[snambi]

Not true. Unless you learn Sanskrit, you cannot understand that the language can communicate multi[le dimensions of meanings. Ofcourse, it is not needed rudimentary things like physics, chemistry etc.

Ofcourse, Sanskrit can be used like English too. That is like using a super computer as a calculator.

[fooker]

That’s exactly the point being made.

Even if you try to describe precise and scientific facts in Sanskrit, the nature of the language would enable multiple interpretations of it.

That is amazing if you want to have intellectual debates, but useless if you are trying to follow directions to build ..say.. a bridge.

[akprasad]

> Even if you try to describe precise and scientific facts in Sanskrit, the nature of the language would enable multiple interpretations of it.

Sanskrit's high polysemy is restricted to a rather bounded set of words (see the नानार्थवर्गः in the अमरकोशः).

Stepping back, this claim and the others you have made in this thread are strange and at odds with my experience reading and speaking and teaching the language, specfically the claims that:

- "Sanskrit semantics is intentionally loosely defined"

- the Rigveda contains "words and idioms made up when the situation called for it" in some way that is different from the ordinary suffixation that is a standard part of Sanskrit grammar;

- the ISKCON interpretation of the Gita is "technically as valid as the literal interpretation" in some manner that is unique to Sanskrit.

I consider these claims extraordinary and request evidence that any of these problems are (a) real and (b) unique to Sanskrit.

> That is amazing if you want to have intellectual debates, but useless if you are trying to follow directions to build ..say.. a bridge.

We have the various Shilpa Shastras [1] as a clear example of this kind of instruction, so I eagerly await a concrete example of what you mean.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shilpa_Shastras