Send sanskrit mailing list submissions to
        sanskrit@cs.utah.edu

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
        sanskrit-requ...@cs.utah.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
        sanskrit-ow...@cs.utah.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of sanskrit digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Why not "siddhyanti"??? (Naresh Cuntoor)
   2. Re: curiousity about "Kalidasisms" (Naresh Cuntoor)
   3. Re: Why not  "siddhyanti"??? (Vimala Sarma)
   4. siddhyanti - by Max Muller (Jay Vaidya)
   5. Re: Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson 6
      (Naresh Cuntoor)
   6. Monier Williams's speech on Sanskrit and Missionary work
      (Vasuvaj .)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:15:45 -0400
From: Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Why not "siddhyanti"???
To: Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
Message-ID:
        <aanlktinpplqkpcy42_15sos3mzo_3-w8dev2sg4b-...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Is it a principled stand or a dogmatic belief?

Fact: Grammarians like Panini or Patanjali do not ascribe superiority
or perfection of one form over another when people use several
forms/words. They simply say "people in east say this", "people in the
south say this" and leave it that.

Example 1: See Dhananjay's note on prAchyas' earlier.

Example 2:  "laukikaprayoga and vaidikaprayoga" that figures in the
beginning of Mahabhashya. Patanjali remarks - why call it laukika or
vaidika prayoga? Why not simply lokaprayoga or vedaprayoga ? Both are
fine. He remarks, in jest perhaps, "Surely the southerners love their
taddhitas! "

Example 3: hare iha = harayiha (sutra: echoyavAyAvaH), or
                  hare iha = hara iha (sutra: lopaH shAkalyasya)
There may be some debate among grammarians regarding whether one form
is preferable over the other or simply optional. But the point is that
there is a choice.

Example 4: Similarly all other optional forms such as sidhyati vs.
siddhyati. Look for "vibhAShA", "vA" etc. in the sutras.

Example 5: If all word constructions were perfectly encapsulated by
say, Panini's sutras - why would we need uNaadi sutras?

Example 6: What can be the logic (perfect or not!) behind ascribing
gender to words that represent inanimate objects?

Example 7: What is the logic in having some dhatus as parasmaipadi and
others as aatmanepadi?

This list is endless. Do they not illustrate diversity in usage?

In spite of such evidence, if one wants to cling to the notion that
one particular form of usage is perfect or that Samskrita itself is
inherently perfect, then what can call it - principled or dogmatic?


None of this, by the way, takes away the richness, beauty or grandeur
in Samskrita that we admire. In fact, I think, this diversity only
enhances the beauty.


Let us remember the Paninian way is characterized as a formalization
of existing usages ("prayuktAnAm idam anvAkhyAnam" - if I remember the
quote correctly).


Look at it this way: ascribing perfection to a spoken language is
tantamount to ascribing perfection to its speakers (at least as far as
speaking is concerned). So are we to believe that all those people -
in whichever part of the subcontinent or beyond, however young or old,
however accomplished or not - all of them spoke perfectly? What are we
- the borg?!  (see, Star Trek!)



Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com


On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Hera Moon <heram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Piergiorgio,
>
> I, too, would like to send you my moral support for your brave efforts to 
> stand by your principle.
>
> I am neither a Sanskrit scholar nor its speaker. I have taught myself 
> Sanskrit for its beauty and perfection.
>
> If Sanskrit were subject to the adaptation allowing for modifications due to 
> practical usages, it would stop to be Sanskrit, for me at least.
>
> I personally go for sticking to the prescriptive grammar of Sanskrit, while 
> all other languages should follow the principle of descriptive grammar.
>
> The beauty of Sanskrit consists in its perfect logic and precision like the 
> enchanting beauty of perfect geometric patterns.
>
> Hera
>
>
>


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:56:27 -0400
From: Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] curiousity about "Kalidasisms"
To: "S. L. Abhyankar" <sl.abhyan...@gmail.com>
Cc: glob...@comm2000.it, sanskrit@cs.utah.edu
Message-ID:
        <aanlktinjfdibfvjrj8u4k3yqv0msgsyobpyrhwxcx...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Abhyankar ji,

???????????????? ??? ????????? ??????? | ?????????????? ????? ?
??????? ???? ??????? ????????????????? ? ??? ???? ? ????? ???
?????????, ??????? ???????? ??????? ? ????? ???????? ??? ? ??????
??????????? ?????? ????? '??????' ??????? ??????? ?? ???, ?? ??? ?
???????? ? ??????? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ? ??? ???????????????
- ? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ????????????? ? ???????????? ?? ? ?

?????????? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ? ??? ?? ?????????
????? ???? ???? ??????????? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ?

??? ? ??????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????????????? ???????
"???????????????????"???? ????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????
???????????? ?????? ? ???????????????? ??? ??? ??????? ? ????????????
???????? ??????? !



