Наглы о санскрите
Англы (нормальные наглы) говорят наглам, что санскрит будет круче греческого и латыни. Как духовенство изучает древние языки Писания, так и нагл должен знать санскрит, чтобы быть англом, но не наглом. Если чел хочет знать всё, он должен знать санскрит. Если вы согласны, то переходим к чтению второй части
SECTION 1.
Reasons
for
under
-taking
a New Sanskrit
Dictionary.
In the forefront must be
placed
the
growing importance assigned by philologists
to the
oldest branch of the
great Indo-European speech-stem,
of which
English
is a modern offshoot.
An intricate
language
destined to
occupy
the foremost rank
throughout Europe
as an instrument
of
linguistic training
needs
greater
facilities for its
acquisition.
Some
may
smile at the idea of
any
Oriental
language acquiring greater weight
as an instrument of
training among
Occidental
peoples
whose
vigorous
mental faculties
require
a more suitable
discipline
for their
development.
Be it
remembered, however,
that Sanskrit is,
in one
sense,
the
property
of
Europe
as well as of
India. Its
relationship
to some of our own
languages
is as close as to some of the Hindu dialects.
It is a better
guide
than either Greek or Latin to the
structure,
historical
connection,
and correlation
of the whole
Indo-European family.
It is a more
trustworthy authority
in the solution of recondite
philological problems.
Its
study
involves a mental
discipline
not to be
surpassed.
Not even the most
superficial
observer can
possibly
be blind to the educational movement
now
spreading everywhere. Perhaps, however,
some of
us,
trained under the old
system,
are
scarcely yet
alive to the forces which are at work for
infusing
new blood
(if
I
may
be allowed
the
phrase)
into the whole
body
of our
teaching.
Not
only
must Greek and Latin be
taught
more
thoroughly
and
scientifically,
if
they
are to hold their own as the best trainers of
thought
and enforcers of
accuracy *,
but modern
languages
and modern literature can no
longer
be thrust
aside or
only employed
to fill
up
the
gaps
in our
system
of instruction. All the nations of the civilized world are
being
drawn into closer intercommunion. The
rapid
advance of science in
England, Germany, France,
and
Italy
has forced natural science
upon
us as a
necessary
element
of all mental culture, making
also an
interchange
of
thought
between these countries
indispensable.
Eastern
languages
too,
both Semitic and
Aryan,
are
pressing peremptorily
on the attention of
our Universities*. Hebrew and Aramaic must now be studied
by
all our
younger clergy,
if
they
are to hold their own in the conflict of
theological parties
or
present
a bold front towards
sceptical
assailants. A knowledge
of Arabic is essential to a
right understanding
of the
literature, religion,
and social institutions of the millions of our Muslim
fellow-subjects.
Some of the dialects of India
must be mastered
by
all who have communication with the tens of millions of our Hindu brethren.
Lastly,
all the branches of the two
great
stems of
speech
are now
proved
to be so
closely
interdependent,
and the
permutations
of sounds in
passing through
the
varying organs
of
varying types
of the human
family
are shewn to
obey
such
curiously
definite
laws,
that a new science has been
established tThis science has for its field of
investigation
not
any
one
particular language,
but
the whole area of human
speech,
and as it
inquires
into the laws
governing
the
living organs
of
utterance as well as the
living organic growth
of the actual sounds
themselves, may
be said to
trench not
only
on
Ethnology,
but even on
Biology.
This
'
science of
language' might
with more
propriety
be called
'
Glossology
'
than
Philology.
In its method of
investigation
it has much in
common with the natural
sciences,
and
though
its
analogy
to these
ought
not to be strained
beyond
a mere
analogy, yet
as a veritable science
dealing
with one of the
grandest
distinctive attributes
of human nature,
it can no more be left out of
any
modern educational
programme
than
any
of
the natural sciences
properly
so called. With the
'
Glossologist
'
every spoken
word is like a
plant
or animal in the hands of a
Biologist ;
its
birth, growth, transformations,
and
decay
must all be
accounted for
;
its whole structure dissected limb
by
limb
; every appendage
traced to its
appropriate
use and function
;
its
deepest
internal constitution
analyzed.
Will it be denied, then,
that Sanskrit is destined to
increasing cultivation,
as the one
typical
scientific
language
whose structure is a
master-key
to the structure of all
languages,
whose
very
name
implies 'Synthesis,'
and whose
literature, commencing
with the
Rig-veda
about
1500 B.C.,
extends in a continuous line for
nearly 3000 years, throwing
a flood of
light
on the
operation
of
linguistic
laws ? In
point
of fact the Hindus
may
be said to be the
original
inventors of the
'
science of
language.'
