Writing style of Devanagari

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

Here is a question on a particular writing style of Devanagari Samskrt.

Can a Samskrt word be broken as shown below ? 

जानाम्य् उषे 

प्रवृत्तिर् अध्ययनरूपा 

काचिन् निषादी 

स्याद् इति  

वस्तुतस् तु

शिष्टाचारो’ प्यधुनासमये’ ग्निहोत्र...

​प्रमाणतायास् तान्त्रिकैर् व्यवस्थापनात् 

​विरचितो’ यं 

Can the broken part be considered as a पदम्?

Is there any grammatical/phonetic/SiShTa accepted rule which supports this writing system?

​Thank you, in advance, for all the replies.

-विनीता

उषा​

--

"-यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम"

[Usha Sanka]

स्याद् इति  -- please remove this from the list.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Can a Samskrt word be broken as shown below ? 

जानाम्य् उषे 

प्रवृत्तिर् अध्ययनरूपा 

काचिन् निषादी 

स्याद् इति  

वस्तुतस् तु

शिष्टाचारो’ प्यधुनासमये’ ग्निहोत्र...

​प्रमाणतायास् तान्त्रिकैर् व्यवस्थापनात् 

​विरचितो’ यं 

Can the broken part be considered as a पदम्?

Is there any grammatical/phonetic/SiShTa accepted rule which supports this writing system?

​Thank you, in advance, for all the replies.

I think there is no rule for writing system in Grammar. But only 

संहितैकपदे नित्या नित्या धातूपसर्गयोः।

नित्या समासे वाक्ये तु सा विवक्षामपक्षते॥

In writing, sentences, it is left to the descretion of the writer's choice. वाक्ये तु सा विवक्षामपेखते।

Whether you follow roman script, it can conveniently be split as you have split. 

 jānāmy uṣe 

pravṛttir adhyayanarūpā 

kācin niṣādī

But the choice is yours. No rule says you should join them.

It is your convenience in writing and reading, but grammar does not provide rule for writing. The sandhi is optional in a sentence as per the rule quoted, but it does not say anything how you write in roman or devanagari.

Some may like as you have written. Others may like otherwise in Devanagari, for facilitating reading fluently.

जानाम्युषे 

प्रवृत्तिरध्ययनरूपा 

काचिन्निषादी 

स्यादिति  etc.

It is left to their choice, like गङ्गा and गंगा etc. written alternatively, and preferred गंगा over the other by modern readers/users of Devanagari.

Grammar does not prescribe any rule.

[Shankarji Jha]

Not in my humble opinion for several reasions--- 

Shankarji Jha,
Professor& Chairperson/Head,
Deptt of Sanskrit,
Panjab University,
Chandigarh-160014, INDIA

---

Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:18:21 +0530
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Writing style of Devanagari
From: hnbh...@gmail.com
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Is this a style writing? As  far as i can understand there are mere words.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

2015-09-29 13:30 GMT+05:30 Usha Sanka <usha....@gmail.com>:

--

[Sivasenani Nori]

Ma'am

This convention of writing in Roman alphabet deserves to be understood with sympathy.

In English, unlike in say German,  compound words are written with a space in between them. Thus civil-servant is written as civil servant. So people used to reading Roman letters treat space as if it does not exist, like we do with hyphens. We all agree that a hyphen makes long samaasas easier to understand. Example: अनधिगत-अबाधित-अर्थ-विषयक-ज्ञानत्वं प्रमा। So for them jaanaamy ushe = jaanaamyushe. They feel that jaanaamy ushe is better than jaanaami ushe because the former captures additional sandhi information. That "i"  and "y" could be similarly pronounced is a happy coincidence for them. If I were to write Sanskrit using the Urdu script, I would have to use the same character to mean different syllables (basically for different vowels) and write right to left but those are the features of my orthography and it would be pointless to be judgemental.

In case of people writing in Roman, if anything, we should appreciate those who incorporate sandhi rules more than those who do not.

Regards
N Siva Senani

[Janardana Hegde]

संहिता वाक्ये विवक्षाम् अपेक्षते इति तु सत्यम् ।  किन्तु - 

जानाम्य् उषे 

प्रवृत्तिर् अध्ययनरूपा 

काचिन् निषादी 

वस्तुतस् तु 

इत्यादिषु संहिताविवक्षायाः अनन्तरमेव यण्-रेफ-नकार-सकारादयः प्राप्ताः इत्यतः संहितारहितरूपस्य लेखनं दोषाय एव । यदि संहिता न  विवक्ष्येत तर्हि  ’जानामि उषे’ ’प्रवृत्तिः अध्ययनरूपा’ ’काचित् निषादी’” वस्तुतः तु’ इत्येवं लिख्यताम् ।  अर्धजरतीयन्यायः न शोभते ।

स्याद् इति इत्यत्र तु दकारः पदान्तत्वं निमित्तीकृत्य प्राप्तः । अतः  तादृशे स्थले दकार-तकारयोः अन्यतरस्य लेखनं न दोषाय इति मन्ये । 

”गङ्गा’ इत्यत्र परसवर्णः नित्यः, ’संहितैकपदे नित्या’ इति उक्तत्वात् । अतः  ’गंगा’ इति अनुस्वारघटितरूपलेखनं दोषाय एव,  परसवर्णस्य दुर्वारत्वात् ।

- जनार्दन हेगडे

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

​​नमस् सर्वेभ्यः :-)​

2015-09-29 19:54 GMT-07:00 Janardana Hegde <janarda...@gmail.com>:

​

 

स्याद् इति इत्यत्र तु दकारः पदान्तत्वं निमित्तीकृत्य प्राप्तः । अतः  तादृशे स्थले दकार-तकारयोः अन्यतरस्य लेखनं न दोषाय इति मन्ये । 

"​इयं कथा"​ इत्यत्रानुस्वारादेशस् तु न पदान्तनिमित्तकः। किस् तर्हि तत्र रिक्तस्थानस्थापनस्य न्यायः?

​​

वस्तुतस् तु 

इत्यादिषु संहिताविवक्षायाः अनन्तरमेव यण्-रेफ-नकार-सकारादयः प्राप्ताः इत्यतः संहितारहितरूपस्य लेखनं दोषाय एव । यदि संहिता न  विवक्ष्येत तर्हि  ’जानामि उषे’ ’प्रवृत्तिः अध्ययनरूपा’ ’काचित् निषादी’” वस्तुतः तु’ इत्येवं लिख्यताम् ।  अर्धजरतीयन्यायः न शोभते ।

​​

​०। रिक्तस्थानस्थापनमात्रेण संहिताविवक्षा नास्तीति न मन्तव्यम्। प्रसिद्धायां पद्धतौ स्यान् नाम तादृशी कल्पना। प्रस्तुतलेखनपद्धत्यां न तथा।

१। ​

​

यथोक्तं हरिनारायणभट्टमहाभागेन, 

​न प्राचीनैः किंचिद् उक्तं रिक्तस्थानस्थापनविषये। प्राचीनतालपत्रेषु नैव दृश्यन्ते रिक्तस्थानानि। आधुनिकैर् एव कल्पितेयं लेखनपद्धतिः। तेन प्रसिद्धायां सतायामपि सैव पद्धतिर् उत्तमेति न मन्तव्यम्। गुणदोषा ग्राह्याः। 

गतानुगतिकत्वं त्यक्त्वा

​ पारमार्थिकत्वम् आश्रयणीयम्।

​

​२। (संहिताविवक्षायां सतायाम् -) लेखनसौकर्य इष्टे , प्राचीनपद्धती रिक्तस्थानवर्जिता ऽवग्रहवर्जितप्राया ऽङ्गीकार्या। ईषत् पठितृसौकर्यम् ईषल् लेखकसौकर्येण साकञ् चेदिष्टं, प्रसिद्धापद्धतिस् स्वीक्रियतां रिक्तस्थानप्रयोगस्य। ततोऽप्य् अधिकतरा चेदिष्टं पठितृसौकर्यं, तर्हि "वस्तुतस् त्व्" इति लेखनशैली गृह्यताम् - तेन सन्धिविग्रहे प्राथमिकाध्येतॄणाम् महान् उपकारः, संहिताविवक्षायाम् अपि।

