The Language Used In This Document Does Not Create An Employment: Fill & Download for Free

I'll have to respectfully disagree with the other answers in here that claim that Sanskrit is special when it comes to its semantic and logical properties. I am not very familiar with the politics of language in India, so I can't comment on whether this is a widespread idea.There are a few other questions in Quora that address this topic in a similar way, and some answers try to shift the topic towards Natural Language Processing, which is not the same as programming or 'for computers'. However, NLP can be challenged under the same premises.Sanskrit is one language in a tree-like structure of languages with Proto-Indoeuropean at its root. Like many of its sister languages, it features an extense system of verb conjugation that encodes person, time, mood, etc. It also has a rich declension for nouns indicating their relationship to each other in sentences. These two features mean that the Sanskrit relies less on word order than English or Chinese, for example. Sanskrit is not unique, as these characteristics are shared by Russian, Latin and Greek.I have several questions as to what its particular advantage would be in computer use. The question is vague enough that it does not specify what ''for computers'' means.Programming, for example, is built on languages of explicit terms and instructions. For instance, int x = 2; is a quite explicit instruction—what would a human language contribute to this? Sanskrit's grammatical features such as verb conjugation and case would be a novel idea if applied to computing, but the benefit seems tenuous to me (if you have evidence otherwise, please let me know). For Sanskrit to be useful in computing, would a complete overhaul and redesign of systems be needed?With respect to Artificial Intelligence and NLP:Sanskrit has a long written and oral tradition. Panini’s codification of Sanskrit has conferred scholars unprecedented knowledge of its inner workings. His works illustrate meticulously how an unlimited number of things can be expressed in Sanskrit. However, the claim that a natural language, however well documented its grammar may be, is more fit for use that another in AI sounds highly suspect. A meticulouly defined grammar does not absolve Sanskrit from any potential ambiguities that can arise in expression. Ask people who read Sanskrit prose to tell you about the challenge that it can be to tease out the meaning in those beautiful and rich verses. Furthermore, a fundamental nature of every natural language is its ability to express virtually every thought possible.The idea of logic in languages is part of a bigger debate in linguistics about the role language has in shaping human thought. The Sapir-Whorf theory (alluded to in the novel 1984) proposed that language directly constrains what thoughts humans can conceive. Most linguists seem to have softened their stance to believe that it only affects one’s thoughts somewhat. Out of this desire for more logical languages, many people throughout history have attempted to create many ideal languages, such as Esperanto. It's a topic for another discussion but it might be worth looking into some of these languages. One, called Ithkuil, stands out to me because its creator’s goal was to create a medium through which human thought would be completely specific and unambiguous. While it's incredibly complex, it might be worth learning about:John Quijada and Ithkuil, the Language He Invented : The New YorkerOne reason that has been brought up for the use of Sanskrit is the appeal to tradition. Sanskrit is unlikely to change because people refer to its written form, as with Latin. This same argument though undermines its validity, as English could just as likely be used; its written form largely a fossilised form of the language, and nobody stops Natural Language Processing from employing a static and non-evolving kind of English. Furthermore, many people already understand it. I am not in favour or against any particular language being used in AI, but given the structural nature of natural languages, there would in theory be little difference; the hurdles machines might have to get past in Sanskrit would be the same or similar to any other language.Sanskrit is not a language completely devoid of inconsistencies, and such irregularities betray its history of evolution from Indoeuropean. If finely structured were a real objective, quantifiable term here, by the fact that it evolved from that language, one could argue that Indoeuropean would have an even more perfect structure. Furthermore, Sanskrit is a synthetic language: one where morphemes carry more than one unit of meaning). If this were the definition of finely structured, what stops one from considering agglutinative languages such as Turkish as perfect candidates for NLP? Turkish strings together units of meaning in ways that could arguably be processed by computers with more versatility. It really is fascinating:AvrupaEuropeAvrupalıof Europe (European)Avrupalılaşbecome of Europe (become European)Avrupalılaştırto make become of Europe (Europeanize)Avrupalılaştıramabe unable to EuropeanizeAvrupalılaştıramadık(that) we were unable to EuropeanizeAvrupalılaştıramadıklarthose that we were unable to Europeanize(plural)Avrupalılaştıramadıklarımızour those that we were unable to