Kalidasa's was an example to show how even the greatest of poets use
words / constructions that raises a grammarian's eyebrow. Please
re-read the thread to see context. And may I suggest that you study at
least one Kalidasa text (along with Mallinatha's commentary) before
defending perfection in Kalidasa. In particular look for verses in
which Mallinatha tries his best to defend some usage - failing which,
he throws up his hands and says 'nirankushaaH khalu kavayaH' or
something to that effect.

But to point to a specific example of usages that need further
justification - see, Kumarasambhava 8.62 and 8.72. Notice the way he
uses "shakyam". Vamana and Mallinatha justify Kalidasa's usage with
some argument. But the point is that it needed justification because
it does not follow typical or 'logical' usage.

Similarly, some months ago we had a discussion about
avimRuShTa-vidheyAmshatva which is considered a doSha (imperfection) -
but is used by Kalidasa.

By the way, the term Kalidasism is not an affront to anyone - just a
statement of fact. I use the term to mean usages that find currency
*because* Kalidasa uses them.

Another case in point is aarSha prayogas.



Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com



On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:06 PM, S. L. Abhyankar
<sl.abhyan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ??????
> (1) I am getting curious about "Kalidasisms" so called by Mr.?Naresh
> Cuntoor"
>
> Since the point of discussion is of writing and pronunciation, I am curious,
> how "Kalidasisms" become relevant here. I am curious of examples from
> Kalidasa, which demonstrate a great digression from norms of Sanskrit
> grammar.
>
> If there are no such examples, available, making a mention ?as "Kalidasisms"
> would sound to be an unwarranted affront to the great poet.
>
> I think, it is always good to be within one's limits.
>
> (2) It would be great to see inputs in Sanskrit from a person as
> Mr.?Piergiorgio Muzi, who has so kindly mentioned that he has been teaching
> Latin and Sanskrit for seven years and more.
> ?????????
> ???????? ,
> ?????????????????? ???????? |
> ???????? ?????? ????????? ?
>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From:?"Piergiorgio Muzi" <glob...@comm2000.it>
>> To:?"Sanskrit Mailing List" <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
>> Date:?Thu, 27 May 2010 15:45:34 +0200
>> Subject:?Re: [Sanskrit] Why not "siddhyanti"???
>> Hi, dear Naresh!
>> I much appreciate your interest and?involvement in this topic and I am
>> sure that you can share my worries about the large implication it has.?I
>> used to have some Indian students when I was teaching Latin and Sanskrit in
>> Singapore recently, from 2002 to 2009. One of them was from Pune and I went
>> with him there for one month, last December. I had direct experience of the
>> Sanskrit there...
>> I want to write something longer that a short email, in order to?get a
>> reciprocal exchange of reflections and thoughts.This will be useful to me,
>> since at present I'm teaching general, but serious and deep, notions about
>> Sanskrit at Philosophy Department at University.
>> As for now, just to joke, I prefer?to follow the criteria?of grammars and
>> dictionaries of MacDonell, Monier-Williams, Whitney and?V.S.Apte and V.A.
>> Apte, Coulson, Max M?ller, Goldman...But I will change my option...
>> I hope?you forgive my obstinacy on certain points.?At the same time, what
>> you wrote has made me understand?that there is something to talk about with
>> you. I will try also to write something in Sanskrit, but I warn you that in
>> this case?it is you who have to correct me, since my Sanskrit?is a
>> bit?"artificial" and defective, in spite of my short?"samskrtam vadatu"
>> experience.
>> ???????? ??????
>> Piergiorgio Muzi
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Naresh Cuntoor
>> To: Sanskrit Mailing List
>> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Why not "siddhyanti"???
>> Dear Piergiorgio,
>>
>> I think you are ascribing a degree of perfection that is not claimed even
>> by the grammarian triad themselves (Panini, Katyayana, Patanjali). If, for
>> example, Panini's characterization was perfect - Katyayana would have no
>> business giving his vartikas and Patanjali would have no business explaining
>> / criticizing either of his predecessors' statements.
>>
>> Is Samskrita is inherently perfect?? That is too tall a claim - to my
>> knowledge, not made even by Patanjali. In his introduction to the bhashya,
>> he mentions raksha, uha, aagama, laghu, asandeha as motivation to study
>> grammar. He does not claim an inherent perfection in the language. Moreover,
>> he explicitly states that usage trumps any grammarian's pronouncements.
>> (see, analogy of going to a potter's). In other words, prayoga-sharaNaaH
