Introduction: The Word And The World
Indian Darshanas discuss grammar in enormous detail, which has a direct bearing on the explanation of the world around us. At the most fundamental level, Indian philosophy makes Consciousness (Brahman, Self) the primary entity and matter-mind, arising secondarily, appearing to stand separate from the Self. Western philosophy views matter as the primary entity, from which mind and consciousness later arise in succession. Hence, Consciousness is a primary entity in Indian traditions, while it is secondary to matter in Western traditions. Despite offering a more comprehensive explanation of numerous philosophical issues, Indian philosophies have been pushed into the realm of religious studies, while Western philosophy has received the majority of attention. The study of words has a completely different connotation in Indian traditions. The false ideas of secularism permeating Indian thinking prevent schools and colleges from teaching us this.
As Indian Darshanas hold, nouns, verbs, and all other kinds of words have four stages: the para (Brahman stage), pasyanti (incipient ideation stage), madhyama (effort for articulation stage), and vaikhari (audible stage). The first three stages surpass the comprehension of an ordinary person, engulfed in ignorance. The para stage of speech is like internal eternal light, and by its true intuition, a man attains moksha. In the world of objects, Turiya is the state of Brahman, Prajna is that of objects in their undifferentiated, unmanifest state, Taijasa is the sphere of ideated objects, and Visva is the sphere of gross physical objects. It is not difficult to see the correlation of the word to the world in Indian traditions.
The madhyama stage wherein meanings of words appear in the mind and the vaikhari stage wherein they appear as manifest objects – is the key to grasp the relation between mind and matter. Vivarta-vada of Advaita explains the paradoxical relationship between them. Vivarta indicates the emergence of an effect from a cause without there being any transformation in the cause. It points to the pre-existence of the effect in its entirety in the cause. The apparent difference between them must belong to some paradoxical power existing in reality—this power is maya. The Self perceives the object through two different modes of cognition. For the Self, the mind is an instrument to think about the object, while the sense organs are instruments for perception of the object. Therefore, mind and matter are the same thing, one appearing as thought and the other as a worldly object. Maya is responsible for the disparate perception of the same object across the two distinct modes of cognition.
In the Indian tradition, therefore, there is rejection of the idea of language having a physical substrate. Instead, language is coterminous with Consciousness, the Ground of the Universe. At its most primal level—the speech stage of Para or the object stage of Turiya—it is luminous and the same with Brahman. Grammar, too, can be a route to salvation in Indian traditions!
According to Chittaranjan Naik’s detailed explanation of these aspects in his book (Natural Realism and Contact Theory of Perception) and essay (Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas) Parmenides, the ancient Greek philosopher, and Spinoza, the recent philosopher, appear to have glimpsed something similar. However, they stand alone in Western traditions. If Consciousness or Brahman is the basis of all ontology, epistemology, and the origin of the world and the word, it is also possible that tracing the word, or any word for that matter, back to its roots through methods of Yoga described in detail in Indian traditions can lead us to the same Consciousness. In this context, the names of Gods are particularly significant because meditating on these names can provide a quicker path to the foundation of the universe, the Primary Consciousness or Brahman, and ultimately lead to achieving moksha. With the exception of some mystic sects, the Western world may not widely recognize the relevance of grammar or the names of Gods.
Sri Ram Swarup (1920–1998), arguably one of the most towering intellectuals and philosophers of modern India, demonstrates this path in his wonderful treatise. Unfortunately, the lay public remains mostly unaware of this brilliant book. Starting from the study of a simple word, he leads us by hand, in an extremely lucid journey, to the deeper meaning of the words, the idea of Gods, the unity in the meaning of Godhead, and finally a means to reach the highest state using only the name of God.
It is a supreme intellectual achievement in terms of impact, lucidity, and relevance. It is essential to read the book as if it were a sacred text, taking time to comprehend each sentence, paragraph, and chapter. The book would surely transform any individual who would perhaps stand gaping with new respect at the depth and breadth of Indian philosophy. This five-part series of essays is an abridgement, paraphrase, and summary of Sri Ram Swarup’s important book, which should hopefully inspire readers to dig deeper into the original work.
