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: sandhi after sandhi (Ambujam Raman)
2. Re: sandhi after sandhi (Jay Vaidya)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 00:34:58 -0500
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] sandhi after sandhi
To: "Jay Vaidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Jay:
I have a problem with your rules 2 and 3. Kindly clarify my doubt,
I understand that "o" + "a" = " o' " ('=avgraha).(Pan 6.1,109)
There is however an exception for 'go' where the 'a' may be optionally
retained (Pan.6.1.122). Can the avagraha be optionally omitted during
sandhi?
In the case of the visarga preceded by 'a' and followed by 'a', it is
changed to 'u'.
Thus "aH" + "a" = "a" +"u" + "a" = "o" + "a" = "o' " ('=avagraha). Can the
avagraha be optionally dropped?
rAmaH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Vaidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 11:35 AM
Subject: [Sanskrit] sandhi after sandhi
> Here is a more pedestrian example for one sandhi rule
> used after another:
>
> (1) Rule 1:
> 'aH' -> -> 'o' in certain circumstances
> e.g. rAmaH + gataH = rAmo gataH (rAma [is] gone)
>
> (2) Rule 2:
> 'o' + 'a' -> 'o'
> e.g., go + ashva = goshva (dual) -> goshvau (an ox and
> a horse)
>
> (3) How about "rAmaH + ashvArUDhaH"
> First use rule 1: rAmo + ashvArUDhaH
> Next use rule 2: rAmoshvArUDhaH (rAma [is] mounted on
> a horse)
>
> It may be possible to create a "rule" for every
> combination of rules (e.g., 'aH' + 'a' -> 'o', as a
> rule by itself), but that would not be an efficient
> system.
>
> Again, there are certain (but not all) sandhi rules
> that do not allow for re-evaluation by other rules.
>
> dhana.njayaH
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
> _______________________________________________
> sanskrit mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 08:50:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] sandhi after sandhi
To: Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
PHONETIC MEANINGLESSNESS OF avagraha
The avagraha is a typographical/script symbol used by
writers for the reader's convenience. In sa.nskR^ita,
it has no phonetic or grammatical value. In Marathi,
yes, by the way. (That does not deny it's great
convenience, and I shall continue to use it in
sa.nskR^ita! See below.)
The relevant rule quoted by Raman (6.1.109) is:
eN^aH (after 'e' or 'o')
padAntAt (which is at the end of a 'pada')
ati (followed by a short 'a')
...
ekaH pUrvaparayoH (single [replacement] for
the earlier and the latter [letters])
pUrvaH ([is] the earlier [letter])
(No mention of avagraha)
'e' + 'a' -> 'e'
'o' + 'a' -> 'o'
Note that the very next rule (N^asi-N^asosh-cha |
6.1.110) extends this single 'e/o' replacement to
certain vibhakti-pratyaya terminations
agni 5/6 singular
agni + aH -> agne + aH -> agneH
vAyu 5/6 singular
vAyu + aH -> vAyo + aH -> vAyoH
It is customary (for the reader's convenience) to mark
the go+agram -> go.agram with an avagraha, but it is
not customary to mark (BAD STYLE) vAyo.aH (BAD STYLE)
with an avagraha, though the two are clearly the
product of the same phonetic operation.
Why did I not write in avagraha marks in my previous
message? I might well have written them in. (1) 'rAmo
gataH', (2) 'go.ashvau', and (3) 'rAmo.ashvArUDhaH'
would also have made the point.
To be sure that I was stressing the phonetic nature of
sandhi, which has nothing to do with
typographical/script prettiness, or reducing readers'
eyestrain (phonetics reduce mouth-effort and
earstrain!), I dropped the superfluous, though
convenient, typographical/script symbol.
CONVENIENCE OF avagraha IN WRITING
Why now, do I still believe that it is convenient to
write in avagraha marks? Because of the inconvenience
of writing in svara (so-called accent) marks, for one.
The following letters seem to disappear without a
trace or resultant mutation in writing (without
accents)
1. a + A -> A (a seems lost)
2. A + a -> A (a seems lost)
3. A + A -> A (A seems lost)
4. e/o (final) + a -> e/o (a seems lost)
5. e/o (vibhakti) + a -> e/o (a seems lost)
e.g.
1. yAta + AyAta -> yAtAyAta (gone and come)
ambiguity: yAta+ayAta (gone and not-gone)
2. mAlA + adattA -> mAlAdattA (garland not given)
ambiguity 1: mAlA + dattA (garland given) !remember,
that putting white spaces between 'words' is a
modern convention!
ambiguity 2: mAlA+AdattA (garland especially given)
3. sA + AgatA -> sAgatA (she is arrived)
ambiguity 1. sA+gatA (she is gone)
ambiguity 2. sA+agatA (she is not gone)
4. devo + adR^ishhTaH (God not seen)
ambiguity: devo+dR^ishhTaH (God seen)
5. agneH/vAyoH
no ambiguity
In spoken language, ambuiguity is rare because there
is
usually only one stressed vowel in a 'word', and the
balance of recombining stress/accents leaves the
meaning clear.
In writing, examples of type (1) are rare and usually
easy to contextualize, so no special
typographical/script help is used. (The writing in of
an avagraha in this example would also be rather ugly
-- try it! yAt.aAyAta!) Type (5) has no ambiguity, and
the reader needs no distinguishing help.
(2) A + a -> A -> (written) A.a
mAlA.adattA (garland not given)
(3) A + A -> A -> (written) A.a.a
mAlA.a.adattA (garland especially given)
(4) e/o + a -> e/o -> written e/o.a
devo.adR^ishhTaH (God not seen)
(where '.a' stands for the avagraha sign).
It is good style to help the reader out with easy line
and paragraph spacing, and, as many punctuation marks
as helpful. (In the previous sentence the comma in
"and," is superfluous, but helpful.)
Dhananjay
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 23, Issue 3
***************************************