>> vaiyAkaraNaaH.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps it is some 19th century European's over-zealousness that ascribes
>> the perfection you describe.
>>
>> After all if perfection was the hallmark of Samskrita, people would have
>> dismissed Kalidasa who is known for, well, Kalidasisms.
>>
>> As far as writing is concerned - since when is script paramount? Write
>> Samskrita in transliterated Roman, Brahmi, Sharada or whatever script - as
>> long as sounds are uniquely reproducible.
>>
>>
>> ?Coming to the specific question of siddhyati - sidhyati, krudhyati -
>> kruddhyati etc. - as Dhananjay mentioned earlier, there is a Panini sutra
>> which accounts for the duplication (anachi cha). (See LSK
>> achsandhiprakaraNam - suddhyupAsya is relevant here).
>>
>> To a competent native speaker, usages are inherently correct. After all he
>> does not seek sanction from a grammarian. Why should that be any different
>> in the case of Samskrita ?! Certainly, usages of a non-native speaker (i.e.,
>> us) can be questioned. Questioning established usages, i.e., shiShTa
>> prayogas, however, is meaningless.
>>
>> In the case of siddhyati - at least two old usages were shown - so how can
>> one claim its incorrectness? If anything needs revisiting, it would be the
>> rule that one thought accounted for such constructions! If Whitney does not
>> list the optional form, it is an omission in Whitney's book!
>>
>>
>> Naresh
>> vaak.wordpress.com
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Piergiorgio Muzi <glob...@comm2000.it>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear scholars .
>>> This not a boring question relating only to the sidh present form.
>>> I want to explain the importance of a correct spelling and writing words.
>>> This could be more important that the way one?pronounces or writes it.
>>> Sanskrit?is based on rational, general linguistic rules.
>>> 1) To form the present tense of a 4th class verb (and also for passive
>>> voice in -ya)?, the rule says that we have only to ad? -yati to the root in
>>> the weak degree. There is no rule which?request us to change dh into
>>> ddh?before -ya. ?This is always valid and we don't need to do any exception:
>>> so from vyadh (weak vidh for saMprasaraNa), we have vidhyati. Other verbs,
>>> analogously: budhyate, yudhyate, rudhyate, krudhyati, Shudhyati, kShudhyati,
>>> RRidyate, gRRidhyati... and many others. You can check in The roots,
>>> verb-forms and primary derivatives of the Sanskrit language, by the great
>>> Sanskritist W.D.Whitney (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi,?last reprint 2006). You
>>> can?get confirmation also from?the most important dictionaries, as Apte's,
>>> MacDonell, Monier-Williams.
>>> 2) To form past participle, infinitive in -tum periphrastic future and
>>> nouns?in -ti to the roots ending in dh, we must follow the Bartholomae's
>>> law, which doesn't deal with any kind of duplication since it is a general
>>> rule which applies to?(g)h, bh, dh. The rersult of?sidh+ta si siddha,
>>> budh+ta gives buddha...Similarly from duh+ta you get dugdha, from rabh+ta
>>> you get rabdha...?This law is common to Sanskrit and Old Persian, too.
>>> 3) So, the only reason of writing ddh intead?of dh in the present,
>>> imperfect, perfect, aorist, simple future..?is only a confusion with the
>>> forms described in 2, which want regularly ddh.
>>> Sanskrit is fruit of a rational grammatical study, where we have to
>>> question about the rules and besides about the reasons of the rules.
>>> It is not only a problem of sidhyati. If we confuse the stem of the
>>> present with the base of of the past partciples, etc., the results are not
>>> so good. For instance we could confuse budha with buddha (only the second
>>> means awaked as past part.) or vidha with?viddha... Besides the
>>> student?couldn't immediately recognize a past participle, since he can't see
>>> in buddha the result of sandhi rule from budh-ta.?If he reads boddhum, how
>>> could he understand that it is the infinitive, that is?bodh-tum, of the
>>> same root in guNa degree?
>>> Sanskrit grammar is like an algebra or chemistry system. Any mistake
>>> calls for other mistakes and misunderstanding.
>>> The Internet is full of terrible mistakes (but there are also mistakes in
>>> old dhAtupATha, because of wrong transcriptions or transliterations).
>>> I suppose that we must co-operate in refining the language by means of
>>> rational study and by cleaning it like something precious.
>>> ??? ????? ????????????? ?? ?????? ????
>>> ??????
>>> Piergiorgio Muzi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: S. L. Abhyankar
>>> To: sanskrit@cs.utah.edu
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:48 AM
>>> Subject: [Sanskrit] of "sidhyanti" and "siddhyanti"
>>> ???
>>> I have been mutely following all the discussion about "sidhyanti"