The Speech-Sounds
Words: Pre-existing Essence or Labels
What is the source of words? Are words merely labels for already existing things, or do they represent a pre-existing essence of things named? Is onomastics, a scientific study of words, possible? These answers seem simple and self-evident. Man’s intelligence and organs of articulation make it obvious that he develops a system to express fears, attract mates, warn others, show off, and generally facilitate communication.
It appears that things come first, and their names follow later. Things are real; words are airy. We use a small portion of our speech to assign names to an even smaller portion of the world. Words almost seem to be an unfortunate accident, given that animals survive quite well without them, free from wars, propaganda, and deceptive advertisements. Just as a man may have lived with a primitive language in the past, the future may be similar, either because wars degenerate him into barbarism or because he has evolved to such an extent that imprecise words give way to precise mathematical signs and equations. Thus, we might discuss the grammar, syntax, or structure of a language, but its deeper origin and significance can only be idle speculation, as some believe.
However, words have a deep mystery and a subtle inner life. When we go behind the superficial transient appearances, words have core meanings that persist eternally. Speech and psyche are intimately connected. If there is a close connection between mind and speech, speech ceases to be an external decoration or a utilitarian tool, instead appearing to stem from an inner, psychic core. Language, no longer a collection of disparate words and signs, becomes a tree. Its different parts come out of a common root and held together in the unity of mind. Language will no longer be an accidental, arbitrary, and detachable invention of the mind but rather its indispensable expression. This difficult study necessitates patience.
The Greek Philosophers
According to Plato, knowledge of the good is hard, and names are an important part of that knowledge. Our goal is to understand how language expresses the deepest truths of the heart. Language also expressed men’s sense of mystery. In our culture, the Vedas, of course, represent this sublime inspired speech. Over time, the inspiring words have become difficult to understand. Can a study of language help us recapture the meanings of older scriptures and understand man’s deeper life and vision of God and the good?
In one of his dialogues, Plato discusses whether there is any principle of names other than agreement or whether they, by nature, have a truth to express. Socrates agrees with the second position. In the absence of a voice, communication would rely on limbs and other body parts imitating thoughts. Similarly, Socrates believes that words and vocables also subtly imitate things. Thus, letters and syllables express the essence of each thing. Socrates says that by breaking a word into its primary letters, one can see that separate vowels, consonants, and mutes (contributing nothing to the pronunciation of a word) do imitate things of nature. Elemental constituent sounds appear to have different expressive values. Socrates does not develop his suggestion further, but he restricts himself to a few examples.
As examples, Socrates (like ancient Indian thinkers) associates the sound rh (letter rho) with motion. This sound evokes a state of agitation in the tongue. Therefore, words meaning flowing, trembling, striking, crushing, breaking, bruising, crumbling, and whirling use this sound. Similarly, pronouncing the sounds represented by the letters psi, phi, sigma, and zeta requires a significant amount of breath, which is why they mimic sensations like shivering (psukhron). The sound n appears to emanate from within, implying an inward quality. Hence, we find this sound in words like endon (in, within) and entos (inside, within). Words that mean roundness contain the round o sound.
Core Sounds and Languages
Only a few thousand people speak each of two-thirds of the 3,000 languages in the world. Twelve languages (Chinese, Hindi, English, Russian, Spanish, German, Japanese, French, Italian, Malayan, Portuguese, and Arabic) cover an overwhelming majority. All language groups together have no more than a thousand sounds, and the speech sounds in any language never exceed sixty.
The English language, with 26 letters, does the work of 55 phonemes (the smallest unit of sound), including 21 vowel sounds. Different languages have different phonemes. In classical Sanskrit, there are 48 articulate sounds, including 13 vowels and 35 consonants. Chinese has 39 phonetic letters, which do have equivalents in Indo-European languages.
A language does not use all 50 or 60 speech sounds equally. In the English language, the frequency of words varies as follows:
- The percentage of e, t, a, o, n, i, r, s, and his 70%.
- The percentage of d, l, u, c, and m is 16.5 percent.
- The percentage of p, f, y, w, g, b, and v is 11.5%.
- The percentage of j, k, g, x, and z is 2 percent.
However, different letters may not coincide with different sounds in the English language. One letter may stand for several sounds, and several letters may express the same sound. These opposing tendencies may cancel each other out, and the frequency chart is broadly true of sound values.
In Sanskrit, the frequency of letters generally goes as follows:
- a, t, a, n, i, y, v, r, e, s, and m:high-frequency group. The frequency of the letter a is two and a half times that of the letter t, and it is nearly eight times that of the letter m.
