Send sanskrit mailing list submissions to
sanskrit@cs.utah.edu
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
sanskrit-requ...@cs.utah.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
sanskrit-ow...@cs.utah.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of sanskrit digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Why not "siddhyanti"??? (Naresh Cuntoor)
2. Re: Why not "siddhyanti"??? (Krishnamachary)
3. Re: Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson 6
(Vimala Sarma)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 20:06:50 -0400
From: Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Why not "siddhyanti"???
To: Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
Message-ID:
<aanlktimqxnfaauhcqkgtrkslxlrzrnsstnn89fomi...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear Piergiorgio,
I think you are ascribing a degree of perfection that is not claimed even by
the grammarian triad themselves (Panini, Katyayana, Patanjali). If, for
example, Panini's characterization was perfect - Katyayana would have no
business giving his vartikas and Patanjali would have no business explaining
/ criticizing either of his predecessors' statements.
Is Samskrita is inherently perfect? That is too tall a claim - to my
knowledge, not made even by Patanjali. In his introduction to the bhashya,
he mentions raksha, uha, aagama, laghu, asandeha as motivation to study
grammar. He does not claim an inherent perfection in the language. Moreover,
he explicitly states that usage trumps any grammarian's pronouncements.
(see, analogy of going to a potter's). In other words, prayoga-sharaNaaH
vaiyAkaraNaaH.
Perhaps it is some 19th century European's over-zealousness that ascribes
the perfection you describe.
After all if perfection was the hallmark of Samskrita, people would have
dismissed Kalidasa who is known for, well, Kalidasisms.
As far as writing is concerned - since when is script paramount? Write
Samskrita in transliterated Roman, Brahmi, Sharada or whatever script - as
long as sounds are uniquely reproducible.
Coming to the specific question of siddhyati - sidhyati, krudhyati -
kruddhyati etc. - as Dhananjay mentioned earlier, there is a Panini sutra
which accounts for the duplication (anachi cha). (See LSK
achsandhiprakaraNam - suddhyupAsya is relevant here).
To a competent native speaker, usages are inherently correct. After all he
does not seek sanction from a grammarian. Why should that be any different
in the case of Samskrita ?! Certainly, usages of a non-native speaker (i.e.,
us) can be questioned. Questioning established usages, i.e., shiShTa
prayogas, however, is meaningless.
In the case of siddhyati - at least two old usages were shown - so how can
one claim its incorrectness? If anything needs revisiting, it would be the
rule that one thought accounted for such constructions! If Whitney does not
list the optional form, it is an omission in Whitney's book!
Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Piergiorgio Muzi <glob...@comm2000.it>wrote:
> Dear scholars .
> This not a boring question relating only to the sidh present form.
> I want to explain the importance of a correct spelling and writing words.
> This could be more important that the way one pronounces or writes it.
> Sanskrit is based on rational, general linguistic rules.
> 1) To form the present tense of a 4th class verb (and also for passive
> voice in -ya) , the rule says that we have only to ad -yati to the root in
> the weak degree. There is no rule which request us to change dh into
> ddh before -ya. This is always valid and we don't need to do any exception:
> so from vyadh (weak vidh for saMprasaraNa), we have vidhyati. Other verbs,
> analogously: budhyate, yudhyate, rudhyate, krudhyati, Shudhyati, kShudhyati,
> RRidyate, gRRidhyati... and many others. You can check in The roots,
> verb-forms and primary derivatives of the Sanskrit language, by the great
> Sanskritist W.D.Whitney (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, last reprint 2006). You
> can get confirmation also from the most important dictionaries, as Apte's,
> MacDonell, Monier-Williams.
> 2) To form past participle, infinitive in -tum periphrastic future and
> nouns in -ti to the roots ending in dh, we must follow the Bartholomae's
> law, which doesn't deal with any kind of duplication since it is a general
> rule which applies to (g)h, bh, dh. The rersult of sidh+ta si siddha,
> budh+ta gives buddha...Similarly from duh+ta you get dugdha, from rabh+ta
> you get rabdha... This law is common to Sanskrit and Old Persian, too.
> 3) So, the only reason of writing ddh intead of dh in the present,
> imperfect, perfect, aorist, simple future.. is only a confusion with the
> forms described in 2, which want regularly ddh.
> Sanskrit is fruit of a rational grammatical study, where we have to
> question about the rules and besides about the reasons of the rules.
> It is not only a problem of sidhyati. If we confuse the stem of the present
> with the base of of the past partciples, etc., the results are not so good.
