists describe the syntax of programming languages. Theancient Indian grammarian Pāṇini described the structureof Sanskrit using rewriting rules, similar in spirit to theBackus Naur form[19]. With that he established formallanguage theory, which is used today in research on parsingprogramming languages. My point of view, it is possible todesign a computer entirely based on Sanskrit, but the reasonsthat the people do not take initiative is due to:Logic Language: Logic gives power of motion whichleads to the automation of the process just likeinvention of wheel.Language : Language gives the power of expressionwhich provides space for representing the content.1.2.We find contributions of Pāṇini in both the aspectsby writing a logical processing machine for generation ofSanskrit words/syntax using a formal language andprogramming techniques by providing basis to analyse thelanguage and to decode the content coded in it. NaturalLanguages are the languages that are spoken or written forhuman communication. Its strength is good for expression offeelings and emotions etc. and its weakness is lead toambiguity at all levels starting from word, syntax andpragmatics. In the same way the formal Languages are usedfor representing facts in Science, whose strength isunambiguous syntax and weakness is insubstantial for humanbeings.3. Computing requires unambiguous representation ofcontent. Therefore, the natural choice is formal language.Since Natural Languages lack unambiguous representation,and do not fit into the logic, Artificial Languages are createdusing formal structure/syntax.VI. CONCLUSION:As I have mentioned that, I read the research paperpublished and I don't remember it mentioning at any singleplace that Sanskrit could be used as a general-purposeprogramming language. The paper says knowledgerepresentation in Sanskrit is highly suitable for current ongoing work in AI. I have not studied AI or NLP in details, butafter reading the paper and couple of Wikipedia links, I alsofelt that Sanskrit is a good language for AI. In brief, NLP isabout human-computer interactions using a commonlanguage. We all know that Sanskrit is a natural language.Now, what makes it special that NLP could be achieved withit? The answer is that, any word or sentence in Sanskrit isbased on some rules which do not have any exceptions orprobably far less exceptions as compared to modern daylanguages. And no words are added to the language as timeprogresses unlike other languages. The very first paragraph ofthe paper seems like it respects all modern languages but don'tfeel disheartened or frustrated by it. Go on and you willwww.rsisinternational.orgP a g e 183No guarantee of success.No one will take up such a project that does nothave commercial value. Why would you wasteyour time in such a project instead of finishingyou Phd and getting a job.Huge amount of work involved in this project.And following points should be kept in mind to initiate theproject.1.Design a Compiler for a programming language basedon Sanskrit.2. Once you have compiler in place you can writeminimum Operating System.3. Define Micro-operations for Computer HardwareSystem that is based on Sanskrit.To use Sanskrit would be no different than usingEnglish, except in Devanagari script, which would require awhole new series of computers and programming languages tobe used.Computersusing Sanskrit and Devanagaricommands would maybe be more efficient or less efficient.It‟s a gamble, and a costly and time consuming one at that.So far, I have found no credible citation stating so. Theonly things I'm finding are blogs saying Sanskrit is bestbecause Sanskrit sentences have the same meaning whicheverorder they're read in. I wonder if the people writing theseblogs even know how programming languages work. Also, ifscientists had to use a heavily inflected language, then theywould shift to a completely new script. They could use Latininstead. Almost as inflected as Sanskrit, plus programmersdon't have to learn a whole new script, or even discard allcurrent computers and shift to a completely new alphabetsystem.Now let‟s speak in terms of Sanskrit becoming the mostsuitable NLP language, it would be if only majority of peoplecommunicate in Sanskrit. With my experience of AI andSanskrit, I would say it may be possible. Accordingly tofollowing feasibility point of view:Pros :1.Sanskrit is unambiguous in terms of processing. Thanksto the strict grammar rules. So programming an NLPwould be much more easier and efficient.ISBN: 978-93-5288-448-3