- d, h, u, c, p, h, k, bh, j, n, th, s, and ai: medium-frequency group.
- dh, u, r, au: low-frequency category.
There are two kinds of sounds: vowels and consonants. The larynx primarily aids in the speech of vowel sounds. The mouth cavity above the larynx forms consonants. They can be guttural (from the back of the throat), palatal (from the palate), cerebral (from the roof of the mouth), dental (from teeth), and labial (from the lips). All manifest speech is characterised by constriction at one or more points in the breath stream.
Certain languages also associate sounds differently. For example, io may be more frequent in one language and oi in another. Some letters may appear more often at the beginning than in the middle or end of words. Sounds have many individual qualities, like hard, soft, nasal, sibilant, short, long, protracted, acute, grave, aspirated, voiced, sharp, penetrating, hissing, or deep. We can prolong all vowels and some consonants like j, m, n, r, s, and z indefinitely, but we cannot prolong sounds like b, p, t, d, k, and g. Thus, each sound has its own peculiar stress and accent.
The Socratic View and Alternatives
The Socratic view is that speech sounds are not merely physical; they represent psychic qualities and ideas that enter the making of a name. This could be an unconscious process. However, is it really possible to derive the rich vocabulary of a language from such a limited base of meanings? Speech sounds are general, while names are specific.
A cruder but more popular alternative to the Socratic view is that names are echoic; they derive from vocal imitation of the sounds associated with things and actions named. Examples include words like buzz, hiss, click, crack, and even pigeon, pipe, and chirp. The second view presents a challenge as not all objects, actions, and ideas possess sounds that are physically reproducible. Moreover, a sound appears to conform to any given fact, object, or experience. A pig is a pig because it is so dirty, as some say. But reflection would show that pig smells because of its referent, not its sound. Finally, speech is more than grunts, hums, or gnashing of teeth. These may explain words for a primitive order of life, but they do not explain words for the higher reaches of life, mind, and intellect.
Perhaps a name and its referent absorb each other’s qualities and meanings by a process of osmosis. Similar to water, assuming the shape of the vessel it pours into, a sound adopts the shape, color, and smell of the object it represents (vastusa-rupyam). Socrates posits that every speech sound, regardless of its generality, carries a specific idea, and when this idea aligns with that of an object or action, it becomes a true name. For example, the word r suggests motion. Names thus come into being through unconscious wisdom.
However, there are also arguments against this position. The unchangeable meaning of r must be clear in all languages. Secondly, certain English words such as “go,” “walk,” “move,” and “jump” suggest movement, yet they incorporate different speech sounds. Similarly, a sound could enter into words meaning the same general idea, but it could also enter into words meaning quite opposite ideas. For instance, the sound r can be found in both the words “run” and “rest”. Thus, a visible correspondence between a system of speech sounds and a system of objects and ideas appears difficult. Socrates’ other suggestion was that names express the forms and essences of things. He doesn’t go into further detail, but Hindu thought may provide answers to this.
The Hindu View
According to Hindu Rishis, whenever the mind thinks of anything, it also invokes its corresponding form. All phenomenal existence is nama-rupa or names and forms. An object is merely a material representation of the more internal and essential nama. According to the science of acoustics, sounds become articulate speech as air passes through different organs of articulation. Where do the sounds reside before they acquire audibility? The only valid assumption is that these sounds exist as incipient speech and in the mind in an undifferentiated form, as inclinations or intentions. Every act of cognition invokes a mental disposition that expresses itself in some lingual form. Though this proclivity alone will not explain the birth of a word or name, it is obvious that the sound exists at a more subtle level than we ordinarily know.
Indian sages go further and enumerate four levels of speech of increasing subtlety: vaikhari, madhyama, pasyanti, and para. The vaikhari level is the one we typically recognise, with the throat serving as its seat. Behind it, and supporting it, is the madhyama vak, with its seat in the heart region. The inner ear, srutigocara, can hear it. Beyond this lie two other levels, pasyanti and para, with their seats at the navel (nabhi) and the solar plexus (muladhara), respectively. They are beyond the reach of the ordinary mind, and only Yogis can access them in a deep trance. In pasyanti, there is no sound but only meaning. In this state, the fusion of forms and sequences resembles that of a seed. Before any modifications begin, the speech in para establishes itself in its own luminous, original, and primal form. Here sound becomes silence, aSabda, and only a potentiality, avyakta.
