Send sanskrit mailing list submissions to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of sanskrit digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: udyogaparvam - sarga 16 - 2 (Ambujam Raman)
2. Re: Sanskrit grammar doubt (Ambujam Raman)
3. Re: Sanskrit grammar doubt (Ambujam Raman)
4. Quirks related to similar vibhakti forms (Jay Vaidya)
5. Re: Sanskrit grammar doubt (Ambujam Raman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:23:42 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] udyogaparvam - sarga 16 - 2
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Sai Susarla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
tvAm trividhaM AhuH punaH.
I would like some explanation on this issue if there is a commentary
available. Of course no need to stray away from Sanskrit!
Does it mean the existence of Agni in three forms viz., as fire on earth
(bhuH), and as lightning on intermediate space (bhuvaH) and as Surya in
heaven (suvaH)?(Agni puraaNa?)
Or the three domestic fires viz., aahavaniiya, dakshiNa and gaarhapatya?
rAmaH
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:26:35 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Sanskrit grammar doubt
To: "Vis Tekumalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sorry I made a mistake. The singular is distinguishable. But the dual is not which was
the point I wanted to bring out.
rAmaH
----- Original Message -----
From: Vis Tekumalla
To: Ambujam Raman ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Sanskrit grammar doubt
I thought the prathama and dviteeya (nominative accusative?) fall out for kriShNa as:
Prathama: kriShNaH/kriShNau/kriShNAH
Dviteeya: krishNam/kriShNau/kriShNAn
and for gopika
Prathama: gopikA/gopike/gopikAH
Dviteeya: gopikAm/gopike/gopikAH
I was listening to an old Telugu movie song describing the raas scene when this
question came to my mind. The song goes like:
naarii naarii naDuma muraari (between a girl and a girl there is Krishna)
hariki hariki naDuma vayaari (between Krishna and Krishna there is a girl)
vishveshvaraH
Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The proposition prati in the sense used (towards) requires accusative case on the
object. Hence if we had singular there would not be any confusion. In this case both
kriShNau and gopike can be either in nominative or accusative cases since we have
Nom & Acc kriShNaH/kriShNau/kriShNAH
Nom & Acc gopikA/gopike/gopikAH
In fact in the sentence
'kriShNau gopike prati-gachChataH,'
the confusion will be greater if either of them is allowed also to be in Vocative!
Hey two KrishNas! The two gopis go towards ????
or
Hey two KrishNas! The ????? go towards the two gopis
or
Hey two gopis! The two KrishNas go towards ????
or
Hey two gopis! ????? go towards the two KrishNas.
But usually the spoken accent and the peripherals will give away what is meant.
In their absence common sense should prevail and the usual order is:
subject predicate (object)
Hence the normal interpretation ought to be
The two krishnas go towards the two gopis.
I would like to hear from Jay about any other grammatical quirks in Sanskrit.
Incidentally would it make a difference if accents are used as in Vedic sanskrit?
(Could Dr. Rao comment!)
rAmaH
...Vis Tekumalla
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20041018/7edc1b0c/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:52:57 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Sanskrit grammar doubt
To: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Vis Tekumalla"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
rAsak^RIdA
a^NganAM a^NganAM antare mAdhavo
mAdhavaM mAdhava~ncAntareNA^NganA
ittamAkalpite mandale madhyakaH
sa~njakau veNunA devakI nandanaH
(famous bhajana and harikatha song)
rAmaH
----- Original Message -----
From: Ambujam Raman
To: Vis Tekumalla ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Sanskrit grammar doubt
Sorry I made a mistake. The singular is distinguishable. But the dual is not which
was the point I wanted to bring out.
rAmaH
----- Original Message -----
From: Vis Tekumalla
To: Ambujam Raman ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Sanskrit grammar doubt
I thought the prathama and dviteeya (nominative accusative?) fall out for kriShNa
as:
Prathama: kriShNaH/kriShNau/kriShNAH
Dviteeya: krishNam/kriShNau/kriShNAn
and for gopika
Prathama: gopikA/gopike/gopikAH
Dviteeya: gopikAm/gopike/gopikAH
I was listening to an old Telugu movie song describing the raas scene when this
question came to my mind. The song goes like:
naarii naarii naDuma muraari (between a girl and a girl there is Krishna)
hariki hariki naDuma vayaari (between Krishna and Krishna there is a girl)
vishveshvaraH
Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The proposition prati in the sense used (towards) requires accusative case on
the object. Hence if we had singular there would not be any confusion. In this case
both kriShNau and gopike can be either in nominative or accusative cases since we have
Nom & Acc kriShNaH/kriShNau/kriShNAH
Nom & Acc gopikA/gopike/gopikAH
In fact in the sentence
'kriShNau gopike prati-gachChataH,'
the confusion will be greater if either of them is allowed also to be in
Vocative!
Hey two KrishNas! The two gopis go towards ????
or
Hey two KrishNas! The ????? go towards the two gopis
or
Hey two gopis! The two KrishNas go towards ????
or
Hey two gopis! ????? go towards the two KrishNas.
But usually the spoken accent and the peripherals will give away what is meant.
In their absence common sense should prevail and the usual order is:
subject predicate (object)
Hence the normal interpretation ought to be
The two krishnas go towards the two gopis.
I would like to hear from Jay about any other grammatical quirks in Sanskrit.
