APPENDIX A--OBSERVATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE REFERENCE BOARD ON SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGY
Observation of the members of the Reference Board on Scientific Terminology in regard to the issues raised in the Scientific Terminology committee's Report on the subject of the grouping of Indian languages.
Dr. Abdul Haq., B.Litt., Ph.D.(Oxon) Secy., All- India Anjuman-e- Taraqqi-e Urdu, Delhi.
"I regret to say that I do not agree with the recommendations of the Committee Central Advisory Board of Education held at Madras in January 1941, regarding the main groups of Indian Languages. The division of Indian languages into Sanskritic and Perso-Arabic is unscientific and superficial. None of the Modern Indian Language is either Sanskritic or Perso-Arabic. As far as Urdu is concerned it is undoubtedly an Indo-Aryan Language. Its basic structure and its phonetic and morphological system is as much Indian phonetic as that of the modern High Hindi. To call it Perso-Arbic is as wrong as to call it Anglo-Persian, since it has adopted hundreds of English words from the English Language The proposed division will not solve the problem and I don't think it will suit the requirements of a uniform scientific terminology.
"Coining of scientific terms from dead and classical languages only will defeat the very object in view. I do not mean to exclude those languages; we will of course avail ourselves of the rich vocabulary of the classical languages whenever necessary, but the principle should be to devise our terms from the living languages as far as possible that they may be understood by it larger number of people for whose benefit you have undertaken this important work. This is the modern tendency everywhere and every encouragement should be given to it.
"For such reasons I do not see eye with the advocates of the proposed groups of Indian languages".
Prof. Sunits Kumar Chatterji, M.A.. D.Litt. (Land.), Calcutta.
"I think the classification of Indian languages into two main groups, riz., (i) Hindustani(ii) the, Dravidian group as assumed by the Scientific Terminology Committee (aide Report, p.5) is quite arbitrary, and, considering that the two different styles of Hindustani itself ('Hindi, Hindusthani or Hindustani' in its wider sense) present two mutually opposed tendencies in the matter of their vocabulary, and that we cannot and should not give in matters linguistic the much wider sense of 'Indo-Aryan' or 'New Indo-Aryan' to the term 'Hindustani' with its definite associations, such a classification is antenable, and should be abandoned. A more reasonable grouping reasonable grouping is the one proposed by Pandit Amaranatha Jha in his Note of Dissent. (p. 6).
"From a consideration of their tendencies in the matter of their vocabularies, the languages of the world can be grouped into two broad types, (i) Building Languages, and (ii) Borrowing Languages. The former create, with the materials of words, roots and affixes already current in the language new words as they are required, and as a rule avoid foreign or borrowed words from other languages;. German, Russian, Hungarian and Chinese are examines of 'building languages'. The latter go to some other language, ancient or modern and either take ready-made words from it or coin new formations with roots and affixes from this other language. English, Japanese, Persian and Turkish are examples of 'borrowing languages'. Some of these like Persian and Turkish are striving now to become building languages once again. The modern languages of India particularly the great literary languages, are all borrowing languages rather than building ones. Most of them have ceased to exploit to the full their inherited powers of building new words with their own materials. Sanskrit has been the unquestioned supplier of new words for the Aryan languages and, dialects of India ever since the beginning of Prakrit over 2,500 years ago The modern Indo-Aryan languages and dialects like Hindi, Brajbhakha, Kosali or Eastern Hindi, Panjabi, Hindki or Western Panjabi, Sindhi, Gujrati and Rajasthani, Marathi, Oriya , Bengali and Assamese, Maithili, Bhojpuri etc. were born in the lap of Sanskrit, so that to say and like the modern Roman or Latin languages like Italian, Provencal, and Catalon, Spanish, Protugese, French, and Rumanian turning to Latin for new words, it has been all through the most natural thing for them to lean on Sanskrit in his matter. The great literary languages of the Dravidian family gradually fell in line with the Aryan languages, acknowledging the tutelage of Sanskrit ; and Telugu, Kannada, Tamil and Malayalam at the present day area as much dependent on Sanskrit as are Bengali and Oriya,Hindi and Gujarati, Nepali, and Marathi (excepting to some extent in the case of Tamil which with its old literature strove to retain the old Dravidian vocabulary as much as possible, but the influence of Sanskrit on Tamil is quite strong, and wholly comparable with that on Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam ). A number of extra-Indian ('Greater Indian') languages like Siamese, Cambodian and Javanese similarly go to Sanskrit for all higher terms of evidence and culture , as much as the Dravidian and Aryan languages of India do.
"Among the languages and dialects of India, therefore the following can be classed or grouped as Sanskritic taking note of the source which supplies their culture words their scientific and technical terms, when their native,inherited resources inherited either from the Prakrits, or from the old Dravidian speeches) fail: Hindi (High Hindi, Nagari Hindi). Maithili, Bengali, Assamese , Oriya, Marathi, Gujarathi, Hindustani, Gurmukhi Panjabi, Nepali , besides the general run of Indo-Aryan dialects; and Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam and Tamil.