According to Panini’s Siksa, the Self first recognises and formulates intentions through buddhi, which then inspires manas with the desire to speak. Manas then activates kayagni, the nerve force, which in turn triggers marut, the wind or breath, producing articulate sounds that are classified according to tone, time, place, and effort. The meaning of a word does not reside in this last audible fourth limb; rather, it resides in the subtlest first status of the word. In this state, the word lacks any external expression, vocal limbs, and is eternal, referred to as nitya. Indeed, in this state, the word is the origin of the world, known as jagannidanam, and it is Brahman itself. We can observe that sounds exist on two levels: the familiar level of speech and the more subtle, unmanifest level.
This could address the Socratic objection, which argues that different sounds cannot represent different specific ideas, given that all speech sounds express all kinds of ideas. At a subtle level, a sound embodies the general essence of multiple sounds simultaneously. This may explain why different words exist for the same thing, or why similar sounds can express different things and ideas. At a subtle, essential level, the sound used to express a particular object or idea remains the same, but at a gross, phenomenal level, its forms and disguises can vary from language to language, even within the same language. A race chooses one sound and develops one language rather than another according to its own genius, inclination, growth, and law of karma. Socrates did say that there is something more to a word than its syllables or outer sound but did not pursue it further.
Sounds and the Essence of Objects
How do sounds represent the attributes of things and objects? As Samkhya explicitly explains, the world derives from the mula-prakrti (nature). In its downward evolution toward manifoldness, Prakrti takes two paths.
- The Sattva path of light becomes the subjective world. This subsequently creates the antahkarana, the buddhi, the ahamkara, the manas, and the senses.
- Tamas path of darkness transforms into the objective world, the world of Tanmatras, and the five elements.
Thus, Prakrti is two-faced, one turned towards the subject and the other towards the object. However, these two are aspects of the same original reality. They leave their echo, image, and vibrations behind in each other. Thus, sound at its subtle level expresses the subtle vibrations and qualities of an object. The vaikhari sound represents the physical body of a word that is subject to change. But the subtle sound—the soundless sound in the word—represents the soul or the permanent inner meaning.
A word, however, may lose its inwardness, or it may have been invented to represent a thing’s more outward appearances and qualities. This explains Socrates’ observation that not all things are known by their true names. Our intuition that names are artificial labels is true in this sense.
How New Things are Named
From the Old to the New
Name-giving has been continuously taking place from ancient times till now. New experiences, things, and concepts call for new names. With a new concept or idea, we generally review our old experiences to characterise the new ones. We may use one of these words, modified appropriately, to describe the new fact while retaining the old.
‘Car’ is an old word. Celtic karr (chariot), Irish carr (cart), Latin currus (chariot), and German karre also convey the same meaning. Therefore, people could use it to refer to carts, barrows, or chariots, as well as to describe new forms of transportation. This led to the emergence of other terms, such as career, cargo, charge, and so on.
‘Vehicle’ originates from the Sanskrit word vah, meaning ‘carry’, which in turn leads to the word vahana, meaning ‘vehicle’. It is also the root of modern words like way, waggon, envoy, and voyage. The word ‘telephone’ originates from the Greek words tele, meaning far away, and phdné, meaning voice or sound. The Greek words ‘tele’, which means ‘far off’, and ‘skopein’, which means ‘to behold’, give rise to the term ‘telescope’, which in turn relates to the Sanskrit word ‘pas’ (see). In ‘telegraph’, ‘graph’ derives from Greek graphein (to write).
The word ‘airplane’ or ‘aeroplane’ originates from two Greek words: aér, meaning ‘air’, and planos, meaning ‘wandering’, which in turn gives us the word ‘planet’ from ‘planét’ or planés, meaning a wanderer. However, it could have derived its name from any root that yields words such as ‘eagle’, ‘kite’, or ‘bird’. Some Indian dialects refer to an airplane as a cila gadi, or kite vehicle. The Greek words aér, meaning air, and nautés, meaning sailor, which derive from the word naus, meaning a ship, are the origin of the term ‘Aeronaut’. In Sanskrit, ‘nau’ also refers to a ship or boat. Astronaut derives from Latin astrum, Greek astron, and Sanskrit tar, all meaning star.
