Send sanskrit mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

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

Today's Topics:

   1. Bahu shabda stri linga (anupam srivatsav)
   2. Monier Williams's research admirable,     Missionary zeal
      notwithstanding (Jay Vaidya)
   3. Re: siddhyanti - by Max Muller (Piergiorgio Muzi)
   4. Re: about "Kalidasisms" and more (Piergiorgio Muzi)
   5. Some questions on a line from Bana's Kadambari (Mohan K.V)
   6. Re: Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson 7
      (Shobha Saraiya)


Message: 1
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 14:38:23 +0530
From: anupam srivatsav <>
Subject: [Sanskrit] Bahu shabda stri linga
To: Sanskrit Mailing List <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Dear members,

Can anyone decline the shabda 'bahu' in stri lingam?

With regards,


Message: 2
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 13:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Vaidya <>
Subject: [Sanskrit] Monier Williams's research admirable,       Missionary
        zeal notwithstanding
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear Vsuvaj,

While it is true that the aims of many 18th and 19th century Sanskritists was 
the furtherance of religious missionary work, we must be discriminating in our 
evaluation of their research. 

Much of the original research and compilations, the careful collection of 
manuscripts and critical editing - these are of the highest standards. 

I find Monier-Williams philological insights very useful. His dictionary is a 
wonderful resource that I use very regularly, possibly more frequently than the 

Similarly with Max Muller. I find his critical edition of the sAyaNa-bhAShya of 
the Rgveda (I mean the original text, more so than his translation) an 
important resource. 

In general, for the study of Sanskrit (rather than theology), I find the work 
of many European Sanskritists insightful and helpful. Many of them have the 
admirable ability to keep their theological prejudices aside while presenting 
linguistic research. 

Of course, it is likely that some of the 18-19th century European Sanskritists 
may not have been as careful in their linguistic science. Each must be examined 
on their own merits.


> Monier Williams's speech on Sanskrit and Missionary work
>      (Vasuvaj .)
> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 05:33:22 +0000
> From: "Vasuvaj ." <>
> Subject: [Sanskrit] Monier Williams's speech on Sanskrit and
>    Missionary work
> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...


Message: 3
Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 19:20:01 +0200
From: "Piergiorgio Muzi" <>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] siddhyanti - by Max Muller
To: "Sanskrit Mailing List" <>
Message-ID: <1a43ba657eb1484d95acf9043fa02...@yoursgz3xpngo4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear Jay, 
thanks for your right observation. I can check M.M?ller's Sanskrit Grammar. You 
have reported correctly the par. 146 of the same book I have. 
If we accept this rule without conditions the effects would be disastrous. It 
would permit doubling the consonants of an enormous number of Sanskrit words 
with correspondent consequences. Not only wouldn't we get any "practical object 
in this practice", as M?ller says, but we would be free to substitute pakkta 
for pakta, annta for anta, appta for apta and cittra for citra, assya for asya, 
attra for atra and even ?ttma for ?tma! Needless to say that this attitude 
could create confusion in all the cases where there is a morphological and 
semantical difference between simple or double consonants. Indeed this freedom 
is not followed by anybody, if not exceptionally. Of course as far as you 
consent duplication , the student has no clear reason to avoid simplification 
of double consonants...Try to see the consequences, please. I can only agree 
about "discontinuing it throughout" in agreement with the criticism of 
Sh?kalya, accepted by M?ller. BTW do you know this grammarian?
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jay Vaidya 
  Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 4:47 AM
  Subject: [Sanskrit] siddhyanti - by Max Muller

  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. 
  - - -
  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,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...


