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: Sanskrit grammar doubt (P.K.Ramakrishnan)
2. Re: Sanskrit grammar doubt (Vis Tekumalla)
3. Re: Quirks related to similar vibhakti forms (Ambujam Raman)
4. Re: indrashatrur-vadhasva (Sai)
5. Re: indrashatrur-vadhasva (Ambujam Raman)
6. Re: indrashatrur-vadhasva (P.K.Ramakrishnan)
7. Re: Accents (Vis Tekumalla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: "P.K.Ramakrishnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Sanskrit grammar doubt
To: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sanskrit digest
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In prose, order of words is subject, object and predicate in Sanskrit while in English
it is subject, prredicate and object.
Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Generally, changing the order of words in a Sanskrit sentence doesn't change its
meaning. For example:
gaNeshaH modakaM khAdati, or modakaM gaNeshaH khAdati mean the same thing (gaNesha
eats the modaka).
If however the vibhaktis are changed, say - gaNeshaM modakaH khAdati - it would mean
-the modaka eats gaNesha, i.e., the meaning changes.
Now if we have a sentence with dvivachana in both karta and karma such as -
kriShNau gopike prati-gachChataH,
can it be interpreted in both ways, i.e., the two Krishnas are going towards the two
gopikas, or alternatively, the two gopikas are going toward the two Krishnas? Or, does
the order of the words determine who is going towards who?
Of course, both meanings are consistent with the raas dance:-)
vishveshvaraH
...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
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail � CNET Editors' Choice 2004. Tell them what you think. a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20041018/fea922e5/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Sanskrit grammar doubt
To: Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sanskrit digest
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
60,000 Krishnas to dance with the 60,000 gopis and an extra Krishna in the middle
playing his flute to delight his mom:-)
Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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"
> 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
...Vis Tekumalla
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20041018/9c6868ee/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:11:08 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Quirks related to similar vibhakti forms
To: "Jay Vaidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
mantro hInaH svarato varNato vaa mithyaa prayukto na tamarthamaaha |
sa vaagvajro yajamaanaM hinasti yathendrashatruH svarato'paraadhaat ||
(Panini shikSha 52)
This refers to the vedic story where Vrittira's (Indra's enemy) father
intending him to be the destroyer of Indra and had him say
'indrashatrurvadasva' (kill Indra who is the enemy), but by mistake placed
the accent on the first which meant (indrasya shatruH, indra's enemy) and
promptly killed Vrittira.
Moral: Watch your mantras!
rAmaH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Vaidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 4:09 PM
Subject: [Sanskrit] Quirks related to similar vibhakti forms
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> sanskrit mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:22:07 -0600
From: Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] indrashatrur-vadhasva
To: Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I also heard this, but don't know exactly where the accents (and which
accents) to be put for the two meanings.
Can you please clarify it for the record?
- Sai.
Ambujam Raman uvaacha:
> mantro hInaH svarato varNato vaa mithyaa prayukto na tamarthamaaha |
> sa vaagvajro yajamaanaM hinasti yathendrashatruH svarato'paraadhaat ||
> (Panini shikSha 52)
>
> This refers to the vedic story where Vrittira's (Indra's enemy) father
> intending him to be the destroyer of Indra and had him say
> 'indrashatrurvadasva' (kill Indra who is the enemy), but by mistake placed
> the accent on the first which meant (indrasya shatruH, indra's enemy) and
> promptly killed Vrittira.
>
> Moral: Watch your mantras!
>
> rAmaH
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:34:20 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] indrashatrur-vadhasva
To: "Sai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I claim no expertise on vedic accents. But as I understand when the accent
is on the second part :
|
indrashatru it means an enemy or destroyer of Indra.
Hence 'indrashatrurvadhasva' invokes: 'Let the destroyer of Indra kill'
On the other hand if the accent is on the first part
|
indrashatru it means 'indraH shatruryasya' i.e., one whose enemy is Indra
which is vrittra.
whence 'indrashatrurvadhasva' invokes: 'Let it kill him whose enemy is
Indra'
It must also be noted that the dhatu 'vadh' is used only in vedic sanskrit
and not in classical sanskrit. It is also listed as a parasmaipada and I
have doubts about the usage as atmanepada. I wonder whether one familiar
with vedic sanskrit (Dr. Rao?) could kindly clarify.
rAmaH
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: "P.K.Ramakrishnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] indrashatrur-vadhasva
To: Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sanskrit digest
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The full sentencw is "indrashatrur vardhasva" not vadhasva. The root of vardhasva
is vardh to grow.
The intended meaning was "let the enemy of Indra grow". Because of wrong swara
the meanng became "let the enemy Indra grow."
PKR
Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I claim no expertise on vedic accents. But as
I understand when the accent
is on the second part :
|
indrashatru it means an enemy or destroyer of Indra.
Hence 'indrashatrurvadhasva' invokes: 'Let the destroyer of Indra kill'
On the other hand if the accent is on the first part
|
indrashatru it means 'indraH shatruryasya' i.e., one whose enemy is Indra
which is vrittra.
whence 'indrashatrurvadhasva' invokes: 'Let it kill him whose enemy is
Indra'
It must also be noted that the dhatu 'vadh' is used only in vedic sanskrit
and not in classical sanskrit. It is also listed as a parasmaipada and I
have doubts about the usage as atmanepada. I wonder whether one familiar
with vedic sanskrit (Dr. Rao?) could kindly clarify.
rAmaH
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
---------------------------------
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/20041019/66bb2b7b/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Accents
To: "P.K.Ramakrishnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ambujam Raman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sanskrit digest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
It is reported that Vishwamitra may have actually said, "saama-gaayana-puutam me, na
uchchiShTa-madharam kuru." (My lips are purified by constant reciting of Saama-veda,
dont pollute them with your saliva).
But you see the accent was not right. Menaka heard it as, "saama-gaayana-puutam menA,
uchchiShTa-madharam kuru." (My lips are purified by constant reciting of Sama-veda my
dear Mena(ka), go ahead, a little polluting with your saliva wouldn't hurt them).
The rest is history - shakuntalA, kALidAsa, the name of the country etc., etc.
vishveshvaraH
"P.K.Ramakrishnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The full sentencw is "indrashatrur
vardhasva" not vadhasva. The root of vardhasva
is vardh to grow.
The intended meaning was "let the enemy of Indra grow". Because of wrong swara
the meanng became "let the enemy Indra grow."
PKR
Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I claim no expertise on vedic accents. But as
I understand when the accent
is on the second part :
|
indrashatru it means an enemy or destroyer of Indra.
Hence 'indrashatrurvadhasva' invokes: 'Let the destroyer of Indra kill'
On the other hand if the accent is on the first part
|
indrashatru it means 'indraH shatruryasya' i.e., one whose enemy is Indra
which is vrittra.
whence 'indrashatrurvadhasva' invokes: 'Let it kill him whose enemy is
Indra'
It must also be noted that the dhatu 'vadh' is used only in vedic sanskrit
and not in classical sanskrit. It is also listed as a parasmaipada and I
have doubts about the usage as atmanepada. I wonder whether one familiar
with vedic sanskrit (Dr. Rao?) could kindly clarify.
rAmaH
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote
today!_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
...Vis Tekumalla
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail � CNET Editors' Choice 2004. Tell them what you think. a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20041019/1eb0c705/attachment.htm
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 19, Issue 32
****************************************