--

--

​​

Vishvas /विश्वासः

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

अपि च मयेदं पुरा लिखितम् अस्मिन् विषय अत्र साम्प्रतम् - 

"**प्रायः** सर्वत्र वस्तुतो वाक्यानां लेखने रिक्तस्थानेषु दर्शितेषु अपि, उच्चारणे तत्कारणाद् विरामो न लक्ष्यते। उदाहरणाय, गतवाक्यम् उक्त्वा पश्यतु, साधारणरीत्या। केवलम्, '**' इति चिह्नेन ',' चिह्नेन च सूचितयोस् स्थानयोश् च विरामो ऽनुभूयते। 

कदाचित् त

​च्चि

ह्नाभावेऽपि विरामो लक्ष्येत, परन्तु "तद् रिक्तस्थानस्य कारणाद् एव" इति न वक्तुम् अर्हामः। प्राय

​स्​

तत्र विरामचिह्नयोजनं श्रेयस इति वचनन्तु साधु स्यात्।

आङ्ग्लिके ऽपि तथैव। "I went to hear the conference call. But it was so noisy that I quit." इति वाक्यं सस्वरं यथासाधारणम् उक्त्वा परीक्षताम्। तत्रापि न कुत्रापि विरामो लक्ष्यते। "हरिर् आगतः" इत्यादौ पृथक्पठनस्य संभाव

​नैव

 नास्ति।

सर्वासु भाषासु इयमेव स्थितिः। लेखने पदयोर् मध्ये रिक्तस्थानयोजनेन विनावचनं शीघ्रपठनं स्पष्टतरञ्च भवतीति कृत्वा रिक्तस्थानयोजनपद्धतिर् आश्रिता। उच्चारणनिमित्तन्तु भिन्नचिह्नाः‌ (, ; । इत्यादयः) प्रयुज्यन्ते।"

[Amba Kulkarni]

Yes, it is definitely a दोष. But as explained by Nori, it has a purpose when written especially in roman script. The purpose is to make it easy to read and understand. Since now the word boundaries are indicated, one can understand the text easily. At the same time, since the var.nas that have undergone change are retained without going back to the unsandhied version, the original sa.mhitaa text is also available.

In Devanagari also at certain places we retain sandhi, and still add a space as in वनं गच्छति,  तथो हि, etc. This makes processing Devanagari text difficult than processing romanised one. In Romanised text, uniformally all the sandhis are retained while in Devanagari some sandhis are resolved and some sandhis are retained.

Amba Kulkarni

 

- जनार्दन हेगडे

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

आ नो भद्रा: क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वत: ll
Let noble thoughts come to us from every side.
- Rig Veda, I-89-i.
Assoc Prof.
Department of Sanskrit Studies
University of Hyderabad

Prof. C.R. Rao Road 

Hyderabad-500 046

(91) 040 23133802(off)

http://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/scl
http://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/faculty/amba

[Hnbhat B.R.]

>
> Yes, it is definitely a दोष. But as explained by Nori, it has a purpose when written especially in roman script. The purpose is to make it easy to read and understand. Since now the word boundaries are indicated, one can understand the text easily. At the same time, since the var.nas that have undergone change are retained without going back to the unsandhied version, the original sa.mhitaa text is also available.
>

The question is which one is correct or is there any rule to  decide which one are to be used? 

Panini formed his rules neither for Devanagari nor roman script or IAST or any particular script, which have their own way of writing. The 20th century way of writing, may not be suitable for computational processing today which Panini probably didn't consider, though it is claimed Sanskrit Language is suitable for computers.

Those who could not find it easy to read the conventional writing, invent new methods of writing and if you ask is there any rule which is to be chosen amonth the ones listed, Panini's Sandhi rules may not help as I know he did not form any rule for how to write in Devanagari or in any script.

[Amba Kulkarni]

Dear Prof. Bhat,

On 30 September 2015 at 11:56, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

 The 20th century way of writing, may not be suitable for computational processing today which Panini probably didn't consider, though it is claimed Sanskrit Language is suitable for computers.

This claim that Sanskrit is suitable for computers appear time and again. It is a general misunderstanding that it  is Sanskrit language which is suitable for computers. So I thought let me clarify a few points in this connection.

The connection goes back to a paper published by Rick Briggs in a professional computer magazine 30 years ago (Knowledge Representation in Sanskrit and Artificial Intelligence, in AI Magazine, issue 6, 1985). This article precisely talks about the
shaabdabodha tradition in India which has similarities to the notion of semantic net. However, it should also be noted that no clear follow-up to this article emerged in the last 30 years from the author.

With regards,

Amba Kulkarni

[Shankarji Jha]

Thanks, Madam Amba, for the information. Fortunately, I attended  the suchlike conference at Banglore  almost 30 years back (after the publication of Briggs's paper) where Mr.  Briggs was also present. No further findings afterwards. Regards, 

Shankarji Jha,
Professor& Chairperson/Head,
Deptt of Sanskrit,
Panjab University,
Chandigarh-160014, INDIA

---

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:56:58 +0530

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Writing style of Devanagari

From: ambap...@gmail.com
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

[Sivakumari Katuri]

नमस्ते,
लेखने न काचित्पद्धतिरनुशासिता व्याकरणेनेति यदुक्तमेतावता तदनुसरणे कश्चन संशयः उदेति - षट्त्सन्तः इत्यादयः मुखसुखाय षट्त् सन्तः इति विभज्यन्ते उत षट् त्सन्त इति।

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Sivakumari Katuri <shivakuma...@gmail.com> wrote:

नमस्ते,
लेखने न काचित्पद्धतिरनुशासिता व्याकरणेनेति यदुक्तमेतावता तदनुसरणे कश्चन संशयः उदेति - षट्त्सन्तः इत्यादयः मुखसुखाय षट्त् सन्तः इति विभज्यन्ते उत षट् त्सन्त इति।

There is no such doubt if you follow Panini as धुट् is prescribed to स and not any others> 

षट्त्सन्तः is normal way it is written and it could be split and written षट् त्सन्तः following Panini, but if you follow how it is convenient to pronounce, you can write in any way it gives मुखसुख as you suggested 

षट्त् सन्तः or षट् त् सन्तः as it is convenient for you.

Sorry for writing in Sanskrit.

[Sivakumari Katuri]

तर्हि पाणिनीयं क्वचिल्लेखनमपि अनुशास्तीति ध्वनति खलु!

--

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

​

​

2015-09-30 8:16 GMT-07:00 Sivakumari Katuri <shivakuma...@gmail.com>:

षट्त्सन्तः is normal way it is written and it could be split and written 

​​

षट् त्सन्तः following Panini

​"षट्त् सन्तः or षट् त् सन्तः" इत्येतयोर् अपेक्षया "​षट् त्सन्तः" इत्येवं विभजनम् सुव्यवस्थितं मन्ये। तत्र हेतू -

१। यथा मया प्राक्तने पत्रे सूचितं, रिक्तस्थानयोजनमात्रेणोच्चारणभेदो न जायेत। तेन पक्षे मुखसुखलाभे मम संशीतिः।

२। रिक्तस्थानयोजनस्य प्रमुखं प्रयोजनम् अस्यां पद्धतौ सन्धिविभागे पठितृसाहाय्यम् एव।

​

2015-09-30 8:16 GMT-07:00 Sivakumari Katuri <shivakuma...@gmail.com>:

तर्हि पाणिनीयं क्वचिल्लेखनमपि अनुशास्तीति ध्वनति खलु!

​बाढम्। पदसंज्ञाविधानेन साकं सन्धिनियमाः खलु पाणिनीयाः ​प्रेरयन्ति प्रस्तुतं लेखनविधानम्।

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On 30-Sep-2015 9:07 am, "विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)" <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ​​नमस् सर्वेभ्यः :-)​
>
>
> 2015-09-29 19:54 GMT-07:00 Janardana Hegde <janarda...@gmail.com>:
> ​
>  
>>
>> स्याद् इति इत्यत्र तु दकारः पदान्तत्वं निमित्तीकृत्य प्राप्तः । अतः  तादृशे स्थले दकार-तकारयोः अन्यतरस्य लेखनं न दोषाय इति मन्ये । 
>
> "​इयं कथा"​ इत्यत्रानुस्वारादेशस् तु न पदान्तनिमित्तकः। किस् तर्हि तत्र रिक्तस्थानस्थापनस्य न्यायः?
>

इयं कथा इत्यत्रापि अनुस्वारादेशस्तु पदान्तनिमित्तक एव,   पदान्तत्वाभावे, "नश्चापदान्तस्य झलि" इति परसवर्ण एव स्यात्, न तु अनुस्वारः। तदा, "वा पदान्तस्य" इति परसवर्णस्य विकल्पनात् पक्षे परसवर्णाभावे अनुस्वारादेश एव।

"किस् तर्हि" इत्यत्र किस् इति किं शब्दरूपम्? कस्यापत्यं किर् इति वा?

