In all these cases, Sanskrit seems to be much less difficult than usually thought, and relatively easy to master, if one does not take into account its semantic richness.
In fact, I mainly read sentences structured as follows:
A [is] B. Because of C.
This can be expressed as:
- 1. B A [asti/bhavati…]. C-tvāt.
- 2. B A [asti/bhavati…]. A hi C.
- 3. B A [asti/bhavati…]. tathāhi A1 [asti/bhavati] C.
(with A1 included in A).
There are also negative versions of the above, showing that the opposite cannot be admitted. Apart from pure negations (na hi…), one might read:
4. B A [asti/bhavati…]. A nonB-anupapatteḥ.
If the sentence is more complex and the author wants to elaborate further on C, s/he can add a further reason:
5. B A [asti/bhavati…]. C-tvāt, D-tvena.
And B A [asti/bhavati…] can again be expressed in several ways:
- 6. B A [asti/bhavati…].
- 7. A-[VI ending] B-tvam.
- 8. A-[IInd ending] prati B-tvam.
- 9. A B-tvena [dṛśyate…].
If one wants to stress that B is the predicate:
- 10. B eva A [asti/bhavati…].
Or, mostly in comments:
- 11. A B ity [arthaḥ/bhāvaḥ/yāvat]
Moreover, an objector might have something against it:
Which forces the siddhāntin to reply:
Either he partially corrects the objector:
Or he altogether refutes him:
tad ayuktam. yataḥ…
tan na sambhavati. E-tvāt