16
Since the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century when Indian Musalmans began serously to cultivate their mother tongue, one form of the great Hindi (Hindustani or Hindusthani) speech as used by them in the Deccan took up a different orientation by abandoning Sanskrit (for which they felt no interest) and going to Persian (including Perso-Arabic) for words of higher culture, and even for the words for the common facts and notions of life. This principle was accepted in North India also at Delhi and elsewhere by Mohammadans (and also by some of their Hindu followers), and Urdu of the present day gradually came into being, with its new tradition. Urdu has chosen a path quite opposed to that of most of her sisters and cousins, with its insistence on foreign, extra-Indian words and ideas and two hundred years of intense and everincreasing Persianisation (and Arabicisation latterly) has made it a language quite different in spirit from Hindi and the rest, Sindhi (excepting that form of it in use among the Hindu minority) and Musalmani Panjabi (ie., Panjabi written in Persian characters as cultivated by Musalmans, as opposed to Panjabi written in the native Gurmukhi character in use among Sikhs and Hindus) are following the lead of Urdu in this matter; as also Kashmiri, to some extent ; and the extra- Indian Pashtu and Baluchi, which are thoroughly dominated by Persian. Urdu, Musalmani Panjabi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, and Pashtu and Baluchi are therefore to be grouped together as Languages of Persian (or Perso-Arabic) Inspiration, or as Languages with Persianised (and Arabicised) Vocabularies.
"From point of view of their culture words, the grouping of Indian languages into the two groups of (i) Sanskritic and (ii) Perso- Arabic alone seems reasonable because based on facts and on avowed and declared tendencies. The native vernacular, i.e., the Prakritic basis of Urdu and High Hindi is there; that could he utilised to the fullest, but that will not carry us very far although as things stand that offers us the only platform to make High Hindi and Urdu approach each other.
"The most practical thing would be to have one Pan-Indian Committee for drawing up the Sanskrit Terminology which can be employed in all the Sanskritic languages ('Sanskritic'in the sense as defined above) with two Sub-Committee ,necessarily of philologists (rather linguisticians) one of these to exploit to the fullest extent the common Prakritic ('tadbhava') inheritances and resources of the Modern Indo-Aryan languages (including Urdu, Panjabi and Sindhi) to supply new technical and scientific terms with the help of the native,inherited elements in these languages on a Pan-Indo-Aryan basis, as far as possible, and the other to work similarly with the native Dravidian element common to Telugu, Kannada and Tamil-Malayalam and the rest. As a principle Sanskrit should form the second line of defence,so to say , only when pan-Indian Prakritic elements (and common Dravidian elements for the speeches of that family) fail. There is to be a similar pan-Indian Committee for preparing the Perso- Arabic Terminology for Urdu, Sindhi Musalmani Panjabi, and Kashmiri (and for Pashtu and Baluchi, if necessary). This may be in touch with the effort that is being made in Iran, but we should note that the strong wave of Iranian nationalism is seeking to revive Aryan words of Persian and to abolish or restrict words of foreign (Arabic) origin, in all the walks of life and particularly in the domain of higher science and culture ; and this fact may not make Indian Musalman opinion feel enthusiastic about day Iranian effort in this matter".
Sir C.V. Raman , M.A., D.Sc., Ph.D., Indian Institute of Science, Banglore.
" I have studied carefully the report of the Hydari Committee and the modification of the same adopted by the Central Advisory Board of Education. It seems to me that the rejection by the Board of recommendation II (ii) logically involves also the rejection of recommendation IV. For, if the scientific terminology is to consist of an international terminology and of terms peculiar to individual languages, it follows that a scientific terminology would have to be framed separately for each Indian language that is of sufficient importance to warrant the expense and trouble of preparing and printing text-books in it .
"I would also remark that while the Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam languages do contain an infusion of Sanskrit in varying degrees in their general texture, they are very different from such languages as Mahratti, Gujarati, Hindi, and Bengali which are spoken by large groups in Central and Northern India and which are essentially sanskritic in origin. I feel therefore that it may not be practicable to evolve a common scientific terminology for all of these eight languages. It would indeed be a matter for sincere congratulation if experts in the four important languages spoken in the extreme South of India could be induced to agree to a common scientific terminology for all of them. There is at present a fairly strong movement in Tamilnad for expunging from Tamil all words of sanskritic origin and revering to an archaic form of the language. If one of the supporters of this movement were to find a place in a committee charged with the duty of evolving a common terminology for the former language it would find itself wholly unable to function."
In view of the difficulties mentioned above, it should I feel be carefully considered whether the idea of dividing the Indian languages into main groups with the object of evolving a common terminology for each group is at all practicable. If the idea is persisted in, I think it would be necessary to accept at least the modification proposed by Pandit Amaranatha Jha, namely that there should be three groups, (1) Sanskritic, (2) Persio- Arabic and (3) Dravidian . The committee for each group should be definitely told that it should
17
evolve a common terminology for that group and no one should be appointed to it who is not prepared to work on that basis".