> For instance we could confuse budha with buddha (only the second means
> awaked as past part.) or vidha with viddha... Besides the student couldn't
> immediately recognize a past participle, since he can't see in buddha the
> result of sandhi rule from budh-ta. If he reads boddhum, how could he
> understand that it is the infinitive, that is bodh-tum, of the same root in
> guNa degree?
> Sanskrit grammar is like an algebra or chemistry system. Any mistake calls
> for other mistakes and misunderstanding.
> The Internet is full of terrible mistakes (but there are also mistakes in
> old dhAtupATha, because of wrong transcriptions or transliterations).
> I suppose that we must co-operate in refining the language by means of
> rational study and by cleaning it like something precious.
> ??? ????? ????????????? ?? ?????? ????
> ??????
> Piergiorgio Muzi
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abhyan...@gmail.com>
> *To:* sanskrit@cs.utah.edu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:48 AM
> *Subject:* [Sanskrit] of "sidhyanti" and "siddhyanti"
>
> ???
> I have been mutely following all the discussion about "sidhyanti"
> ????????? and "siddhyanti" ??????????? .
>
> What conclusion emerges in my mind is to start from the basics, i.e. to
> consider what happened first - whether the pronunciation happened first or
> writing happened first. The answer is obvious and known to everybody - the
> pronunciation happened first.
>
> Since all the basis of ???????? script is to satisfy and represent the
> pronunciation as properly as possible, all my efforts at pronouncing
> ????????? convince me that I can pronounce it only as ??????????? Only then,
> the rhythm of the meter also gets pronounced properly.
>
> It is also my hypothesis that no law of writing ???????? - whether
> Bartholomae's or even of ?????? can be beyond or offensive to proper
> representation of the sound. In fact what writing will represent the sound
> most truthfully becomes the acid test to say whether the writing is correct
> or not. And I am convinced that ??????????? represents the sound most
> properly.
>
> I also did little experimentation at pronouncing ????? ??????? ??????? and
> ???????????. I notice that I can pronounce the first two fairly okay, the
> third one only with some compromise. But the last one demands the ??????? to
> be ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? Hence I am convinced that writing it as ???????????
> is correct. This way, i.e. by ??????? as ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? there would be
> no compromise needed even for the third one viz. ???????. So better to write
> this one also as ????????? I notice that it is the ??, which
> demands ?? also.
>
> May I appeal that let the discussion close here !
>
> ????????? for all the great inputs !
>
> ???????? ,
> ?????????????????? ???????? |
> ???????? ?????? ????????? ?
>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>
>> To: Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
>> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 08:24:25 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] siddhyanti is fine
>> Looking at similar dhaatus - krudha, shudha and then ShiDhu -
>> Brhihadhatu. gives the typical forms as:
>> krudha (kope)- krudhyati
>> shudha (shauche) - shudhyati
>>
>> For ShiDhu, it gives both sidhyati and siddhyati.
>>
>>
>> anachi cha (and jhalaam jash jashi ) would give siddhyati ,
>> kruddhyati, shuddhyati, correct? (I am just retracing the
>> suddhyupaasya example in yaN).
>>
>> I have seen both kruddhyati and krudhyati being used.
>>
>> Regarding Barthalomae's law - how does it map in terms of pratyaahaaras?
>>
>> Naresh
>> vaak.wordpress.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Jay Vaidya <deejayvai...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > But my position has nothing to do with weak-strong verb/substantive or
>> > whatever.
>> >
>> > anachi cha 8.4.47
>> > describes optional ("preferable") duplication.
>> > sidhyanti/siddhyanti are optional forms.
>> >
>> > As far as we know, pANini had a wide knowledge of the optional forms of
>> > pronunciation at his time. And options obviously negate the existence of
>> > infallible laws regarding that particular word.
>> >
>> > But I add my curiosity regarding this "strong degree/weak degree
>> > Bartholomae's Law" notion. Apparently Bartholomae's law is:
>> > "It states that in a cluster of two or more obstruents (stops or the
>> > sibilant s), any one of which is a voiced aspirate anywhere in the
>> sequence,
>> > the whole cluster becomes voiced and aspirated."
>> > What does this have to do with duplication?
>> >
>> > Dhananjay
>> >
>> > Message: 2
>> > From: Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Learning Sanskrit by a fresh approach - Lesson
>> > 4
>> >
>> > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Piergiorgio Muzi
>> > <glob...@comm2000.it>wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sorry, sidhyanti (not siddhyanti), week degree of the root is sidh-.
