Send sanskrit mailing list submissions to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of sanskrit digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Knotty shlokas in Mahabharata (Ambujam Raman)
2. vedic question (Ambujam Raman)
3. Re: Knotty shlokas in Mahabharata (Vis Tekumalla)
4. Re: Knotty shlokas in Mahabharata (Ambujam Raman)
5. anusvaara sandhi (Desiraju Hanumanta Rao)
6. Re: Vedic question (Nath Rao)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:20:40 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Knotty shlokas in Mahabharata
To: "peekayar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "sanskrit digest"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Neat! Clever!! Saadhu!!!
The gaavaH did bother me since we needed accusative instead of prathamaa!
Just one small correction
eShaH + a~Nganaa = eSho'~Nganaa ('=avagraha)
I was bothered by splitting the original as :
eShaa + a~Nganaa and the feminine for Arjuna can be justified assuming his status at
the time as a woman (a~Nganaa). But he was a kliiba at that time!
I have also heard the story of the 'knotty shlokam' beween vyaasa and gaNesa. There is
also the story of gaNesha breaking one of his tusks to write mahabharata and thus he
became ekadantam. That reminds me of the old puzzle (many of you may know already! but
try anyway): Interpret
'agajaanana padmaarkam gajaananamaharnisham
anekadantaM bhaktaanaam ekadantamupaasmahe'
(Of course this contributes to the anuswara controversy provoked by vis!!)
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040821/e1c77fa3/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:58:57 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] vedic question
To: "sanskrit digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The most quoted piece in the upanishad is:
asato maa sad gamaya
tamaso maa jyotirgamaya
mrityormaa'm.Rtam gamaya
(brihadaaraNyaopanishad 1.3.28)
Of course in all these maa stands for maaM (ekavachanam dvitiiya). On the other hand
if 'maa' is interpreted as the proscriptive particle then the meaning is diametrically
opposite. There is no particular reason (based on chandas) not to use 'maaM' here.
There is no anvaadesa. Why did the ancients use such an ambiguous invocation?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040821/1a4eea21/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Knotty shlokas in Mahabharata
To: Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, peekayar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sanskrit digest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sriimati (Kumaari) Ambujam Raman uvacha:
That reminds me of the old puzzle (many of you may know already! but try anyway):
Interpret
'agajaanana padmaarkam gajaananamaharnisham
anekadantaM bhaktaanaam ekadantamupaasmahe'
(Of course this contributes to the anuswara controversy provoked by vis!!)
No controversy. Just trying to learn something. As for the Sloka, this could be a
possible answer:
aga---ja---aanana padma---arkam gaja---ananam---aharnisham.
aneka---dam---taM bhaktaanaam eka---dantam---upaasmahe..
aga=mountain; ja=born; aanana=face; padma=lotus; arkam=Sun; gaja=elephant;
aananam=faced; aharnisham = always; aneka=many; dam=giver; taM=him; bhaktaanaam = of
devotees; eka=one; dantam=tusked; upaasmahe= let us pray.
The one who is like the Sun to the mountain-born's lotus-like face (lotus blooms when
the Sun comes up; mountain-born is Parvati), the one who is elephant-faced, the one
who is like devotees' sugar-daddy (giver of many things to them), and the one who has
only one tusk, let us always pray Him.
Ambujam Raman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Neat! Clever!! Saadhu!!!
The gaavaH did bother me since we needed accusative instead of prathamaa!
Just one small correction
eShaH + a~Nganaa = eSho'~Nganaa ('=avagraha)
I was bothered by splitting the original as :
eShaa + a~Nganaa and the feminine for Arjuna can be justified assuming his status at
the time as a woman (a~Nganaa). But he was a kliiba at that time!
I have also heard the story of the 'knotty shlokam' beween vyaasa and gaNesa. There is
also the story of gaNesha breaking one of his tusks to write mahabharata and thus he
became ekadantam. That reminds me of the old puzzle (many of you may know already! but
try anyway): Interpret
'agajaanana padmaarkam gajaananamaharnisham
anekadantaM bhaktaanaam ekadantamupaasmahe'
(Of course this contributes to the anuswara controversy provoked by vis!!)
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
...Vis Tekumalla
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040821/978f61c0/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:15:59 -0400
From: "Ambujam Raman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Knotty shlokas in Mahabharata
To: "Vis Tekumalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "peekayar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "sanskrit digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
aho naaham shriimathi! idam mama bharyaayaa 'email'!
I just wanted to point out that like the anuswara 'sandhi' can play tricks!