Message: 4
Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 16:23:59 +0200
From: "Piergiorgio Muzi" <>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] about "Kalidasisms" and more
To: "S. L. Abhyankar" <>,
        <>, <>
Message-ID: <fa62f59d149d4aafa755994c857c3...@yoursgz3xpngo4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear scholars, 
what you have written about Kalidasism is very interesting from a general 
linguistic point, which doesn't deal only with abstract philological law, but 
also with practical or poetical or usage. But we can't put on the same 
level the decisions about the ideal grammar with its performances and 
modifications for different usages. Apart from mistakes due to wrong 
connections of words (popular etymology, incorrect pronunciation, as in many 
language erroneous duplication or erroneous lack of duplication of 
consonants...) and ignorance of the real morpho-syntactical structures, we can 
recognize that certain forms can be intentionally deviating, like in English 
nite (=night), 4 (=for)... Besides there are technical terms, neologisms, etc. 
All that doesn't permit us to think that we can do without reference to any 
normative grammar, i.e. an explication of the competence of an ideal 
speaker/writer, as sort of compass. In every language we can meet the so-called 
"poetic licence
 ". But these forms are acceptable and often admirable just because they are 
somehow compared with the canonical forms. Their deviation from this is no more 
doSa, but guNa, if fitting the aim. I mean that, if we don't know the normal 
forms, we couldn't catch the vyanjanA function of the modified ones. The matter 
is very vast, as I understood when reading dhvanyAloka of Anandavardhana. But 
the poetry and literature are not my field of study and interest, since I am a 
neurologist and psychiatrist with competence in general and comparative 
linguistics. My fields of studies are cognitive science, mathematical logic, 
neuropsychology of language. 
This is another reason more why I am interested in knowing Sanskrit grammar in 
itself maybe more than as a tool to use in translation or ...talking! Now my 
interest is due to a confluence of linguistics and philosophy. I'm translating 
upadeshasAhasrI of shankarAcArya. VedAnta and Indian mahAyana are my essential 
points of spiritual involvement.
The fact that I have taught Sanskrit is Singapore for seven years, doesn't mean 
that my familiarity with Sanskrit is vast as yours. Mine is above all in the 
fields of my competence and interests. I have been teaching only few hours a 
week Italian, Latin and Sanskrit, too. There I tried to set up a centre at the 
University, but I didn't succeed since the German University Sanskrit scholar 
didn't accept any connection with the only Indian institutes potentially 
involved: Ramakrishna Mission and Aurobindo Association, since that scholar 
considered them to be sectarian...
I ask you for your availability to correct my mistakes, often due to 
distraction or to unfamiliarity with idiomatic expressions and lack of 
practice. Last time I wrote the following expression, I made mistakes in using 
Itrans..., sorry! This is the presumably amended form in the first line. 
??? ????? ?????????????? ??? ???????? ?????

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

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

??? ???????

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Piergiorgio Muzi

  From: S. L. Abhyankar 
  Cc: ; 
  Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 6:06 PM
  Subject: curiosity about "Kalidasisms"

  (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" <>
    To: "Sanskrit Mailing List" <>
    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 
    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 

      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! 


      On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Piergiorgio Muzi <> 

        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, 
        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 
          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 ?? 

          May I appeal that let the discussion close here !

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

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

            ---------- Forwarded message ----------
            From: Naresh Cuntoor <>
            To: Sanskrit Mailing List <>
            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 


            On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Jay Vaidya 
<> 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 
            > 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 <>
            > Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Learning Sanskrit by a fresh approach - 
            >     4
            > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Piergiorgio Muzi
            > <>wrote:
            >>  Sorry, sidhyanti (not siddhyanti), week degree of the root is 
            >> siddh- is only for past participle, siddha (< sidh-ta) and for 
            >> 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...


Message: 5
Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 10:08:14 +0530
From: "Mohan K.V" <>
Subject: [Sanskrit] Some questions on a line from Bana's Kadambari
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


 I'm trying to understand this line from Bana's Kadambari, and would greatly
appreciate any help. This occurs at the beginning of the famous
Shukanasopadesha, where the wise minister Shukanasa instructs the
just-to-be-coronated prince, Chandraapeeda, about the ills of wealth and

"Alokayatu tAvat kalyANa-abhinivezI lakSmIm eva prathamam | iyaM hi
khaGga-maNDala-utpala-vana-vizrama-bhramarI lakSmI:, kSIra-sAgarAt
pArijAta-plavebhyo rAgam, indu-zakalAt ekAnta-vakratAm, uccai:zravasa:
cancalatAm, kAlakUTAt mohanazaktim, madirayA madam, kaustubhamaNe:
naiSThuryam iti etAni sahavAsa-paricaya-vazAt-viraha-vinoda-cihnAni gRhItvA
udgatA |"

