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. Is sa.nskR^ita more structured than other natural languages?
(Jay Vaidya)
2. Re: vi contd (Vis Tekumalla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:16:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] Is sa.nskR^ita more structured than other natural
languages?
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mukesh raises some interesting points:
--- Mukesh Goel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... every word (or some grammarians maintain there
> are very few exceptions) in Sanskrit traces it's
> roots back to Panini's dhatukosha (consisting of
> 2200 dhatus)?
...
> If that being the case, Sanskrit can't pick the
> words from other languages, like English does.
...
> In English, grammatical rules are not always
> enforced very well (e.g. regarding the placement
> of comma, semicolon, colon),
...
I think we should get away from discussing details of
English grammar on the sa.nskR^ita list. To not be
rude, I have appended further discussion as an
attached textfile, that listmembers may ignore if
uninterested. I would be glad to continue this
conversation, fascinating in itself, off the list.
Dhananjay
mukeshasya upari-saMkalitA uktayo vichAraNiyAH | paraM
tu saMskR^ita-goshhThyAm sati etAsyAM,
AMgla-vyAkaraNasya vivechanAd apasarAma, iti manye |
tatas tad vivechanaM atra patre vibhaktam
anupreshhitaM vinatena mayA | ye tad-vishhaya-
an-AsaktAH, k^ipayA te tam a-dR^ishhTI-kuryuH | eshhA
suchintyA charchA nir-goshhThish chech charet,
avashyam eva bahis tatra saMvAdaM bhaje |
dhana.njayaH
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
Mukesh raises some interesting points:
--- Mukesh Goel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... every word (or some grammarians maintain there
> are very few exceptions) in Sanskrit traces it's
> roots back to Panini's dhatukosha (consisting of
> 2200 dhatus)?
Yes and no. Small, unimportant correction to the question: none of the
'particles' (nipAta) such as cha, na, pra, etc. are derived from the
dhAtupATha.
One has to remember that pANini did not claim to be inventing the language.
(Given that the vedas are very ancient, we would ridicule any rishi making that
claim.) What he did well was to provide a very thorough description of the
language (and its principal dialects) spoken at his time. He was a genius in
his vocabulary and usage, so it is not surprising that he made a thorough list
of "root"-words.
It is important to note that he did not make rules to PRODUCE the language, but
to describe it as it was spoken by the people.
It is not pANini's opinion that all words are actually produced by using his
rule book. Between 1.2.53-1.2.56 he discusses this.
"Names of things have their own meaning and are not derived from components."
"If you can imagine that they are derived from components, you can apply rules
to them."
"People, not the rule-book determine 'meaning'. SamAsa interpretation, pratyaya
terminations, and number = singular/dual/plural: rules for these are not
fundamental."
"Rules for tenses and the order of words in a samAsa are also similarly not
fundamental."
Clearly, he places people's usage above his rules.
> If that being the case, Sanskrit can't pick the
> words from other languages, like English does.
We see from pANini above that people can choose names of things without
derivation. Why would a reasonable language tie itself in knots by rejecting
the name for "Tanzania" or "Titanium" because it is not a derived word from the
dhAtupATha? In fact native speakers can do whatever they like. WE cannot do
whatever WE like with sa.nskR^ita, because we are not native speakers.
> In English, grammatical rules are not always
> enforced very well (e.g. regarding the placement
> of comma, semicolon, colon),
There is a difference between grammar and style, e.g., punctuation. Grammar
describes, but rules of style prescribe. Rules of style, like factory uniforms,
are not fundamental to what the "meaning factory" is producing. They might be
convenient, but not fundamental. Similar inconsistencies of sa.nskR^ita
punctuation is seen in the placement of the "avagraha" (S) sign, or the use of
anusvAras/parasavrNa (saMta vs. santa) in writing. This is not a grammatical
issue. I always write my name with an anusvAra (dhana.njaya), because it is
easier on the readers' eyes = style. The grammar is clear -- I always PRONOUNCE
it dhanaJNjaya = grammar! I couldn't pronounce it with an anusvAra even if I
tried!
> even within a sentence structure and Sanskrit,
> ... (e.g. Adjectives would have to match the
> nouns in person and number, similarly the
> relationship between verb and noun etc.)
Let us push this example a little. Consider the word "sushhThu" meaning
"correct, proper, right...". It is in the "avyaya" list, so it does not appear
to change form for number, case etc. "yogya" has distinct forms. So:
(correct speech, by correct speeches)
sushhThu vAk, sushhThu vachanaiH (matching not seen)
yogyA vAk, yogyaiH vachanaiH (matching seen)
So the agreement rule in sa.nskR^ita is: Match the adjective, IF it has
distinct matching forms.
All English adjectives are more like 'sushhThu' than 'yogya'. Which is fine and
equally structured. In fact, more structured -- all adjectives follow the same
consistent rule!
Dhananjay
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:24:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] vi contd
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
shrii D.H. Rao uvaacha:
So, Vishveshvar - if you want to construct new words with a pre vi - go ahead,
but explian it in footnote what you meant - otherwise confusion prrevails.
Oh no! my intent is not to coin new words. I became curious about prefixes as a
result of discussion in another group about the names of kauravas. Many of them
start with "du" (duryodhana, dushshaasana, durmukha, etc.). However, vikarNa (a
non-"du" starter) was also one of them. When I looked up in the dictionary, it
was not much help. This is how the dictionary definitions go.
EntryvikarNa
Meaning
mfn. (prob.) having large or divergent ears AV. ; having no ears , earless ,
deaf Pan5cat. ; m. a kind of arrow MBh. ; N. of a son of Karn2a Hariv. ; of a
son of Dhr2ita-ra1sht2ra MBh. ; (pl.) of a people ib. ; (%{I4}) f. a kind of
brick TS. ; n. N. of a Sa1man A1rshBr. ; %{-Naka} m. N. of one of S3iva's
attendants L. ; (%{ikA}) f. (see %{bala-karNikA}) ; %{-Nika} m. pl. N. of a
people L. ; %{-Nin} m. a kind of arrow MBh. (also %{-Ni} L.) - 1.
large ears (vishesha), or no ears (vinA) - not very specific and highly
contextual.
Then I thought of some Jayadeva songs. For example -
kaapi vilaasa vilola vilochana kelana janita manojam,
vidhumiva vikaTa vidhumtda danta dalana galitaamR^ita-dhaaram,
vilapati hasati viShiidati roditi cha~nchati mu~nchati taapam, etc.
That made me more curious about the "vi" prefix. Thanks for excellent
explanations by rAma, dhana~njaya, and yourself.
Desiraju Hanumanta Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
...Vis Tekumalla
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20050325/3c4d34b2/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 24, Issue 18
****************************************