Europeanize(possessive)Avrupalılaştıramadıklarımızdanof our those that we were unable to Europeanize (ablative case)Avrupalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışis reportedly of our those that we were unable to Europeanize(copula in inferential tense)Avrupalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınızyou are reportedly of our those that we were unable to Europeanize(2nd person plural/formal)Avrupalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınızcasınaas if you are reportedly of our those that we were unable to Europeanize(Adverb of equalization/possibility)Such a regular system that can be widely applied to Turkish shows us that Sanskrit is not the only incredibly versatile language there. If by mechanically applying the sutras of Panini or Jiva Goswami to nounal and verbal roots, one can form perfectly correct words and sentences in Sanskrit without even knowing what they do, and this shows the possibility that it could be done in Turkish too.A lot of these answers here have focused on claims that Sanskrit grammar is detailed, unambiguous, ''finely structured'' and definite in rules making it ideal for programming. However, grammar is not something that only emerges out of noun conjugation. Chinese, seen from a strict grammatical sense can produce the same amout of detail. The biggest difference is that Chinese explicitly encodes relationship through word order. Either way through conjugation or word order, both systems are equally valid.And finally, another claim on Sanskrit is not productive:The clear correspondence between pronunciation and spelling make the language ideal.According to the Sanskrit Manual: A Quick-Reference Guide to the Phonology and Grammar of Sanskrit (Sanskrit Manual), there are ambiguities that come with the sounds of Sanskrit:

I’m not a native Spanish speaker, but I am a linguist, and I have taught introductory Spanish.GrammaticalSpanish inflects all its nouns for gender. Pretending to cancel gender by putting an “x” at the end of “latin-” to avoid saying “latino” or “latina” goes against the woof and warp of Spanish. One could even argue that it is disrespectful of the Spanish language.Further, the supposed problem is completely avoidable in English (where “Latinx” seemed to emerge in academia) by saying “Hispanic.”Simply saying “Latin” also avoids the gender aspect.SemanticDoes “x” in English, which can mean unknown, experimental, deleted, the targeted spot on a map, or other things mean the same thing to a native Spanish speaker? It is presumptuous to assume that to be the case. “X’s” meaning is all over the map — from an unknown quantity in algebra to the known and specified spot on a map where the treasure is buried (“x marks the spot”).PhonologicalLanguages have their own rules about syllable structure. For example, in Russian a syllable structure like “sh+ch+vowel” would be fine (the “sh+ch” sound is represented by the Russian letter щ). But it’s not an acceptable syllable structure in English. Or consider that in English “sp-” can start a word — like “Spanish.” But that does not work in Spanish, where the “sp” has to be broken up: [es-pa-ñol].So say you wanted to pronounce “latinx” in Spanish, how would you say it? Yes, you could be trained to say [latineks] but [eks] is not a normal end of syllable consonant cluster in Spanish (I have heard it in Spain’s Spanish for a name like “Alex” though). Just because some sound pattern works in English does not mean it will work in Spanish.The way “latinx” is pronounced by English speakers violates multiple parts of Spanish phonology. The “a” in Spanish is [a] as in “hot,” not [æ] as in “hat.” The “t” in Spanish is an actual [t], not the tap or flap heard in English. The “i” in Spanish is a pure (meaning not a diphthong), high, front, unrounded vowel, and it is not reduced to a schwa as in English — and it does not disappear as it does in some American English pronunciations so that the “-in” in “latin” is replaced with a syllabic “n” — in that case the “n” itself serves as the salient part of the syllable, something that can happen in the English pronunciation of “latin” but not in Spanish.On a Seattle, Washington-based radio show in fall 2020, I heard someone pronounce “latinx” as “la-teenks.” Just one more twist of the tongue and we’d have a nice Russian-sounding word, like “la-teen-ski.” :-)In short, “latinx” as pronounced by English speakers is about as non-Spanish sounding of a word as you can come up with.What if you pronounced it as [latinekis]? I’d have to ask native Spanish speakers, but my first impression is that it rhymes with a popular brand of beer. But saying “equis” [ekis] for the “x” in “latinx” is not heard when English speaker say “latinx.” Just like you cannot order a [doseks] (“dose-eks”) beer (it’s a “dose-ek-ees”), [latineks] would not work for the same reason—not in Spanish, anyway.Notice that in Mexico and maybe elsewhere, you can get some words beginning with “x.” See Xcaret Expeditions Archaeological Tours for example. This is probably because the indigenous Nahuatl languages have many words spelled with a beginning “x.” Here are examples of Spanish words that originated in Nahuatl, including some loan words that are still spelled with that beginning “x”: List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin - Wikipedia.There are some Spanish words that end in “x.” If you have driven in Mexico