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"??? (Hera Moon)
2. Re: My test check with Transliteration tool of
specials.msn.co.in (S. L. Abhyankar)
3. curiousity about "Kalidasisms" (S. L. Abhyankar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:39:47 +0200
From: "Hera Moon" <heram...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Why not "siddhyanti"???
To: "'Sanskrit Mailing List'" <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <4bfe923d.9508cc0a.1e66.3...@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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
_____
Von: sanskrit-boun...@cs.utah.edu [mailto:sanskrit-boun...@cs.utah.edu] Im
Auftrag von Krishnamachary
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Mai 2010 02:06
An: Sanskrit Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [Sanskrit] Why not "siddhyanti"???
Thank You Every thing Is put in proper form So no doubt.One has to go to Dhatu
and group in which it falls
Mr.V.Krishnamachary
Retired Civil Engineer
Samskrutha Abhimaani
Email: vedantham_kris...@yahoo.com
--- On Wed, 5/26/10, Piergiorgio Muzi <glob...@comm2000.it> wrote:
From: Piergiorgio Muzi <glob...@comm2000.it>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Why not "siddhyanti"???
To: "Sanskrit Mailing List" <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:51 PM
?
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: <http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sl.abhyan...@gmail.com> S.
L. Abhyankar
To: <http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sansk...@cs.utah.edu>
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 <
<http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nares...@gmail.com>
nares...@gmail.com>
To: Sanskrit Mailing List <
<http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sansk...@cs.utah.edu>
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
<http://vaak.wordpress.com/> vaak.wordpress.com
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Jay Vaidya <
<http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=deejayvai...@yahoo.com>
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 <
> <http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nares...@gmail.com>
> 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
> < <http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=glob...@comm2000.it>
> 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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
To UNSUBSCRIBE or customize your subscription or topics of interest, visit
<http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/options/sanskrit>
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/options/sanskrit
and follow instructions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/pipermail/sanskrit/attachments/20100527/523cb81f/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 11:43:08 -0400
From: "S. L. Abhyankar" <sl.abhyan...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] My test check with Transliteration tool of
specials.msn.co.in
To: sanskrit@cs.utah.edu
Message-ID:
<aanlktikwn3vo-v0keizl_ai7b_s5fres9vnpxplup...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
??????
I promptly tried the tool, so kindly suggested by Mr. Hans Nilsson.
http://specials.msn.co.in/ilit/
By typing "amrutam" I get the result ????? both in HIndi and Marathi.
The tool does not seem to provide for Sanskrit. For Sanskrit, I would look
to get in the output the ending ?? as in ?????? or as in ????? I get these
so well in BARAHA Pad, because it provides for Sanskrit as a distinct
option. Hindi and Marathi of course use the Devanagari script. But they do
not need ending ?? as much as is needed in Sanskrit.
I think BARAHA Pad developers did understand these nuances and hence
provided Sanskrit as a specific option, separate from Hindi or Marathi.
????????
????????
???????? ?????? ????????? ?
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Hans Nilsson" <h...@hansnilsson.se>
> To: "'Sanskrit Mailing List'" <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
> Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:37:49 +0200
> Subject: [Sanskrit] Tools for transliteration
>
> ??????
>
>
>
> I am using the Microsoft Indic Language Tool (free to download), which is
> great for entering devanagari directly in any application:
>
>
>
> http://specials.msn.co.in/ilit/
>
>
>
> I have also tried Lipikaar, but it is not so user friendly since you have
> to type more to get the same result (you have to type x after each letter to
> get a virama for conjoint consonants). Lipikaar is here:
> http://www.lipikaar.com/
>
>
>
> Hans Nilsson
> Sweden
>
>
>
> *Fr?n:* sanskrit-boun...@cs.utah.edu [mailto:sanskrit-boun...@cs.utah.edu]
> *F?r *S. L. Abhyankar
> *Skickat:* den 26 maj 2010 02:35
> *Till:* sanskrit@cs.utah.edu
> *Kopia:* tnah...@yahoo.co.uk
> *?mne:* Re: [Sanskrit] Tools for transliteration
>
>
>
> I get following results
>
> (1) by ITRANS of ibiblio ???????? from typing amRutam
>
> (2) By devanagari tool in Google ????? from typing same amRutam
>
> (3) By BARAHA Pad ?????? from typing amRutam and
>
> (4) By BARAHA PAD ????? from typing amRutaM
>
>
>
> I think this explains why I am happy with BARAHA Pad.