>>> ?????????? and "siddhyanti" ????????????.
>>> What conclusion emerges in my mind is to start from the basics, i.e. to
>>> consider what happened first - whether the pronunciation happened first or
>>> writing happened first. The answer is obvious and known to everybody - the
>>> pronunciation happened first.
>>> Since all the basis of ???????? script is to satisfy and represent the
>>> pronunciation as properly as possible, all my efforts at pronouncing
>>> ????????? convince me that I can pronounce it only as ??????????? Only then,
>>> the rhythm of the meter also gets pronounced properly.
>>> It is also my hypothesis that no law of writing ???????? - whether
>>> Bartholomae's or even of????????can be beyond or offensive to proper
>>> representation of the sound. In fact what writing will represent the sound
>>> most truthfully becomes the acid test to say whether the writing is correct
>>> or not. And I am convinced that ??????????? represents the sound most
>>> properly.
>>> I also did little experimentation at pronouncing?????? ??????? ???????
>>> ?and ???????????. I notice that I can pronounce the first two fairly okay,
>>> the third one only with some compromise. But the last one demands the
>>> ??????? to be ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? Hence I am convinced that writing it as
>>> ??????????? is correct. This way, i.e. by ??????? as ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?
>>> ?there would be no compromise needed even for the third one viz.????????. So
>>> better to write this one also as ?????????? I notice that it is the???,
>>> which demands????also.
>>> May I appeal that let the discussion close here !
>>> ????????? for all the great inputs !
>>> ???????? ,
>>> ?????????????????? ???????? |
>>> ???????? ?????? ????????? ?
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From:?Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>
>>>> To:?Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
>>>> Date:?Tue, 25 May 2010 08:24:25 -0400
>>>> Subject:?Re: [Sanskrit] siddhyanti is fine
>>>> Looking at similar dhaatus - krudha, shudha and then ShiDhu -
>>>> Brhihadhatu. gives the typical forms as:
>>>> krudha ?(kope)- krudhyati
>>>> shudha (shauche) - shudhyati
>>>>
>>>> For ShiDhu, it gives both sidhyati and siddhyati.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> anachi cha (and jhalaam jash jashi ) would give siddhyati ,
>>>> kruddhyati, shuddhyati, correct? (I am just retracing the
>>>> suddhyupaasya example in yaN).
>>>>
>>>> I have seen both kruddhyati and krudhyati being used.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding Barthalomae's law - how does it map in terms of pratyaahaaras?
>>>>
>>>> Naresh
>>>> vaak.wordpress.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Jay Vaidya <deejayvai...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > But my position has nothing to do with weak-strong verb/substantive or
>>>> > whatever.
>>>> >
>>>> > anachi cha 8.4.47
>>>> > describes optional ("preferable") duplication.
>>>> > sidhyanti/siddhyanti are optional forms.
>>>> >
>>>> > As far as we know, pANini had a wide knowledge of the optional forms
>>>> > of
>>>> > pronunciation at his time. And options obviously negate the existence
>>>> > of
>>>> > infallible laws regarding that particular word.
>>>> >
>>>> > But I add my curiosity regarding this "strong degree/weak degree
>>>> > Bartholomae's Law" notion. Apparently Bartholomae's law is:
>>>> > "It states that in a cluster of two or more obstruents (stops or the
>>>> > sibilant s), any one of which is a voiced aspirate anywhere in the
>>>> > sequence,
>>>> > the whole cluster becomes voiced and aspirated."
>>>> > What does this have to do with duplication?
>>>> >
>>>> > Dhananjay
>>>> >
>>>> > Message: 2
>>>> > From: Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>
>>>> > Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Learning Sanskrit by a fresh approach - Lesson
>>>> > ??? 4
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Piergiorgio Muzi
>>>> > <glob...@comm2000.it>wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>? Sorry, sidhyanti (not siddhyanti), week degree of the root is sidh-.
>>>> >> siddh- is only for past participle, siddha (< sidh-ta) and for
>>>> >> substantive
>>>> >> siddhi (< sidh-ti). The same as budhyate, but buddha, buddhi...(it is
>>>> >> so
>>>> >> called Bartholomae's law).
>>>> >> Thanks, regards,
>>>> >> Piergiorgio
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> > Clearly, in the subhashita quoted, siddhyanti is used as a verb. (I
>>>> > don't
>>>> > know what a "week (or weak) degree" of a verb is. Could you please
>>>> > elaborate?)
>>>> >
>>>> > The dhaatu is Shidhu (????) ..
>>>> >
>>>> > Another example:,
>>>> > yatne kRute yadi na siddhyati ko&tra doShaH
>>>>
>
>