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2015-09-30 18:46 GMT-07:00 Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>:

इयं कथा इत्यत्रापि अनुस्वारादेशस्तु पदान्तनिमित्तक एव,   पदान्तत्वाभावे, "नश्चापदान्तस्य झलि" इति परसवर्ण एव स्यात्, न तु अनुस्वारः। तदा, "वा पदान्तस्य" इति परसवर्णस्य विकल्पनात् पक्षे परसवर्णाभावे अनुस्वारादेश एव।

​सुष्ठु॑ बोधितो॑ऽस्मि।​ आक्षेप॑स्सद्यो॑ नि॑रस्तः। (<----- इयमपरा लेखनशैली भवितुमर्हति। अत्र  ॑ इति चिह्नम् उदात्तसूचकत्वात् सन्धिविभजने पठितृसाहाय्यं करोति, यतो ह्युदात्तम् पदमेकवर्जम्।)

 

"किस् तर्हि" इत्यत्र किस् इति किं शब्दरूपम्? कस्यापत्यं किर् इति वा?

​टङ्कनदोषे॑ विद्वत्तापूर्णो॑ वि॑नोदस् सामोदं॑ स्वीकृतः॑।​ को॑ऽपि कि॑रपि ते॑न कपत्नीविलासे॑न प्रीता॑ इति ना॑स्ति संशयः॑।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2015-09-30 19:26 GMT-07:00 विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com>:

ह्युदात्तम् पदमेकवर्जम्

​हन्त - अनुदात्तम् पदमेकवर्जम् इति लिलेखिषितम्।​

[Sivakumari Katuri]

नमस्ते,

On 1 Oct 2015 7:58 am, "विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)" <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2015-09-30 19:26 GMT-07:00 विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> ह्युदात्तम् पदमेकवर्जम्
>
>
> ​हन्त - अनुदात्तम् पदमेकवर्जम् इति लिलेखिषितम्।​

सम्प्रति उदात्तवर्जमनुदात्तं भवतीत्युक्ते सति उदात्तादुत्तरस्य अनुदात्तस्य उदात्तादनुदात्तस्य स्वरितः इति सूत्रेण अनुदात्तस्य स्वरितः भवेत् तथैव स्वरितादुत्तराणामनुदात्तानां स्वरितात् संहितायामनुदात्तानाम् इति सूत्रेण एकश्रुतिः भवेन्ननु। का व्यवस्था भवद्भिः उच्यमाना, कृपया स्पष्टीकरणेनानुगृह्णन्तु।

>
>
>
> --
> --
> Vishvas /विश्वासः
>

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2015-09-30 22:14 GMT-07:00 Sivakumari Katuri <shivakuma...@gmail.com>:

सम्प्रति उदात्तवर्जमनुदात्तं भवतीत्युक्ते सति उदात्तादुत्तरस्य अनुदात्तस्य उदात्तादनुदात्तस्य स्वरितः इति सूत्रेण अनुदात्तस्य स्वरितः भवेत् तथैव स्वरितादुत्तराणामनुदात्तानां स्वरितात् संहितायामनुदात्तानाम् इति सूत्रेण एकश्रुतिः भवेन्ननु। का व्यवस्था भवद्भिः उच्यमाना, कृपया स्पष्टीकरणेनानुगृह्णन्तु।

​पदे प्रमुखस्वरस् तूदात्त एव। ​तस्मिन् पदे स्यान्न वा ऽनुदात्तादयोऽपरे स्वराः, ते तु उदात्तस्थाने ज्ञाते सरलतयोह्याः। तेन हेतुनोदात्तस्थानसूचनमात्रेण रिक्तस्थानवर्जितवर्णसमूहेऽपि पदविभागस् सुगमतरो भवत्य् अर्भकैर् मादृशैः।

(किञ्च तदर्थं सम्बद्धलक्ष्यलक्षणाध्ययनम् अपेक्षितम्। परन्तु महत् काठिन्यं न स्यात् सामन्यव्यवस्थाया अवगतौ। विस्वरभाषणाद् ऊर्ध्वं स्यात् सस्वरभाषणं सदोषमपीति मे मतिः - अपवादवैरल्यात्।)

[Sivakumari Katuri]

भवदुट्टङ्कितस्य अनुदात्तं पदमेतवर्जमिति सूत्रस्य तु स एवार्थः यत्रान्यः स्वर उदात्तः स्वरितो वा भवति तत्र तमेकमुदात्तं स्वरितं वा वर्जयित्वा अवशिष्टः अनुदात्तो भवतीति। अतः अप्राक्षमहं का व्यवस्थेति।
धन्यवादाः।

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Can a Samskrt word be broken as shown below ? 

जानाम्य् उषे 

प्रवृत्तिर् अध्ययनरूपा 

काचिन् निषादी 

स्याद् इति                             

Can the broken part be considered as a पदम्?

Is there any grammatical/phonetic/SiShTa accepted rule which supports this writing system?

                                                                      -- विदुषी उषा शङ्का

No , it should not be written like that --

we write what we pronounce and vice versa -

there are two things - काल and देश or देश and काल -

1. if I write राम् अ , then I have to read it as it is , i e giving a pause between the two parts - then there will be a doubt to the listener as to what is this .

2. Take a look at this -

Panini rules परः संनिकर्षः संहिता , संहितायाम् - वर्णानाम् अतिशयितः संनिधिः संहिता - what is this ? 

there should not be any interference either by काल or वर्ण (or both) - this is what is meant by the term परे - अव्यवहितपरत्वम् - no व्यवधानम् by काल or वर्ण ।

In राम् अ there will certainly be कालिकव्यवधनम् caused by the gap .

धातोः , प्रत्ययः, परश्च , आद्युदात्तश्च ... -- any प्रत्यय will be अव्यवहितपर only -

3. another point is the problem with स्वर - 

Panini did not make छन्दो’धिकार for स्वर  whereby we would have been in a position to say that स्वर is applicable only in छन्दस् (शब्दकौस्तुभः) |

 So स्वर is there in both लौकिकसंस्कृतम् and वैदिकसंस्कृतम् । In लोक there is no आदर for स्वर - this is the सिद्धान्त ।

The entire पदपाठ will be affected .

4. Kaiyata under परः संनिकर्षः संहिता , says -

पूर्ववर्णोच्चारणानन्तरमेव यद्वर्णान्तरम् उच्चार्यते , न तु तच्छून्यान्तरालसद्भावः स परः उत्कृष्टः सन्निकर्षः प्रत्यासत्तिलक्षणः संहितासंज्ञः इति सूत्रार्थः ।

when there is प्रत्यासत्ति of वर्णs in उच्चारणा then there should be the same in लिपि also as both have to go hand in glove and the काल should reflect in लिपि , otherwise there will be chaos .

5. While raking up the question that there will not be संहिता in द्रुतवृत्ति  ,

 Patanjali brings in elephant and mosquito --

परः सन्निकर्षः संहिता चेदद्रुतायम् असंहितम् (वार्तिकम्)

तुल्यः सन्निकर्षः (वा)

भा - तुल्यः सन्निकर्षः वर्णानां द्रुतमध्यविलम्बितासु वृत्तिषु

किंकृतस्तर्हि विशेषः ?