184 P a g eSanskrit: Some Insights as a Computer Programming LanguageCons :1.2.3.REFERENCESSanskrit is not used in day to day basis and almost noone communicates in Sanskrit these days. So, theoptions of AI for learning is extremely low. Only if 25%of people in the world learn Sanskrit and communicateto AI, it would learn only a portion of whole world‟sactivity through its rules.We need processors to process Natural Language, to dothat, we need people who communicates in Sanskrit andhas a good hold over it.Sanskrit NLP will be only a matter of research until andunless everyone communicates in Sanskrit.So, you can see that, using a NLP Translator for Sanskrit,you can only make it useful if the whole world or at least25% of its population, communicate in Sanskrit.But in this era of internet, people already havedeveloped a big portion of NLP based on English, so usingSanskrit as a base for NLP is still a question.Till a Properly Created Sanskrit NLP is made, it will bedifficult to assess whether it is the Best Language, Sanskrit isa Precursor Language and will probable not evolve in thesame way that Data and AI evolve.The article published by a Mr. Briggs has been typedagain and again and certain sites have even propagated itsaying that NASA uses Sanskrit as a Language for theircomputers. There is no proof for the same, other than thesame article. It therefore should be awaited, that If and Whensomeone develops a Sanskrit NLP in a usable state, Onewould have to see the benefits of the same. The paper doesn'tconclude as wether the Sanskrit is not good or bad for AI.Instead it says, even AI can be solved if rethought in line withthe structure of Sanskrit.One of the conclusions I draw personally is that IF theknowledge (currently in latin, french, german, italian or otherlanguages) were made available in a strict rules-basedlanguage (like Sanskrit) it may make it easier/optimal for anAI system to process, decipher & utilize the knowledge totake decisions.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTI am thankful to the Head, Prof D B Rathava and Coguide, Dr D C Patel of Sanskrit Department for providing mehelpful discussion to prepare this paper. I would like toexpress special thanks of gratitude to my renownedphilosopher HOD Prof. M B Prajapati; under whom I amworking in the Department, providing me full support in allthe directions to complete this article.www.rsisinternational.org[1]. cle/viewArticle/466[2]. [3]. https://www.nasa.gov/[4]. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/artificial intelligence[5]. https://scepthink.com/2015/
Sanskrit is phonemically precise in that the pronunciation of words don‟t deviate. It does not have a universal phonology. A native speaker of a Sanskrit derived language will find it hard to sound in other languages. iii. Sanskrit’s Naturalness: The fact is that Sanskrit, unlike other languages, hasn‟t had a natural evolution.
Sanskrit Dictionary ebruary F 12, 2003 tro Induction The wing follo is a list of Sanskrit ords w ted prin in anagari Dev with its transliterated form and a short meaning vided pro as reference source. This cannot b e substitute for go o d ted prin Sanskrit-English. dictionary er, ev w Ho e w ticipate an this to aid a t studen of Sanskrit in the .
Online Sanskrit Dictionary Introduction The following is a list of Sanskrit words printed in Devanagari with its transliterated form and a short meaning provided as a reference source. This cannot be a substitute for a good printed Sanskrit-English dictionary. However, we anticipate this to aid a student of Sanskrit in the on-line world.
Sanskrit has a rich tradition of Kavyas- both Sravya and Drisya .The course is intended to provide a general awareness of Sanskrit literature. Objectives of the course 1. To cultivate an ardent desire for learning and appreciating Sanskrit literature. 2. To know about Sanskrit poetic style with special reference to Kumarasambhava 3.
Bhagavad-Gita:Chapters in Sanskrit BGALLCOLOR.pdf (Bhagavadgita in Sanskrit and English in one file) (All 18 chapters in Sanskrit, Transliteration, and . Swami Vivekananda 1892-93 Madras/Chennai Tilakam (திலகம்) A mark on the forehead made with colored earths, .
CLASS IV TO VII, IX, XI Date Day IV V VI VII IX XI 05.07.2019 Friday Social Science Science Maths Science Social Science Maths/Marketing 06.07.2019 Saturday - English Hindi Sanskrit English Chem/Pol.Sci/B.S. 08.07.2019 Monday Science Maths Social Sci. Maths Science Acc/His/Phy. 09.07.2019 Tuesday Hindi Sanskrit Sanskrit English Hindi/Sanskrit .
ashtadhayayi (a book of Sanskrit grammar) to implement this idea. We use this concept because the Sanskrit is an unambiguous language. In this paper, we are presenting our work towards building a dependency parser for Sanskrit language that uses deterministic finite automa
5 2.0 Sanskrit Writing System The writing system used for Sanskrit is known as Devanagari.Indian languages are phonetic in nature and the written shapes represent unique sounds. In Sanskrit and other Indian lang
I am My Brother’s Keeper (2004) As our New Year’s celebration draws near, I once again find myself pondering the enigmatic story that our tradition places before us at this time—the story of the Binding of Isaac. Once again, I walk for those three long days with father Abraham and ponder the meaning of his journey with his son to the mountain. And once again, I find fresh meaning in the .
