Proving the compatibility of Science and Sastras, Dr. P. Ramanujan headed a project on ‘Computational Rendering of Paninian Grammar’
(This
is the last of the two-part article on Dr. P. Ramanujan’s work on
computer and Sanskrit. The first part appeared in Friday Review on March
13 and the link is http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/access-the-sastras-through-the-computer/article6986130.ece)
In
the early 1900s, analytic philosophers such as Russell and initially
Wittgenstein too, tried to develop artificial languages, which, unlike
ordinary language, would provide them with a more logical grammar, and
words with unambiguous meanings. Language was a major preoccupation for
later analytic philosophers such as Austin too, although he felt
ordinary language itself would serve the purpose of the philosopher.
Talking
about generative grammar, linguist Noam Chomsky said that grammar books
do not show how to generate even simple sentences, without depending on
the implicit knowledge of the speaker. He said this is true even of
grammars of “great scope” like Jespersen’s ‘A Modern English Grammar on
Historical Principles.’ There is some “unconscious knowledge” that makes
it possible for a speaker to “use his language.” This unconscious
knowledge is what generative grammar must render explicit. Chomsky said
there were classical precedents for generative grammar, Panini’s grammar
being the “most famous and important case.”
Walter
Eugene Clark, who was Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, and
who translated Aryabhatta’s Aryabhatiya into English, wrote that
“Panini’s grammar is the earliest scientific grammar in the world, and
one of the greatest.” He said the “Indian study of language was as
objective as the dissection of the body by an anatomist.”
Not
surprisingly, there are scientists who study Paninian grammar, with a
view to seeing what application they have in the area of Natural
Language Processing (NLP) research.
Dr. P. Ramanujan,
Programme Co-ordinator, Indian Heritage Group- C-DAC, Bengaluru, is an
authority on Paninian grammar. With a tuft, a namam on his forehead and a
traditional dhoti, he doesn’t look like a typical scientist. Ramanujan
is proof that traditional education need not stand in the way of a
career in science, for it is his traditional learning which has brought
him to where he is today.
Trained from the age of
three by his father, Ghanapadi Parankusachar Swami, Ramanujan completed
his study of the 4000 verses of the Divya Prabandham by the age of 11.
After his upanayanam, Vedic studies began. But he also had to go to
regular school, so that he had an almost 24-hour academic engagement,
studying one thing or the other.
A brilliant student,
Ramanujan wanted to become an engineer. But his father wanted him to
take up a job soon, and so suggested he do a diploma course. After
obtaining his diploma, Ramanujan joined HAL. Later on, he graduated in
engineering, and did his Masters in Engineering from IISc, where his
thesis was on Development of a General Purpose Sanskrit Parser.
What
would make a study of Sanskrit useful to a student of Computer Science?
“If a language has many meanings for a word, it is ambiguous, but when
Sanskrit has many meanings for a word, it is rich!” says Dr. Ramanujan,
who headed a project on ‘Computational Rendering of Paninian Grammar.’
The
richness of Sanskrit comes from the fact that everything is
pre-determined and derivable. “There is a derivational process, and so
there is no ambiguity. You can explain everything structurally. There is
a base meaning, a suffix meaning and a combination meaning. The base is
the constant part, and the suffix is the variable part. The variables
are most potent. With suffixes one can highlight, modify or attenuate.”
Two
different words may denote an object, but you can’t use them
interchangeably, for the functional aspect is what matters. For example
you can’t replace ‘Agni’ with ‘Vahni,’ for ‘Agni’ has its own
componential meaning.
An object may be denoted by the
base. An object can have sets of relationships and interactions with
other things in the world. For example, ‘Rama’, in relation to other
objects, may be an agent of some activity or the recipient etc. “Even
the interactions have been codified nicely and briefly. Clarity and
brevity are the hallmarks of Panini’s work. His rule-based approach is
his biggest plus point.”
Isn’t it true that in
Sanskrit you don’t have to coin words for a new invention or discovery,
and you can derive a word to suit the functionality of the object? “Yes.
You have all the components with you to derive a word.
You can use multiple suffixes, if need be, to show the particular function of an object.”
Does
meaning vary according to accent? “It does. For the same suffix,
different meanings are derivable because of accent differences. So you
have the Divine Couple, Jaganmatha and Jagathpitha. How do you show the
difference between our parents for all time and our parents in this life
alone? Accent helps here. This is how the Vedas are most apt, and this
has been fully noted by Panini. “He gave us a conceptual, functional
system. You take an example, apply the rules and get clarity about what
it means. So the structure is important. The component approach is
important.”
Wasn’t there an occasion when the work of
a Finnish scholar, who found fault with Panini, was referred to you ?
“The Finnish scholar said that Panini was wrong in some rules relating
to Vedic grammar. ‘Let Lakaara’ is used only in the Vedas, and Panini
wrote five sutras for it. The Finnish scholar felt Panini could have
handled this differently. George Cardona, from the University of
Pennsylvania, referred him to me. I pointed out that Panini cannot be
faulted internally. After all he set out a meta language first. He said
this is how I will write my rules. Externally, if you want, write a
grammar yourself. Many have tried and no one has been able to better
Panini.”
Have you included ‘Let Lakaara’ in your
programs? “Yes, I have. ‘Let Lakaara’ is very tough, because 108 forms
can be generated theoretically for every root. N.S. Devanathachariar,
Mimamsa Professor in Tirupati, appreciated my work.”
However,
Dr. Bachchu Lal Awasthi, a Presidential awardee and a grammarian, felt
that only as many forms as occur in the Vedas should be generated. His
objection was that one should use the Sutras to understand what existed,
but one should not use the Sutra to generate the rest.
When
Ramanujan explained that his program was done mainly to show how the
rules worked, Dr. Awasthi conceded that Ramanujan did have a point.
“This just shows that people can be won over, if we are able to show the
purpose of something.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.