"??????? ????? ??????-????????? ????????? ?? ??????? | ??? ??
????-?????-?????-??-??????-?????? ???????:, ?????-??????? ???????-?????????
?????, ?????-?????? ??????-????????, ?????:?????: ?????????, ?????????
???????????, ?????? ????, ??????????: ??????????? ??? ?????
?????-?????-?????-????-?????-???????? ???????? ?????? |"

1. "khaGga-maNDala-utpala-vana-vizrama-bhramarI", I understand as "a bee
resting in a lotus-grove surrounded by circle of swords", but am not
satisfied with it. Why is she a bee? Because she flies away from lotus to
lotus? What then does the lotus stand for? What is the circle of swords?
(Perhaps they symbolize the  difficulty of getting a 'lotus', the lotus
symbolizing an *activity* that Lakshmi resides on?)

2. "indu-zakalAt ekAnta-vakratAm" - "From the piece of the moon,
ekAnta-crookedness". What is the purpose of the word 'ekAnta' here? And why
indu-shakala, piece of the moon? Or is there another meaning of shakala?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...


Message: 6
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 14:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Shobha Saraiya <>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson
To: Sanskrit Mailing List <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

To all these great learned people on this? great list.
Thank You!!!! Thank You!? All very much.

Shree Abhyankar Mahodaya,
Thank you for these wonderful lessons.
It is helping me a great deal.?Looking forward to more such?lessons!??
This particular sloka is one of my very favorites, used to sing this as a child
without knowing the complete meaning of it.
Enjoying all the discussions/replies ?very much as well.
???? ?????????
???? ??!

From: S. L. Abhyankar <>
Sent: Fri, May 28, 2010 3:35:54 PM
Subject: [Sanskrit] Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson 7