वर्णकालभूयस्त्वं तु (वा)

वर्णानां तु कालभूयस्त्वम् । तद्यथा - हस्तिमशकयोः तुल्यः सन्निकर्षः , प्राणिभूयस्त्वं तु । (प्राणी=शरीरम् - नागेशः)

कैयटः -- हस्तिमशकयोरिति । हस्तिनो हस्तिनः यः सन्निकर्षः मशकस्य मशकेन सः तुल्यः परस्परापेक्षय़ा इत्यर्थः । प्राणिभूयस्त्वम् । हस्तिनौ महान्तं देशं व्याप्नुतः मशकौ तु स्वल्पम्। नैरन्तर्यं तु अविशिष्टम् इत्यर्थः।

उक्तं वा (वा)

भा - किमुक्तम् ? सिद्धं त्ववस्थिता वर्णा वक्तुः चिराचिरवचनात् वृत्तयो विशिष्यन्ते इति ।

6. विरामो’वसानम् --

संहितावसानयोः लोकविदितत्वात् सिद्धम् (वा)

भा - संहिता अवसानम् इति लोकविदितौ एतौ अर्थौ ।

So if you stop with a वर्ण and then restart then it cannot be a पदम् --

Kaiyata - यथा पदनैरन्तर्ये संहिताव्यवहारः तथा ऐकपद्ये’पि वर्णनैर्न्तर्ये ।

ऐकपद्ये = एकपदे (स्वार्थे ष्यञ्)

7. There is परस्परापेक्षा even between प्रकृति and प्रत्यय । Here is 

Kumarila in श्लोकवार्तिकम् --

प्रकृतिप्रत्ययौ यद्वत् अपेक्षेते परस्परम् ।

पदं पदान्तरं यद्वत् वाक्यं वाक्यान्तरं तथा॥

So one should not separate the प्रकृति and प्रत्यय।

8. When we pronounce ब्रह्म , मध्याह्न , प्रह्लाद etc ह्म , ह्न and ह्ल has to be pronounced as उरस्यम् - says Panini (शिक्षा) -

हकारं पञ्चमैर्युक्तं अन्तःस्थाभिश्च संयुतम् ।

उरस्यं तं विजानीयात् ....॥

Another शिक्षा says that (although we know that it is ह्म ) it is to be pronounced as if it is म्ह ।

This is very important for लिपि and उच्चारणा।

9. Patanjali in 8th अध्याय under डः सि धुट् clearly explains the problem of Panini's पूर्वान्त vs परादि , if disturbed --

इह धुडादिषु कचित् पूर्वान्ताः क्रियन्ते केचित् परादयः । यदि पुनः सर्व एव पूर्वान्ताः स्युः सर्व एव वा परादयः कश्चात्र विशेषः ?

धुगादिषु ष्टुत्वणत्वप्रतिषेधः (वा)

धुगादिषु सत्सु ष्टुत्वणत्वयोः प्रतिषेधो वक्तव्यः ।

ष्टुत्वस्य तावत् - श्वलिट्त्साये , मधुलिट्त्साये । ’ष्टुना ष्टुः ’ इति  ष्टुत्वं प्राप्नोति। परादौ 

पुनः सति ’ न पदान्ताट्टोरनाम् ’ इति प्रतिषेधः सिद्धो भवति  । णत्वस्य - कुर्वन्नास्ते , कृषन्नास्ते । ’ रषाभ्यां नो णः समानपदे ’ इति णत्वं प्राप्नोति । परादौ पुनः सति ’ पदान्तस्य न ’ इति प्रतिषेधः सिद्धो भवति ।

सन्तु तर्हि परादयः  -

परादौ छत्वषत्वविधिप्रतिषेधः (वा)

भा - यदि परादयः छत्वं विधेयं , षत्वं च प्रतिविधेयम् । छत्वं विधेयम् - कुर्वञ्च्छेते, कृषञ्च्छेते । .... षत्वं च प्रतिषेध्यम् - प्रत्यङ्क्सिञ्च , उदङ्क्सिञ्च । ’आदेशप्रत्यययोरि’ति

षत्वं प्राप्नोति । पूर्वान्ते पुनः ’सात्पदाद्योरि’ति प्रतिषेधः सिद्धो भवति ।

तस्मात् सन्तु यथान्यासमेव केचित् पूर्वान्ताः केचित्परादयः ।

Therefore , you have to incur पाणिनिविरोध in terms of पूर्वान्त and परादि ।

10. लिखितपाठकः - is a पाठकाधम (शिक्षा) - so there has been लिपि/लिबि since time immemorial and care has been taken in this regard .

There are more in store ... if required .

धन्यो’स्मि

 

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[Amba Kulkarni]

Thank you very much Prof. Korada ji for detailed explanation.

So in sa.mhitaa I write रामोवनङ्गच्छति  but when I undo the sandhi between padas and introduce a pause between them, I get रामः वनम् गच्छति.

But I have often seen people insisting me to write it as रामः वनं गच्छति.

Similarly I often come across रामो गच्छति instead of रामः गच्छति ? and यतो हि  instead of यतः हि ? and ते इह instead of  त इह ?

I would like to have clarification regarding these examples.

Thanks and regards,

Amba Kulkarni

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2015-10-01 4:42 GMT-07:00 Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com>:

1. if I write राम् अ , then I have to read it as it is , i e giving a pause between the two parts - then there will be a doubt to the listener as to what is this .

2. Take a look at this -

Panini rules परः संनिकर्षः संहिता , संहितायाम् - वर्णानाम् अतिशयितः संनिधिः संहिता - what is this ? 

there should not be any interference either by काल or वर्ण (or both) - this is what is meant by the term परे - अव्यवहितपरत्वम् - no व्यवधानम् by काल or वर्ण ।

​​

संस्कृतस्याऽधुनिक-​साधारणलिखितपठनपद्धताव् एव तथा स्यात्, तदपि क्वचिद् एव (तन्नाम पदपाठसन्दर्भे)। यथा वीक्षताम् - "रामम् अगच्छत्" इति दृश्यते। तत्र लिपौ व्यवधानेन कालव्यवधानं नैवानुभूयते। यथोक्तम् अन्यासु भाषासु बहुषु, लिपौ रिक्तस्थानं पदभेदमेव द्योतयति, न कालव्यवधानम्। कालव्यवधानसूचनारथं तु .,;- इत्यादयश् चिह्नाः प्रयुज्यन्ते। सैव स्पष्टतरा लिखितपठनपद्धतिर् वरीयसीति मे मतिः।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2015-10-01 7:48 GMT-07:00 विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com>:

चिह्नाः

​चिह्नानि​

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I can write instead of 

 रामोवनङ्गच्छति which reflects परः संन्निकर्षः संहिता।

but

 रामो वनं गच्छति which is commonly written even with सन्धि, only your objection of keeping space between रामो वनं गच्छति in spite of Sandhi form in tact. In manuscripts we do not find any wordspace and we have to split the words only by reading the text with grammatical knowledge for the words in a sentence and even you cannot find any | for full stop. We are presenting the text in the above way. Prof. Korada's opinion would be in favor of writing without space to reflect the परः सन्निकर्षः in संहिता। Even though space does not constitute part of the Sandhi, but way of writing for facilitating reading. वनङ्गच्छति may present problem for pronunciation for some readers who are not accustomed to see such forms, of parasavarna, And the resultant attempt to use uniformly anusvaara,  which here is grammatically acceptable optionally in the above case, वनं गच्छति, वनङ्गच्छति, only  the space differentiating. But वनं गच्छति is preferable for pronunciation and recognizing the two words immediately. The same applied by modern writers,  गंगा prefered to the grammatically acceptable form गङ्गा by those people finding difficult to  pronunce ङ्ग. This leads the way off Panini's Sandhi rules. The space itself is against परःसंन्निकर्षः in संहिता.

As per वाक्ये तु सा विवक्षामपेक्षते, the संहिता itself optional, except in समास, धातूपसर्ग, and single word like गङ्गा where there is no option.

The option is रामः,  वनम् गच्छति as three separate words all declined and placed with space uniformly after the individual word. But this does not facilitate in fluent reading of the three words when speak, unlike the English sentence with English words, where the सन्धि doesn't  play much important role and roman script is convenient for writing with word space for each word in a sentence. 

Panini does not allow word space in the case of संहिता as explained in परः संनिकर्षः and if Sandhi rules are applied, it word space between the words in संहिता form is against Panini. But even in संहितापाठ words are separated in printing Vedic texts and पदपाठ has the words split. Prof. Korada will explain the use of word space in संहिता text as we are used to see in the print.

