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: rAjanyakR^itaH (was mUrdhni+aspR^ishaH) (Ambujam Raman)
2. Re: Translation needed (Peter Burton)
3. sandhi/samAsa (Jay Vaidya)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:47:50 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] rAjanyakR^itaH (was mUrdhni+aspR^ishaH)
To: "Gopala Neerkaje" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Sai"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
saptami of raajan is raaj~ni or optionally raajani.
rAmaH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gopala Neerkaje" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] rAjanyakR^itaH (was mUrdhni+aspR^ishaH)
I think in the example rAjanyakR^taH the splitting of sandhi as rAjani
+akR^taH may not be in order. The saptami vibhakti of the word rajan
is, I think rAjni. I do not know the meaning of rAjani. Can you please
elucidate?
Regards
N.Gopala
On 7/17/05, Sai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ambujam Raman uvaacha:
> > The general question was when a samaasa word has different meaning when
> > dissolved using sandhi ,which meaning will have precedence. I was
> > certainly confusing kridaanta and taddhita pratyayams which are
> > unnecessary.
> > e.g., should rAjanyakR^itaH be split as rAjAnya-kR^itaH or
> > rAjani-akR^itaH?
>
> Should the grammar disambiguate? I don't feel so.
> What if the author deliberatly meant a SleSha (different meanings based on
> the
> split) like kanaka-mR^iga-tR^iShNAndhita-dhiyA?
>
> > raajanyak^RitaH which as a samaasa term would mean a royal deed. On the
> > other hand if considered as sandhi, it resolves as 'raajani ak^RitaH'
> > which
> > would mean ' a deed not done on a king'. Both meaning may fit a context
> > which may be confusing. Is there a prohibition of sandhi when there is
> > scope for confusion ?
> > Dr. S. Raman
> _______________________________________________
> sanskrit mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:55:34 +0100
From: Peter Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Translation needed
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>this quote is "You must be the
>change you wish to see in the world".
>
>I have put an image of an online-sanskrit translator, who tried to translate
>this sentence to me.
>
No, the program you used is not a translator at all! It's just a
/transliterator/. (This is clear from a glance at the devanaagarii GIF
you included.)
Such transliterators need careful input (e.g. ITRANS code) in order to
produce the intended letters. The user is meant to have something which
is /already /in Sanskrit or Hindi or whatever, and then input that using
ITRANS or whatever, to get it in devanaagarii. In this case, the
program didn't even give you a correct (i.e. phonetic) transliteration,
since the English was entered as /spelt/. For instance, "th" in English
represents one of two sounds: either a voiced or an unvoiced dental
fricative (the former in the word "the"); but it came out as a
devanaagarii letter representing an aspirated dental plosive - a quite
different sound!
If you want a piece of Sanskrit, or Gujarati or any north-Indian
language, in devanaagarii, then proceed as follows. First get the
actual Indian words in Romanised letters, taking GREAT CARE to find out
which vowels are long and which short, and also the presence of any
retroflex consonants etc., as these details are often concealed by
careless Romanisation. (If you don't get those details absolutely
right, then you'll have a wrong tattoo and, with the difficulty of
changing or erasing a tattoo, i'm sure you won't want that!) Then find
the exact input code (e.g. ITRANS) for your transliterator program, and
use that to input the letters.
Alternatively, someone here could help. That's probably the best thing,
as, unless you understand devanaagarii properly, as well as the language
involved, you'll go wrong. Either get someone to do it for you or, if
you do it yourself, get your result checked - an unchecked result will
probably be wrong!
Finally, if you're ever interested in /translation /as opposed to just
transliteration, then i recommend that you forget about using a
program. Online translators are terrible, in my experience (you are
right to mistrust them). On the other hand, the online /transliterator
/you used (if it's the one i'm thinking of) does a pretty good job.
Incidentally, for tattoo purposes i suggest you find something shorter
than that quote!
Best wishes,
peter
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] sandhi/samAsa
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
As correctly pointed by gopAla-gazh below.
Such examples as rAmagazh wishes to discuss
(rAjanyakR^itam) are very hard to construct.
Please let us use a different example, here below.
sAdhvI gArgyarachitam sUktam chintayAmAsa |
1.
sAdhvI gArgI arachitam sUktam chintayAmAsa
The saintly gArgI thought about an as-yet-uncomposed
hymn.
OR
2.
sAdhvI gArgya-rachitam sUktam chintayAmAsa |
The saintly woman thought about the hymn composed by
gArgya (the son of gArgI).
OR
3.
sAdhvI gArgI-a-rachitam sUktam chintayAmAsa |
The saintly woman thought about a hymn NOT composed by
gArgI.
In spoken speech there is no ambiguity between 1 and
2/3.
1. gArgI+a-rachitam has three pada (words, one
independent and one tatpurushha compound), and will
have two stress-points.
2/3 have only a single stress-point being a single
tatpurushha samAsa compound overall.
There is no way to distinguish 1/2/3 in writing, and
2/3 even in speech.
In serious (e.g. legal, dharmashAsta, communication
-intended) use, the speaker/writer will provide enough
context for choice among 1/2/3. Usually, there will be
NO ambiguity given the context.
In playful speech or writing, such as some of the
humorous verses we have discussed on this list, the
poet will either not give the context, or deliberately
provide ambiguous context, and thus entertain us.
shleshha -- Sai-gaaru's comment.
Dhananjay
> I think in the example rAjanyakR^taH the splitting
> of sandhi as rAjani+akR^taH may not be in order.
> The saptami vibhakti of the word rajan is, I think
> rAjni. I do not know the meaning of rAjani. Can you
> please elucidate?
> Regards
> N.Gopala
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 28, Issue 21
****************************************