A small correction, please for second case plural in the table of declensions 
for masculine noun????
???????? ,
>?????????????????? ???????? |
>???????? ?????? ????????? ?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From:?"S. L. Abhyankar" <>
>Date:?Fri, 28 May 2010 13:01:25 -0400
>Subject:?[Sanskrit] Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson 7
>Learning Sanskrit by a Fresh Approach - Lesson 7
>This time, I would like to take a longish verse.
>???? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?
>??????????? ????????? ????? ????? ??? ?
>???????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????????????? ?
>???? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ?
>Before proceeding with exploring the meaning of this verse, some interesting 
>features of this verse -
>1. Of course this verse is an ode to Lord RAma. This verse is from a long 
>enough ????????? known as ????????????????????? 
>2. Looking at the poetry of it,
>Every line has 19 syllables - exactly 19
>Weightages of the 19 syllables in every line are 2-2-2, 1-1-2, 1-2-1, 1-1-2, 
>2-2-1, 2-2-1, 2
>This pattern of weightages makes the verse of a meter called as 
>>This meter is very popular with poets, especially those composing verses to 
>>express best wishes to a couple, when the marriage ceremony is being 
>>performed, typically when they would have put garlands on each other.?
>3. In this verse there are two distinct sentences in each line. So, to explore 
>the meaning of this verse, we have to understand just 8 simple sentences. 
>That's it.
>Let us start off by the set methodology of exploring phrase by phrase, word by 
>???? ??????? = ???: ???????
>???: = (Lord) RAma
>>??????? = ???????? ????
>>???????? = of kings
>>???? = jewel
>>???????? ???? = jewel among kings
>??? = always 
>?????? = is victorious
>???? ??????? ??? ?????? = RAma, the jewel among kings is always victorious
>???? = ????? = to RAma 
>????? = ???????
>?????? =?????: --> ??? ?-->???????
>>????: = ?????? ??? (?????-????????- ?????)?
>>?????? = of RamA ??? is the name of wife of ViShNu?
>>??? = Lord
>>?????? ??? = Lord of RamA, hence ViShNu
>??? = I am devoted to, or I do devotion to.
>???? ????? ??? = I do devotion to RAma, (hence) to Ramesha (i.e. to ViShNu)
>One may ask, how doing devotion to RAma becomes devotion also to ViShNu. The 
>logic lies in the mythology of incarnations of?ViShNu. Among ten incarnations 
>(?????????) of ViShNu, RAma is regarded as the seventh. So, mythologically, 
>ViShNu is the supreme deity, which undertook ten incarnations in the order - 
>??????, ?????, ????, ??????, ????, ???????, ???, ?????, ?????, ?????
>When I deliberate on this mythology of ????????? to me it appeals to be the 
>theory of evolution of life. When the globe was cooling down, and migratory 
>life form had to emerge, it could have emerged only in the more congenial 
>environment of water and not on the terrains. So first incarnation is ??????, 
>the fish. Next is ?????, the turtle, which could move both in water and on 
>ground; yet more in water than on ground. Third ???? the rhino, who loves 
>watery surroundings, but moves on ground of shallow waters. Fourth is ??????, 
>half lion (????), half human (??). Fifth ????, human, rather dimunitive. Sixth 
>???????, human, but rather savage, uncultured. Seventh ???, the ideal human. 
>Eighth ?????, adept at the ways of the world. Ninth ?????, the exalted, 
>self-realised soul. Tenth ????? where good and evil coexist.
>Associated with this mythology of ????????? is also the concept of passage of 
>time, the four Yuga's - ??? ?????? ??????? ???. Incarnation of RAma is said to 
>belong to ???-??? Not much detail seems to have been mentioned about ????????? 
>The incarnation of ????? is said to belong to ??????????. Present times are of 
>??????, where good and evil coexist, rather times, when good is always 
>challenged by the evil.
>Learning Sanskrit is not just for learning a language. It is also a learning 
>of what can be or what should be the cultured way of life. The language is a 
>refined language and its literature speaks of refined life, of cultured life. 
>Knowledge of Sanskrit is hence essential, certainly in???????.?It will be the 
>real beacon to meet the challenges of the evil without compromising the 
>refined thoughts and conduct.
>??? is also an interesting word. From???? we have the noun ?????, which has 
>two meanings - (1) a song of devotion (2) to sing a song of devotion.
>By this connotation,???? means not just "I do devotion", but "I do devotion by 
>singing a song of devotion".
>This word ??? is a declension of the root verb ??? meaning "to do devotion". 
>From this verb ??? there is another noun, ?????? which means "devotion". One 
>can do devotion in any of nine ways. ?????? ?????? Doing devotion by singing a 
>song of devotion i.e. by ????? is one of nine ways ?????? ?????? There is a 
