36 f: क्छ लुमि [?्षाट्टै মাংস সংস্কৃতেই গঠিত। তৃতীয়ত: সংস্কৃত হইতে নুতন শব্দ লইলে, অনেকে বুঝিতে পারে, ইংরেজী বা আরবী হইতে লইলে কে বুঝিবে ? মধ্যাকর্ষণ বলিলে কতক অর্থ অনেক অনভিজ্ঞ লোকেও বুঝে । গ্রাবিটেশুন বলিলে ইংরেজী যাহারা না বুঝে, তাহারা কেহই বুঝিবে না। অতএব সেখানে বাংলা শব্দ নাই, সেখানে অবশ্য সংস্কৃত হইতে অপ্রচলিত শব্দ গ্রহণ কবিতে হইবে । কিন্তু নিম্প্রয়োজনে অর্থাৎ বাঙ্গালা শব্দ থাকিতে তদ্বাচক অপ্রচলিত সংস্কৃত শব্দ ব্যবহার যাহারা করেন, তাহাদের কিরূপ রুচি তাহা আমরা বুঝিতে পারি না। এ বিষয়ে শু্যামাচরণ বাবু যাহা বলিয়াছেন তাহা উদ্ধৃত করিতেছি । No limit is set in fact to the extent to which words are to be borrowed from Sanskrit, so that every Sanskrit word is considered to have a rightful claim to be incorporated into Bengali. Is this to enrich the language or to overburden it 2 This indeed is carrying us back into the past with a vengeance. In the early flexible stage of Sanskrit, when its formative powers were active, whole hosts of words were formed to express the same thing. Those words were then, as philologists hold, transparent attributive terins, and not the arbitrary symbols that they afterwards becaue. Men could not, indeed, be so irrational as to invent luore than one arbitrary symbol for one and the saine thing. Among the many significant symbols expressive of the same idea, there was a struggle for existence and a survival, in the long run, of the the fittest. More terms than one have, in many cases, survived ; but on a prior grounds it is quite impossible that more than one could survive at the same spot, and among the samue class of people. Distance of place, or peculiarities of social organization, by limiting intercourse, could alone cause a selection of different names for the same thing. There has further been a differentiation of meaning between words that originally ineant exactly the same thing, Our Sanskrit school of writers would, however, undo all this. They would bring back the dead to life. They would restore
