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. n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct. (Jay Vaidya) 2. Re: n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct. (Ambujam Raman) 3. Re: n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct. (Vis Tekumalla) 4. marriage between a possible Jezebel and a possible non-hero (Jay Vaidya) 5. n->N in nArAyaNa (Jay Vaidya) 6. Re: n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct. (Ambujam Raman) 7. Re: n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct. (Vis Tekumalla) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:11:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Sanskrit] n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii uktavAn bAlAjIH: >What causes the transformation na-> Na in the words : >rAmAyaNa , uttarAyaNa, nArAyaNa ? Clearly the "na" >comes in a different pada from the "ra". > We were told it was the rule "pUrvapadAta samj~nAyAm > agaH" (8.4.3??) >... for nArAyaNa & rAmAyaNa. > ... Moreover, how does it apply to uttarAyaNa? Your explanation and sUtra quotation are correct. saMGYA in this case is what is called a "proper noun" or a "defined technical term". In the sense that you should not try to get the meaning from the component words, but from tradition or technical context or a naming ceremony. nArAyaNa is a name of a person or a deity = "proper name" in English. By the way, what is the etymology of nArAyaNa? Because, you know, gArgyAyaNa = descendent of gArgI is a single pada. It is not a proper noun. Any remote descendent of gArgI can be called gArgyAyaNa, whether or not they are introduced to you with that "given" name. rAmAyaNa is the name of a certain epic. Unless some author specifically names their biography of (parashu)rAma or (kanshI)rAma, as rAmAyaNa, we will not call it rAmAyaNa, just based on the meaning of the terms rAma+ayana. We would call it rAmAyana, perhaps. Thus rAmAyaNa is also a "proper name" or a "traditionally restricted usage". uttarAyaNa does not just mean uttara+ayana = going north. My visit to my northern relatives is just uttarAyana (no "N"). uttarAyaNa is specifically reserved as a technical term for the sun's yearly passage to the north. So this is a "traditionally restricted usage" or a "defined technical term". Note that there are several sub-rules to this rule quoted by Balaji. Regarding names versus not-names, here are some interesting ones close to home. Unfortunately, my name (dhana.njaya) gives no proof of wealth or victory. It is just a name. The _description_ rather than the _name_ of a hero would have been dhanajaya. Also a woman being called priyaMvadA is no guarantee that she talks lovingly. That is just a name. dhana.njayaH _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:53:28 -0400 From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct. To: "Jay Vaidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Jay: To summarize if Priyamvada gets married to dhana.njayaH she would become Priyamvadadhana.njayaH and NOT PriyamvadadhaNa.njayaH Am I technically correct? Raman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Vaidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 3:11 PM Subject: [Sanskrit] n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct. > uktavAn bAlAjIH: > > >What causes the transformation na-> Na in the words : > >rAmAyaNa , uttarAyaNa, nArAyaNa ? Clearly the "na" > >comes in a different pada from the "ra". > > We were told it was the rule "pUrvapadAta samj~nAyAm > > > agaH" (8.4.3??) > >... for nArAyaNa & rAmAyaNa. > > ... Moreover, how does it apply to uttarAyaNa? > > Your explanation and sUtra quotation are correct. > saMGYA in this case is what is called a "proper noun" > or a "defined technical term". In the sense that you > should not try to get the meaning from the component > words, but from tradition or technical context or a > naming ceremony. > > nArAyaNa is a name of a person or a deity = "proper > name" in English. By the way, what is the etymology of > nArAyaNa? Because, you know, gArgyAyaNa = descendent > of gArgI is a single pada. It is not a proper noun. > Any remote descendent of gArgI can be called > gArgyAyaNa, whether or not they are introduced to you > with that "given" name. > rAmAyaNa is the name of a certain epic. Unless some > author specifically names their biography of > (parashu)rAma or (kanshI)rAma, as rAmAyaNa, we will > not call it rAmAyaNa, just based on the meaning of the > terms rAma+ayana. We would call it rAmAyana, perhaps. > Thus rAmAyaNa is also a "proper name" or a > "traditionally restricted usage". > uttarAyaNa does not just mean uttara+ayana = going > north. My visit to my northern relatives is just > uttarAyana (no "N"). uttarAyaNa is specifically > reserved as a technical term for the sun's yearly > passage to the north. So this is a "traditionally > restricted usage" or a "defined technical term". > > Note that there are several sub-rules to this rule > quoted by Balaji. > > Regarding names versus not-names, here are some > interesting ones close to home. Unfortunately, my name > (dhana.njaya) gives no proof of wealth or victory. It > is just a name. The _description_ rather than the > _name_ of a hero would have been dhanajaya. > > Also a woman being called priyaMvadA is no guarantee > that she talks lovingly. That is just a name. > > dhana.njayaH > > > > _______________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > http://vote.