>verse summing up all the nine ways of ?????? ?????? Maybe, we can discuss that 
>verse sometime later.
>Presently on to the next phrase.
>??????????? = ????? + ??????
>????? = by RAma
>?????? = consummately killed, destroyed
>A little study on both these words -
>????? = by RAma
>It may be noticed that in the first sentence ???: was the subject. So the root 
>word ??? was in subjective or nominative case, which is called as first case 
>?????? ????????.
>In the second sentence, the word was "????? = to RAma" in object case or 
>accusative case, which is called the second case, ???????? ????????
>Here we have it as "????? = by RAma" in instrumental case, which is called as 
>the third case, ?????? ????????
>I guess, you got a good hint of why this verse is chosen for this lesson! Two 
>sentences in each line, each sentence presenting cases first, second, third 
>?etc. of the?root word ???, all in perfect order and every line perfectly in 
>?????????????????? meter !
>?????? = consummately killed, destroyed. The meaning "consummately" comes from 
>the prefix ???. There is a large number of prefixes, which can be prefixed to 
>different words to get a range of shades of meaning of that word. The prefixes 
>???????? or ??????? not only help to get a range of shades of meaning, but do 
>it so crisply, just by a prefix. We have that in most languages also, e.g. 
>eject, reject, inject, project, adject(ive), abject
>????????? ????? = ?????????: ?????
>?????????: = ???? + ?? + ???:
>?????? = ?Here we have a suffix??? attached to the word ????.?
>The?suffix??? is derived from the verb ?? meaning "to move, to move about, to 
>roam". The suffix such as ?? lends the meaning of capability to do the action 
>of the meaning of the verb. So suffix ?? means capable of roaming.??????= 
>?????? =???????????????????capable of?roaming in the night, ghost, nocturnal 
>being. All????????: of army of??????had such capability. They 
>were????????:.???: = army
>?????????: =????????????????: A compound of?????? ???????? type.?Army of 
>beings capable of roaming in the night.
>?????????????????????: =?Army of nocturnal beings was destroyed by RAma.
>This sentence is in passive voice. The passive voice is rendered by ?????? 
>which is a past passive participle from the verb ??? + ????
>This is another speciality of Sanskrit, that participles derived from verbs 
>can do the function of verbs, such that a formal verb need not be visible.
>????? ????? ????
>????? = unto RAma. This is declension of ??? in the dative case, the fourth 
>case ??????? ?????????
>????? = unto that This is declension of a pronoun ??? the indicative pronoun 
>meaning "that", again in the fourth case. Because this pronoun qualifies the 
>noun ???, both the noun and the qualifying pronoun (or adjective) have to be 
>in the same case, here the fourth case.
>??? = bowing.
>????? ????? ??? = bowing ?(I bow) unto that RAma. Here, "that" hints also to 
>that RAma who destroyed army of nocturnal beings.
>???????????? = ?????? ? ?????
>?????? = from RAma, than RAma. This is declension of ??? in the ablative case, 
>the fifth case ?????? ????????
>? = not. An indeclinable used to render negative.
>????? = is
>?????? ?= ?????????=??????????? A compound of type??????????. In the 
>compounded word?? of?????? becomes??. Hence???????? from???????????. There are 
>rules for all such minute variations. We shall not go into all that at this 
>stage. It is mentioned here just for information. Our focus shall be in 
>understanding the meaning, than understanding all the grammar.
>?????= the other
>????? = the action of going, destination, recourse
>????? = ?????? Adjective of comparative degree from the root adjective???.??? 
>is the suffix which renders the comparative degree of an adjective. The 
>superlative degree is rendered by ?suffix????
>??????????????????????????? = There is no better recourse than RAma.
>?????? ??????????????? =??????? ???? ????? ?????
>?????? = of RAma ???????is declension of?????in?the?sixth i.e. genetive case 
>????? ???????:
>???? = servent
>????? = (I) am
>???? = I
>?????? ???? ????? ???? = I am servent of RAma
>???? ???????: ??? ???????
>???? = at RAma.????? is declension 
>of?????in?the?seventh?i.e.?locative?case??????? ???????:
>???????: =????????? ??: A compound of ????? ???????? type?
>???????? = of mind
>??: = resting
>??? = always
>???? = may be, may stay
>?? = for me or of me
>???? ???????: ??? ??????? = Resting of my mind may always be at RAma or For 
>me, resting of mind may always be at RAma.
>?? ??? ???????? = ??? ??? ??????????
>??? = an interjection to back a call "Oh" or "Eh"
>??? = address to RAma to mean "Eh RAma" ??? as??? ??? is declension of?????in 
>?address case ??????-???????:
>?????= to me?
>????? = ?(please) uplift
>?? ??? ???????? = ??? ??? ?????????? = Oh RAma, please uplift me !
>RAma, the jewel among kings is always victorious I do devotion to RAma, 