 

And the last option 

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2015-10-01 4:42 GMT-07:00 Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com>:

8. When we pronounce ब्रह्म , मध्याह्न , प्रह्लाद etc ह्म , ह्न and ह्ल has to be pronounced as उरस्यम् - says Panini (शिक्षा) -

हकारं पञ्चमैर्युक्तं अन्तःस्थाभिश्च संयुतम् ।

उरस्यं तं विजानीयात् ....॥

Another शिक्षा says that (although we know that it is ह्म ) it is to be pronounced as if it is म्ह ।

This is very important for लिपि and उच्चारणा।

विषयान्तरम् इदञ्चेदपि - "पाणिनीय"शिक्षापरम्परा पाणिनिसम्मतेति साम्प्रदायिका केचित्। ते महता प्रयत्नेनाष्टाध्यायी-पाणिनीयशिक्षा-समन्वयं कल्पयन्ति। किन्त्व् एतादृशैः विकारैर् ज्ञायते शिक्षाशास्त्रमिदं वस्तुतो ऽपाणिनीयम् इति सरलम् उत्तरप्रायं समाधानम्।

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

I can write instead of 

 रामोवनङ्गच्छति which reflects परः संन्निकर्षः संहिता।

but

The sequence रामोवनं could be split as रामः अवनम्, not वन where there is no water or अवनं protection, if the context needs and otherwise रामः वनम्, which again calls grammatical exigency. If the other option as we usually writing without space, leaves no doubt that it means Rama goes to forest. That much clear. "पयः कीलालममृतं जीवनं भुवनं वनम् ॥ ३२३ ॥" it may mean Rama goes to water. (river). Only splitting the words for facility does not clear doubts in all places.

So the last option will be 

रामोवनङ्गच्छति। to be grammatically correct परः संनिकर्षः संहिता to परस्सन्निकर्षस्संहिता.

In the सूत्र, the विसर्ग takes place in विसर्ग only in संहिता, "8-3-36 वा शरि" where both are संहिताकार्य.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Amba,

     Your observation, "Similarly I often come across रामो गच्छति instead of रामः गच्छति ? and यतो हि  instead of यतः हि ? and ते इह instead of  त इह ?" is very correct, and reflects the current style of writing and printing Sanskrit.  The technology of printing Devanagari developed during the British colonial period, and the notion of leaving gaps between Sanskrit words, where possible, was a result of the editorial decisions made during the colonial period.  If you look at the handwritten manuscripts, most of them show no gaps between words anywhere, and this is the case with most inscriptions.  So, in part, we are dealing with norms of representing Sanskrit that developed during the colonial period.  Whether those norms conform to or reflect Pāṇinian grammar is a different question.  However, these modern norms are found everywhere in the modern printed editions of Sanskrit texts, though these editions are based on manuscripts that show no gaps between words.  This is the case of the printed Vedic Saṃhitā texts as well, while the word Saṃhitā refers to a form of recitation that is continuous, without gaps.  Simplification or ease of reading may have been the principle motivation in introducing gaps in written and printed Sanskrit, and they clearly do not reflect the ancient notions of sandhi or saṃhitā.

Madhav Deshpande

Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA

[K S Kannan]

There are also the dicta that declare the efficacy and primacy of saMhitA :

1.Vamana says in his Kavyalankarasutra 

नित्या संहितैकपदवत्-पादेष्वर्धान्तवर्जम् ।

2.The vRtti thereon, by Vamana himself, says

नित्या संहिता पादेषु एकपदवत् एकस्मिन्नेव पदे । तत्र हि नित्या संहितेत्याम्नायः । अर्धान्तवर्जम् अर्धान्तं वर्जयित्वा ।

3.The prAtishAkhya-s note : वर्णानामेकप्राणयोगस्संहिता and also 

4.पदप्रकृतिस्संहिता

5.AitareyAraNyaka says येन सन्धिं विवर्तयति येन स्वरास्वरं विजानाति येन मात्रामात्रं विभजते सा संहिता ।

6.Nirukta says मन्त्रो ह्यभिव्यज्यमानः पूर्वमृषेर्मन्त्रदृशस्संहितयैवाभिव्यज्यते न पदैः ... यज्ञकर्मणि संहितयैव विनियुज्यन्ते मन्त्राः

7.Kaiyata : संहिताया एव नित्यत्वात् ।

8.The commentary on Gotamadharmasutra : सर्वच्छन्दस्सु सर्वप्रवचनेषु संहिता , न पदानि क्रमो वा । Also cf. 

9. संहिताया एव नित्यत्वं , पदच्छेदस्य तु पौरुषेयत्वम् ।

All said, however, we may remember the direction of Patanjali :

10.अर्थगत्यर्थश्शब्दप्रयोगः

KSKannan

Dr. K.S.Kannan

Professor, 

Centre for Ancient History and Culture,

Jain University

319, 17th Cross, 25th Main,

6th Phase, J P Nagar, Bangalore - 560 078

(Ex-Director, Karnataka Samskrit University)

[Hnbhat B.R.]

The question raised is of the splitting of words even when in संहिता form with word space, recently. 

And the question modified as to whether परः संनिकर्षः includes the writing of joining without word space in writing practice रामो वनं गच्छति, रामो वनङ् गच्छति  or रामोवनंगच्छति, or रामोवनङ्गच्छति, in addition to using the option वाक्ये विवक्षामपेक्षते as रामः वनम् गच्छति even in a sentence, not only in श्लोकः and श्लोकपादः where traditionally splitting is seen in श्लोकार्ध and not even in श्लोकपादः which is considered as पद. The preference of writing with word space is questioned even in Sandhi.

"पदप्रकृतिः संहिता (निरु. पू. 6 खं. 17)" in Vedic Samhitaa.

And you have quoted the Vamana's dictum and more. 

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2015-10-01 19:11 GMT-07:00 K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com>:

8.The commentary on Gotamadharmasutra : सर्वच्छन्दस्सु सर्वप्रवचनेषु संहिता , न पदानि क्रमो वा । Also cf. 

9. संहिताया एव नित्यत्वं , पदच्छेदस्य तु पौरुषेयत्वम् ।

​शुभात्मन्। एतयोः प्रमाणयोर् दर्शनेनाहम् अनुगृहीतः। हरिनारायणभट्टमहाभागेनाऽपि "संहितैकपदे नित्या नित्या धातूपसर्गयोः ।

नित्या समासे वाक्ये तु सा विवक्षामपेक्षते ॥" इति सूत्रान्तरे प्रदर्श्य तदेवोक्तम् - "वाक्ये विरामविवक्षाभावे सन्धिर् नित्यः।" इति स्मरामि। किन्तु केचन "विवक्षामपेक्षते" इति वचनम् अन्यथैव व्याकुर्वन्तः -  पदयोर् मध्ये विरामम् अदत्त्वाऽपि विसन्धिवाक्यानि भाषन्ते (लखन्ति च)।

​"संहिताया एव नित्यत्वं , पदच्छेदस्य तु पौरुषेयत्वम् ।"​ इति क्वोक्तम्?  पौरुषेयत्वं नाम किमिति? प्रवचनं नाम किम्?

[Amba Kulkarni]

Thank you very much Prof. Deshpande.

I am looking at this phenomenon only from automatic processing point of view. When I use texts in IAST or some romanised form, I know that the space is only for ease of pronunciation. This space also provides me a hint as to where to split the unsandhied text.

In case of a Devanagari text, I always get a text that is partially in unsandhied form and partially in sandhied form, and many a times it may not be clear which one is in sandhied form and which part is in unsandhied form. This definitely adds to the complexity in processing. Therefore I was wondering whether there are any principles which the editors might have adapted (may be unconsciously). If there are any such principles, they may be considered as a patch over the Panini's grammar, which might be useful for processing such a mixed string.

with  regards,

Amba

आ नो भद्रा: क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वत: ll
Let noble thoughts come to us from every side.
- Rig Veda, I-89-i.
Assoc Prof.
Department of Sanskrit Studies
University of Hyderabad

Prof. C.R. Rao Road 

Hyderabad-500 046

(91) 040 23133802(off)

http://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/scl
http://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/faculty/amba

2015-10-01 23:42 GMT+05:30 Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu>:

[Hnbhat B.R.]

8.The commentary on Gotamadharmasutra : सर्वच्छन्दस्सु सर्वप्रवचनेषु संहिता , न पदानि क्रमो वा । Also cf. 

9. संहिताया एव नित्यत्वं , पदच्छेदस्य तु पौरुषेयत्वम् ।

​शुभात्मन्। एतयोः प्रमाणयोर् दर्शनेनाहम् अनुगृहीतः। हरिनारायणभट्टमहाभागेनाऽपि "संहितैकपदे नित्या नित्या धातूपसर्गयोः ।

नित्या समासे वाक्ये तु सा विवक्षामपेक्षते ॥" इति सूत्रान्तरे प्रदर्श्य तदेवोक्तम् - "वाक्ये विरामविवक्षाभावे सन्धिर् नित्यः।" इति स्मरामि। किन्तु केचन "विवक्षामपेक्षते" इति वचनम् अन्यथैव व्याकुर्वन्तः -  पदयोर् मध्ये विरामम् अदत्त्वाऽपि विसन्धिवाक्यानि भाषन्ते (लखन्ति च)।

तद् अधुनातनानां संभाषणशैली, लेखनशैली च, यात्र विचार्यते। 

एवं संभाषणं रैल्वे निःस्थानके मुद्रितध्वनिवद् भवति, यान्त्रिकशैल्या, न तु तस्माद् वाक्यबोधः विरामबाहुल्यात्।

 

​"संहिताया एव नित्यत्वं , पदच्छेदस्य तु पौरुषेयत्वम् ।"​ इति क्वोक्तम्?  पौरुषेयत्वं नाम किमिति? प्रवचनं नाम किम्?