>> >> siddh- is only for past participle, siddha (< sidh-ta) and for
>> substantive
>> >> siddhi (< sidh-ti). The same as budhyate, but buddha, buddhi...(it is
>> so
>> >> called Bartholomae's law).
>> >> Thanks, regards,
>> >> Piergiorgio
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Clearly, in the subhashita quoted, siddhyanti is used as a verb. (I
>> don't
>> > know what a "week (or weak) degree" of a verb is. Could you please
>> > elaborate?)
>> >
>> > The dhaatu is Shidhu (????) ..
>> >
>> > Another example:,
>> > yatne kRute yadi na siddhyati ko&tra doShaH
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or customize your subscription or topics of interest, visit
> http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/options/sanskrit
> and follow instructions.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/pipermail/sanskrit/attachments/20100526/12bf07bc/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 17:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Krishnamachary <vedantham_kris...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Why not "siddhyanti"???
To: Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <257979.86241...@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Thank You Every thing Is put in proper form So no doubt.One has to go to Dhatu
and group in which it falls
Mr.V.Krishnamachary
Retired Civil Engineer
Samskrutha Abhimaani
Email: vedantham_kris...@yahoo.com
--- On Wed, 5/26/10, Piergiorgio Muzi <glob...@comm2000.it> wrote:
From: Piergiorgio Muzi <glob...@comm2000.it>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Why not "siddhyanti"???
To: "Sanskrit Mailing List" <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:51 PM
?
Dear scholars .
This not a boring question relating only to the sidh present form.
I want to explain the importance of a correct spelling and writing words. This
could be more important that the way one?pronounces or writes it. Sanskrit?is
based on rational, general linguistic rules.
1) To form the present tense of a 4th class verb (and also for passive voice in
-ya)?, the rule says that we have only to ad? -yati to the root in the weak
degree. There is no rule which?request us to change dh into ddh?before -ya.
?This is always valid and we don't need to do any exception: so from vyadh
(weak vidh for saMprasaraNa), we have vidhyati. Other verbs, analogously:
budhyate, yudhyate, rudhyate, krudhyati, Shudhyati, kShudhyati, RRidyate,
gRRidhyati... and many others. You can check in The roots, verb-forms and
primary derivatives of the Sanskrit language, by the great Sanskritist
W.D.Whitney (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi,?last reprint 2006). You can?get
confirmation also from?the most important dictionaries, as Apte's, MacDonell,
Monier-Williams.
2) To form past participle, infinitive in -tum periphrastic future and nouns?in
-ti to the roots ending in dh, we must follow the Bartholomae's law, which
doesn't deal with any kind of duplication since it is a general rule which
applies to?(g)h, bh, dh. The rersult of?sidh+ta si siddha, budh+ta gives
buddha...Similarly from duh+ta you get dugdha, from rabh+ta you get
rabdha...?This law is common to Sanskrit and Old Persian, too.
3) So, the only reason of writing ddh intead?of dh in the present, imperfect,
perfect, aorist, simple future..?is only a confusion with the forms described
in 2, which want regularly ddh.
Sanskrit is fruit of a rational grammatical study, where we have to question
about the rules and besides about the reasons of the rules.
It is not only a problem of sidhyati. If we confuse the stem of the present
with the base of of the past partciples, etc., the results are not so good. For
instance we could confuse budha with buddha (only the second means awaked as
past part.) or vidha with?viddha... Besides the student?couldn't immediately
recognize a past participle, since he can't see in buddha the result of sandhi
rule from budh-ta.?If he reads boddhum, how could he understand that it is the
infinitive, that is?bodh-tum, of the? same root in guNa degree?
Sanskrit grammar is like an algebra or chemistry system. Any mistake calls for
other mistakes and misunderstanding.
The Internet is full of terrible mistakes (but there are also mistakes in old
dhAtupATha, because of wrong transcriptions or transliterations).
I suppose that we must co-operate in refining the language by means of rational
study and by cleaning it like something precious.
??? ????? ????????????? ?? ?????? ????
??????
Piergiorgio Muzi
?
?
?
?
----- Original Message -----
From: S. L. Abhyankar
To: sanskrit@cs.utah.edu
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:48 AM
Subject: [Sanskrit] of "sidhyanti" and "siddhyanti"
????I have been mutely following all the discussion about "sidhyanti"
?????????? and "siddhyanti" ????????????.
What conclusion emerges in my mind is to start from the basics, i.e. to
consider what happened first - whether the pronunciation happened first or
writing happened first. The answer is obvious and known to everybody - the
pronunciation happened first.?
