Adverbs in S anskrit W ordnet (2016)

Abstract: The wordnet contains part-of-speech categories such as noun, verb, adjective and adverb. In Sanskrit, there is no formal distinction among nouns, adjectives and adverbs. This poses the question, is an adverb a separate category in Sanskrit? If not, then how do we accommodate it in a lexical resource? To investigate the issue, we attempt to study the complex nature of adverbs in Sanskrit and the policies adopted by Sanskrit lexicographers that would guide us in storing them in the Sanskrit wordnet.

## introduction an adverb is an open-class lexical category that modifies the meaning of verbs, adjectives (including numbers) and other adverbs, but not nouns. 1 it can also modify a phrase or a clause. the category of adverb indicates: (a) manner, (b) time, (c) place, (d) cause, and (e) answers to the questions how, where, when and how much. @xcite describes adverbs as a heterogeneous group in which not only adverbs derived from adjectives are included but also phrases used adverbially. some of these phrases are included in wordnet. these phrases are mainly frozen phrases that are used widely. in this paper we discuss those adverbs which modify verbs, and how modern sanskrit lexicography deals with them. @xcite briefly discussed the issues regarding adverbs in the sanskrit wordnet. we focused primarily on how modern sanskrit lexicographers have dealt with them. the study of their methodology can guide us in forming a policy for representing adverbs in the sanskrit wordnet. ## adverbs in sanskrit the sanskrit grammatical tradition does not divide words into many categories. it divides words into two divisions: words that take nominal affixes and words that take verbal affixes. the words in the second division are verbs. those in the first division are nouns, adjectives, adverbs, particles, etc., i.e., non-verbs. this is because unlike languages like english, sanskrit does not have distinct forms for each part of speech. one cannot categorize a word merely by looking at its form. this is why there is not a formal category for adjective or adverb in traditional sanskrit grammar. there is no equivalent term in sanskrit for adjective or adverb in the modern sense (see @xcite , @xcite ). sanskrit can be analyzed under word classes other than noun and verb. @xcite observes that adjectives in sankrit form a sub-group of nouns. likewise, adverbs, except indiclinables, form a subgroup of nouns. attempts were first made in the 19th century to describe sanskrit using various word classes. monier-williams (1846), @xcite , speijer (1886), whitney (1879) and @xcite discuss adverbs in sanskrit. 2 a summary of the description of adverbs given by these scholars is as follows: this summary shows that we can classify adverbs in sanskrit in three main groups: words that are unanalyzable in parts, such as a base and an affix; words that formed by secondary derivation, such as adding an affix or forming a compound; and words that have an adverbial sense but belong to a class of words which are not adverbs, for example, the accusative or instrumental case of any noun or adjective. a morphological analysis of these words would categorize them under nouns because they are formed by adding the same affixes that are added after a noun, even though their function differs. in other words, qualifying a verb or an adjective in sanskrit does not require the use of a distinct morphological form. the difficulty in dealing with adverbs in sanskrit arises only if we have a form-based idea of word classes. it becomes lexically opaque to judge a category simply by looking at the form. the adverb is a functional category in sanskrit, not formal one. hence, adverbs pose a problem in sanskrit lexicography because they lack a distinguishing form and they are functional. ## observations on the basis of the previous section this investigation gives rise to certain observations. we may say that tūsn . īm, atra and yathāśakti are formal adverbs. ciram can be derived from cira, but its other forms like ciren . a, cirāya, cirāt, cirasya are also used as adverbs. so whether to analyze it formally or functionally is a matter of debate. radhakantadeva (1819-1858) and bhattacharya (1873-1884) treat all these forms as synonyms on the basis of the amarakośa (a 6th century a.d. sanskrit thesaurus), and do not mention them under one lexeme, i.e., cira. hence, we may say that it is also a formal adverb on the basis of the monolingual dictionaries. śīghram is also treated as a form of śīghra, which is an adjective according to western lexicographers. hence, we may say that it is an adverbial not an adverb, whereas radhakantadeva (1819-1858) and bhattacharya (1873-1884) treat it as a noun. they also take into consideration its use as an adjective. if we follow modern western lexicographers, then śīghram is an adverbial. if we follow monolingual dictionaries, then it is neither an adverb nor an adverbial. in this way, it is difficult to decide the exact criterion by which to label its category. javena is an adverbial. none of the lexica assign it to the category of adverb. @xcite , it should be noted, cites its adverbial use in the ablative case. interestingly, bhattacharya (1873-1884) cites an example under java where it occurs in the instrumental case, but he is silent about its part-of-speech category. the one example given by gombrich that is not found in any of these dictionaries is vividhaprakāram. on the basis of this investigation, we may say that there is no single policy adopted by modern sanskrit lexicographers to record adverbs. even after this investigation, doubts regarding the category of certain forms remain. ## adverbs in sanskrit wordnet these lexica are in print form and written purely from the point of view of human