 

> कुत्रोक्तमिति न ज्ञायते, पूर्वं गौतमसूत्रव्याख्यानस्य परामर्शात् उत्तरं वाक्यमपि तत्रैव स्यादित्यभूह्यते। सूत्रनिर्देशो न कृतः,  तेन अर्थभेदो न भवति वाक्यस्य। सूत्रनिर्देशे कृते, अन्यैरपि तद् द्रष्टुं शक्यमासीत्।  सर्वं व्याख्यानं परामृष्टव्यं तज्ञानाय।


पौरुषेयत्वं नाम पुरुषकृतत्वम्। वेदानां पौरुषेयत्वमपौरुषेयत्वं वा इति महती चर्चा वर्तते, तत्र योऽर्थः पौरुषेयत्वशब्दस्य, स एवत्राप्यर्थः।

एवमेव,  "स्वाध्यायप्रवचनाभ्यां न प्रमदितव्यम्" इत्यत्र प्रवचनशब्दस्य योऽर्थः, स एवात्र ग्राय्यः। 

 

 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

तद् अधुनातनानां संभाषणशैली, लेखनशैली च, यात्र विचार्यते। 

श्लोकमध्ये एव विसन्धिर्दोषाय, नान्यत्र। 

 

एवमेव,  "स्वाध्यायप्रवचनाभ्यां न प्रमदितव्यम्" इत्यत्र प्रवचनशब्दस्य योऽर्थः, स एवात्र ग्राय्यः। 

 

 

ग्राह्यः इति पठनीयम्। अत्र सन्धौ क्रियमाणे ग्राह्य इति भवति, "ग्राह्य" इति पठनीयं "ग्राह्यः" इति पठनीयं वा सन्देहः स्यात् कस्यचित् इति विसन्धिरेव मया स्वीकृतः, येन तादृशः सन्देहो न स्यात्। 

[K S Kannan]

द्वादश-वर्षेभ्यः प्राक् संहिताविषयक-शिष्टोक्तीस्सङ्कलयतो मम दृष्टि-विषयीभूतं तद् वाक्यं ("संहिताया एव नित्यत्वं , पदच्छेदस्य तु पौरुषेयत्वम् ।"), यन्मात्रस्याकरो    मम    दौर्भाग्यान्न मया लिखितः ।

गौतमधर्मसूत्र(१९.१३)स्थस्य "सर्वच्छन्दस्सु संहिता" इति सूत्रभागं व्याख्यान् मस्करी "सर्वप्रवचनेषु संहिता" इति विशदयति ।

-कण्णन्

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[K S Kannan]

"पदविच्छेदो हि पौरुषेयः , संहितैव तु नित्या" 

इति पदमञ्जर्याम् , एतिस्तु-सूत्र(३.१.१०९)व्याख्याने ।

-कण्णन्

[K S Kannan]

The issue of samhitA, it was my intention to point out, owes its genesis to its sacerdotal archetype. Despite the controversy as to whether the word pada-prakRtiH (in the prAtis'Akhya text  I cited) was to be construed as tatpurus"a or bahuvrIhi,  it is evident that the pada-split was already considered paurus"eya, (pada-kArar nAma laks"aNam anuvartyam) which may imply a certain freedom in presentation with due regard to ease of comprehension.

And in our own times, even as fastidious a scholar as Charudeva Sastri, who had a high admiration for VAmana's dictum, did not present his compositions in all-sandhied Sanskrit, though he too insisted on the primacy of the samhitA-made presentation. The special case of "na samhitAm vivaks"Ami" - was of course discussed even as early as the times of Dandin.

This gives a handle, then, to take some amount of freedom in our worldly (paurus"eya) transactions in Sanskrit. It is true too, that most Sanskrit writers today - as Prof Amba Kulkarni rightly points out - (and not excluding the writers of Samskrita Bharati) are not thoroughly consistent in printing passages in a non-sandhied form throughout.

This being the case, certain adaptations for computational purposes, and our own comprehensional purposes too, need not be, in my humble opinion, strongly objected to.

KSKannan

[K S Kannan]

Please read pada-kArar

            as  pada-kArair

KSKannan

[S R Ivaturi]

An interesting discussion is going on writing style. However there must have been a way to indicate different words in the writing styles adopted by our ancients when they started using lipi. Because sometimes a continuous chain style of writing causes an ambiguity. The early lekhakas would have resorted to some kind of separating symbol to resolve such issues. What are they? For example, a sentence such as:

राम, गृहं गच्छ। [here राम is the vocative expression]

when written without any word separation may look like:

रामगृहं (गच्छ)। 

And it conveys a different sense. 

So there must be some notation. Otherwise many texts will be incomprehensible.

Dr. I. Srinivasa Rao

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Amba,

     For the origins of the current practice of printing/writing Sanskrit in partially unsandhied fashion, one would need to look up the introductions to the oldest Devanagari editions of Sanskrit texts, edited by scholars like Max Muller, Whitney, Weber, Franz Bopp etc., as well as Indian editor/publishers like Nirnayasagara, Jibanand Vidyasagar etc.  In the practice of Nirnayasagara Press, several texts printed in the pothi style were printed like Sanskrit manuscripts, namely without any gaps between any words, and subsequently they switched to the modern style that we are familiar with.  In the first few pages of Lanman's Sanskrit Reader, we find segments like उपपन्नो गुणैर् इष्टै..., where the "r" resulting from a sandhi is shown with a gap between words.  This was done obviously to ease the comprehension of the beginning students of Sanskrit.  After the first few pages, this practice is no longer followed, as the students are expected to become familiar with the phenomenon of sandhi by then.  In more recent times, authors like [late] G.B. Palsule promoted greater use of visandhi writing of Sanskrit, while my more traditional teachers like [late] Pandit N.N. Bhide did not approve of this practice, though even he did not object to leaving a gap between रामो गच्छति.  This style of writing/printing had become the norm by then, while something like गुणैर् इष्टै might still be considered unacceptable.  

Madhav Deshpande

[Madhav Deshpande]

I have attached photograph of two pages from the Nirnayasagara edition of Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa's Prayogaratna, where one can see the mixed style of printing Sanskrit, sometimes with gaps between words and sometimes without any gaps, as one normally finds in the manuscripts.  Gradually, in the editions in the Kāvyamālā series for example, we do not find this mixed style, but the NSP has by then opted for the more modern style of leaving gaps between words where possible, while giving sandhied expressions in some places.

Madhav Deshpande

[Hnbhat B.R.]

2015-10-02 17:02 GMT+05:30 Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu>:

I have attached photograph of two pages from the Nirnayasagara edition of Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa's Prayogaratna, where one can see the mixed style of printing Sanskrit, sometimes with gaps between words and sometimes without any gaps, as one normally finds in the manuscripts.  Gradually, in the editions in the Kāvyamālā series for example, we do not find this mixed style, but the NSP has by then opted for the more modern style of leaving gaps between words where possible, while giving sandhied expressions in some places.

Thanks for the development of printing convention till the 20th century the Nirnayasagar  as the standard model as we are used to wriite. Even in the mixed style of  writinng of with and regulated space, they use modern punctuation marks of English, like colon dash, quotation marks, comma in addition to the normal "danda" which facilitated the common reader/scholars to easily grasp the readers/scholars, without violating the grammatical conventions. Now readers seem to revert back to the system  गुणैर् ईष्टे/इष्टे and the like the roman script printing. The option of Sandhi, in a sentence seems to be conveyed by the use of punctuation marks, comma, semi-colon, dash, colon-dash etc. where the संहिता is not made generally. The use of quotation mark presented some problem, in some quoted portion and the following इति where it is used. तदुक्तं कुल्लूकभट्टेन --- ".........गुणि"रिति or "....गुणैः" इति। The second is preferred in some prints. 

 

[Amba Kulkarni]

Thank you Prof. Deshpande.