>(hence) to Ramesha (i.e. to ViShNu)
>by singing a song of devotion 
>Army of nocturnal beings was destroyed by RAma I bow unto that RAma 
>There is no better recourse than RAma I am servent of RAma 
>Resting of my mind may always be at RAma Oh RAma, please uplift me ! 
>Isn't that a good prayer ? It brings out all the ardent feelings a devotee 
>would have towards one's object or idol of devotion.
>The prayer does so by employing declensions of he word???? in all eight cases 
>- first to seventh and also the address case !
>Actually a noun such as???? will have declensions not only by cases but also 
>by number. In Sanskrit, numbers are three - singular, dual, plural called 
>Since???? is a masculine noun having a ? vowel ending it would be good to have 
>a look at the declensions of ??-??????? ????????????? such as ??? meaning "boy"
>????????: ??????? ????????? ???????? 
>?????? ???: ???? ????: 
>???????? ????? ???? ?????? 
>?????? ????? ?????????? ????: 
>??????? ????? ?????????? ???????: 
>?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????: 
>????? ?????? ?????: ???????? 
>?????? ???? ?????: ?????? 
>?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????: 
>You will notice that all the declensions of???? conform to the patterns of 
>declension of ???. We have five other words all?? vowel ending, masculine 
>nouns ?-??????? ????????????? in this lesson itself.? 
>Can you find them and list them here ? ______ , ________ , ________ , _______ 
>, _______
>Pattern of declensions of??-??????? neuter?????????????nouns are quite similar 
>to those of ?-??????? masculine nouns, except in first, second and address 
>Let us see declensions of ?-??????? neuter?????????????noun????? meaning "a 
>???????: ??????? ????????? ???????? 
>?????? ?????? ????? ??????? 
>???????? ?????? ????? ??????? 
>?????? ?????? ??????????? ?????: 
>??????? ?????? ??????????? ????????: 
>?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????: 
>????? ??????? ??????: ????????? 
>?????? ????? ??????: ??????? 
>?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??????? 
>We also have some??-??????? neuter?????????????nouns here in this lesson. Let 
>me give out one - ??? meaning "mention, talk, oath".?Can you find three more 
>and list them here ? ________ , _________ , _________
>Corollary to the masculine?????and neuter??????there would be the feminine 
>noun?????, meaning "a girl". This is of course having vowel ending?? So, it is 
>??????? ??????????? ???. Let us see declensions of this also !
>???????: ??????? ????????? ???????? 
>?????? ???? ???? ????: 
>???????? ?????? ???? ????: 
>?????? ????? ?????????? ??????: 
>??????? ?????? ?????????? ???????: 
>?????? ??????? ?????????? ???????: 
>????? ??????? ?????: ???????? 
>?????? ???????? ?????: ?????? 
>?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????: 
>We also have some???????? feminine ??????????? nouns in this lesson.?
>Can you find three more and list them here ? ________ , _________ , _________
>We can have an interesting exercise of composing some simple sentences :-
>1. We already have a simple sentence. "I am a servant." Can you write that 
>again ? _____ ?______ ______ |
>2. In the same manner you can write "I am a boy." ______ ?______ ?______ | "I 
>am a girl." ______ ________ _______ |
>3. Let us use a simple verb????? (singular) ???? (dual) ?????? (plural) and 
>compose sentences -
>1 A boy speaks ______ ______ | 
>2 Two boys speak ______ ______ | 
>3 Boys speak ______ ______ | 
>4 A child speaks ______ ______ | 
>5 Two children speak ______ ______ | 
>6 Children speak ______ ______ | 
>7 A girl speaks ______ ______ | 
>8 Two girls speak ______ ______ | 
>9 Girls speak ______ ______ | 
>Doesn't it feel great to be able to compose sentences in Sanskrit ?
>Before closing,?
>(a)??-??????? masculine ????????? nouns in the lesson were -?????,???,???????, 
>?????, ????, ??????, ????, ???????, ???, ?????, ?????,?????? 
>(adjective),???????,???????,????,????? (adjective)?????????,??????,??????and???
>(b)??-??????? neuter?????????????nouns in the lesson were -????,?????? 
>(adjective),??????,????,????? (adjective),??????,????
>(c)???????? feminine ??????????? nouns in this lesson were -????,??????? 
>(adjective),?????, ?
>Declensions of all the above nouns and adjectives shall follow the given 
>Note, adjectives and pronouns will always have gender, case and number 
>matching with gender, case and number of the noun, which they qualify. Hence 
>they will have declensions accordingly. This rule is also given by a verse !
>????????????????????? ? ???????? ????????
>????????????????????? ? ???????? ????????????
>???????? |

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...


To UNSUBSCRIBE or customize your subscription and email delivery, visit
and follow instructions.

End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 61, Issue 25

Reply via email to