6 ms·

I just recently learned that Sanskrit was the first language to have its grammar formally specified. Pāṇini in the 4th century BCE wrote down the complete one.

by dude01 9y ago

I just recently learned that Sanskrit was the first language to have its grammar formally specified. Pāṇini in the 4th century BCE wrote down the complete one. I couldn't find a good translation of it online. I suppose translating a grammar written in the language itself is tough. I was curious because I want to know how much of BNF grammar functionality is represented in it. Perhaps BNF is just a rediscovering/reformatting of the Sanskrit grammar?

neel_k 9y ago
Panini's grammar is closest to an instance of a Post canonical system. It is basically a set of general rewriting rules, with features going beyond BNF in power. This is for pretty much the same reason that the grammatical formalisms modern linguists use also go beyond BNF. Linguists are interested in issues of grammaticality that actually do need context (such as subject-verb agreement) and so obviously context-free grammars can't do the whole job! (For a programming example, you can see type correctness as a case of how well-formedness of programs depends on context -- whether a variable can be used in an expression depends on its type.)
- sriku 9y ago
  Panini covered both the grammar in the regular sense as well as the phonology of the language. "Optimality theory" attempts to model phonology as a collection of violable constraints operating with a least violation principle. It is supposed to be more generally applicable to what we normally know as grammar (dealings at the words/phrases level), but has seen most success with phonology.
- dude01 9y ago
  Thank you, that makes sense.
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> I just recently learned that Sanskrit was the first language to have its grammar formally specified. Pāṇini in the 4th century BCE wrote down the complete one. People can say this, but that won't make it true. There are unexaggerated 100% odds that what Pāṇini specified was not a complete description of the speech of his time or any other point in history, just as no complete description of any modern language exists today. It's not for lack of scholastic effort; the idea of completely specifying a human language isn't even well defined. > I want to know how much of BNF grammar functionality is represented in it. Perhaps BNF is just a rediscovering/reformatting of the Sanskrit grammar? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003GUBIJ8/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003GUBIJ8/ describes the style in which Pāṇini's rules are written. (I'm not saying this is the best source to answer that question, just that it's a book I've read and its description is probably enough for your purposes.)
- srean 9y ago
  > There are unexaggerated 100% odds that what Pāṇini specified was not a complete description of the speech of his time or any other point in history That is an odd claim to make because Sanskrit was not a language of day to day speech. Those would be the vernaculars of the time. Sanskrit was very much a crafted language used for much more formal purposes.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    Formal languages are just the vernacular of far away or long ago. They're not invented for the purpose, they're preserved.
  - throwaway312331 9y ago
    > That is an odd claim to make because Sanskrit was not a language of day to day speech. This is what many folk in Universities want us to believe, but having seen day-to-day language used and taught, I don't think it is, or was ever true. Apparently even the devadasis knew it extremely well back in the day, much as did people from many other 'backward' 'castes'. It's almost as if a school of people want the tradition dead, because its staying alive is too... erm... worrying ? Lots of complicated power structures hang in the balance, as India's tortuously chooses between its past and the past its master want it to have / have had.
    - srean 9y ago
      > ... or was ever true This needs a reputable citation. What an anonymous user personally thinks about it is hardly relevant. By the way, knowing a language is very different from use in day to day speech.
      - throwaway312331 9y ago
        > This needs a reputable citation. What an anonymous user personally thinks about it is hardly relevant. Fair enough. Here's the interview with Shatavadhani R. Ganesh from where I get my tidbits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xQ2EkrXBy4&list=PL54675312C28EC143 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xQ2EkrXBy4&list=PL54675312C... > By the way, knowing a language is very different from use in day to day speech. I know the difference. Have you ever visited Sanskrit universities/gurukulas in India ? It's simply magical. Sanskrit is taught in the language itself, and students chat with their teachers and amongst themselves in the language. This made me very happy! This is even acknowledged on various Indology mailing lists, where the western scholars note this, often rather bitterly, often peppering the immediately following sentence with generic insults and racist disdain. Apologies for getting political here, but I've never understood why the field is so hostile to India (British origins ?). East Asia departments by comparison are filled with Sinophiles/Japanophiles.
uptownfunk 9y ago
Generally people don’t approach panini vyakaran directly but rather through a text such as the siddhanta kaumudi or laghu siddhanta kaumudi which are the panini sutras reordered with the ancient commentaries of patanjali and katyayan.