This piece is very interesting. While I find देवताःस्मरन्  written together without any gap in between, but in unsandhied form as against देवतास्स्मरन्, आसनउपविश्य as against आसनोपविश्य, I notice that there is a kaaraka relation between the padas involved.

And this has been uniformally followed. Typically all the kaarakas of a verb in k.rdanta form are kept together.

संस्कारेषुकरिष्यमाणेषु
आसनउपविश्य
आचम्य
पवित्रपाणिःप्राणानायम्य
यथाचारभिष्टदेवतागुर्वादीन्नत्वा
ब्राह्मणाननुज्ञाप्य
सुमुखश्चेत्यादिनानापद्यपाठपूर्वकं
देवताःस्मरन्
देशकालौसंकीर्त्य

Thank you very much once again for sharing this.

With kind regards,

Amba

[Hnbhat B.R.]

2015-10-02 19:20 GMT+05:30 Amba Kulkarni <ambap...@gmail.com>:

Thank you Prof. Deshpande.

This piece is very interesting. While I find देवताःस्मरन्  written together without any gap in between, but in unsandhied form as against देवतास्स्मरन्, आसनउपविश्य as against आसनोपविश्य, I notice that there is a kaaraka relation between the padas involved.

Of the examples you have cited,

the first set is strictly following sandhi rules,  देवताःस्मरन् and देवतास्स्मरन् are only optional forms in Sandhi, due to 8-3-36 वा शरि which says that the replacement स् to visarga occurs optionally as शर् (श ष स). It is not mixture of sandhi or visandhi/.

In the second set, of the two forms you have quoted, the first is only correct:  आसनउपविश्य with Sandhi form only and the other आसनोपविश्य is simply not possible by sandhi of the other. The visandhi form would be आसने उपविश्य. Only space they have not given between the words.

[Amba Kulkarni]

Thank you Prof Bhat for pointing out errors in my understanding.

Amba Kulkarni

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[K S Kannan]

>>​

I notice that there is a kaaraka relation between the padas involved.
>>And this has been uniformally followed. Typically all the kaarakas of a verb in k.rdanta form are kept together.

>>

>> संस्कारेषुकरिष्यमाणेषु 
>>आसनउपविश्य

I do not see any special kAraka-sensitivity in the original cited. Prayoga-texts abound in series of actions in each module. Typically, the modules are long, single, sentences containing numerous sentoids marking the sequence of actions through participles, reserving the finite verbal form to the end.  Such action-packed manuals, as in lab manuals of physics, say, have hardly much to do with descriptive epithets. And hence, they look like kAraka-kriyA sets piled up. 

Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder : A computational linguist is entitled to feel quite licit a horripilation upon seeing serial strings conforming to a profusion of Semantic Nets or karaka-cakra-s.

KSKannan

[Hnbhat B.R.]

2015-10-02 21:14 GMT+05:30 K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com>:

>>​

I notice that there is a kaaraka relation between the padas involved.
>>And this has been uniformally followed. Typically all the kaarakas of a verb in k.rdanta form are kept together.

>>

>> संस्कारेषुकरिष्यमाणेषु 
>>आसनउपविश्य

I do not see any special kAraka-sensitivity in the original cited. Prayoga-texts abound in series of actions in each module. Typically, the modules are long, single, sentences containing numerous sentoids marking the sequence of actions through participles, reserving the finite verbal form to the end.  Such action-packed manuals, as in lab manuals of physics, say, have hardly much to do with descriptive epithets. And hence, they look like kAraka-kriyA sets piled up. 

This is the opinion of विश्वनाथन्यायपञ्चानन - on the understanding of a sentence:

परंतु तावत्पदार्थानां स्मरणादेकदैव खले कपोतन्यायात् तावत्पदार्थानां क्रियाकर्मभावेनाऽन्वयबोधरूप: शाब्दबोधो भवतीति केचित्। ""वृद्धा युवान: शिशव: कपोता: खले यथाऽमी युगपत् पतन्ति। तथैव सर्वे युगपत् पदार्था: परस्परेणाऽन्वयिनो भवन्ति  ...

अपरे तु-

""यद्यदाकाङ्क्षितं योग्यं सन्निधानं प्रपद्यते।

तेन तेनोऽन्वित: स्वार्थ: पदैरेवाऽगम्यते।।""

तथा च खण्डवाक्यार्थबोधानन्तरं तथैव पदार्थस्मृत्या महावाक्यार्थबोध इत्यप्याहु:।

Since Ambal asked for शाब्दबोध in another thread, I quoted here. 

Even what we follow today, पदच्छेदः, पदार्थोक्तिः, विग्रहः, वाक्ययोजना in order to get the meaning, by reading the verse itself or any sentence, a experienced reader would get the meaning, without pausing for Sandhi Viccheda, while reading the verse. Only the pause if any would be to get the word meaning, one has not heard, but the meaning is decided by the कर्मक्रियाभाव as one reads. कर्मपदस्य क्रियापेक्षा, क्रियापदस्य कर्त्रपेक्षा, the relation ship when the requirements are filled to complete a  sentence, the meaning is automatically appear in the mind of the reader while finishing the reading the verse. This what I get from the above.

The same with reading manuscripts, where there is no space to separate words, and if any, some dot, or some mark to notify a sentence completed or verse with numbers. The same with Nirnayasagar Pothy printings, or पत्राकार books, but they also include some mark to notify a दण्ड mark to show the end of a sentence or verses numbered mostly. But there may be even without numbers verses printed.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2015-10-02 3:03 GMT-07:00 K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com>:

The special case of "na samhitAm vivaks"Ami" - was of course discussed even as early as the times of Dandin.

​धीमद्वर, अस्य विषये इतोऽपि बोधयतु। वाक्यम् इदं केनोक्तम्? दण्डिना किं व्याख्यातम्?​

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Amba,

     I have attached a photograph of two folios of the manuscript of Mantramahodadhi in my personal collection.  As you can see, the manuscript is written in a completely Saṃhitā mode, without any gaps between words anywhere.  If you compare this manuscript with the printed editions of Mantramahodadhi, you can easily see what the editors have done in presenting the same text in a modern way of writing/printing Sanskrit.  The Nirnayasagara pothi prints are closer in style to the manuscripts, but not entirely so, as they too are affected by the writing patterns of Marathi, and also of the printing styles of English.  Many of the early printed Sanskrit books were edited by colonial officials who were in charge of the Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series (Peterson, Kielhorn, Buhler etc.), publications of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta, and publications of the Benares Sanskrit College (F.E. Hall and others).  The same is true of the Punjab Oriental Series published from Lahore, edited by scholars like Cowell.  

Madhav Deshpande

[K S Kannan]

काव्यादर्श-श्लोका इमे अनुसन्धेयाः -

३.१५९ [विसन्धिक-दोष-लक्षणम्]

न संहितां विवक्षामीत्यसन्धानं पदेषु यत् ।

तद् विसन्धीति निर्दिष्टं न प्रगृह्यादिहेतुकम् ॥
३.१६० [दोषोदाहरणम्]

मन्दानिलेन चलता अङ्गना-गण्ड-मण्डले ।

लुप्तम्  उद्भेदि घर्माम्भो नभस्यस्मद्वपष्यपि॥
३.१६१ [दोषभावोदाहरणम्]

मानेर्ष्ये  इह शीर्येते स्त्रीणाम् हिमर्तौ  प्रिये ।

आसु रात्रिष्विति प्राज्ञैराम्नातं व्यस्तमीदृशम् ॥

मन्ये सुलभानाम् अमीषां श्लोकानां तात्पर्यम् व्याख्याभिरक्लेशेन ग्राह्यम् - इति ।

कण्णन्

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[K S Kannan]

C

​orrected version:

काव्यादर्श-गताः श्लोका इमे अनुसन्धेयाः -

३.१५९ [विसन्धिक-दोष-लक्षणम्]

न संहितां विवक्षामीत्यसन्धानं पदेषु यत् ।

तद् विसन्धीति निर्दिष्टं न प्रगृह्यादिहेतुकम् ॥

३.१६० [दोषोदाहरणम्]

मन्दानिलेन चलता अङ्गना-गण्ड-मण्डले ।

लुप्तम्  उद्भेदि घर्माम्भो नभस्यस्मद्वपुष्यपि॥

३.१६१ [दोषाभावोदाहरणम्]

मानेर्ष्ये  इह शीर्येते स्त्रीणाम् हिमऋतौ प्रिये ।

आसु रात्रिष्विति प्राज्ञैराम्नातं व्यस्तमीदृशम् ॥

मन्ये सुलभानाम् अमीषां श्लोकानां तात्पर्यम् व्याख्याभिरक्लेशेन ग्राह्यम् - इति ।

​- कण्णन्

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

1. So in sa.mhitaa I write रामोवनङ्गच्छति  but when I undo the sandhi between padas and introduce a pause between them, I get रामः वनम् गच्छति.