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 12:38:57 +1000
From: "Vimala Sarma" <vsa...@bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Why not  "siddhyanti"???
To: "'Sanskrit Mailing List'" <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
Message-ID:
        
<!&!aaaaaaaaaaayaaaaaaaaahu8naacsvtkqhz0eaeir8ncgaaaeaaaaihrzy8qsjrcl9lzywxodd4baaaaa...@bigpond.com>
        
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Dr Muzi

This is an excellent explanation!

I think the rules should be applied or else there will be confusion about how 
the stem is formed and used.  How people choose to pronounce it is a different  
issue.

Vimala Sarma

 

From: sanskrit-boun...@cs.utah.edu [mailto:sanskrit-boun...@cs.utah.edu] On 
Behalf Of Piergiorgio Muzi
Sent: Thursday, 27 May 2010 6:52 AM
To: Sanskrit Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Why not "siddhyanti"???

 

Dear scholars . 

This not a boring question relating only to the sidh present form. 

I want to explain the importance of a correct spelling and writing words. This 
could be more important that the way one pronounces or writes it. Sanskrit is 
based on rational, general linguistic rules. 

1) To form the present tense of a 4th class verb (and also for passive voice in 
-ya) , the rule says that we have only to ad  -yati to the root in the weak 
degree. There is no rule which request us to change dh into ddh before -ya.  
This is always valid and we don't need to do any exception: so from vyadh (weak 
vidh for saMprasaraNa), we have vidhyati. Other verbs, analogously: budhyate, 
yudhyate, rudhyate, krudhyati, Shudhyati, kShudhyati, RRidyate, gRRidhyati... 
and many others. You can check in The roots, verb-forms and primary derivatives 
of the Sanskrit language, by the great Sanskritist W.D.Whitney (Motilal 
Banarsidass, Delhi, last reprint 2006). You can get confirmation also from the 
most important dictionaries, as Apte's, MacDonell, Monier-Williams.

2) To form past participle, infinitive in -tum periphrastic future and nouns in 
-ti to the roots ending in dh, we must follow the Bartholomae's law, which 
doesn't deal with any kind of duplication since it is a general rule which 
applies to (g)h, bh, dh. The rersult of sidh+ta si siddha, budh+ta gives 
buddha...Similarly from duh+ta you get dugdha, from rabh+ta you get rabdha... 
This law is common to Sanskrit and Old Persian, too.

3) So, the only reason of writing ddh intead of dh in the present, imperfect, 
perfect, aorist, simple future.. is only a confusion with the forms described 
in 2, which want regularly ddh. 

Sanskrit is fruit of a rational grammatical study, where we have to question 
about the rules and besides about the reasons of the rules.

It is not only a problem of sidhyati. If we confuse the stem of the present 
with the base of of the past partciples, etc., the results are not so good. For 
instance we could confuse budha with buddha (only the second means awaked as 
past part.) or vidha with viddha... Besides the student couldn't immediately 
recognize a past participle, since he can't see in buddha the result of sandhi 
rule from budh-ta. If he reads boddhum, how could he understand that it is the 
infinitive, that is bodh-tum, of the  same root in guNa degree?

Sanskrit grammar is like an algebra or chemistry system. Any mistake calls for 
other mistakes and misunderstanding.

The Internet is full of terrible mistakes (but there are also mistakes in old 
dhAtupATha, because of wrong transcriptions or transliterations). 

I suppose that we must co-operate in refining the language by means of rational 
study and by cleaning it like something precious. 

??? ????? ????????????? ?? ?????? ????

??????

Piergiorgio Muzi

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: S. L. Abhyankar <mailto:sl.abhyan...@gmail.com>  

To: sanskrit@cs.utah.edu 

Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:48 AM

Subject: [Sanskrit] of "sidhyanti" and "siddhyanti"

 

??? 

I have been mutely following all the discussion about "sidhyanti" ?????????  
and "siddhyanti" ??????????? . 

 

What conclusion emerges in my mind is to start from the basics, i.e. to 
consider what happened first - whether the pronunciation happened first or 
writing happened first. The answer is obvious and known to everybody - the 
pronunciation happened first. 

 

Since all the basis of ???????? script is to satisfy and represent the 
pronunciation as properly as possible, all my efforts at pronouncing ????????? 
convince me that I can pronounce it only as ??????????? Only then, the rhythm 
of the meter also gets pronounced properly. 

 

It is also my hypothesis that no law of writing ???????? - whether 
Bartholomae's or even of ?????? can be beyond or offensive to proper 
representation of the sound. In fact what writing will represent the sound most 
truthfully becomes the acid test to say whether the writing is correct or not. 
And I am convinced that ??????????? represents the sound most properly.

 

I also did little experimentation at pronouncing ????? ??????? ???????  and 
???????????. I notice that I can pronounce the first two fairly okay, the third 
one only with some compromise. But the last one demands the ??????? to be ?? ? 
?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? Hence I am convinced that writing it as ??????????? is 
correct. This way, i.e. by ??????? as ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?  there would be no 
compromise needed even for the third one viz. ???????. So better to write this 
one also as ?????????  I notice that it is the ??, which demands ?? also.

 

May I appeal that let the discussion close here !

 

????????? for all the great inputs !

 

???????? ,
?????????????????? ???????? |
???????? ?????? ????????? ?


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>
To: Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 08:24:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] siddhyanti is fine
Looking at similar dhaatus - krudha, shudha and then ShiDhu -
Brhihadhatu. gives the typical forms as:
krudha  (kope)- krudhyati
shudha (shauche) - shudhyati

For ShiDhu, it gives both sidhyati and siddhyati.


anachi cha (and jhalaam jash jashi ) would give siddhyati ,
kruddhyati, shuddhyati, correct? (I am just retracing the
suddhyupaasya example in yaN).