Like the
Greeks, they
are the
only
nation who have worked out for themselves the laws of
thought
and of
grammar independently.
If their
system
of
logic
is inferior to that of
Aristotle, they
are
unequalled
in their examination into the constitution of
speech.
The name
Vyakarana,
which
they
give
to their
grammar, implies
'
decomposition'
or 'resolution of a
compound
into its
parts,' just
as
Sanskarana
implies
the
re-composition
or re-construction of the same
decomposed
elements.
Every single
word in their classical
language
is referred to a Dhatu or
Root,
which is also a name
for
any
constituent
elementary substance,
whether of rocks or
living organisms.
In
short,
when we
follow out their
grammatical system
in all the detail of its curious subtleties and
technicalities,
we
seem to be
engaged,
like a
Geologist,
in
splitting
solid
substances, or,
like a
Chemist,
in some
elaborate
process
of
analysis. Having
said so much in
support
of an effort to facilitate and
generalize
the
study
of
Sanskrit,
I have now to state
my
reasons for
having
addressed
myself
to a task like the
present.
It
may
not be
generally
known that the late Professor H. H. Wilson once intended the
compilation
of a
Dictionary
not
wholly
dissimilar in character and
plan
to that here offered to
the students of Sanskrit and its
cognate languages.
This I have heard from himself was what he
intended
by
the last words of the Preface to his second
edition,
in which he stated that it
would be his wish as Boden Professor to offer to the cultivators of Sanskrit 'other and better
assistance.'
It is
perhaps
also not known that he
actually
made some
progress
in
carrying
out this
intention, though eventually
debarred from its
prosecution by
his other numerous
literary
labours.
He
therefore,
about the
year 1852,
when I had
completed
the
printing
of the
English-Sanskrit
Dictionary compiled by
me for the East-India
Company,
made over a
large manuscript volume,
containing
the commencement of his new
work,
to
me,
with a
request
that I would continue it on
the
plan
sketched out
by
himself. At the same time he
generously presented
me with a
copious
selection of
examples
and
quotations
made
by
Pandits at
Calcutta,
under his
direction,
from
a considerable
range
of Sanskrit literature. It has become
necessary
for me to state these
circumstances at the risk of
being charged
with
egotism,
because the
publication
of the first
part
of Professor Goldstiicker's
Dictionary
has made Orientalists aware that Professor Wilson entrusted
the
printing
of a third edition of his
Dictionary
to that learned
scholar,
whose recent death is felt
by
all Sanskritists to be an
irreparable
loss *. From what I have now
notified, however,
it
will,
I
trust,
be
quite
understood that the work committed to me
by
one who was first
my master,
and
afterwards
my
wisest
guide
and truest
friend,
was not a new edition of his
Dictionary,
but an
entire
remodelling
of his scheme of
lexicography, consisting
of a
re-arrangement
of all the words
under
Roots, according
to native
principles
of
etymology,
with addition of the
examples
collected
as above described.
Having already completed
the
English-Sanskrit part
of a
Dictionary
of
my
own,
I
naturally
undertook as a
sequel
the work thus
assigned me, especially
as the
plan
commended itself to
my
own
judgment
and
predilections. Moreover,
I
actually
carried on the task for
a considerable
period
between the intervals of other
undertakings. Soon, however,
it
began
to be
manifest that the third edition of Professor Wilson's
Dictionary
was
assuming,
under Professor
Goldstiicker's
editorship,
almost interminable
proportions,
so as to become no
longer
a new edition
of a
previous Lexicon,
but rather a
many-volumed Encyclopaedia
of Sanskrit
learning,
which no one
scholar,
however
persistent,
could
hope
to
carry beyond
the letter A. At the same time the
Sanskrit-German Worterbuch of Professors
Bohtlingk
and
Roth, though
conducted
by
two of the
most
energetic
scholars of the
day,
and
put
forth with
singular perseverance, appeared
to be
expanding
into vast
dimensions,
so as to be
quite beyond
the
compass
of
ordinary English
students. These circumstances
having
forced themselves
upon my observation,
I
suddenly
determined to abandon the
design
of a
wholly Root-arranged Dictionary
which could
only
be
useful,
like the works
above-named,
to the
highest
class of scholars and to commence a work on a more practical plan,
which, although
raised as far as
my powers went,
to the level of modern
scholarship,
so as to be a
sufficiently trustworthy
aid in
studying
the chief
departments
of
literature, including
the
Veda,
should
yet
be
procurable
at a moderate cost,
and not extend
beyond
the limits of one
compact
volume. This leads me therefore to
SECTION 2.
