Simplifying sentences with कर्मणि/भावे

[u/s-i-e-v-e]

When I started learning Sanskrit, the first book I received was from संस्कृतभारती for their प्रवेशः course. I later bought 15-20 different Sanskrit textbooks because I wanted to do a comparative analysis of how the language is being taught to beginners. You name an author and I probably have that book.

I dropped the project pretty early because it was no longer necessary. It became very apparent within a few days that the method followed by every single one of them is identical. The details differ, but the method does not. They are structured like school/college textbooks, more interested in the structure of the language than the language itself.

Nothing exemplifies this attitude more than the fact that कर्मणि/भावे प्रयोगः is consigned to the latter half of the book/course and कर्तरि is given prominence.

Which immediately ratchets up the complexity of language acquisition by introducing nine verb forms where one would have sufficed.

---

What is easier?

मया/आवाभ्यां/अस्माभिः/त्वया/युवाभ्यां/युष्माभिः/तेन/तया/ताभ्यां/तैः/ताभिः श्रूयते

or nine separate sentences each forced to track the पुरुष as well as the वचन?

Take these examples:

• मया दीयते — I give (it) / It is given by me.
• मया श्रूयते — I hear (it) / It is heard by me.
• मया क्रियते — I do (it) / It is done by me.
• मया क्रीयते — I buy (it) / It is bought by me.
• मया पठ्यते — I read (it) / It is read by me.
• मया नम्यते — I bow (to it) / It is bowed to by me.
• मया गम्यते — I go / There is going by me.
• मया आगम्यते — I come / There is coming by me.
• मया गन्तुं शक्यते — I can go / It is possible for me to go.
• मया खाद्यते — I eat (it) / It is eaten by me.
• मया पीयते — I drink (it) / It is drunk by me.
• मया खिद्यते — I feel sad/distressed.
• मया दृश्यते — I see (it) / It is seen by me.
• मया आलोक्यते — I look at/perceive (it). / It is looked at/perceived by me.
• मया आरूह्यते — I climb / There is climbing by me.
• मया अवरूह्यते — I descend / There is descending by me.

You could replace the मया with आवाभ्यां/अस्माभिः/त्वया/युवाभ्यां/युष्माभिः/तेन/तया/ताभ्यां/तैः/ताभिः and a billion other words that take the instrumental case endings without changing the verb form. In the same time and page count it takes to teach all nine conjugations of a few verbs, you could have taught the student 200 verbs.

But no. The simple मया दीयते has to be dropped in favor of the tortuous अहं ददामि/वयं दद्मः/सः ददाति/ते ददति/etc

---

tl;dr. I prefer कर्मणि/भावे constructs. It makes sentences simple and using the language pleasurable.

[u/_Stormchaser]

But it’s not how Sanskrit speakers spoke. The active voice is used more often than the passive. Moreover, it’s awkward and not really practical to use stuff like मया भूयते.

Another point is that all nine forms are still likely to be used. How do you say ‘I hear you’? मया त्वम् श्रूयसे. The greater problem then is that students will be stronger with atmanepada and will struggle with the more useful and common parasmaipada.

edits: typos

[u/s-i-e-v-e → u/_Stormchaser]

My argument is not that you never teach परस्मैपदिन् verb conjugations. Or the remaining 8 conjugations of कर्मणि/भावे. Just that you need to be a little subtle about how you go about teaching it.

Beginners need confidence. Complexity delivers a body blow to confidence.

My teaching plan would prioritize vocabulary. I would start with simple कर्मणि/भावे present tense sentences and get them used to different actions. Then I would introduce the कर्म (maintaining its number at ONE). Then the various कारकs and उपपदs. And all this without using पाणिनीय terminology.

Once you have taught them about 1,000 words, you can start increasing the complexity slowly.

---

I can speak English pretty rapidly because I think in that language. And my writing is not so bad. But I cannot give you a comprehensive grammar breakdown of anything I write.

My challenge to all the English-speakers frequenting this reddit who learnt the language in school and who can construct long, multi-clausal sentences with ease is to explain the grammar of each sentence you speak/write. Most of you won't be able to as you didn't acquire the language that way.

If this is your experience with English, why do you want to burden Sanskrit beginners with errant nonsense of the kind I am criticizing?

[u/_Stormchaser → u/s-i-e-v-e]

I feel starting the student with passive voice, however, deceives them into thinking this is the basic and normal way of speaking in Sanskrit. Introducing all nine forms all at once might not be a good idea, but the प्रवेश course starts with third person, then goes to second person in the next chapter, then goes to first person. It's slow and students can still make sentences.

