Now this might be an absolute extrapolation but it is nagging me and this is my own blog so at the risk of being beaten by you, or you never returning to my site, allow me to suggest something:

I think the very structure of a sentence in English vs. other Indian languages suggests that English is an open language, and it assumes the possibility to step between major agents in a sentence and make the action clear, while Indian languages assume that something will always remain private between two people and the maximum they can do is surround the people but not get in between them to reveal some fundamental truth.

I do not even know if this is a correct extrapolation but I am thinking does this give a cue to the very ways in which the Western and Eastern societies and philosophies are arranged?  Rationalism vs. what is badly called Orientalism. It can go on and on … but the essential question remains: did Panini and co actually figure this out?

That language will always explore silences? And language will never be able to replace silences. Swalpa profound

Tags: closed, language, open, orientalism, rationalism, sentence, structure, Translation