[Advaita-l] to be and to have in Sanskrit
anbesivam2 at gmail.com
Sun Apr 1 19:00:40 CDT 2007
Agreeing with Sri Vidyasankarji let me elaborate a bit for the benefit of
Sri Guy. The Tamil sentence 'enakku paSikkaradu' when translated into
English word for word would be 'to me hunger happens' and if it were to be
grammatically translated into English it would be 'Hunger happens to me'.
Here the subject in English language is Hunger!
On 3/31/07, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Sri Guy's question clearly involves a grammatical question. The grammer
> >one language cannot be interspersed into another language. Sanskrit
> >not be judged from the point of view of another language. A person
> >conversant with Sanskrit would have no problem conveying his ideas in
> 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.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list