SECTION 1.
Reasons
for
under
-taking
a New Sanskrit
Dictionary.
In the forefront must be
placed
the
growing importance assigned by philologists
to the
oldest branch of the
great Indo-European speech-stem,
of which
English
is a modern offshoot.
An intricate
language
destined to
occupy
the foremost rank
throughout Europe
as an instrument
of
linguistic training
needs
greater
facilities for its
acquisition.
Some
may
smile at the idea of
any
Oriental
language acquiring greater weight
as an instrument of
training among
Occidental
peoples
whose
vigorous
mental faculties
require
a more suitable
discipline
for their
development.
Be it
remembered, however,
that Sanskrit is,
in one
sense,
the
property
of
Europe
as well as of
India. Its
relationship
to some of our own
languages
is as close as to some of the Hindu dialects.
It is a better
guide
than either Greek or Latin to the
structure,
historical
connection,
and correlation
of the whole
Indo-European family.
It is a more
trustworthy authority
in the solution of recondite
philological problems.
Its
study
involves a mental
discipline
not to be
surpassed.
Not even the most
superficial
observer can
possibly
be blind to the educational movement
now
spreading everywhere. Perhaps, however,
some of
us,
trained under the old
system,
are
scarcely yet
alive to the forces which are at work for
infusing
new blood
(if
I
may
be allowed
the
phrase)
into the whole
body
of our
teaching.
Not
only
must Greek and Latin be
taught
more
thoroughly
and
scientifically,
if
they
are to hold their own as the best trainers of
thought
and enforcers of
accuracy *,
but modern
languages
and modern literature can no
longer
be thrust
aside or
only employed
to fill
up
the
gaps
in our
system
of instruction. All the nations of the civilized world are
being
drawn into closer intercommunion. The
rapid
advance of science in
England, Germany, France,
and
Italy
has forced natural science
upon
us as a
necessary
element
of all mental culture, making
also an
interchange
of
thought
between these countries
indispensable.
Eastern
languages
too,
both Semitic and
Aryan,
are
pressing peremptorily
on the attention of
our Universities*. Hebrew and Aramaic must now be studied
by
all our
younger clergy,
if
they
are to hold their own in the conflict of
theological parties
or
present
a bold front towards
sceptical
assailants. A knowledge
of Arabic is essential to a
right understanding
of the
literature, religion,
and social institutions of the millions of our Muslim
fellow-subjects.
Some of the dialects of India
must be mastered
by
all who have communication with the tens of millions of our Hindu brethren.
Lastly,
all the branches of the two
great
stems of
speech
are now
proved
to be so
closely
interdependent,
and the
permutations
of sounds in
passing through
the
varying organs
of
varying types
of the human
family
are shewn to
obey
such
curiously
definite
laws,
that a new science has been
established tThis science has for its field of
investigation
not
any
one
particular language,
but
the whole area of human
speech,
and as it
inquires
into the laws
governing
the
living organs
of
utterance as well as the
living organic growth
of the actual sounds
themselves, may
be said to
trench not
only
on
Ethnology,
but even on
Biology.
This
'
science of
language' might
with more
propriety
be called
'
Glossology
'
than
Philology.
In its method of
investigation
it has much in
common with the natural
sciences,
and
though
its
analogy
to these
ought
not to be strained
beyond
a mere
analogy, yet
as a veritable science
dealing
with one of the
grandest
distinctive attributes
of human nature,
it can no more be left out of
any
modern educational
programme
than
any
of
the natural sciences
properly
so called. With the
'
Glossologist
'
every spoken
word is like a
plant
or animal in the hands of a
Biologist ;
its
birth, growth, transformations,
and
decay
must all be
accounted for
;
its whole structure dissected limb
by
limb
; every appendage
traced to its
appropriate
use and function
;
its
deepest
internal constitution
analyzed.
Will it be denied, then,
that Sanskrit is destined to
increasing cultivation,
as the one
typical
scientific
language
whose structure is a
master-key
to the structure of all
languages,
whose
very
name
implies 'Synthesis,'
and whose
literature, commencing
with the
Rig-veda
about
1500 B.C.,
extends in a continuous line for
nearly 3000 years, throwing
a flood of
light
on the
operation
of
linguistic
laws ? In
point
of fact the Hindus
may
be said to be the
original
inventors of the
'
science of
language.'