>
>
>
> BARAHA Pad transliterates character by character. You do not wait
> anxiously, as in Google, waiting to see how the word will become.
>
>
>
> It is not limited by the diction, as Google seems to be.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, I can use BARAHA Pad off-line, as good as a simple Note Pad
> type Word processor.
> I also suggest that this word amRutam provides a good test of the
> comparative efficacy of all tools.
>
> One can find BARAHA Pad by simple Google search.
>
> ????????
>
> ????????
>
> ???????? ?????? ????????? ?
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: kamalesh pathak <kamleshsomn...@gmail.com>
> To: Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:37:03 +0530
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Font for displaying in Sanskrit
>
> sri Abhyankar mahodayah
>
> krupayaa pratyuttaram maam prayachhchha ;
>
> kah web address Barah pad download karaNAy?
>
> ( i want to download barah pad from net please send me web address )
>
> namaskAra pUrvaka
>
> jayatu somanaath mahAdevAy namah
>
> truly with regards,
>
> kamalesh pathak from Somnath
>
>
>
> On 24 May 2010 00:20, S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abhyan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. T. N. Ahuja,
>
>
>
> I have found BARAHA pad very user-friendly. There is a Language button on
> the main menu. You can activate Sanskrit or any of the other Indian
> languages. You can switch between languages also.
>
>
>
> You type the English spelling and the "pad" converts into activated script
> automatically. For special characters, you can get guidance from the "Help"
> button.
>
>
>
> BARAHA pad can be downloaded free. Being a UNICODE font, it can be
> "copy-pasted"d into emails.
>
>
>
> But there is no Mac version. You will need a windows VMWare on Mac.
>
>
>
> Hope, this helps.
>
>
>
> ???????? ,
> ?????????????????? ???????? |
> ???????? ?????? ????????? ?
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: T N Ahuja <tnah...@yahoo.co.uk>
> To: sanskrit@cs.utah.edu
> Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 16:20:12 +0000 (GMT)
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] sanskrit Digest, Vol 61, Issue 10
>
> Could you please let me know the font used to display sanskrit quotes in
> your emails
>
> Regards
>
>
> Triloki N. AHUJA
> e-mail: tnah...@yahoo.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Krishnamachary <vedantham_kris...@yahoo.com>
> To: Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 12:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Font for displaying in Sanskrit
>
> Google transliterate tool is much more versatile and could be used for
> almost all Indian languages..You can place it as a tool in Yahoo mail page
> also.It can be easily picked up from google search engine
>
> Mr.V.Krishnamachary
> Retired Civil Engineer
>
> Samskrutha Abhimaani
> Email: vedantham_kris...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 5/25/10, kamalesh pathak <kamleshsomn...@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: kamalesh pathak <kamleshsomn...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Font for displaying in Sanskrit
> To: "Sanskrit Mailing List" <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 7:07 AM
>
> sri Abhyankar mahodayah
>
> krupayaa pratyuttaram maam prayachhchha ;
>
> kah web address Barah pad download karaNAy?
>
> ( i want to download barah pad from net please send me web address )
>
> namaskAra pUrvaka
>
> jayatu somanaath mahAdevAy namah
>
> truly with regards,
>
> kamalesh pathak from Somnath
>
>
>
> On 24 May 2010 00:20, S. L. Abhyankar
> <sl.abhyan...@gmail.com<http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sl.abhyan...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. T. N. Ahuja,
>
>
>
> I have found BARAHA pad very user-friendly. There is a Language button on
> the main menu. You can activate Sanskrit or any of the other Indian
> languages. You can switch between languages also.
>
>
>
> You type the English spelling and the "pad" converts into activated script
> automatically. For special characters, you can get guidance from the "Help"
> button.
>
>
>
> BARAHA pad can be downloaded free. Being a UNICODE font, it can be
> "copy-pasted"d into emails.
>
>
>
> But there is no Mac version. You will need a windows VMWare on Mac.
>
>
>
> Hope, this helps.
>
>
>
> ???????? ,
> ?????????????????? ???????? |
> ???????? ?????? ????????? ?
