If you find yourself grappling with an intellectual problem that’s gone unsolved for millennia, try taking a few months off and spending them on activities like swimming and meditating. That very strategy worked for a Cambridge PhD student named Rishi Rajpopat, who, after a summer of non-research-related activities, returned to a text by the ancient grammarian, logician, and “father of linguistics” Pāṇini and found it newly comprehensible. The rules of its composition had stumped scholars for 2,500 years, but, as Rajpopat tells it in an article by Tom Almeroth-Williams at Cambridge’s website, “Within minutes, as I turned the pages, these patterns started emerging, and it all started to make sense.”
Pāṇini composed his texts using a kind of algorithm: “Feed in the base and suffix of a word and it should turn them into grammatically correct words and sentences through a step-by-step process,” writes Almeroth-Williams. But “often, two or more of Pāṇini’s rules are simultaneously applicable at the same step, leaving scholars to agonize over which one to choose.” Or such was the case, at least, before Rajpopat’s discovery that the difficult-to-interpret “metarule” meant to apply to such cases dictates that “between rules applicable to the left and right sides of a word respectively, Pāṇini wanted us to choose the rule applicable to the right side.”
That may not be immediately understandable to those unfamiliar with the structure of Sanskrit. Almeroth-Williams’ piece clarifies with an example using mantra, one word from the language that everybody knows. “In the sentence ‘devāḥ prasannāḥ mantraiḥ’ (‘The Gods [devāḥ] are pleased [prasannāḥ] by the mantras [mantraiḥ]’) we encounter ‘rule conflict’ when deriving mantraiḥ, ‘by the mantras,’ ” he writes. ” The derivation starts with ‘mantra + bhis.’ One rule is applicable to the left part ‘mantra’ and the other to right part ‘bhis.’ We must pick the rule applicable to the right part ‘bhis,’ which gives us the correct form ‘mantraih.’ ”
Applying this rule renders interpretations of Pāṇini’s work almost completely unambiguous and grammatical. It could even be employed, Rajpopat has noted, to teach Sanskrit grammar to computers being programmed for natural language processing. It no doubt took him a great deal of intensive study to reach the point where he was able to discover the true meaning of Pāṇini’s clarifying metarule, but it didn’t truly present itself until he let his unconscious mind take a crack at it. As we’ve said here on Open Culture before, there are good reasons we do our best thinking while doing things like walking or taking a shower, a phenomenon that philosophers have broadly recognized through the ages — and, like as not, was understood by the great Pāṇini himself.
Related content:
Learn Latin, Old English, Sanskrit, Classical Greek & Other Ancient Languages in 10 Lessons
Introduction to Indian Philosophy: A Free Online Course
How Scholars Finally Deciphered Linear B, the Oldest Preserved Form of Ancient Greek Writing
Based in Seoul, Colin Marshall writes and broadcasts on cities, language, and culture. His projects include the Substack newsletter Books on Cities and the book The Stateless City: a Walk through 21st-Century Los Angeles. Follow him on Twitter at @colinmarshall or on Facebook.
I am wondering whether Panini wrote in Devanagari script. I guessed that the script was in Brahmi
If evidence talks then the hybrid Buddhist sanskrit was in dhamm script (lipi) . From 1st century AD. Classic sanskrit what we see today with Brahmin books is in Devanagari script from 11 century AD.
Language seems to some kind of holy code Since Cyankskrit shares the same DNA perhaps we would observe similar rules operating in modern languages of today. The Hangul font is remarkably child-like and the Ankh script of Enkhlish remains interwoven. People argue about the oldest to gue on earth but it really doesnt matter. Brother be loved well.
I know it works for me. I call it a “brain break”.
And the picture was from Nepal which is not that old not even 200 years old. 🤣🤣
The Article is misleading in a grand way. The way it was written is completely unscholarly. Has writer on 1st place put forward any evidence that Sanskrit wasa language even at starting of Christian era. The paramount point is the script. There word to word or structure explanation couldn’t based upon when there is no practicality of it’s existence. And Panini , who was, which era ‚which Language and from where it bring on the table to discuss 🤔. We want a comprehensive discussion with bibliographical reference. Otherwise, there will be long Way to keep to misinformed in all through the academic arcana.
Maharshi Katyayana, Maharshi Patanjali, maharshi Vyaadi and even Acharya Hemachandra Suri (of 12th century AD) have accepted many Metarules (Paribhashas) to justify the provisions made with the General rules and excetions. If a single equation given by Rishi Rajpopat is proper then all the authorities are being proved fool.
I have thoroughly gone throgh the dissertation and tried to understand the hypothesis of Mr. Rajpopat. Here and there, he had also accepted the imperfectness of his ideas.
I am of opinion that every Metarule must be assessed on the ground proposed by Rishi Rajpopat, and if found correct, then only it may be claimed.
In my kwnoledge, till now, not a single person (Sanskrit grammarian) has been tried to assess the solution given by Rishi Rajpopat (right to left, that stands with Devanagari Script only). However many zealicious persons have made comments abusing him, it is also not appreciable.
So far as, the availabilty of literature is concerned, no doubt, scripted Sanskrit literature appears near 7th century, but the proper name of Ashoken script is not ‘Dhamma’ as is being propogated now-a-days. It’s proper name is Brahmi (Bambhi in prakrit). The term ‘Lipi’ has feminity in itself, whereas ‘Dhamm’ (Dharma in Sanskrit) belongs to mesculine/neuter gender. Because the adjective must have gender similar to (agreemet with) the noun, and that’s why, Dhamm can not be an adjective of Lipi.
I have read that shloka in which the term ‘dhammalipi’ is used to denote an article but not a script.
Agreed with Suraj Maharjan
This claim of cracking 2500 years puzzle is fake. There is nothing unresolved in Panini. If I don’t learn properly every thing remains only puzzle to me. This false positive has been discussed in forums and scholars and videos are available in you tube.
If you look from non Bharateeya perspective everything would look trash. But the reverse would throw proper light under trained hands
It is high time people stopped trading culture and dignity for paltry degrees.
The individual may not have any dignity but only degree like a grocery list but culture and Bharateeya subjects are just excellent.