[One of my old article published by The NewsMinute has been reproduced here since some people complained about the font problem]
Recently, there was an article on News Minute
titled "Need of the hour: Synergy between Sanskrit and regional languages" (http://www.thenewsminute.com/lives/654). Author of the
above said article seems mesmerised by Sanskrit and has put forward arguments
that are biased towards Sanskrit. The author seems to lack knowledge of modern
day Kannada writers, and the grammatical differences between Kannada and
Sanskrit. This lack of knowledge might have lead him to un-scientific and
unrealistic conclusions.
Actually, in Kannada, the littérateurs both
qualitatively and quantitatively have risen after independence, U R Ananth
Murthy, P Lankesh, D R Nagaraj to name a few. Post-1947, there have been many
literary movements like Navya and Bandaaya (revolutionary) in Kannada.
Coming to the Grammar, author does not seem to
possess any idea of what Kannada Grammar is and what modern day linguistics has
to say about it. We must understand that Kannada belongs to Dravidian Family of
languages whereas Sanskrit belongs to Indo-Aryan Family of Languages. Mere set
of the borrowed words doesn’t prove that Kannada has originated from Sanskrit. Kannada
differs significantly from Sanskrit in various grammatical behaviours.
Firstly, Sanskrit does not have 'Lopa Sandhi (ಲೋಪ ಸಂಧಿ). The author has
attempted to force-fit poorva roopa sandhi (ಪೂರ್ವ ರೂಪ ಸಂಧಿ) into Lopa Sandhi. On the contrary, Sanskrit has 'Savarna deergha
Sandhi'(ಸವರ್ಣ ದೀರ್ಘ ಸಂಧಿ) wherein two short
vowels (ಅ,ಇ,ಉ) combine to give rise to long vowel (ಆ, ಈ, ಊ).
For example,
गुरु+उपदॆश् -> गुरूपदॆश्
ಗುರು+ಉಪದೇಶ -> ಗುರೂಪದೇಶ
It is worth noting here, the vowel 'u' at the end
of word 'Guru' and 'u' at the beginning of word 'upadesha' give rise to 'long
u' in the combined word guru*padesha where
u* is 'long u'
Whereas in
Kannada
ಕಲ್ಲು +
ಉಪ್ಪು => ಕಲ್ಲುಪ್ಪು , here ‘u’ in kallu is dropped
whereas ‘u’ in uppu is retained. Its important to note that there is no long
vowel in the resultant word.
While describing Aadesha Sandhi, author seems to
have deliberately tried to mask the differences between Kannada and Sanskrit.
Let us examine the example that author had taken:
ತಲೆ+ಕೆಟ್ಟು = ತಲೆಗೆಟ್ಟು , In this Kannada
word, 'ka' in the second word is
replaced with 'ga' after Sandhi
ವಾಕ್+ಈಶ = ವಾಗೀಶ್, In this Sanskrit
word, 'ka' in the first word is
replaced with 'ga' after Sandhi.
Its important to note that this is a fundamental
difference between Sanskrit and Kannada, with respect to Aadesha Sandhi. Apart
from this difference, in Sanskrit, replacement of consonants is regular and
strict whereas in Kannada it can't even be considered as a rule and it is
irregular.
To illustrate this opoint, let us take an example
ಆನೆ+ಕಾಲು = ಆನೆಕಾಲು, Here 'ka'
is retained even after Sandhi, indicating that Aadesha Sandhi is not strictly
followed in Kannada.
While talking about Aagama Sandhi, author has
misquoted the examples. In fact, examples that the author has provided are
actually demonstrate the 'lopa sandhi' and not aagama sandhi as author seems to
have claimed.
ಮುಳ್ಳು+ಆಗಿ = ಮುಳ್ಳಾಗಿ , Here 'u' in ಮುಳ್ಳು is dropped, 'aa'
in ಆಗಿ is retained after Sandhi,
ಕಲ್ಲು+ಆಟ = ಕಲ್ಲಾಟ, Here 'u' in
ಕಲ್ಲು is dropped, 'aa' ಆಟ is retained after
Sandhi.
For more detailed study on Kannada Sandhis and how
it differs with respect to Sanskrit, I would recommend 'Kannada needs its own
Grammar’ (ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕೆ ಬೇಕು ಕನ್ನಡದ್ದೇ ವ್ಯಾಕರಣ), a book written
in Kannada, by renowned linguist Dr. D N Shankara Bhat (Chapter 2, Page No. 27)
Regarding Samaasa (ಸಮಾಸ), linguistic research
has shown that there is no samaasa in Kannada. In other words, the samaasa
concept doesn't suit the behaviour of formation of combined words in Kannada.
Kannada only has 'jODu pada' (meaning joined words). The behaviour of words which
are getting joined cannot be explained using the Sanskrit Samaaasa because in
Kannada the second word always gets the importance. Also, even adjectives can
combine with a noun to form a 'jODu pada' in Kannada, whereas there is no
adjective at all in Sanskrit. For more understanding on samaasa, I would
recommend 'Kannada needs its own Grammar’ (ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕೆ ಬೇಕು ಕನ್ನಡದ್ದೇ ವ್ಯಾಕರಣ) by Dr. D N
Shankara Bhat (Chapter 5, Page No. 96)
Regarding Case (ವಿಭಕ್ತಿ), author is wrong
about Panchami Vibhakti (ಪಂಚಮಿ ವಿಭಕ್ತಿ). Author taking an
un-scientific view in this regard could be the result of trying to force-fit
the grammatical properties of Sanskrit on Kannada. Sediyaapu Krishna Bhat and
Dr. D N Shankara Bhat, both renowned Kannada linguists have shown beyond doubt
that Panchami Vibhakti (ಪಂಚಮಿ ವಿಭಕ್ತಿ) doesn't exist in
Kannada.
Learning Sanskrit will only improve one's Sanskrit
skills, and it will in no-way help master the Dravidian Languages like Kannada
or Telugu. In order to master them, the Dravidian languages need to be studied
in depth on their own. Otherwise, one will end up confusing Sanskrit grammar
with Kannada's and come to wrong conclusions. Kannada grammar must be studied
without any bias from Sanskrit or English because Kannada has its own distinct
grammar.
