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. n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct. (Jay Vaidya)
2. Re: n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct.
(Ambujam Raman)
3. Re: n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct.
(Vis Tekumalla)
4. marriage between a possible Jezebel and a possible non-hero
(Jay Vaidya)
5. n->N in nArAyaNa (Jay Vaidya)
6. Re: n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct.
(Ambujam Raman)
7. Re: n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct.
(Vis Tekumalla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
uktavAn bAlAjIH:
>What causes the transformation na-> Na in the words :
>rAmAyaNa , uttarAyaNa, nArAyaNa ? Clearly the "na"
>comes in a different pada from the "ra".
> We were told it was the rule "pUrvapadAta samj~nAyAm
> agaH" (8.4.3??)
>... for nArAyaNa & rAmAyaNa.
> ... Moreover, how does it apply to uttarAyaNa?
Your explanation and sUtra quotation are correct.
saMGYA in this case is what is called a "proper noun"
or a "defined technical term". In the sense that you
should not try to get the meaning from the component
words, but from tradition or technical context or a
naming ceremony.
nArAyaNa is a name of a person or a deity = "proper
name" in English. By the way, what is the etymology of
nArAyaNa? Because, you know, gArgyAyaNa = descendent
of gArgI is a single pada. It is not a proper noun.
Any remote descendent of gArgI can be called
gArgyAyaNa, whether or not they are introduced to you
with that "given" name.
rAmAyaNa is the name of a certain epic. Unless some
author specifically names their biography of
(parashu)rAma or (kanshI)rAma, as rAmAyaNa, we will
not call it rAmAyaNa, just based on the meaning of the
terms rAma+ayana. We would call it rAmAyana, perhaps.
Thus rAmAyaNa is also a "proper name" or a
"traditionally restricted usage".
uttarAyaNa does not just mean uttara+ayana = going
north. My visit to my northern relatives is just
uttarAyana (no "N"). uttarAyaNa is specifically
reserved as a technical term for the sun's yearly
passage to the north. So this is a "traditionally
restricted usage" or a "defined technical term".
Note that there are several sub-rules to this rule
quoted by Balaji.
Regarding names versus not-names, here are some
interesting ones close to home. Unfortunately, my name
(dhana.njaya) gives no proof of wealth or victory. It
is just a name. The _description_ rather than the
_name_ of a hero would have been dhanajaya.
Also a woman being called priyaMvadA is no guarantee
that she talks lovingly. That is just a name.
dhana.njayaH
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:53:28 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is
correct.
To: "Jay Vaidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Jay:
To summarize if Priyamvada gets married to dhana.njayaH she would become
Priyamvadadhana.njayaH and NOT
PriyamvadadhaNa.njayaH Am I technically correct?
Raman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Vaidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 3:11 PM
Subject: [Sanskrit] n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct.
> uktavAn bAlAjIH:
>
> >What causes the transformation na-> Na in the words :
> >rAmAyaNa , uttarAyaNa, nArAyaNa ? Clearly the "na"
> >comes in a different pada from the "ra".
> > We were told it was the rule "pUrvapadAta samj~nAyAm
>
> > agaH" (8.4.3??)
> >... for nArAyaNa & rAmAyaNa.
> > ... Moreover, how does it apply to uttarAyaNa?
>
> Your explanation and sUtra quotation are correct.
> saMGYA in this case is what is called a "proper noun"
> or a "defined technical term". In the sense that you
> should not try to get the meaning from the component
> words, but from tradition or technical context or a
> naming ceremony.
>
> nArAyaNa is a name of a person or a deity = "proper
> name" in English. By the way, what is the etymology of
> nArAyaNa? Because, you know, gArgyAyaNa = descendent
> of gArgI is a single pada. It is not a proper noun.
> Any remote descendent of gArgI can be called
> gArgyAyaNa, whether or not they are introduced to you
> with that "given" name.
> rAmAyaNa is the name of a certain epic. Unless some
> author specifically names their biography of
> (parashu)rAma or (kanshI)rAma, as rAmAyaNa, we will
> not call it rAmAyaNa, just based on the meaning of the
> terms rAma+ayana. We would call it rAmAyana, perhaps.
> Thus rAmAyaNa is also a "proper name" or a
> "traditionally restricted usage".
> uttarAyaNa does not just mean uttara+ayana = going
> north. My visit to my northern relatives is just
> uttarAyana (no "N"). uttarAyaNa is specifically
> reserved as a technical term for the sun's yearly
> passage to the north. So this is a "traditionally
> restricted usage" or a "defined technical term".
>
> Note that there are several sub-rules to this rule
> quoted by Balaji.
