Jump to content

User:Rjb164/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India

[edit]
Main articles: Vyakarana and Tolkāppiyam

Linguistics in ancient India derives its impetus from the need to correctly recite and interpret the Vedic texts. Already in the oldest Indian text, the Rigveda, vāk ("speech") is deified. By 1200 BCE,[1] the oral performance of these texts becomes standardized, and treatises on ritual recitation suggest splitting up the Sanskrit compounds into words, stems, and phonetic units, providing an impetus for morphology and phonetics.

Some of the earliest activities in the description of language have been attributed to the Indian grammarian Pāṇini (6th century BCE),[2][3][4] who wrote a rule-based description of the Sanskrit language in his Aṣṭādhyāyī.[5]

Over the next few centuries, clarity was reached in the organization of sound units, and the stop consonants were organized in a 5x5 square (c. 800 BCE, Pratisakhyas), eventually leading to a systematic alphabet, Brāhmī, by the 3rd century BCE.[citation needed]

In semantics, the early Sanskrit grammarian Śākaṭāyana (before c. 500 BCE) proposes that verbs represent ontologically prior categories, and that all nouns are etymologically derived from actions. The etymologist Yāska (c. 5th century BCE) posits that meaning inheres in the sentence, and that word meanings are derived based on sentential usage. He also provides four categories of words—nouns, verbs, pre-verbs, and particles/invariants—and a test for nouns both concrete and abstract: words which can be indicated by the pronoun that.[citation needed]

Pāṇini (c. 6th century BCE) opposes the Yāska view that sentences are primary, and proposes a grammar for composing semantics from morphemic roots. Transcending the ritual text to consider living language, Pāṇini specifies a comprehensive set of about 4,000 aphoristic rules (sutras) that:

  1. Map the semantics of verb argument structures into thematic roles
  2. Provide morphosyntactic rules for creating verb forms and nominal forms whose seven cases are called karaka (similar to case) that generate the morphology
  3. Take these morphological structures and consider phonological processes (e.g., root or stem modification) by which the final phonological form is obtained

In addition, the Pāṇinian school also provides a list of 2000 verb roots which form the objects on which these rules are applied, a list of sounds (the so-called Shiva-sutras), and a list of 260 words not derivable by the rules.

The extremely succinct specification of these rules and their complex interactions led to considerable commentary and extrapolation over the following centuries. The phonological structure includes defining a notion of sound universals similar to the modern phoneme, the systematization of consonants based on oral cavity constriction, and vowels based on height and duration. However, it is the ambition of mapping these from morpheme to semantics that is truly remarkable in modern terms.

Grammarians following Pāṇini include Kātyāyana (c. 3rd century BCE), who wrote aphorisms on Pāṇini (the Varttika) and advanced mathematics; Patañjali (2nd century BCE), known for his commentary on selected topics in Pāṇini's grammar (the Mahabhasya) and on Kātyāyana's aphorisms, as well as, according to some, the author of the Yoga Sutras, and Pingala, with his mathematical approach to prosody. Several debates ranged over centuries, for example, on whether word-meaning mappings were conventional (Vaisheshika-Nyaya) or eternal (Kātyāyana-Patañjali-Mīmāṃsā).

The Nyaya Sutras specified three types of meaning: the individual (this cow), the type universal (cowhood), and the image (draw the cow). That the sound of a word also forms a class (sound-universal) was observed by Bhartṛhari (c. 500 CE), who also posits that language-universals are the units of thought, close to the nominalist or even the linguistic determinism position. Bhartṛhari also considers the sentence to be ontologically primary (word meanings are learned given their sentential use).

Of the six canonical texts or Vedangas that formed the core syllabus in Brahminic education from the 1st century CE until the 18th century, four dealt with language:

Bhartrihari around 500 CE introduced a philosophy of meaning with his sphoṭa doctrine.

Unfortunately, Pāṇini's rule-based method of linguistic analysis and description has remained relatively unknown to Western linguistics until more recently. Franz Bopp used Pāṇini's work as a linguistic source for his 1807 Sanskrit grammar but disregarded his methodology.[6] Pāṇini's system also differs from modern formal linguistics in that, since Sanskrit is a free word-order language, it did not provide syntactic rules.[7] Formal linguistics, as first proposed by Louis Hjelmslev in 1943,[8] is nonetheless based on the same concept that the expression of meaning is organised on different layers of linguistic form (including phonology and morphology).[9]

The Pali Grammar of Kacchayana, dated to the early centuries CE, describes the language of the Buddhist canon.

In addition, this Indian influence played a role in the development of the English language in Pakistan. There were differences between Pakistani English and Indian English. There were differences based on various political, educational, and economic influences. Pakistani English also has variations.

Native speakers of Urdu: [  s  r  ] (start)Native speakers of Punjabi: [s 

 r  ] (start)Another example of variable influence of first language on PakistaniEnglish is that of [  ]Native speakers of Urdu: [  ] (measure)Native speakers of Punjabi: [  ] or [  ] (measure)In this example, the [  ] is either realized as a [  ] or a [  ] by Punjab [10][10]


Founding Fathers In the 1600s, Joannes Goropius Becanus was the oldest representative of Dutch linguistics. He was the first person to publish a fragment of Gothic, mainly The lord's prayer. Franciscus Juniuns, Lambert ten Kate from Amsterdam and George Hickes from England are considered to be the founding fathers of German linguistics. [11][11]

  1. ^ Staal, J. F., The Fidelity of Oral Tradition and the Origins of Science. North-Holland Publishing Company, 1986. p. 27
  2. ^ Rens Bod (2014). A New History of the Humanities: The Search for Principles and Patterns from Antiquity to the Present. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199665214.
  3. ^ Sanskrit Literature The Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 2 (1909), p. 263.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference FPencyclo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ S.C. Vasu (Tr.) (1996). The Ashtadhyayi of Panini (2 Vols.). Vedic Books. ISBN 9788120804098.
  6. ^ The science of language, Chapter 16, in Gavin D. Flood, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism Blackwell Publishing, 2003, 599 pages ISBN 0-631-21535-2, ISBN 978-0-631-21535-6. p. 357-358
  7. ^ Kiparsky, Paul (2015). "On the Architecture of Pāṇini's Grammar". In Huet, G.; Kulkarni, A.; Scharf, P. (eds.). Sanskrit Computational Linguistics, ISCLS 2007, ISCLS 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5402. Springer. pp. 1–31. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00155-0_2. ISBN 978-3-642-00155-0.
  8. ^ Seuren, Pieter A. M. (1998). Western linguistics: An historical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 160–167. ISBN 0-631-20891-7.
  9. ^ Hjelmslev, Louis (1969) [First published 1943]. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0299024709.
  10. ^ Mahboob, A. (2003). The English Language in Pakistan: A brief overview of its history and linguistics. Pakistan Journal of Language, 4(1)
  11. ^ Noordegraaf, J., Versteegh, K., & Konrad, K. E. (1992). The history of linguistics in the low countries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Rjb164/sandbox&oldid=1010366968"