Next, let us translate a series of sentences describing something: Boys went to the ground. A boy wore a ring. The boy wearing the ring was eating. बालकः बालकः बालकः अगच्छ क्रीडाड़गणे बालकः अड़गुलिकम् अधारय अखादय बालकः अड़गुलिकम् धारय This is a mess. Remind yourself that I could’ve shuffled the entire word order and grouped all the बालकः together, throwing everyone for a loop. This is also where it is imperative to see, that even within the same sentence, the breaking of the plural unit yields disastrous results, especially since if the noun is repeated, 3rd person personal pronouns do not exist to distinguish them. This means that the repetition of the noun needs to behave like a single unit if it is to be understood. Does this mean that the original assumption of विभक्ति eliminating the need for syntax was incorrect? Not quite. The plural form of a noun has a certain context. When excess words merely signifying more of a noun are thrown into different parts of the sentence, the brain has difficulty identifying what the first occurrence of a noun means. A sentence will then need to be reread multiple times if it is complex, in order for different nouns to be parsed. Consequently, if repeated nouns signifying the plural form have to behave as a single unit for understandability, it now makes sense to introduce a separate word form for them, rather than merely repeating the noun. Since there are 7 cases, 7 additional word forms per word are now added. The other missing thing here is… a pause. Despite the plural simplification, sentences can still be mixed into each other. For longer paragraphs, psychopaths can throw the last verb somewhere near the beginning and make the entire thing legally unreadable. Something that signals the demarcation of a sentence and allows for short pauses, to avoid breathlessness and separate list items should exist. We therefore introduce both the full stop and comma. This is how the new sentence would look: बालकाः अगच्छ क्रीडाड़गणे. बालकः अड़गुलिकम् अधारय. अखादय बालकः अड़गुलिकम् धारय. Slightly better. Now, we come to something slightly more subtle. The English version that was to be translated referred to a boy among the ones going to the park in the second sentence and it referred to the same boy in the third sentence. The fact that the boys are the same is not apparent in our language, since a 3rd person pronoun cannot be put in the तृतीया विभक्ति to highlight this. There are 2 options: introduce 3rd person pronouns or articles, and pronouns have a better solution. Articles allow a general/specific reference to one among a class, even when there is no prior context, but simple ordinal numbers or 3rd person pronouns can take up this job just as well: एकः मानवः धाव. A man runs. सः मानवः धाव. The man runs. The effect is essentially the same. Therefore, pronouns of all persons(1/2/3) are required. In fact, संस्कृतम् has no particular word for ‘the’ unlike Deutsch, yet it manages to be the most precise language in the world. This article like extension of the noun forms an inseparable unit, since if placed randomly, it may get referenced with another noun or go out of context.