I have seen both kruddhyati and krudhyati being used.

Regarding Barthalomae's law - how does it map in terms of pratyaahaaras?

Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com



On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Jay Vaidya <deejayvai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But my position has nothing to do with weak-strong verb/substantive or
> whatever.
>
> anachi cha 8.4.47
> describes optional ("preferable") duplication.
> sidhyanti/siddhyanti are optional forms.
>
> As far as we know, pANini had a wide knowledge of the optional forms of
> pronunciation at his time. And options obviously negate the existence of
> infallible laws regarding that particular word.
>
> But I add my curiosity regarding this "strong degree/weak degree
> Bartholomae's Law" notion. Apparently Bartholomae's law is:
> "It states that in a cluster of two or more obstruents (stops or the
> sibilant s), any one of which is a voiced aspirate anywhere in the sequence,
> the whole cluster becomes voiced and aspirated."
> What does this have to do with duplication?
>
> Dhananjay
>
> Message: 2
> From: Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Learning Sanskrit by a fresh approach - Lesson
>     4
>
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Piergiorgio Muzi
> <glob...@comm2000.it>wrote:
>
>>  Sorry, sidhyanti (not siddhyanti), week degree of the root is sidh-.
>> siddh- is only for past participle, siddha (< sidh-ta) and for substantive
>> siddhi (< sidh-ti). The same as budhyate, but buddha, buddhi...(it is so
>> called Bartholomae's law).
>> Thanks, regards,
>> Piergiorgio
>>
>>
>>
> Clearly, in the subhashita quoted, siddhyanti is used as a verb. (I don't
> know what a "week (or weak) degree" of a verb is. Could you please
> elaborate?)
>
> The dhaatu is Shidhu (????) ..
>
> Another example:,
> yatne kRute yadi na siddhyati ko&tra doShaH

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/pipermail/sanskrit/attachments/20100528/61eee124/attachment-0001.html
 

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Vaidya <deejayvai...@yahoo.com>
Subject: [Sanskrit] siddhyanti - by Max Muller
To: sanskrit@cs.utah.edu
Message-ID: <442724.40938...@web56608.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dr. Piergiorgio has said that he will only take quotations from a list of 
Sanskritists - he did not mention Max Muller. However, some of the Sanskritists 
he mentions (Monier-Williams) mention Max Muller as a Sanskritist, hence I will 
quote extensively from Max Muller's grammar book. 
- - -
From:
A Sanskrit Grammar by beginners by Max Muller.
Published by: Longmans, Green and Co, London 1866.
Available on Googlebooks

Please look up page 59, "Doubling of consonants"
"According to some grammarians any consonant except r and h, followed by a 
consonant and preceded by a vowel may be doubled; likewise any consonant 
preceded by r or h, these letters being themselves preceded by a vowel. 
(Max Muller then states his preference for Shakalya, who does not double 
consonants. But yet Max Muller continues...)
146. If an aspirated consonant has to be doubled, the first loses its 
aspiration. Thus vardhana or varddhana, increase. 
- - -
NOTE: Max Muller states vardhana or vaddhana
- - -
I will prefer to use the texts of pANini, patanjali, bhartRhari, vAmana, 
jayAditya, bhaTToji diikShita, naagesha as original texts.
I know that Max Muller respects these sources and Monier Williams does, too. If 
someone has found that Monier-Williams, Apte or the others substitute their 
judgments above the judgments of the sanskrit sanskritists, I would like to see 
the exact quotations.

Best regards,
Dhananjay



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/pipermail/sanskrit/attachments/20100527/4f58319f/attachment-0001.html
 

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 22:59:21 -0400
From: Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson
        6
To: Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
Message-ID:
        <aanlktikaczaatygq4rei5xqzd39umdquhwmrqj4ct...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Abhyankarji's explanation was fine (except for minor mistakes). He
explained laghuchetasaam by giving the vigraha of the samastapada.

chetaH is a napuMsakali~nga word (chetas). So laghuchetasaam would be
laghu chetaH yasya saH | teShAm |
(and not laghuH chetaH ...etc.)

Similarly udAracharitAnAm.

And na does not become mUrdhanya (Na) in this case. The intervening
't' means that na stays na. This is encapsulated by the sutra
aTkupvA~gnumvyavAyepi. Note that 'ta' is not present in aT (= svaras,
h,y,v,r), ku (ka varga), pu (pa varga) or A~g (the avyaya).


Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com



On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> I would like to comment on:
>
> ??????????
>
> The ending is not from teSAm
>
> It is the declension for cetas (mind) ? genitive, plu, masc/fem/neuter
>
> The bahuvrIhi compound means - ?of those with or possessing small minds.
>
> The same with udAracaritANAm ? this is plural, genitive, masc ending, and
> the na is retroflexed because of the r. And udAra is high or lofty or noble.
>
> Also eva here is ?only? or used in emphasis.
>
> Sorry for these minor corrections ? I like your lessons.
>
> Vimala
>
>
>
>
>
> From: sanskrit-boun...@cs.utah.edu [mailto:sanskrit-boun...@cs.utah.edu] On
> Behalf Of S. L. Abhyankar
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2010 11:57 PM
> To: sanskrit@cs.utah.edu
> Subject: [Sanskrit] Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson 6
>
>
>
> Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson 6
>
> In previous lessons, the style was to put words from a given glossary into
> an order. The order in which to put the words was also planned by me. The
> idea was to get the verse to emerge almost naturally or automatically.
>
>
>
> We can now try a different approach of developing the capability of
> exploring meaning of any new verse.
>
>
>
> Let us see how this approach will work. Let us try with this verse -
>
>
>
> ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????????? ? ???????????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?
>
>
>
> This method also will have a logical system. It will be step by step.
> Typically,
>
> 1.??????? We shall examine every phrase and every word.
>
> 2.?????? If there are any conjugations, we shall break them, so that we can
> see every word in its proper understandable form.
>
> 3.?????? If there are any compound words, we shall decipher them.
>
> 4.?????? Finally we shall put them all into a syntax, so that we can write
> down the full meaning properly.
>
> ??? ?= this one
>
> ???? = related to oneself, mine
>
> ??? ???? ?=???? ?? ???
>
> ??? = the other, not mine
> ?? = or
> ??? = like this
>
> ???? = counting, consideration
>
> ?????????? = ????? ???: ???? ?? --> ?? --> ????? -->
>
> ???? = small
> ???: = mind, heart, thinking
> ???? = whose
> ?? = he--> ?? (= they)--> ????? (= their) -->???????????
>
> ?????????? = of those who have small mind (or heart or thinking)
>
> ???????????? =??????????????????? ?? --> ?? --> ????? -->
>
> ???????= broad-minded
> ???????= heart, thinking, conduct of life
> ???? = whose
> ?? = he--> ?? (= they)--> ????? (= their) -->??????????????
>
> ????????????? = of those who have broad mind
>
> ?? = however
>
> ?????? =?????? ??
>
> ????? = earth
> ?? = itself
>
> Actually there is a concept why earth is called as ?????. It is explained by
> an aphorism "?????: ??????? ??? ?????"
>
> ?????: = by Vasu's
> ??????? = is taken care of, is protected
> ??? = hence
>
> ?????: ??????? ??? ????? = (the entity that) Is taken care of, protected by
> Vasu's, hence, ?????
>
> This will raise a curiosity, "Who are Vasu's ?"
> ???: = a God of lower cadre, who follows orders of Indra.
> They are eight. Their primary job is to be the sentinels at eight directions
> (???? ???:)?around the earth to protect the earth -
>
> Four major directions (in clockwise order)
>
> East (??????), South (???????), West(???????), North(??????)
>
> Four minor directions (in clockwise order)
>
> South-east(??????), South-west(?????), North-west(???????),
> North-east(???????)
>
> In ShrImad-bhagavad-gItA, bhagavAn krRuShNa proclaims, "among Vasu's, I am
> pAvaka????????????????????"
>
> ??????????????????? = ???????????:?? ?????
>
> ???????= Vasus', or among 'Vasu's
> ????: = fire also called as??????: Hence direction to be protected by this
> Vasu is?South-east(??????). I guess, that the reason for?bhagavAn krRuShNa
> proclaiming, "among Vasu's, I am pAvaka????????????????????" may be because
> among all 'Vasu's??????: is one, who has?????one of the five great
> fundamental elements (????????????)?inherent to it.
> ???????????? = They are
>
> mother earth (??????), which supports all life
>
> water (??),
>
> light (???),
>
> air (?????),
>
> sky or space (????) which provides the space for the whole universe.
>
> ? = and
> ????? = (I) am
>
> ?????????? ? = family
>
> Overall meaning now becomes -
>
> "This one mine or not mine" (is) thinking of petty-minded. For the
> broad-minded, however, (whole) world (is one) family."
>
> This subhAShitam is really the basic approach of Indian polity, since ages.
> India has never been the aggressor. It has yet been the melting pot for
> cultures from around the world. Would not the World be a really happier
> place to live, if all countries adopted such polity ?
>
> Equanimity is of course a challenging thought to make it as one's nature. It
> seems that we are all more petty-minded????????:?than
> broad-minded?????????:.
>
> Here is the verse for learning by heart
>
> ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????????? ?
>
> ???????????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?
>
> Before closing, how about some exercises ?
>
> (1) Among so many words, which we came across in these six lessons, there
> have been many which are unchanging, called as "indeclinables" in grammar.
> There would be the adverbs, conjunctions, interjections in this list. It
> would be a good idea to list them at one place, along with their meanings.
> That would make some unique dictionary of the indeclinables !
>
> (2) We have also come across many nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs. All
> these words have declensions, as has been explained earlier. Let us make
> separate lists of nouns, pronouns, adjectives and the verbs.
>
>
>
> -o-O-o-
>
> ???????? ,
> ?????????????????? ???????? |
> ???????? ?????? ????????? ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or customize your subscription or topics of interest, visit
> http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/options/sanskrit
> and follow instructions.
>
>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 05:33:22 +0000
From: "Vasuvaj ." <vasu...@hotmail.com>
Subject: [Sanskrit] Monier Williams's speech on Sanskrit and
        Missionary work
To: <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <snt115-w13f25d60ca6722c351a65ca3...@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"



Namaste.