>
> Regarding names versus not-names, here are some
> interesting ones close to home. Unfortunately, my name
> (dhana.njaya) gives no proof of wealth or victory. It
> is just a name. The _description_ rather than the
> _name_ of a hero would have been dhanajaya.
>
> Also a woman being called priyaMvadA is no guarantee
> that she talks lovingly. That is just a name.
>
> dhana.njayaH
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> sanskrit mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is
correct.
To: Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jay Vaidya
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Raman uvAcha:
To summarize if Priyamvada gets married to dhana.njayaH she would become
Priyamvadadhana.njayaH and NOT
PriyamvadadhaNa.njayaH Am I technically correct?
Now, this raises a question. After Priyamvada gets married, and say acquires that
concatenation, she is still only one person, and still very much a woman - right?
(albeit, with a name that extends to two padas). Why should the poor woman be referred
to in pu.mli~Nga suddenly and possibly declined as an a-karaanta pu.mli~Nga?:-)
...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/20040920/463da6f3/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] marriage between a possible Jezebel and a
possible non-hero
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
AmbujarAma-vishveshayoH TippaNIprasa.nge:
In the instance of the marriage between the
harsh-mouthed priyaMvadA and the non-heroic
dhana.njaya
The woman would be dhana.njayasya priyaMvadA =
dhana.njaya-priyaMvadA (like the goddess shiva-shakti)
The man would be priyaMvadAyAH dhana.njayaH =
priyaMvadA-dhana.njayaH (like the epic hero
sItA-rAmaH)
Both are correctly saMGYA = proper nouns, so in that
detail the n->N transformation should be considered.
However, the transformation is blocked in both cases
by the usual rules (discussed last month). And also by
an unusual rule.
Usual rules:
In the first case, the "n" is before the "r", so
cannot be affected.
In the second case, the "n" is shielded from the "r"
by a "d" and a "dh" sound. Only certain sounds
(vowels, half-vowels, k-varga, p-varga, the particle
AN^) let the influence of "r" pass through.
Unusual rule:
Furthermore, even if we find an example of a woman
called priya-kumbhA (she with the lovely jugs, may not
really have them, sorry) marrying a man called
nArAyaNa, the man will be called priyakumbhA-nArAyaNaH
All of the sounds between the "r" of "priya" and the
first "n" of nArAyaNaH are transperent to the
influence -- then why no n->N change?
kumbha by itself was a pada at some point in the word
formation. Such a pada blocks the influence of the "r"
on the "n" even though it is made of "transperent"
sounds. Jargon: pA.sU. 8.4.38.
dhana.njayaH
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] n->N in nArAyaNa
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Because of the large number of rules/exceptions that
we have all seen, this discussion is really spinning
on to tangents.
But generally regards the n->N transformation.
More so to "r" in one pada and "n" in a following pada
-- is there an effect?
Let us look at "nArAyaNa". Is it one pada or a
composite of more than one?
Both interpretations exist. I will give them without
jargon. Will supply quatations, if asked.
(1) More than one pada:
narasya samUhaH = nAram (group of humans)
nAram ayanam yasya saH = nAra+ayanaH = nArAyaNaH
(He who passes through the multitudes)
(2) Only one pada:
narasya gotra-apatyaM pumAn = nara+ phak (a special
termination, further transformed)=... nArAyaNaH
If it is a single pada, the usual rules apply. If it
is a combination of two padas, the special rule for
"names/technical terms" applies. In any case the n->N
transformation happens.
I do not know if the svara differs by interpretation
-- my suspicion is "yes".
dhana.njayaH
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:32:16 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is
correct.
To: "Vis Tekumalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jay Vaidya"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Vis:
assigning sex to compounds in Sanskrit is complicated. If you consider
'priyamvadadhana.njaya' as a samhara dvandva it must be singular neutre. As a
bahuvrihi, can have any sex. I guess as it is, the word must have the sex of the last
component.
Now seriously can there be a feminine word ending in akaara ? How should it be
declined? Are there any pre-Paninian (vedic?) guidelines?
Raman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040921/050d1215/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is
correct.
To: Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jay Vaidya
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I will just go with dhananjaya's explanation and call the bride dhananjayapriyamvada.
After all, my own name - Vis Tekumalla, when I write it in Telugu, I write it as
Tekumalla Vis. So it's easy to stick with whatever is the norm in the language.
Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Vis:
assigning sex to compounds in Sanskrit is complicated. If you consider
'priyamvadadhana.njaya' as a samhara dvandva it must be singular neutre. As a
bahuvrihi, can have any sex. I guess as it is, the word must have the sex of the last
component.
Now seriously can there be a feminine word ending in akaara ? How should it be
declined? Are there any pre-Paninian (vedic?) guidelines?
Raman
...Vis Tekumalla
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040921/07e1d688/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 18, Issue 30
****************************************