Expression of Other Factors
On a different scale, simple words evolve to express social and psychological factors—the history of nations, classes, Gods, and ideologies. It encompasses a significant amount of historical and sociological information that has been concentrated in one location. Ram Swarup gives a few examples here.
- The word ‘barter’ means the exchange of goods. Its earlier form also meant ‘to cheat’, ‘to beguile’, ‘to betray’. The word conveys the profound human experience that an exchange can serve as a vehicle for significant deception.
- ‘Exploit’ originally had a good sense of ‘to achieve’ or ‘to act with effect’. In the last century, the word has acquired another meaning, ‘to utilise for selfish purposes’.
- ‘Capital’, of Latin origin, initially meant wealth, stock, worth, or property. In the pre-industrial age, capital mainly meant property in land, animals, and even slaves.
- Capital gave rise to a doublet, ‘cattle’, and ‘chattel’, which developed these senses more fully.
- ‘Cattle’ originally referred to property in general, but it later began to refer specifically to property in bovine animals.
- The term ‘chattel’ has taken on the additional meaning of a slave or a bondsman. Today, capital fulfils some of its old functions, implying control over factors of production (soil, nature, or fellow men).
- ‘Slave’ is derived from Slavs, the Slavonic peoples of Central Europe who were captured and made bondsmen. Previously, it was associated with the Russian word slava, signifying glory and fame. Thus, the word, which once signified glory, fame, and intelligence, now represents servitude.
- ‘Slave’ also gave the word ‘serf’. Originally, ‘serf’ referred to a slave in general (Latin seruus), but during mediaeval times, it acquired the specific feudal meaning of a bonded servant.
- The word ‘proletariat’ derives from Latin proletarius, a member of the lowest class but useful for producing children (proles, progeny) for the state for military purposes.
- ‘Gentleman’ means a man of noble and generous character. The Latin word gentilis, which denotes belonging to the same clan (Sanskrit jan, to beget), is the source of the word. With the passage of time, the word acquired a class significance. Later it acquired a legal definition for only those entitled to bear arms. But under the influence of new equalitarian concepts, it signifies all male members of any social class or condition. It has also come to mean, jocularly, a man without means of livelihood, a gentleman at large.
- In India, we used the term ‘Sahib’ for both European rulers and our own upper class. It is an Arabic word that originally meant ‘companion’. However, when the Arabs became imperial rulers, the word began to mean ‘master’, a meaning it still retains today.
- The Spanish word camarada, which refers to a cabinmate, tent sharer, or companion, is the source of the word ‘comrade’. Initially, the Communist parties used the term to refer to equals engaged in struggle. But as the power equation changed and the rebels became rulers, it came to mean something like ‘lord’ or ‘ruler’ to the common people.
- ‘Minister’ originates from Latin and has been used to refer to various roles such as a servant, a religious cult assistant, a public officer, and the head of a political department. In India, ‘minister’ now refers to a position of great importance and privilege. There is nothing self-effacing and humble about a word what it originally meant.
Branching Out and Growth of Words
The aforementioned examples don’t invent a brand-new word to describe a novel fact or object. A word sometimes suffers contractions or expansions in meaning. Sometimes, it acquires a more abstract and general meaning. Sometimes words from the same root bifurcate in different directions. Sometimes two words of different origins may mean the same thing, but one might be dropped or both retained with different shades of meaning.
For example, ‘shop’ in England meant a small retail establishment. In America, the word ‘store’ replaced this meaning. ‘Shop’ itself began to mean a ‘factory’. The term ‘merchant’ originates from the Latin word mercari, which means to barter, and eventually evolved to refer to a trader. America retained this sense, while England restricted the word to refer to a wholesale trader, particularly when dealing with foreign countries. In England, the word ‘corn’ referred to grain in general, particularly wheat, but when it migrated to America, it began to mean maize’ instead. The terms ‘sick’ and ‘ill’ share a common meaning. However, the English prefer the term ‘ill,’ which originates in Scandinavia, while the Americans continue to use the more common ‘sick.’