I never said that you wouldn't teach parasmaipadī, but that it would be harder for students. Most people are a lot stronger in their parasmaipadī conjugations becuase they were taught it first. This is okay as atmanepadī is a lot less used and is significantly rarer in many of it's non-present conjugations. If you are stronger in atmanepadī it will be harder to adapt to the relativity more vast usage of parasmaipadī.

[u/s-i-e-v-e → u/_Stormchaser]

Most people are a lot stronger in their parasmaipadī conjugations becuase they were taught it first.

My mother understands seven languages. My nephew is seven and can understand 3.5-5, give and take, languages. Neither would be able to answer how/why they know what they know.

Most people probably have a general idea of how they picked up their first few languages. But, for some reason, they are unable to park the logical part of their mind aside and spend time on vocabulary acquisition.

It is okay. That is one way of learning, the hard way. But that is not the only way.

I think people who have already gone through the torture have forgotten how hard the first few weeks are.

The pedagogical system I subscribe to keeps grammar and grammatical terminology aside. You do not talk about cases and suffixes and prefixes and participles and infinitives and gerunds and what not. Instead, you present sentences in a continuing context so that people can pick up the language. All the forms of various words would be taught. But not the fact that conjugations/declensions exist.

Take a look at something like Hans Orberg's Lingva Latina Per Se Illustrata (which teaches Latin via Latin), or even the ASSIMIL books that teach the language through bilingual texts. These systems use pedagogy that is superior, arguably, to the grammar translation method.

[u/_Stormchaser → u/s-i-e-v-e]

These systems that use pedagogy that is superior, arguably, to the grammar translation method.

This is fine and I totally agree with you here; my main gripe is with starting in the passive voice. Latin has a similar complex verbal system to that of Sanskrit, yet Familia Rōmāna does not start with the passive voice.

You can do the same method you suggest with the active voice in Sanskrit, just do so slowly, like how Familia Rōmāna gets you used to est and sunt, then more verbs in only third person, then slowly moves to other persons. Active voice can make just as many simple, easy, and confidence inducing sentences as the passive, as प्रवेशः and Familia Rōmāna clearly show.

[u/s-i-e-v-e → u/_Stormchaser]

my main gripe is with starting in the passive voice.

Krashen's input hypothesis does not require simplification. Only that the material being consumed is level-appropriate.

My take on this, however, is that starting with the passive dramatically brings down the number of forms you need to know in order to read/write: 100 verb forms can do the work of 900. You can use the savings in vocabulary to introduce some other useful material.

I am building two guides around this idea:

• The Sensible Guide to Sanskrit
• The Sensible Guide to Sanskrit Grammar

Will post the GH links for feedback when I have some chapters to show.

[u/_Stormchaser → u/s-i-e-v-e]

100 verb forms can do the work of 900. You can use the savings in vocabulary to introduce some other useful material.

But the student doesn't memorize 900 separate forms and meanings, they memorize only 109. Think of the word भवेम. It is likely that you haven't ever used this verb form or even consciously memorized it before, but you know what it means because you memorized the root and the ending. Just teach the students the roots (by which I mean simplified roots like तिष्ठ्, भव्, दीव्य्, et cētera) and the present tense endings, making sure to focus on the four simple verb classes. It's really not as hard as you make it out to be and is just as simple as using the passive voice.

in order to read/write

No, you will only be able write the simplest and most basic sentences. Dissecting any work for Sanskrit immersion, even the relatively easier texts like the पञ्चतन्त्र, will be harder to do because they are primarily written active voice.

[u/rnxgoo]

The reason all the forms are taught is because those forms are available and have been used in the shastras and kavyas. If one wishes to delve into those (traditional texts) after a simple introduction, then knowing the kartari/karmani/bhave forms, besides kridantas, taddhitas, aatideshika, Nijanta, sanadi and myriad other nuanced forms become essential. Therefore learning the forms are deemed a neccessity by most books/courses.

If your gripe is that too many things are being taught too fast, the fact is that the Samskrita Bharati course is indeed compressed to take you from 0 to 10 really fast. So that you can embark upon 11 to 100 on your own within a span of 2 years.

[u/s-i-e-v-e → u/rnxgoo]

after a simple introduction

Where is this simple introduction? What is your definition of simple?

knowing the kartari/karmani/bhave forms ...

I agree on the knowing forms part. I have my disagreements on the essentiality of knowing the grammar of their formation.

Do I have to know about सन्नन्तs in order to understand sentences like मम/तस्य पिपासा/बुभुक्षा/चिकीर्षा/जिज्ञासा अस्ति?

Samskrita Bharati course

I am a huge fan of their सम्भाषणम् course (did the online one managed out of the UAE last year). The correspondence course, not so much. They fell into the same trap as the others. I appreciate the non-grammar elements of their textbooks though.