you will have seen Pemex signs, for example. Here is a list of such words: https://www.ezglot.com/words-ending-with.php?l=spa&w=x. If you examine that list, you can see that none except one end in “nx” — the pattern is “vowel+x.” And the only one that ends in “nx” is clearly a loan word from America: Bronx. And it is not pronounced as it is in English. To my ear it does not sound like American English [bɻaŋks] but rather more like [braŋs]. Note that in both English and Spanish that “n” in Bronx is misleading. It is not a voiced alveolar nasal stop (the ending sound in “tin”): it is a voiced velar nasal stop (the ending sound in “ting”).OrthographicalIn terms of spelling, “latinx” does not conform to Spanish spelling rules.Negative Connotations“X” has some negative usages. It has been used as a symbol for illiterate people to sign a document when they do not know how to write. It is used to cross out something that is wrong to correct it — in English you can x out an error. It can mean rejection of a name (as in Malcolm X, where “X” was rejection of a slave name), and so on. In short, “x” has some historical baggage.CultureJust because a sub-thread of American ideological views decides that all language should become gender neutral — and decides what that means and the purported “why” of the need — does not mean that the rest of America, much less the rest of the world, will agree that the aim is either right or necessary, or agree that the criteria for determining what gender neutral means are well founded in the first place.There is a sort of arrogance and chauvinism when the speakers of language A decide they are going to dictate how words of language B should be spelled and pronounced, and further, what they mean and when they should or must be used. (After all, “latinx” is an alteration of Spanish loan words latino and latina.) That can be a sort of linguistic fascism hiding behind a mask of supposedly good intentions, a sort of reverse cultural appropriation — a “disappropriation” of the autonomy of a language and its speakers, or even a sort of linguistic colonialism.Other languages do of course alter loan words to fit their own phonology and even morphology. Take “roast beef” — I’ve seen that rendered in Spanish as rosbíf. Or take “New York” which is stated in Spanish as Nueva York. But in the case of rosbíf, the spelling reflects the closest pronunciation in Spanish for “roast beef.” And in the case of Nueva York, Spanish has been true to an accurate translation of the “New” in “New York.” But here’s the difference between such forms compared to “latinx”: English speakers are not telling Spanish speakers how they should render words (like “roast beef” and “New York”) from English into Spanish, and are certainly not asking Spanish speakers to make politically motivated changes to their own language. No one is telling Spanish speakers that they should say Nuevx York because nueva has a feminine ending and New Yorkers are comprised of both men and women (and others, if you wish) and therefore Nueva should be genderless and indicated as Nuevx.BTW, Nueva in Nueva York takes a feminine ending for strictly grammatical reasons. New York is a city. A city in Spanish is una ciudad — feminine. That’s a grammatical category that has nothing to do with human sexual biology or psychology.Having said that, if native Spanish speakers themselves decided as a bloc to adopt “latinx” or something similar, that would be up to them. (There’s a difference between an endonym, a name a group chooses for itself, versus an exonym, a name assigned to a group by others.) They could “vote with their tongues” as it were! For there are indeed some Spanish speakers who feel that at least the generic masculine of Spanish (an artifact that existed in English in my childhood) could be done away with, and they have a point: in Spanish, a group with even one male is referred to in the masculine.Addenda:Consider what it would be like to take another another Romance language word down the same path — a word from Italian that has established itself in English: bravo. Some people say that, as an exclamation, it does not need to be changed to brava for say female performers, but we hear both bravo and brava nonetheless. Should we not, to be consistent in our “Brave New Linguistics World,” eliminate both bravo and brava as sexist and shout out bravx! the next time we are thrilled by someone’s performance?!And even the use of brava for a female’s performance is just an English speaker’s affectation at times. In watching a series recently (October 2020, No te puedes esconder), a female character in the series was praised not with brava but with bravo. The form to use for the adjective depends on what the adjective is describing, and that might or might not agree with the sex or gender who is involved.And here is a great irony of mind-befuddling magnitude. On the one hand, ideological proponents of political language change want to strip words like latino and latina of gender. On the other hand, the same ideological bent advocates, even insists, that everyone should reveal their individual gender and/or sexual orientation through choices of pronouns, along with their choices from dozens of categories of sex, gender, sexual orientation, animism, and even spiritual orientation. That’s more than a bite-sized chunk of cognitive dissonance—purify language of sex