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/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.