Incidentally would it make a difference if accents are used as in Vedic sanskrit?
(Could Dr. Rao comment!)
rAmaH
...Vis Tekumalla
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20041018/a539ff2e/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] Quirks related to similar vibhakti forms
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Some vibhakti forms are similar. The ones most likely
to be similar among the "sup" vibhakti are:
(i) prathamA dvitIyA dvivachana of all words
(ii) prathamA dvitIyA bahuvachana of some words
(iii) prathama dvitIyA ekavachana of neuter words
(iv) tri-chatur-pa.nchamI dvivachana of all words
(v) chatur-pa.nchamI bahuvachana of all words
(vi) pa.nchamI-shhashhThI ekavachana of many words
(vii) shhashhThI-saptamI dvivachana of all words
(viii) prathamA-dvitIyA dvivachana of a-ending
napuMsaka words and the saptamI ekavachana of that
word
(ix) All vibhakti, all numbers of avyaya-list words
Note 1: "word" in the above list stands for those
"words" that take these kinds of terminations.
Note 2: sambodhana is just a special form of prathamA,
so no separate mention is made of it in the above
list.
Does correct accenting make the forms different? (Note
that accents are used in both the veda and loka
languages. It is merely customary to write out the
accents in the veda language.) No, they would not.
They accents are usually the same for all vibhaktis
with the same form. Except, unsurprisingly, the
vocative (=call out) which becomes an "eka-shruti"
(single tone) if calling out from a distance. Beyond
that, in the vocative, either the last syllable (or
any "guru" syllable) can be made very long ("pluta")
and high-accented ("udatta"). I believe these rules
are transferrable without modification to many modern
languages.
Otherwise the ambiguity is to be resolved with
reference to the context.
Without context one could make a large number of
sentences with unclear meaning.
Consider this instance of bribery:
mayA tvayA cha a-vijAnItam mad-dhastAbhyAm
tvad-dhatabhyAm dIyate dhanam |
(mad+hasta = mad-dhasta = my hand, etc.)
Unbeknownst to you and me, by my (your) hands to your
(my) hands the money is given.
Either mad-dhastAbhAm is tR^itIya and tvad-hastAbhyAm
is chaturthI, or the other way round. Without context,
we do not know who is the bribe-giver and who is the
bribed.
How about shhashhThI and saptamI?
Let us look at this story of a monk --
In the ekavachana there is no ambiguity.
api asti sma tasya patnI | tasyAM rudantyAM prAvrAjIt
(saptamI) | tasyAH rudantyAH prAvrAjIt (shhashhThI) |
"Indeed, he had a wife. She was crying at the time he
took his vows as monk (saptamI). In spite of her
crying, he took his vows as monk (shhashhThI).
If there were two weeping people, there would be
ambiguity of the monk's callous behavior.
api staH sma tasya dvau putrau | tayoH rudatoH
prAvrAjIt (shhashhThI/ saptamI?) |
"Indeed, he had two children. They were crying when
(?in spite of their crying?) he took his vows as monk.
As Ramagazh says, given the context, common sense
should prevail. In legalistic language, often common
sense is not allowed to prevail -- because there are
more than one versions of common sense. Why else would
there be a big deal made once upon a time about
"sthUla-pR^ishhatI gauH"?
sthUla = fat/big, pR^ishatI = spotted; and a
"sthUla-pR^ishhatI" cow is needed to be sacrificed in
a certain yaGYa. The question is is the cow fat, and
also spotted; or does the cow have big spots?
I suppose if competing cow-sellers are vying to sell
their animals, they will have competing
"common-sense".
The above is a standard tatpurushha/bahuvrIhi
ambiguity and is quickly solved by noting the accents.
(So it is not, in fact, ambiguous.) I wonder if there
is any similar technical/legal text made ambiguous by
vibhakti. If there is, accents would not help, and it
should be considered bad writing style by the author.
dhana.njayaH
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:46:22 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Sanskrit grammar doubt
To: "sanskrit digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Thanks! makes sense.
madhye gataH iti madhyagaH
saM+ jagau = sa~njagau (well sung)
a^NganAM a^NganAM antare mAdhavo
mAdhavaM mAdhava~ncAntareNA^NganA |
ittamAkalpite mandale madhyagaH
sa~njagau veNunA devakI nandanaH ||
(KrishNakarNAm^RitaM 2.35)
Between woman and a woman there was a kriShNa (mAdhava), and between kriShNa
and kriShNa there was a woman. Thus created circle, entering the center
devakInandana (one who delights devakI) sang well with (his) flute.
Puzzle: ;-)
If there were 60,000 gopis in vrindAvana, by the raasa protocol described
above how many krishNa's were needed ?
rAmaH
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aarathi Sankaran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Sanskrit grammar doubt
>
>
> > In the third and fourth pAda the words are madhyagaH and sa~njagau. I
> > think it is written by lIlA shuka in his kR^iSNakarNAmR^itam
> >
> > Aarathi.
> >
> > Ambujam Raman wrote:
> > > rAsak^RIdA
> > >
> > > a^NganAM a^NganAM antare mAdhavo
> > > mAdhavaM mAdhava~ncAntareNA^NganA
> > > ittamAkalpite mandale madhyakaH
> > > sa~njakau veNunA devakI nandanaH
> >
> >
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 19, Issue 31
****************************************