or gender on the one hand, even while creating more language than ever for more shadings of sex and gender.To be fair, the aim of “latinx” is purportedly a sort of civility, so that one does not assume that the persons referred to are male or female or even binary. But then, in America, some state agencies flip that civility to what is arguably governmental prying by asking people very specific questions about sexual orientation. (For example, see https://southseattle.edu/pdf-library/documents/registration/enrollment-form.pdf. Students are asked to disclose their self-identification in dozens of sexual, gender, and other very personal categories.)Are there some general ways in which Spanish may evolve regarding sex and gender? As a linguist, I’d say no doubt that will happen, for all languages change over time. When teaching Spanish and English, I’ve shared this story: Melissa Cohen :: Textual Analysis, “Only Daughter.” It’s about a daughter feeling excluded by her father’s reference to his siete hijos “seven sons”—but in Spanish that does not exactly mean seven sons. It means he has seven kids and at least one of them is a male. In the story, it becomes clear that the father is following Spanish grammar. His daughter is one girl with six brothers. And in Spanish, siete hijos is a fine way for the father to describe his offspring and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t realize he has a daughter. But in English norms, it would be unacceptable to say “I have seven sons” if one of the seven is a daughter. Will Spanish’s employment of masculine grammatical forms to a group where even just one of the group is male change over time? It might. Time will tell — but what will be told will be told by Spanish speakers, not American English-speaking academics.More addenda:See an interesting Twitter conversation that includes Ruben Gallego, who is a US Representative from Arizona (Congressman Ruben Gallego).Latinx no se puede pronunciar en español. Si no se puede pronunciar en español, no tiene sentido. En español, el género masculino se puede utilizar cuando hay un grupo que incluye ambos elementos masculinos y femeninos. Es la estructura del lenguaje, no una posicion política.— Carlos S (@surfla8) November 5, 2020That last chunk from Carlos S agreed with pertinent parts of the answer I had provided. I would translate Carlos’s tweet as follows for those who do not know Spanish:Carlos S “Latinx cannot be pronounced in Spanish. If you can't pronounce it in Spanish, it doesn't make sense. In Spanish, the masculine gender can be used when there is a group that includes both masculine and feminine elements. It is the structure of the language, not a political position.” (Translation by D. Minger)(Yes, for purists I noticed too that there was a small typo in the Spanish, as posición requires an accent mark over the last “o” — but typos are a dime a dozen online!)And here is an interesting YouTube video from October 2020 that is relevant. It is titled “Bill Maher Tells John Leguizamo That ONLY White WOKE People use the Word LatinX.” As the commentator in that video points out, the whole “Latino/Latina” gender inclusivity “problem” goes away if you simply say “Latin” — a recommendation I added to the main answer above. (Or as I initially pointed out in my answer, “Hispanic” is another already-existing non-gendered term.)

As I will illustrate below, Psalm 22:16 in a Christian Bible was deliberately mistranslated by Christian scribes long after the Christian canonical books were written. For this reason, no New Testament writer quotes this passage. Did Paul and the gospel writers just forget to mention that the book of Psalms says “they pierced my hands and my feet”? Did they think that this clause wasn’t important enough to include in their hundreds of supposed quotes from the Jewish Scriptures? The answer is clear: the notion that the simple Hebrew word כָּ֝אֲרִ֗י (ka’ari) should be translated as “pierced” rather than “like a lion” was a later Christian invention.Moreover, contrary to what you may have read or have been told, this word is never rendered in Dead Sea Scrolls as pierced. Although this assertion is widespread among evangelicals, I will demonstrate using the actual manuscript that this claim is bogus.Hence forth, I will refer to this verse as Psalm 22:17 because this is how it appears in a Hebrew Bible.In this famed chapter, King David is pleading with God for salvation from his unrelenting, implacable foes. Throughout the twenty-second chapter, the Psalmist employed a familiar animated literary device that characterized his cruel enemies as lions, dogs, and bulls. This violent animal motif is a common theme in the verses both before and after Psalm 22:17. Psalm 17:11-12 and 35:17 are sister passages to 22:17, and Christian translators correctly render the Hebrew word “lion” in those parallel verses. As it turns out, the Church placed many verses from this chapter into the mouth of Jesus. Accordingly, Psalm 22 is widely regarded by parishioners as the “Crucifixion Psalm.”Bear in mind, this stunning mistranslation that appears in Psalm 22 was not born out of ignorance. Christian translators were aware of the correct meaning of this simple Hebrew word, and deliberately twisted their translations of this text in order to produce a christological reading. The word ka’ari can be found in many other places in the