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: T N Ahuja
> <tnah...@yahoo.co.uk<http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=tnah...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> To:
> sanskrit@cs.utah.edu<http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sansk...@cs.utah.edu>
> Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 16:20:12 +0000 (GMT)
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] sanskrit Digest, Vol 61, Issue 10
>
> Could you please let me know the font used to display sanskrit quotes in
> your emails
>
> Regards
>
>
> Triloki N. AHUJA
> e-mail:
> tnah...@yahoo.co.uk<http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=tnah...@yahoo.co.uk>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ajit Krishnan <ajit.krish...@gmail.com>
> To: Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:20:28 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Font for displaying in Sanskrit
> namaste,
>
>
>
> > Google transliterate tool is much more versatile
>
>
>
> Are you referring to the Google IME? It is very nice, but there is one
> problem that prevents me from using it at all. It doesn't allow me to enter
> words that are not found in its dictionary. If you have found a way around
> this, can you please share the details?
>
>
>
> As an example, try typing "patram" without an anusvAra.
>
>
>
>
>
> bhavadiiyaH,
>
>
>
> ajit
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Krishnamachary <
> vedantham_kris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Google transliterate tool is much more versatile and could be used for
> almost all Indian languages..You can place it as a tool in Yahoo mail page
> also.It can be easily picked up from google search engine
>
> Mr.V.Krishnamachary
> Retired Civil Engineer
>
> Samskrutha Abhimaani
> Email: vedantham_kris...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 5/25/10, kamalesh pathak <kamleshsomn...@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: kamalesh pathak <kamleshsomn...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Font for displaying in Sanskrit
> To: "Sanskrit Mailing List" <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 7:07 AM
>
>
>
> sri Abhyankar mahodayah
>
> krupayaa pratyuttaram maam prayachhchha ;
>
> kah web address Barah pad download karaNAy?
>
> ( i want to download barah pad from net please send me web address )
>
> namaskAra pUrvaka
>
> jayatu somanaath mahAdevAy namah
>
> truly with regards,
>
> kamalesh pathak from Somnath
>
>
>
> On 24 May 2010 00:20, S. L. Abhyankar
> <sl.abhyan...@gmail.com<http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sl.abhyan...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. T. N. Ahuja,
>
>
>
> I have found BARAHA pad very user-friendly. There is a Language button on
> the main menu. You can activate Sanskrit or any of the other Indian
> languages. You can switch between languages also.
>
>
>
> You type the English spelling and the "pad" converts into activated script
> automatically. For special characters, you can get guidance from the "Help"
> button.
>
>
>
> BARAHA pad can be downloaded free. Being a UNICODE font, it can be
> "copy-pasted"d into emails.
>
>
>
> But there is no Mac version. You will need a windows VMWare on Mac.
>
>
>
> Hope, this helps.
>
>
>
> ???????? ,
> ?????????????????? ???????? |
> ???????? ?????? ????????? ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: T N Ahuja
> <tnah...@yahoo.co.uk<http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=tnah...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> To:
> sanskrit@cs.utah.edu<http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sansk...@cs.utah.edu>
> Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 16:20:12 +0000 (GMT)
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] sanskrit Digest, Vol 61, Issue 10
>
> Could you please let me know the font used to display sanskrit quotes in
> your emails
>
> Regards
>
>
> Triloki N. AHUJA
> e-mail:
> tnah...@yahoo.co.uk<http://us.mc355.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=tnah...@yahoo.co.uk>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ramakrishna Upadrasta <uramakris...@gmail.com>
> To: Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 22:46:35 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] Font for displaying in Sanskrit
> namaste,
>
>
>
> I found the following transliterate tool quite useful.
>
>
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/sanskrit/tools/sanscript
>
>
>
> namaste
>
> Ramakrishna
>
>
>
>
>
> 2010/5/25 Ajit Krishnan <ajit.krish...@gmail.com>
>
> namaste,
>
>
>
> > Google transliterate tool is much more versatile
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/pipermail/sanskrit/attachments/20100527/69defbfd/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 12:06:06 -0400
From: "S. L. Abhyankar" <sl.abhyan...@gmail.com>
Subject: [Sanskrit] curiousity about "Kalidasisms"
To: sanskrit@cs.utah.edu
Cc: glob...@comm2000.it
Message-ID:
<aanlktillxw83by4lfpg2nsunm6r4t6-hlfnpicf4f...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
??????
(1) I am getting curious about "Kalidasisms" so called by Mr. Naresh
Cuntoor<nares...@gmail.com>
"
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 <nares...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Sanskrit Mailing List <sanskrit@cs.utah.edu>
> *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 <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/20100527/fdab6f42/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 21
****************************************
