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: Question (Manfred Lotz)
2. Bahuvriihi question (Manfred Lotz)
3. Re: sa chchhAdakaH (Manfred Lotz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:49:56 +0100
From: Manfred Lotz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Question
To: Toke Lindegaard Knudsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:00:18 -0500
Toke Lindegaard Knudsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear members of the Sanskrit list,
>
> I have a question regarding the combination
>
> saH + chAdakaH
>
> which shows up in a line in a manuscript that I am working with.
>
>
Hi Toke,
In which manuscript did you find saH + chAdakaH?
--
Manfred
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:03:10 +0100
From: Manfred Lotz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] Bahuvriihi question
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Hi all,
In The BhagavadGita in 3.27 there is a Bahuvrihi:
ahaMkAravimUDhAtmA
he whose self is confused by egotism
How do I build a nominative singular if it is a she who is confused
by egotism?
Now take the example of somebody who is nameless
anAman is a neuter noun if it is not a Bahuvrihi.
If it is a masculine who is nameless how do I build the nominative
singular?
Do I start from anAma to build anAmaH
And if it is a feminine who is nameless is it
anAmA
?
--
Manfred
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:51:00 +0100
From: Manfred Lotz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] sa chchhAdakaH
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:36:27 -0800 (PST)
Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jay,
> Dear Manfred,
> The idea that the application of one rule precludes
> the application of other rules is sometimes, but not
> generally true. Usually, one uses a chain of rules one
> after the other to get to the correct form. To be
> fair, your idea is "sometimes" true. There is an
> "escape-sequence" of rules that does not allow
> re-evaluation of the sandhi (or any grammatical issue)
> in terms of previous rules. A jargon-laden explanation
> of "sometimes" is given below. Read it if you must.
>
My wording was bad. I meant that usually after application of Sandhi
which in itself could contain more than one rule it makes no sense to
start the Sandhi process anew. Otherwise one would get ambiguous
results. But even this statement might be very inprecise. :-)
> dhana.njayaH
>
> avaxIt tokeH :
>
> > saH + chAdakaH
> > ... the visarga in the
> > word saH will drop,
> > giving us, at first
> >
> > sa chAdakaH
> > ... will the 'chA' in the above be
> > doubled to 'cchA'?
>
>
I thought that after changing from saH to sa there is no more change. Do
you believe there is an example in literature showing sa cchAdakaH?
--
Manfred
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 24, Issue 2
***************************************