by dude01 9y ago

neel_k 9y ago

Panini's grammar is closest to an instance of a Post canonical system. It is basically a set of general rewriting rules, with features going beyond BNF in power. This is for pretty much the same reason that the grammatical formalisms modern linguists use also go beyond BNF. Linguists are interested in issues of grammaticality that actually do need context (such as subject-verb agreement) and so obviously context-free grammars can't do the whole job! (For a programming example, you can see type correctness as a case of how well-formedness of programs depends on context -- whether a variable can be used in an expression depends on its type.)

sriku 9y ago
Panini covered both the grammar in the regular sense as well as the phonology of the language. "Optimality theory" attempts to model phonology as a collection of violable constraints operating with a least violation principle. It is supposed to be more generally applicable to what we normally know as grammar (dealings at the words/phrases level), but has seen most success with phonology.
dude01 9y ago
Thank you, that makes sense.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> I just recently learned that Sanskrit was the first language to have its grammar formally specified. Pāṇini in the 4th century BCE wrote down the complete one. People can say this, but that won't make it true. There are unexaggerated 100% odds that what Pāṇini specified was not a complete description of the speech of his time or any other point in history, just as no complete description of any modern language exists today. It's not for lack of scholastic effort; the idea of completely specifying a human language isn't even well defined. > I want to know how much of BNF grammar functionality is represented in it. Perhaps BNF is just a rediscovering/reformatting of the Sanskrit grammar? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003GUBIJ8/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003GUBIJ8/ describes the style in which Pāṇini's rules are written. (I'm not saying this is the best source to answer that question, just that it's a book I've read and its description is probably enough for your purposes.)

srean 9y ago
> There are unexaggerated 100% odds that what Pāṇini specified was not a complete description of the speech of his time or any other point in history That is an odd claim to make because Sanskrit was not a language of day to day speech. Those would be the vernaculars of the time. Sanskrit was very much a crafted language used for much more formal purposes.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  Formal languages are just the vernacular of far away or long ago. They're not invented for the purpose, they're preserved.
- throwaway312331 9y ago
  > That is an odd claim to make because Sanskrit was not a language of day to day speech. This is what many folk in Universities want us to believe, but having seen day-to-day language used and taught, I don't think it is, or was ever true. Apparently even the devadasis knew it extremely well back in the day, much as did people from many other 'backward' 'castes'. It's almost as if a school of people want the tradition dead, because its staying alive is too... erm... worrying ? Lots of complicated power structures hang in the balance, as India's tortuously chooses between its past and the past its master want it to have / have had.
  - srean 9y ago
    > ... or was ever true This needs a reputable citation. What an anonymous user personally thinks about it is hardly relevant. By the way, knowing a language is very different from use in day to day speech.
    - throwaway312331 9y ago
      > This needs a reputable citation. What an anonymous user personally thinks about it is hardly relevant. Fair enough. Here's the interview with Shatavadhani R. Ganesh from where I get my tidbits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xQ2EkrXBy4&list=PL54675312C28EC143 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xQ2EkrXBy4&list=PL54675312C... > By the way, knowing a language is very different from use in day to day speech. I know the difference. Have you ever visited Sanskrit universities/gurukulas in India ? It's simply magical. Sanskrit is taught in the language itself, and students chat with their teachers and amongst themselves in the language. This made me very happy! This is even acknowledged on various Indology mailing lists, where the western scholars note this, often rather bitterly, often peppering the immediately following sentence with generic insults and racist disdain. Apologies for getting political here, but I've never understood why the field is so hostile to India (British origins ?). East Asia departments by comparison are filled with Sinophiles/Japanophiles.

uptownfunk 9y ago

Generally people don’t approach panini vyakaran directly but rather through a text such as the siddhanta kaumudi or laghu siddhanta kaumudi which are the panini sutras reordered with the ancient commentaries of patanjali and katyayan.