--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "uns_tressor" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "uns_tressor" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > madhu-kara-raajan ("honey-maker-king") = queen-bee > > > > > > > > From Vyaasa's bhaaSya on YS II 54 (pratyaahaara): > > > > > > > > yathaa *madhukara-raajaM* makSikaa utpatantamanuutpatanti > > > > nivishamaanamanunivishante tathendriyaaNi citta-nirodhe > > > > niruddhaaniityeSa pratyaahaaraH > > > > > > Our esteemed moderator should censor this gratuitous > > > filth. Anyway, did the Senator give the pants back > > > to the stripper? They can be costly. > > > Uns. > > > > On a more serious note, is there a translator > > out there for general use? Even a crude one word > > to one word translator would be interesting. There > > would be the usual problems (fruit flies like a > > banana - time flies like an arrow). And if you > > takes the above, does "maker" associate with honey > > or king? Or is it all too complex to lend itself > > to this sort of examination? > > Uns. > > Actually, my understanding is that the structure of literary sanskrit > is such that those kinds of ambiguities arise very seldom. There was > a famous article in THE computer magazine nearly 40 years ago that > pointed out that a variation of the modern linguistic notation used > by computer language designers to make sure that their languages had > no hidden ambiguities had actually been invented by the mythical > Sanskrit grammarian Panini over 2,000 years ago. > > "Panini-Backus form suggested" --Ingerman, PZ (1967) Communications > of the Association for Computing Machinary (ACM) 10:3 137.
Compound words can be quite tricky in Sanskrit. In BG 13,13 the second half goes like this: anaadimatparaM brahma na sat tan naasad ucyate For instance Svami Prabhupaada reads the first line like this: anaadi matparaM brahma That would mean KRSNa sez about Brahma: "beginningless (and) subordinate to Me (is) Brahma". Shankara OTOH reads it like this: anaadimat paraM brahma Shankara admits that "anaadimat" is redundant, because "anaadi" is best perceived as a bahuvriihi compound and as such functions as an adjective by itself, not needing the suffix "-mat" (like for instance "redneck" usually refers to someone with whatever attitudes[?shucks], not a neck that is red, meaning in effect something like "redneck-ish", I guess, if one doesn't take "redneck" in "redneck-ish" literally...sheesh!) but reading it like that he avoids having KRSNa say, that He is above Brahma. In Shankara's opinion the suffix "-mat" is there for completing the count of syllables on that line. (Whoever composed the Giitaa might actually have had both readings in mind, depending on the ... nyt tämä poika lähtee *askalle tai kokkaamaan coffee'ta!) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