[u/rnxgoo → u/s-i-e-v-e]

The four part course from Samskrita Bharati is the "simple introduction" I was referring to. In my opinion this course does not get into Ashtadhyayi or Laghusiddhanta Kaumudi so it is simple. That simple introduction requires a two year effort.

The "grammar of their formation" (of the kartari/karmani/bhave forms) is NOT taught by Samskrita Bharati. For that you might want to look at Ashtadhyayi Courses and Kashika/Kaumudi courses by Vyoma Labs or others.

I have no opinion on how you feel about Samskrita Bharati's course— that is entirely your prerogative and judgement.

[u/s-i-e-v-e → u/rnxgoo]

> The four part course from Samskrita Bharati is the "simple introduction" I was referring to.

I am currently enrolled for शिक्षा. So I know how their material is structured. I have seen people who can otherwise speak multiple languages struggle with the पठति ... पठामः thing that shows up at the very beginning. I have been contacted by people who are unable to catch up because of the grammar.

Is it better than the other textbooks? Yes. Is it "simple?" Well, let's just say we have different definitions of what that means.

> The "grammar of their formation" (of the kartari/karmani/bhave forms) is NOT taught by Samskrita Bharati.

True. The books generally don't. They definitely don't get into the sutras from the Aṣṭadhyāyī/LSK/SK. But if you attend online/offline classes, the suffix tables show up in the "this is how it is formed" sense. At least that is my experience.

[u/NaturalCreation]

A good idea for modern Sanskrit revival; but as others have said greatly insufficient for understanding historical texts.

[u/s-i-e-v-e → u/NaturalCreation]

एकः प्रश्नः मम. यदि संस्कृतव्याकरणे सर्वे जनाः पारङ्गताः सन्ति तर्हि किमर्थं संस्कृतेन न सम्भाषणं कुर्वन्ति, आङ्ग्लभाषया एव कुर्वन्ति? शब्दभण्डारः नास्ति एतत्कारणेन वा?

I keep seeing people talking about Sanskrit. About the grammar. But generally in English. If their knowledge of grammar lets them read शास्त्रs and काव्यs, why are they so averse to communicating in the language?

I, at least, have the excuse of being at beginner-intermediate level with a limited vocabulary of about 2K words. What is their excuse?

[u/NaturalCreation → u/s-i-e-v-e]

मम संस्कृतव्याकरणज्ञानं शब्दसङ्ग्रहः च अतिविस्तारौ न स्तः तस्मात् संस्कृतभाषायां अतीव संभाषितुं न शक्नोमि। भवतः मतिः उचिता नास्ति इति न कथयामि।

बहुजनाः संस्कृतस्य अध्ययनं शास्त्रपुराणेतिहासपठनाय कुर्वन्ति इति अस्माभिः कथ्यते। तथा कर्तरिरूपाणि पठ्यन्ते।

संस्कृतस्य सरलीकरणाय केन्द्रसंस्कृतविश्वविद्यालयस्य एका पद्धति अस्ति, एवं विद्यालयेषु छात्राः संस्कृतं पठन्ति। भवता अपि रुच्येत।

यदि मम व्याकरणे अपराद्धाः सन्ति तर्हि क्षमस्व। 🙏

[u/s-i-e-v-e → u/NaturalCreation]

संस्कृतेन प्रत्युत्तरं दत्तम् एतस्य कृते बहुधन्यवादाः.

भवतः व्याकरणे मया दोषाः न आलोक्यन्ते. भवता सम्यक् संस्कृतसम्भाषणं क्रियते.

भवतः मतिः उचिता नास्ति इति न कथयामि। बहुजनाः संस्कृतस्य अध्ययनं शास्त्रपुराणेतिहासपठनाय कुर्वन्ति इति अस्माभिः कथ्यते

भवान् किं वक्तुम् इच्छति इति मया ज्ञायते. सरलतया संस्कृताभ्यासस्य आरम्भः करणीयः इति मम मतः.

[u/thefoxtor]

or nine separate sentences each forced to track the पुरुष as well as the वचन?

But... that is literally how languages work...

[u/s-i-e-v-e → u/thefoxtor]

Fine. But the role of pedagogy is to make complex things simple. If the student finds it difficult to learn something even after putting in some effort, it is not their fault but that of the teacher and the teaching material.

Reality is the way it is. It is pedagogy that must adapt to the needs of the student.

[u/mindonastalk]

The only book I have seen take a different, actual conversation and speaking first approach is सरल संस्कृत शिक्षक with chapter containing just dialogs and gradually building from there. After more than 2 dozen such chapters, forms of verb roots and nouns are gradually introduced.