Jewish scriptures, and in each and every case Christian translators correctly rendered כָּ֝אֲרִ֗י as “like a lion” with the exception of Psalm 22—the Church’s cherished Crucifixion Psalm.For example, the identical word ka’ari is found in Isaiah 38:13 as well. In this verse, King Hezekiah is singing a song for deliverance from his grave illness. In the midst of his supplication he exclaims in Hebrew “שִׁוִּ֤יתִי עַד־בֹּ֙קֶר֙ כָּֽאֲרִ֔י.” Notice the last word in this phrase (moving from right to left) is the same Hebrew word כָּֽאֲרִ֔י (ka’ari) that appears in Psalm 22:17. In this passage in Isaiah, however, all Christian Bibles correctly translate these words “I reckoned till morning that, as a lion...” As mentioned above, Psalm 22:17 is the only place in all of the Jewish Scriptures that any Christian Bible translates כָּֽאֲרִ֔י (ka’ari) as “pierced.”This striking mistranslation did not go unnoticed by the missionary world. While some Christian apologists concede that the Hebrew word for pierced does not appear anywhere in Psalm 22, some claim that a scribal error changed the word “pierced” into “like a lion” by modifying the smallest Hebrew letter. The argument goes something like this: If the bottom of the י (yud) were extended to the base line of the other Hebrew letters, it would be transformed into a ו (vav), the resulting Hebrew word would then read כָּֽאֲרִ֔וּ (ka’aru) rather than כָּ֝אֲרִ֗י (ka’ari). The word ka’aru, missionaries assert, should be translated as “pierced” rather than “like a lion.” In other words, the well-worn argument goes something like this: some scribe from the ancient world changed the text by failing to attach a vertical descending line so that the ו (vav) became a י (yud). Christian apologists suggest that we are to believe that every Jewish Bible in the world was corrupted by this scribal error that somehow went viral.This torturous assertion, however, is wholly unfounded and completely untenable.In order to concoct a word that resembles ka’aru, you would not only have to change the letter י (yud) into a ו (vav), but the Hebrew letter א (alef) would have to be removed altogether. This further alteration would create the three-letter word כָּֽרִ֔וּ (karu). “Karu,” however, does not mean “pierced” either. It means to “excavate” or “dig.” In Biblical Hebrew, the word for “pierce” or “stab” are daqar or ratza, never karu, which has no connotation of “piercing,” as in puncturing flesh.Moreover, there is no verb in the Hebrew language as כָּֽאֲרִ֔וּ (ka’aru). In order to create the word “dig” or “excavate” in the Hebrew language, the א (alef) would have to be removed from the word כָּֽאֲרִ֔וּ as well. In other words, כָּֽאֲרִ֔וּ (ka’aru) is Hebrew gibberish.As it turns out, this passage’s famed clause at the end of the verse does not appear in any fragment discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. Other segments of Psalm 22 were discovered, but not this section.In recent years, evangelical Christian professors of Religious Studies at Canada’s Trinity Western University argued that an ancient, second century manuscript supports the reading of “pierced” in Psalm 22. They claimed that scraps of scroll found at the Nahal Hever Cave support the Christological reading rather than the Masoretic Text which clearly reads, “like a lion.” The Nahal Hever Cave is located about 30 km south of Qumran. The ancient document they are making reference to is designated as 5/6HevPs. As you can imagine, this claim caught on like wildfire in the evangelical world.Bear in mind that the Nahal Hever manuscripts are considerably younger than the Dead Sea Scrolls. While the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts predate the first Jewish War (66 CE), the manuscripts from Nahal Hever came from a later period; between the two Jewish Wars (between 70 CE and 135 CE). Despite these claims, the passage in 5/6HevPs does not read pierced.Here is a photograph of the manuscript:The above image was digitally enhanced, and it is difficult to discern by studying the faint, ancient text whether the word in question ends in a elongated י (yud) or a shortened ו (vav). Unlike other ancient texts, the writing on this script found at Nahal Hever is not sharp or uniform. If, for argument’s sake, we conclude that the debated word written in the Nahal Hever script is כָּֽאֲרִ֔וּ (ka’aru), as some Christians argue, it is obvious that this anomaly is the result of the scribe’s poor handwriting or spelling mistake. There is clear evidence, in fact, from an obvious spelling mistake in the manuscript itself that the second century scribe was not meticulous. The very next word after the debated word is “my hands.” The Hebrew word in Psalm 22:17 is יָדַ֥י (yadai). The Nahal Hever scribe, however, misspelled this word by placing an extra letter ה (hey) at the end of the word. Thus, the Nahal Hever 5/6HevPs reads יָ֭דֶיהָ instead of the correct יָדַ֥י (yadai). The Hebrew word יָ֭דֶיהָ (yadehah) means “her hands,” not “my hands.”A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what the Tanach itself says. Yet this is not the path that Christian scribes followed. Instead, without exception, every verse the church used to prove that Jesus is the messiah is unsupported by the Jewish Scriptures, mistranslated, and quoted completely out of context.I explore this debated passage in detail in this video:Best wishes��ޛ��o: