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 13 - 22 (Vikram Santurkar)
2. Re: udyogaparvam - sarga 13 - 22 (Sai)
3. RE: udyogaparvam - sarga 13 - 22 (Vikram Santurkar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:04:33 -0800
From: "Vikram Santurkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Sanskrit] udyogaparvam - sarga 13 - 22
To: "Sai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,G?rard Huet<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Namaste Sai and Gerard Huet,
The shloka only states justification for Indraani's wish to be "single-husbanded"
[ekabhartR^itvam]
This is clear from the word "eva".
The rules for eva are illustrated below
1) rAmaH eva phalaM khAdati [only Rama eats the fruit, not anybody else]
2) rAmaH phalaM eva khAdati [Rama eats fruits only, not rice or vegetables]
3) rAmaH phalaM khAdati eva [ Rama eats (fruits) only. He is not doing any other
action, like looking or hearing]
In samskritam, eva is context sensitive just like cha and api.
In the shloka Indraani would like to remain "single-husbanded" only. all other
reasons are justifications toward this status.
dhanyavAdaH
Vikram
-----Original Message-----
From: Sai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 4:20 PM
To: G�rard Huet
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Vikram Santurkar; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] udyogaparvam - sarga 13 - 22
G�rard Huet uvaacha:
> I propose:
> Since I give,
> and since when I give teachers are satisfied with my donation,
> and since I am faithful to my husband,
> for all these reasons I am pure.
> GH
Gerard's proposed translation for the fol. Sloka raised an interesting issue:
yadi datta.n yadi huta.n guravaH toShitAH yadi .
ekabhartR^itvam eva astu satya.n yadi asti vA mayi ..
He says, why can't the last line be prosified as
vA, yadi ekabhartR^itvam eva asti, satya.n mayi astu
or, if I have only one husband, may truth/purity be with me
Granted, it doesn't make sense in the context, because her wish is to
remain single-husbanded.
So sanskrit is not context-free, is it? And it is not true that you can
juggle around words arbitrarily still retaining the same meaning in
sanskrit?
What are the rules for juggling then? Is it that only words within a
clause can be juggled, not across clauses?
- Sai.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:05:19 -0700
From: Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] udyogaparvam - sarga 13 - 22
To: Vikram Santurkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Thanks for the clarification on 'eva'.
The question is not just about the context sensitivity of 'eva'.
See what I did with the verbs "asti" and "astu". I juggled them also.
That changes the meaning too.
Maybe, juggling is only allowed within a clause, after all, and this
makes sense.
- Sai.
Vikram Santurkar uvaacha:
> Namaste Sai and Gerard Huet,
>
> The shloka only states justification for Indraani's wish to be "single-husbanded"
> [ekabhartR^itvam]
>
> This is clear from the word "eva".
>
> The rules for eva are illustrated below
> 1) rAmaH eva phalaM khAdati [only Rama eats the fruit, not anybody else]
> 2) rAmaH phalaM eva khAdati [Rama eats fruits only, not rice or vegetables]
> 3) rAmaH phalaM khAdati eva [ Rama eats (fruits) only. He is not doing any other
> action, like looking or hearing]
>
> In samskritam, eva is context sensitive just like cha and api.
>
> In the shloka Indraani would like to remain "single-husbanded" only. all other
> reasons are justifications toward this status.
>
> dhanyavAdaH
> Vikram
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 4:20 PM
> To: G�rard Huet
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Vikram Santurkar; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] udyogaparvam - sarga 13 - 22
>
>
> G�rard Huet uvaacha:
> > I propose:
> > Since I give,
> > and since when I give teachers are satisfied with my donation,
> > and since I am faithful to my husband,
> > for all these reasons I am pure.
> > GH
>
> Gerard's proposed translation for the fol. Sloka raised an interesting issue:
> yadi datta.n yadi huta.n guravaH toShitAH yadi .
> ekabhartR^itvam eva astu satya.n yadi asti vA mayi ..
>
> He says, why can't the last line be prosified as
> vA, yadi ekabhartR^itvam eva asti, satya.n mayi astu
> or, if I have only one husband, may truth/purity be with me
>
> Granted, it doesn't make sense in the context, because her wish is to
> remain single-husbanded.
>
> So sanskrit is not context-free, is it? And it is not true that you can
> juggle around words arbitrarily still retaining the same meaning in
> sanskrit?
>
> What are the rules for juggling then? Is it that only words within a
> clause can be juggled, not across clauses?
> - Sai.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:49:34 -0800
From: "Vikram Santurkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Sanskrit] udyogaparvam - sarga 13 - 22
To: "Sai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Associating "asti" with ekabhartR^itvam does not make sense
since, since Indraani argues that she should be [astu] with one
husband only, and really that status is under attack
from Nahusha. Her purity is [asti] well known through other actions
such as giving charity, performing rituals, pleasing gurus etc.
Juggling the verbs can give interesting combinations but the
results should also make sense.
- Vikram
-----Original Message-----
From: Sai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:05 PM
To: Vikram Santurkar
Cc: G�rard Huet; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] udyogaparvam - sarga 13 - 22
Thanks for the clarification on 'eva'.
The question is not just about the context sensitivity of 'eva'.
See what I did with the verbs "asti" and "astu". I juggled them also.
That changes the meaning too.
Maybe, juggling is only allowed within a clause, after all, and this
makes sense.
- Sai.
Vikram Santurkar uvaacha:
> Namaste Sai and Gerard Huet,
>
> The shloka only states justification for Indraani's wish to be "single-husbanded"
> [ekabhartR^itvam]
>
> This is clear from the word "eva".
>
> The rules for eva are illustrated below
> 1) rAmaH eva phalaM khAdati [only Rama eats the fruit, not anybody else]
> 2) rAmaH phalaM eva khAdati [Rama eats fruits only, not rice or vegetables]
> 3) rAmaH phalaM khAdati eva [ Rama eats (fruits) only. He is not doing any other
> action, like looking or hearing]
>
> In samskritam, eva is context sensitive just like cha and api.
>
> In the shloka Indraani would like to remain "single-husbanded" only. all other
> reasons are justifications toward this status.
>
> dhanyavAdaH
> Vikram
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 4:20 PM
> To: G�rard Huet
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Vikram Santurkar; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] udyogaparvam - sarga 13 - 22
>
>
> G�rard Huet uvaacha:
> > I propose:
> > Since I give,
> > and since when I give teachers are satisfied with my donation,
> > and since I am faithful to my husband,
> > for all these reasons I am pure.
> > GH
>
> Gerard's proposed translation for the fol. Sloka raised an interesting issue:
> yadi datta.n yadi huta.n guravaH toShitAH yadi .
> ekabhartR^itvam eva astu satya.n yadi asti vA mayi ..
>
> He says, why can't the last line be prosified as
> vA, yadi ekabhartR^itvam eva asti, satya.n mayi astu
> or, if I have only one husband, may truth/purity be with me
>
> Granted, it doesn't make sense in the context, because her wish is to
> remain single-husbanded.
>
> So sanskrit is not context-free, is it? And it is not true that you can
> juggle around words arbitrarily still retaining the same meaning in
> sanskrit?
>
> What are the rules for juggling then? Is it that only words within a
> clause can be juggled, not across clauses?
> - Sai.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 10, Issue 19
****************************************