use. hence, a single entry contains a lot of information. multiple functions of a word can be listed under one entry. but when a lexical resource is built for machines, then this strategy cannot be adopted. multiple functions of a word are stored separately. in other words, there is more than one entry for the same word based on its meanings and functions, whatever information is necessary to make it explicit for a machine. the sanskrit wordnet is being developed by following the expansion approach, and its source is the hindi wordnet. it is a well known fact that sanskrit is a morphologically rich language. so a proper policy should be adopted for part-of-speech categories that take into account their nature. a long and rich tradition of sanskrit grammar guides us in this regard. following the tradition, we accept the verbal roots given in the list of verbal roots known as the dhātupāt . ha after removing their metalinguistic features. for nouns, we enter the nominative singular form, and we enter the base forms of adjectives. given the discussion above, should the sanskrit worndet have a separate category called 'indeclinable' which links to the relevant synsets in the hindi wordnet, or should it just retain the category of adverb? a wordnet recognizes a separate category for function words even though none are actually included in it. indeclinables in sanskrit consist of function words as well as content words. hence it is difficult to adopt the category 'indeclin-able' in the sanskrit wordnet, which may harm the basic principle of a wordnet. to avoid this, we retain the adverb category. thus, we follow western lexicographers who assign the adverb category to those words which are indeclinables and which can be termed formal adverbs. these words appear without any change in the sanskrit wordnet, e.g., atra 'here,' iha 'here,' etc. they appear in the same synset (id 2647). 7 the compound yathāśakti is also entered without any change. 8 the issue of adverbials remains to be solved. how do we store the oblique cases of nouns or adjectives that are used as adverbs? if they are stored in their base forms, their role as an adverb is restricted. not all of the forms are used as adverbs. the sanskrit wordnet resolves this issue by storing the declined forms. for example, śīghram, śīghren . a, javena, javāt appear in one synset (id 1922). 9 at the same time, there is a separate entry (id 5118) for śīghra. 10 in this way, we may say that the sanskrit wordnet stores adverbials. we do not claim that this phenomenon is recognized for the first time in the history of sanskrit lexicography. it is implicit by its representation in the dictionaries. we make it explicit for computational processing so that it will be helpful for an automatic parser of sanskrit. such a parser would benefit from a lexical resource that contains both adverbs and adverbials. ## adverbs in the hindi and sanskrit wordnets the discussion in the previous sections focuses on adverbs as a part-of-speech category. in this section, we address two issues regarding the linking of synsets of adverbs. 1. it is difficult to link a synset in the source language if it uses an adverb to express what the target language conveys by using pre-verbs that are bound morphemes. these are cases of language divergence that become apparent when sanskrit is analyzed in comparison to other languages. let us take an example for each of the two above-metioned issues. ## adverbs and their relations there are two kinds of relations, 'derived from' and 'modifies verb,' for adverbs in the hindi wordnet, and so also in the sanskrit wordnet. both of these relations cross the part-of-speech category. the first relation is between a noun and an adverb or between an adjective and an adverb, and the second relation is between a verb and an adverb. the adverbials, such as vegena, are easy to link by this relation. in this case, vega 'speed' is a noun which is linkable to vegena with the relation 'derived from.' the non-derived adverbs such as uccaih . 'high,' nīcaih . 'below,' and śanaih . 'slowly' cannot be linked with any other noun or adjective because they are frozen forms. these non-derived adverbs may not present a complex situation, as there is only one form. the complexities arise with words like cira 'for a long time.' if adverbs such as ciram, cirasya, etc. are considered as derived from cira, then there should be a separate synset in the adjective category. it is hard to form such a separate synset because it is not used as an adjective. if these adverbs are considered nonderived, then they cannot be linked to any other synset with the relation 'derived from.' the compound yathāśakti, for example, is derived from yathā and śakti. should it be linked to both of these words? currently, it is linked only to śakti. thus, it is a matter of concern whether compounds should be linked to one or more of their components. in this way, there is a need for more analysis regarding the relations of adverbs in sanskrit. ## conclusion from the above discussion, it is clear that adverbs in sanskrit are formal as well as functional, and that they have not received any uniform treatment in the hands of lexicographers. formal adverbs are easy to store under the adverb category in the sanskrit wordnet. the real challenge is with the nominal forms, adverbially used. it is the sanskrit wordnet's contribution to lexicalize the adverbials, especially the declined forms of nouns and adjectives. the real challenge is to collect all of the possible cases. currently, the sanskrit wordnet stores those cases that are available in the lexical sources it uses. the case of adverbs in sanskrit reveals the complexity of their nature. clearly, a lexicon developed for a machine use will need to adopt strategies suitable for its system.