Like the
Greeks, they
are the
only
nation who have worked out for themselves the laws of
thought
and of
grammar independently.
If their
system
of
logic
is inferior to that of
Aristotle, they
are
unequalled
in their examination into the constitution of
speech.
The name
Vyakarana,
which
they
give
to their
grammar, implies
'
decomposition'
or 'resolution of a
compound
into its
parts,' just
as
Sanskarana
implies
the
re-composition
or re-construction of the same
decomposed
elements.
Every single
word in their classical
language
is referred to a Dhatu or
Root,
which is also a name
for
any
constituent
elementary substance,
whether of rocks or
living organisms.
In
short,
when we
follow out their
grammatical system
in all the detail of its curious subtleties and
technicalities,
we
seem to be
engaged,
like a
Geologist,
in
splitting
solid
substances, or,
like a
Chemist,
in some
elaborate
process
of
analysis. Having
said so much in
support
of an effort to facilitate and
generalize
the
study
of
Sanskrit,
I have now to state
my
reasons for
having
addressed
myself
to a task like the
present.
It
may
not be
generally
known that the late Professor H. H. Wilson once intended the
compilation
of a
Dictionary
not
wholly
dissimilar in character and
plan
to that here offered to
the students of Sanskrit and its
cognate languages.
This I have heard from himself was what he
intended
by
the last words of the Preface to his second
edition,
in which he stated that it
would be his wish as Boden Professor to offer to the cultivators of Sanskrit 'other and better
assistance.'
It is
perhaps
also not known that he
actually
made some
progress
in
carrying
out this
intention, though eventually
debarred from its
prosecution by
his other numerous
literary
labours.
He
therefore,
about the
year 1852,
when I had
completed
the
printing
of the
English-Sanskrit
Dictionary compiled by
me for the East-India
Company,
made over a
large manuscript volume,
containing
the commencement of his new
work,
to
me,
with a
request
that I would continue it on
the
plan
sketched out
by
himself. At the same time he
generously presented
me with a
copious
selection of
examples
and
quotations
made
by
Pandits at
Calcutta,
under his
direction,
from
a considerable
range
of Sanskrit literature. It has become
necessary
for me to state these
circumstances at the risk of
being charged
with
egotism,
because the
publication
of the first
part
of Professor Goldstiicker's
Dictionary
has made Orientalists aware that Professor Wilson entrusted
the
printing
of a third edition of his
Dictionary
to that learned
scholar,
whose recent death is felt
by
all Sanskritists to be an
irreparable
loss *. From what I have now
notified, however,
it
will,
I
trust,
be
quite
understood that the work committed to me
by
one who was first
my master,
and
afterwards
my
wisest
guide
and truest
friend,
was not a new edition of his
Dictionary,
but an
entire
remodelling
of his scheme of
lexicography, consisting
of a
re-arrangement
of all the words
under
Roots, according
to native
principles
of
etymology,
with addition of the
examples
collected
as above described.
Having already completed
the
English-Sanskrit part
of a
Dictionary
of
my
own,
I
naturally
undertook as a
sequel
the work thus
assigned me, especially
as the
plan
commended itself to
my
own
judgment
and
predilections. Moreover,
I
actually
carried on the task for
a considerable
period
between the intervals of other
undertakings. Soon, however,
it
began
to be
manifest that the third edition of Professor Wilson's
Dictionary
was
assuming,
under Professor
Goldstiicker's
editorship,
almost interminable
proportions,
so as to become no
longer
a new edition
of a
previous Lexicon,
but rather a
many-volumed Encyclopaedia
of Sanskrit
learning,
which no one
scholar,
however
persistent,
could
hope
to
carry beyond
the letter A. At the same time the
Sanskrit-German Worterbuch of Professors
Bohtlingk
and
Roth, though
conducted
by
two of the
most
energetic
scholars of the
day,
and
put
forth with
singular perseverance, appeared
to be
expanding
into vast
dimensions,
so as to be
quite beyond
the
compass
of
ordinary English
students. These circumstances
having
forced themselves
upon my observation,
I
suddenly
determined to abandon the
design
of a
wholly Root-arranged Dictionary
which could
only
be
useful,
like the works
above-named,
to the
highest
class of scholars and to commence a work on a more practical plan,
which, although
raised as far as
my powers went,
to the level of modern
scholarship,
so as to be a
sufficiently trustworthy
aid in
studying
the chief
departments
of
literature, including
the
Veda,
should
yet
be
procurable
at a moderate cost,
and not extend
beyond
the limits of one
compact
volume. This leads me therefore to
SECTION 2.