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > sanskrit mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct. To: Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Raman uvAcha: To summarize if Priyamvada gets married to dhana.njayaH she would become Priyamvadadhana.njayaH and NOT PriyamvadadhaNa.njayaH Am I technically correct? Now, this raises a question. After Priyamvada gets married, and say acquires that concatenation, she is still only one person, and still very much a woman - right? (albeit, with a name that extends to two padas). Why should the poor woman be referred to in pu.mli~Nga suddenly and possibly declined as an a-karaanta pu.mli~Nga?:-) ...Vis Tekumalla [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040920/463da6f3/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:07:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Sanskrit] marriage between a possible Jezebel and a possible non-hero To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii AmbujarAma-vishveshayoH TippaNIprasa.nge: In the instance of the marriage between the harsh-mouthed priyaMvadA and the non-heroic dhana.njaya The woman would be dhana.njayasya priyaMvadA = dhana.njaya-priyaMvadA (like the goddess shiva-shakti) The man would be priyaMvadAyAH dhana.njayaH = priyaMvadA-dhana.njayaH (like the epic hero sItA-rAmaH) Both are correctly saMGYA = proper nouns, so in that detail the n->N transformation should be considered. However, the transformation is blocked in both cases by the usual rules (discussed last month). And also by an unusual rule. Usual rules: In the first case, the "n" is before the "r", so cannot be affected. In the second case, the "n" is shielded from the "r" by a "d" and a "dh" sound. Only certain sounds (vowels, half-vowels, k-varga, p-varga, the particle AN^) let the influence of "r" pass through. Unusual rule: Furthermore, even if we find an example of a woman called priya-kumbhA (she with the lovely jugs, may not really have them, sorry) marrying a man called nArAyaNa, the man will be called priyakumbhA-nArAyaNaH All of the sounds between the "r" of "priya" and the first "n" of nArAyaNaH are transperent to the influence -- then why no n->N change? kumbha by itself was a pada at some point in the word formation. Such a pada blocks the influence of the "r" on the "n" even though it is made of "transperent" sounds. Jargon: pA.sU. 8.4.38. dhana.njayaH __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:33:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Sanskrit] n->N in nArAyaNa To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Because of the large number of rules/exceptions that we have all seen, this discussion is really spinning on to tangents. But generally regards the n->N transformation. More so to "r" in one pada and "n" in a following pada -- is there an effect? Let us look at "nArAyaNa". Is it one pada or a composite of more than one? Both interpretations exist. I will give them without jargon. Will supply quatations, if asked. (1) More than one pada: narasya samUhaH = nAram (group of humans) nAram ayanam yasya saH = nAra+ayanaH = nArAyaNaH (He who passes through the multitudes) (2) Only one pada: narasya gotra-apatyaM pumAn = nara+ phak (a special termination, further transformed)=... nArAyaNaH If it is a single pada, the usual rules apply. If it is a combination of two padas, the special rule for "names/technical terms" applies. In any case the n->N transformation happens. I do not know if the svara differs by interpretation -- my suspicion is "yes". dhana.njayaH __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:32:16 -0400 From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct. To: "Vis Tekumalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jay Vaidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Vis: assigning sex to compounds in Sanskrit is complicated. If you consider 'priyamvadadhana.njaya' as a samhara dvandva it must be singular neutre. As a bahuvrihi, can have any sex. I guess as it is, the word must have the sex of the last component. Now seriously can there be a feminine word ending in akaara ? How should it be declined? Are there any pre-Paninian (vedic?) guidelines? Raman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040921/050d1215/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:51:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] n->N in saMGYA: Balaji's explanation is correct. To: Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jay Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I will just go with dhananjaya's explanation and call the bride dhananjayapriyamvada. After all, my own name - Vis Tekumalla, when I write it in Telugu, I write it as Tekumalla Vis. So it's easy to stick with whatever is the norm in the language. Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Vis: assigning sex to compounds in Sanskrit is complicated. If you consider 'priyamvadadhana.njaya' as a samhara dvandva it must be singular neutre. As a bahuvrihi, can have any sex. I guess as it is, the word must have the sex of the last component. Now seriously can there be a feminine word ending in akaara ? How should it be declined? Are there any pre-Paninian (vedic?) guidelines? Raman ...Vis Tekumalla [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040921/07e1d688/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ sanskrit mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 18, Issue 30 ****************************************