Recently a friend forwarded me this attachment.
I was wondering whether to post this attachment to this particular study group 
or not.

After debating for a while I 'm posting to this group.

It is interesting to note the real purpose of Sanskrit study done by Monier 
Williams.

Some excerpts from his long speech are pasted below:





 

It is clear, that if there were no other aspect of
Sanskrit, and if nothing could be done to simplify its study, it must ever 
remain
a terra incognita to the missionary. Armed to do

battle with Indian superstition, he feels that he

must be equipped with other weapons besides San

skrit. He must, before all things, be a skilled

divine, properly versed in Biblical knowledge, and

ought not, therefore, to be ignorant of Greek and

Hebrew.

 



 

He will have to be perfect master of at least one

vernacular; and he ought to be trained in logical

50 The study of Sanskrit disputation, to cope with acute
and argumenta tive Pandits. With so much on his hands, how is he to turn his 
mind
to a difficult language like

Sanskrit, unless every appliance be adopted to

lighten his labours?

 

 



Little help in this respect can be looked for from

native Pandits*. To them the difficulty of Sanskrit

is its chief merit. They regard it as an evidence

of the sacredness of the tongue, which they 

worship as a deity

 

 



It is clear, that if there were no other aspect of
Sanskrit, and if nothing could be done to simplify its study, it must ever
remain a terra incognita to the missionary

 

 



 

Our end is not Sanskrit, but

something beyond. We wish to know the spoken

languages, to know the people, to gain in the

shortest and quickest manner the mind, the heart,

the soul of the native. Nor is there any reason

why Sanskrit should not condescend to be made

easy, like other languages. By the aid of many

elementary works, and useful editions already

published in this country, the missionary may

gain all the knowledge of it he requires before

leaving England. The difficulties, at least,
of the

language should be conquered in this country.

When a missionary has the fatigue of daily

preaching, and, perhaps, native
churches to

 




 

In translating the Bible*, composing, and

preaching, he will have to draw all his religious

terms from a Sanskrit source

 




 

Such, indeed, is the exuberance and flexibility of this
language and its power of compounding words, that when

it has been, so to speak, baptized and thoroughly

penetrated with the spirit of Christianity, it will

probably be found, next to Hebrew and Greek,

the most expressive vehicle of Christian truth.

Let the missionary, at the same time, beware of

such a use of it in the vernaculars
as may tempt

 

 



 

All Pandits are, more or less, philosophers ;

and as they are an influential class of men

throughout India, the missionary should win

their attention, and disarm their animosities, by

shewing them that he understands and appre

ciates their views and attainments f . If he can

quote from philosophical books
like the Bhaga-

vad-gita&quot;, his own religious instruction will
come

with greater weight. Many Pandits, to this day,

are convinced that religious truth expressed in

any of the modern languages is like milk in a

dogskin vessel, rendered impure by its vehicle,

whereas conveyed in Sanskrit it is like pure milk

in a pure vessel *.

 






 

I have thus indicated the extent to which a missionary

ought to know Sanskrit, with a view to command

the spoken dialects, and conciliate the affections

of the Indian community.

Without such knowledge the truths of Christian

ity may be powerfully preached, translations of

the Bible lavishly distributed, but no permanent

influence will be gained, no mutual confidence en

joyed, no real sympathy felt or inspired. Imbued

with such knowledge, all Englishmen resident in

India, whether clergymen or laymen, might aid

the missionary cause more than by controversial

discussions or cold donations of rupees. A great

Eastern empire has been entrusted to our rule,

not to be the theatre of political experiments, nor

yet for the sole purpose of extending our com

merce, flattering our pride, or increasing our pres

tige, but that a benighted* population may be

enlightened, and every man, woman,
and child,
















      
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with 
Hotmail. 
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/pipermail/sanskrit/attachments/20100528/1edca069/attachment.html
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sanskrit_for_missionaries-pg1-32.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 3139684 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/pipermail/sanskrit/attachments/20100528/1edca069/attachment.pdf
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sanskrit_for_missionaries-33_end.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 3060146 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/pipermail/sanskrit/attachments/20100528/1edca069/attachment-0001.pdf
 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
To UNSUBSCRIBE or customize your subscription and email delivery, visit
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/options/sanskrit
and follow instructions.

End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 61, Issue 22
****************************************

Reply via email to