Since all the basis of ???????? script is to satisfy and represent the
pronunciation as properly as possible, all my efforts at pronouncing ?????????
convince me that I can pronounce it only as ??????????? Only then, the rhythm
of the meter also gets pronounced properly.?
It is also my hypothesis that no law of writing ???????? - whether
Bartholomae's or even of????????can be beyond or offensive to proper
representation of the sound. In fact what writing will represent the sound most
truthfully becomes the acid test to say whether the writing is correct or not.
And I am convinced that ??????????? represents the sound most properly.
I also did little experimentation at pronouncing?????? ??????? ??????? ?and
???????????. I notice that I can pronounce the first two fairly okay, the third
one only with some compromise. But the last one demands the ??????? to be ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? Hence I am convinced that writing it as ??????????? is
correct. This way, i.e. by ??????? as ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? ?there would be no
compromise needed even for the third one viz.????????. So better to write this
one also as ?????????? I notice that it is the???, which demands????also.
May I appeal that let the discussion close here !
????????? for all the great inputs !
???????? ,
?????????????????? ???????? |
???????? ?????? ????????? ?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:?Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>
To:?Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
Date:?Tue, 25 May 2010 08:24:25 -0400
Subject:?Re: [Sanskrit] siddhyanti is fine
Looking at similar dhaatus - krudha, shudha and then ShiDhu -
Brhihadhatu. gives the typical forms as:
krudha ?(kope)- krudhyati
shudha (shauche) - shudhyati
For ShiDhu, it gives both sidhyati and siddhyati.
anachi cha (and jhalaam jash jashi ) would give siddhyati ,
kruddhyati, shuddhyati, correct? (I am just retracing the
suddhyupaasya example in yaN).
I have seen both kruddhyati and krudhyati being used.
Regarding Barthalomae's law - how does it map in terms of pratyaahaaras?
Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Jay Vaidya <deejayvai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But my position has nothing to do with weak-strong verb/substantive or
> whatever.
>
> anachi cha 8.4.47
> describes optional ("preferable") duplication.
> sidhyanti/siddhyanti are optional forms.
>
> As far as we know, pANini had a wide knowledge of the optional forms of
> pronunciation at his time. And options obviously negate the existence of
> infallible laws regarding that particular word.
>
> But I add my curiosity regarding this "strong degree/weak degree
> Bartholomae's Law" notion. Apparently Bartholomae's law is:
> "It states that in a cluster of two or more obstruents (stops or the
> sibilant s), any one of which is a voiced aspirate anywhere in the sequence,
> the whole cluster becomes voiced and aspirated."
> What does this have to do with duplication?
>
> Dhananjay
>
> Message: 2
> From: Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Learning Sanskrit by a fresh approach - Lesson
> ??? 4
>
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Piergiorgio Muzi
> <glob...@comm2000.it>wrote:
>
>>? Sorry, sidhyanti (not siddhyanti), week degree of the root is sidh-.
>> siddh- is only for past participle, siddha (< sidh-ta) and for substantive
>> siddhi (< sidh-ti). The same as budhyate, but buddha, buddhi...(it is so
>> called Bartholomae's law).
>> Thanks, regards,
>> Piergiorgio
>>
>>
>>
> Clearly, in the subhashita quoted, siddhyanti is used as a verb. (I don't
> know what a "week (or weak) degree" of a verb is. Could you please
> elaborate?)
>
> The dhaatu is Shidhu (????) ..
>
> Another example:,
> yatne kRute yadi na siddhyati ko&tra doShaH
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
To UNSUBSCRIBE or customize your subscription or topics of interest, visit
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/options/sanskrit
and follow instructions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/pipermail/sanskrit/attachments/20100526/20ac9844/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:24:26 +1000
From: "Vimala Sarma" <vsa...@bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson
6
To: "'Sanskrit Mailing List'" <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
Message-ID:
<!&!aaaaaaaaaaayaaaaaaaaahu8naacsvtkqhz0eaeir8ncgaaaeaaaaaphcelx4ihavfxlb+oqzlwbaaaaa...@bigpond.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I would like to comment on:
??????????
The ending is not from teSAm
It is the declension for cetas (mind) ? genitive, plu, masc/fem/neuter
The bahuvrIhi compound means - of those with or possessing small minds.
The same with udAracaritANAm ? this is plural, genitive, masc ending, and the
na is retroflexed because of the r. And udAra is high or lofty or noble.
Also eva here is ?only? or used in emphasis.
Sorry for these minor corrections ? I like your lessons.