Why do you split aga + ja but not ga+ja?
agajaananam can very well be anyone without an elephant face. Again gajaananam could
be interpreted as the eight faced incarnation of Siva (aShTavaktramUrti) provided you
choose to split 'ekadantam' as also as ekadaM taM(note the(legal?) change in
anuswara). But then you can also interpret 'anekadantam' as na ekadantam meaning those
with many teeth (condemning the edentate from grace ;-))
The combination of interpretations can even pause ganesha to wonder long enough to let
vyasa complete the mahabharata!
----- Original Message -----
From: Vis Tekumalla
To: Ambujam Raman ; peekayar ; sanskrit digest
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Knotty shlokas in Mahabharata
Sriimati (Kumaari) Ambujam Raman uvacha:
That reminds me of the old puzzle (many of you may know already! but try anyway):
Interpret
'agajaanana padmaarkam gajaananamaharnisham
anekadantaM bhaktaanaam ekadantamupaasmahe'
(Of course this contributes to the anuswara controversy provoked by vis!!)
No controversy. Just trying to learn something. As for the Sloka, this could be a
possible answer:
aga---ja---aanana padma---arkam gaja---ananam---aharnisham.
aneka---dam---taM bhaktaanaam eka---dantam---upaasmahe..
aga=mountain; ja=born; aanana=face; padma=lotus; arkam=Sun; gaja=elephant;
aananam=faced; aharnisham = always; aneka=many; dam=giver; taM=him; bhaktaanaam = of
devotees; eka=one; dantam=tusked; upaasmahe= let us pray.
The one who is like the Sun to the mountain-born's lotus-like face (lotus blooms
when the Sun comes up; mountain-born is Parvati), the one who is elephant-faced, the
one who is like devotees' sugar-daddy (giver of many things to them), and the one who
has only one tusk, let us always pray Him.
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040821/ac1f97ba/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Desiraju Hanumanta Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] anusvaara sandhi
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> "ma" from the "pa-varga" can be converted to an anusvara <
Not just 'pa' varga, but - all 'hal-s' if combined with 'ma' ending of preceeding word
- they become anusvaara sandhi - rule - mo.anusvaaraH: harim + vande = hari.mvande;
vyaaghram + hanti = vyaaghra.mhanti; but not in exceptions like - sam + raaT= samraaT.
Some more exceptions [than rules] are there like - rule - nashchaa padaantasya jhali -
if na and ma are not at the end of previous word they become puurNaanusvaara -
yashaan.h+si= yashaa.nsi; aakram.h + syate= aakra.msyate.
>"m" at the end of a sentence should always be spelled out (no anusvara) << Yes -
>but nowadays you seethis in othodoxly printed books, but not in not-so-chaa.ndasa
>printed books. In Telugu all are sunnaa-s.
Printing industry has replaced all rules as the faunt cases contain very less number
of purrNaanusvara-s, or artha candra-s - sorry ca.ndra. I think discussion on this has
come earlier.
>Any simple no-trip rules for these?<<
It is alrready 'tripped' by printers - do you like to bring back?
If so, it is better somebody contributes a grammar book - in phases - intending for
all in the forum, as suggested by Sai.
Next : >> idam mama bharyaayaa 'email'! << anyaayam - sorry madam, we thought it is
you.
maam has to forms in second case:
1] maam - avaam - asmaan
2] maa - nau - naH
so also fourth:
mhyam - avaabhyaam - asmaabhiH
me - nau - naH
so also sixth
mama - avayoH - asmaakam
me - nau - naH
you will find these in old usage
dhrao
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040821/bca42eea/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 11:03:57 -0400
From: Nath Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Sanskrit] Re: Vedic question
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Ambujam Raman wrote:
> The most quoted piece in the upanishad is:
>
> asato maa sad gamaya
> tamaso maa jyotirgamaya
> mrityormaa'm.Rtam gamaya
> (brihadaaraNyaopanishad 1.3.28)
>
> Of course in all these maa stands for maaM (ekavachanam dvitiiya).
> On the other hand if 'maa' is interpreted as the proscriptive particle
> then the meaning is diametrically opposite. There is no particular
> reason (based on chandas) not to use 'maaM' here. There is no
> anvaadesa. Why did the ancients use such an ambiguous invocation?
The ancients had >no< ambiguity.
First, the prohibitive maa was used only with the injunctive
(lu~N or la~N, without the initial a), while the imperative (loT)
was used only for positive commands: It would have to be
"maa' jiigamaH", (the ' is udaatta mark, see below)
not "maa gamaya".
Second, this maa is anudaatta, the prohibitive maa is udaatta.
Finally, in Vedic texts, maam is used when there is some emphasis on
that word. So there is good reason not to use maam here.
So, in re the famous story, "mo'dake'na maa'm taaDaya" would have left
paaNini and his contemporaries puzzled, at least for a while. They would
have said "maa' modake'na tiitaDiiH"
Nath Rao
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sanskrit mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit
End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 17, Issue 21
****************************************