We retain words that have the same meaning but come from different sources not only because they can adapt to different shades of meaning but also because of a variety of motives and social factors playing a role. The prevailing scale of preference determines the acceptance or rejection of words. In England, the genteel tend to use words such as ‘stomach’ instead of ‘belly,’ ‘domestic’ instead of ‘servant,’ ‘assist’ instead of ‘help,’ and so on.
New ideas, theories, and associations replace one word with another. For instance, some propose substituting the word ‘alms’ for philanthropy, relief, rehabilitation, or family welfare. Those who want to change their social status start by first changing their names. Barbers, undertakers, and janitors now respectively call themselves beauticians, morticians, and superintendents. Gandhiji changed the name of the untouchables and called them Harijans, people of God. Thus, a word is not a mere referent. It must refer to a thing in a particular way, responding to the ideas, ideologies, and idiosyncrasies of the age.
Echoic and Nonechoic Words
The process of naming also involves multiple instances of sound imitation. At a fundamental level, this process only applies to primary and basic ideas, notions, and situations. But the principle remains that the word is not merely phonetic but is semantic. Thus, a true name consists not in what it refers to but in what it means—not in what it denotes, but in what it connotes.
Objects receive names based on their most notable characteristics. Many birds and animals, including crows, pigeons, owls, and partridges, receive their names based on their cry or sound. The swiftness of a horse’s movement, not its neighing, is what gives it its name. Many etymologists connect the word to the Latin verb currere, meaning to run, which also gives us the term ‘courser’, another name for a horse. Similarly, a ‘tiger’ derives its name from the same trait, from the rapidity with which it attacks, and from its arrow-swift movement (Sanskrit tigmas, sharp, pointed; modern Persian and also Hindustani tir, an arrow). Among the birds, the hawk likely earned its name due to its habit of pillaging and plundering, which is derived from the ancient meaning of havoc, which probably originated from the verb heave, which means to lift or seize. The bird ‘plover’ arrives with the rainy season; it derives its name from this fact (Latin pluvia, rain).
An object’s first name may be imitative, but it can inspire other names. The cry pi-pi, for example, may give us the word pigeon, but it also becomes the base of new names. It characterises new ideas in a nonechoic manner. This gives us words like ‘pigeon-hearted’, ‘pigeon-livered’, and ‘pigeon hole.’ Similarly, the echoic ‘crow’ supports other tiers of meaning. It also means ‘to gloat’, ‘to exult’. In phrases like ‘as the crow flies’, it means ‘in a straight line’. The echoic ‘garg’ and ‘gurg’ may give us the word ‘gorge’, meaning throat. ‘Garg’ probably also gives us ‘jargon’, a noise made in the throat, mere rhetoric. A language also abounds in names of general import, which derive from the names of individuals. In English, we find numerous examples such as ‘boycott’, ‘lynch’, ‘chauvinism’,’sadist’, ‘jingoism’, and so on.
In a sense, all names are conventional. A child in the process of growing receives his vocabulary from his elders who hold authority. However, it makes no difference. Even if the first name receives authority, it quickly absorbs the referent’s meaning and assumes similar qualities in the future. The fundamental semantic process now works through the conventional name.
Naming is complicated and psychological, operating at a subconscious level. Ordinarily, the mind thinks like this: A mosquito is so named because it is so inconsequential; or an elephant is so named because it is so huge and majestic, realising little that the elephant derives its name not from the hugeness of its body but from its ivory tusk. But even then, the mind’s instinct is right. The word ‘elephantine’ conveys a semantic relationship between an elephant’s massiveness and enormous size.
The process of naming may also be too forced or fanciful; it may not be in keeping with the deeper wisdom of the mind. Such derived names may temporarily gain popularity, but they will eventually fade away. Aldous Huxley made a verb out of a proper noun from a novel, Madame Bovary. ‘To bovarise’ means to believe that one is different from what one really is. The word failed to catch on. Sometimes, certain names and thoughts go out of fashion because they do not agree with the ruling passion and ideology of the age. When the heart loses sympathy or the mind loses vision, words also lose their innerness and contract in meaning. Through a certain shift in consciousness or in the gravity of life, even good and honorable words may become false—words of courtesy and consideration may become words of mere insincere politeness; words of righteousness may become words of self-righteousness; and words may be used not to express but to conceal thought.
…In Part 2, we shall see how Sri Ram Swarup discusses the development of language in terms of synonyms and how multiple meanings developed from the roots of the word.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.