Vimala
From: sanskrit-boun...@cs.utah.edu [mailto:sanskrit-boun...@cs.utah.edu] On
Behalf Of S. L. Abhyankar
Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2010 11:57 PM
To: sanskrit@cs.utah.edu
Subject: [Sanskrit] Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson 6
Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson 6
In previous lessons, the style was to put words from a given glossary into an
order. The order in which to put the words was also planned by me. The idea was
to get the verse to emerge almost naturally or automatically.
We can now try a different approach of developing the capability of exploring
meaning of any new verse.
Let us see how this approach will work. Let us try with this verse -
??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????????? ? ???????????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?
This method also will have a logical system. It will be step by step. Typically,
1. We shall examine every phrase and every word.
2. If there are any conjugations, we shall break them, so that we can see
every word in its proper understandable form.
3. If there are any compound words, we shall decipher them.
4. Finally we shall put them all into a syntax, so that we can write down
the full meaning properly.
??? = this one
???? = related to oneself, mine
??? ???? = ??? ?? ???
??? = the other, not mine
?? = or
??? = like this
???? = counting, consideration
?????????? = ???? ???: ???? ?? --> ?? --> ????? -->
???? = small
???: = mind, heart, thinking
???? = whose
?? = he--> ?? (= they)--> ????? (= their) --> ??????????
?????????? = of those who have small mind (or heart or thinking)
???????????? = ?????? ?????? ???? ?? --> ?? --> ????? -->
?????? = broad-minded
?????? = heart, thinking, conduct of life
???? = whose
?? = he--> ?? (= they)--> ????? (= their) --> ?????????????
????????????? = of those who have broad mind
?? = however
?????? = ????? ??
????? = earth
?? = itself
Actually there is a concept why earth is called as ?????. It is explained by an
aphorism "?????: ??????? ??? ?????"
?????: = by Vasu's
??????? = is taken care of, is protected
??? = hence
?????: ??????? ??? ????? = (the entity that) Is taken care of, protected by
Vasu's, hence, ?????
This will raise a curiosity, "Who are Vasu's ?"
???: = a God of lower cadre, who follows orders of Indra.
They are eight. Their primary job is to be the sentinels at eight directions
(???? ???:) around the earth to protect the earth -
Four major directions (in clockwise order)
East (??????), South (???????), West(???????), North(??????)
Four minor directions (in clockwise order)
South-east(??????), South-west(?????), North-west(???????), North-east(???????)
In ShrImad-bhagavad-gItA, bhagavAn krRuShNa proclaims, "among Vasu's, I am
pAvaka ?????? ????????????"
?????? ???????????? = ?????? ????: ? ?????
?????? = Vasus', or among 'Vasu's
????: = fire also called as ?????: Hence direction to be protected by this Vasu
is South-east(??????). I guess, that the reason for bhagavAn krRuShNa
proclaiming, "among Vasu's, I am pAvaka ?????? ????????????" may be because
among all 'Vasu's ?????: is one, who has ??? one of the five great fundamental
elements (????????????) inherent to it.
???????????? = They are
mother earth (??????), which supports all life
water (??),
light (???),
air (?????),
sky or space (????) which provides the space for the whole universe.
? = and
????? = (I) am
?????????? ? = family
Overall meaning now becomes -
"This one mine or not mine" (is) thinking of petty-minded. For the
broad-minded, however, (whole) world (is one) family."
This subhAShitam is really the basic approach of Indian polity, since ages.
India has never been the aggressor. It has yet been the melting pot for
cultures from around the world. Would not the World be a really happier place
to live, if all countries adopted such polity ?
Equanimity is of course a challenging thought to make it as one's nature. It
seems that we are all more petty-minded ???????: than broad-minded ????????:.
Here is the verse for learning by heart
??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????????? ?
???????????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?
Before closing, how about some exercises ?
(1) Among so many words, which we came across in these six lessons, there have
been many which are unchanging, called as "indeclinables" in grammar. There
would be the adverbs, conjunctions, interjections in this list. It would be a
good idea to list them at one place, along with their meanings. That would make
some unique dictionary of the indeclinables !
(2) We have also come across many nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs. All these
words have declensions, as has been explained earlier. Let us make separate
lists of nouns, pronouns, adjectives and the verbs.
-o-O-o-
???????? ,
?????????????????? ???????? |
???????? ?????? ????????? ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/pipermail/sanskrit/attachments/20100527/d20d68ca/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
To UNSUBSCRIBE or customize your subscription and email delivery, visit
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/options/sanskrit
and follow instructions.
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 61, Issue 19
****************************************