But I have often seen people insisting me to write it as रामः वनं गच्छति. 

Similarly I often come across रामो गच्छति instead of रामः गच्छति ? and यतो हि  instead of यतः हि ? and ते इह instead of  त इह ?

I would like to have clarification regarding these examples.

                                                               --- विदुषी अम्बा कुलकर्णी

yes people insist on रामः वनं गच्छति , because they got accustomed to such a style for long and forgot the शास्त्रप्रक्रिया -

गतानुगतिको लोकः न लोकः पारमार्थिकः।

गङ्गासैकतलिङ्गेन नष्टं ताम्रभाजनम्॥

रामः गच्छति is okay (see the ensuing discussion on संहिता) । यतः हि , although nothing amiss about it , is difficult to utter fluently . Lack of knowledge of rules of सन्धि prompts them to write ते इह ।

2. But even in संहितापाठ words are separated in printing Vedic texts and पदपाठ has the words split. Prof. Korada will explain the use of word space in संहिता text as we are used to see in the print.

                                                                    -- Vidvan Harinarayana bhatta

You are right - since it is difficult to make people accustomed to a different pattern today , even if it is correct , better teach the original text and leave . Everybody wants simplification and easy going . We cannot live in seclusion - महाजनो येन गतः स पन्थाः।

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

संहिता --

1.Did Panini do anything that implies that 'संहिता ' in a वाक्यम्  depends on विवक्षा ?

Yes , at the beginning and end of his अष्टाध्यायी - अ इ उ ण् ---- अ अ ।

Why there is no सन्धि ? ’ संहिताविरहान्न यणादयः’ - शब्दकौस्तुभः ( अ इ उ ण्) ( अ अ is my example)

अ इ उ ण् etc are संज्ञासूत्राणि - सूत्रम् = असमाप्तं वाक्यम् ।

2. What about Patanjali ?

Under भूवादयो धातवः (1-3-1) Patanjali says --

कुतो’यं वकारः ? यदि तावत् संहितया निर्देशः क्रियते , भ्वादय इति भवितव्यम् । अथ असंहितया भू आदय इति भवितव्यम् ।

3.Bhatrhari in वाक्यकाण्ड (58) , वाक्यपदीयम् comments on the definition of प्रातिशाख्या -- पदप्रकृतिः स्ंहिता --

पदप्रकृतिभावश्च वृत्तिभेदेन वर्ण्यते ।

पदानां संहिता योनिः संहिता वा पदाश्रया ॥

This is to support the अखण्डवाक्यसिद्धान्त by applying षष्ठीतत्पुरुष and not बहुव्रीहि in ’पदप्रकृतिः’।

4. Yaska in निरुक्तम् (1-6) --

परः संनिकर्शः संहिता । पदप्रकृतिः संहिता । पदप्रकृतीनि सर्वचरणानां पार्षदानि ।

5. Kaiyata under एतिस्तुशास्वृदृजुषः क्यप् (3-1-109) says the following --

न लक्षणेनेति । संहिताया एव नित्यत्वम् । पदविच्छेदस्य तु पौरुषेयत्वम् । तथा च यत्र अर्थनिश्चयाभावः तत्र अवग्रहो न क्रियते । तदुक्तम् - हरिद्रूरनवगृह्यते इति । हरिद्रूः इत्यत्र किं हरिशब्द इकारान्तः । अथ हरित्शब्दः तकारान्त इति सन्देहात् ।

6.Bhatojidiksita under अ इ उ ण् in शब्दकौस्तुभ discusses संहिता --

(अ इ उ ण् इत्यादौ ....) स्ंहिताविरहात् न यणादयः । अनित्या हि वाक्ये संहिता । उक्तञ्च --

संहितैकपदे नित्या नित्या धातूपसर्गयोः ।

नित्या समासे वाक्ये तु सा विवक्षामपेक्षते ॥

समासस्य पृथग्ग्रहणं गोबलीवर्दन्यायेन , एकपदे इत्यनेनैव तत्सङ्ग्रहसिद्धेः। इयं च प्राचां परिभाषा एकदेशनुमतिद्वारा संहिताधिकारेणैव ज्ञापिता । असंहितायां यणादिनिवृत्यर्थो हि संहिताधिकारः ।

अत एव --

हे रोहिणि त्वमसि शीलवतीषु धन्या

एनं निवारय पतिं सखि दुर्विनीतम् ।

जालान्तरेण मम वासगृहं प्रविष्टः

श्रोणीतटं स्पृशति किं कुलधर्म एषः?

इत्यत्र धन्या एनम् इत्यस्य न असाधुता । अत एव आलङ्कारिकैः चुतसंस्कृतित्वापेक्षया पृथगेव विसन्धितातानाम दोषान्तरं ग्णितम् ।

(गोबलीवर्दन्यायः - mentioning बलीवर्द , which is also a गौः , separately from गावः - just to show the importance - another example - गार्ग्यः वैयाकरणानां चैके - निरुक्तम्)

7. Nagesa differs from Diksita in terms of एकपदे and समासे --

under भूवादयो धातवः ( and in बृहच्छब्देन्दुशेखर - अच्सन्धिः) he says --

संहितैकपदे .... पेक्षते - इति श्लोके एकपदग्रहणेन अखण्डपदस्यैव ग्रहणात् । अत एव ’ अग्रे अग्रे ’ इत्यादौ पदद्विर्वचने संहिता न नित्या । स्पष्टं चेदं ’ प्रकारे गुणवचनस्य ’ (8-1-12) इति सूत्रे भाष्ये ।

what he says is this -- under the अधिकारs - ’ सर्वस्य द्वे ’ (8-1-1) and 'कर्मधाअयवदुत्तरेषु’ (8-1-11)  there is ' प्रकारे गुणवचनस्य ’(8-1-12) -- example - अग्रेअग्रे सूक्ष्माः । Here it can be अग्रेsग्रे or अग्रेअग्रे

- so even if it is considered as a समास - there is संहिताविकल्प । This is the purpose in mentioning ’ समासे ’ separately from ’एकपदे’ ( but not गोबलीवर्दन्यायेन as said by Diksita).

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

चुतसंस्कृतित्वापेक्षया पृथगेव विसन्धितातानाम दोषान्तरं ग्णितम् ।

it is च्युतसंस्कृतित्वापेक्षया पृथगेव विसन्धितानाम दोषान्तरं गणितम् ।

धन्यो’स्मि

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2015-10-02 10:58 GMT-07:00 Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com>:

6.Bhatojidiksita under अ इ उ ण् in शब्दकौस्तुभ discusses संहिता --

(अ इ उ ण् इत्यादौ ....) स्ंहिताविरहात् न यणादयः । अनित्या हि वाक्ये संहिता । उक्तञ्च --

संहितैकपदे नित्या नित्या धातूपसर्गयोः ।

नित्या समासे वाक्ये तु सा विवक्षामपेक्षते ॥

समासस्य पृथग्ग्रहणं गोबलीवर्दन्यायेन , एकपदे इत्यनेनैव तत्सङ्ग्रहसिद्धेः। इयं च प्राचां परिभाषा एकदेशनुमतिद्वारा संहिताधिकारेणैव ज्ञापिता । असंहितायां यणादिनिवृत्यर्थो हि संहिताधिकारः ।

अत एव --

हे रोहिणि त्वमसि शीलवतीषु धन्या

एनं निवारय पतिं सखि दुर्विनीतम् ।

जालान्तरेण मम वासगृहं प्रविष्टः

श्रोणीतटं स्पृशति किं कुलधर्म एषः?

इत्यत्र धन्या एनम् इत्यस्य न असाधुता । अत एव आलङ्कारिकैः चुतसंस्कृतित्वापेक्षया पृथगेव विसन्धितातानाम दोषान्तरं ग्णितम् ।

(गोबलीवर्दन्यायः - mentioning बलीवर्द , which is also a गौः , separately from गावः - just to show the importance - another example - गार्ग्यः वैयाकरणानां चैके - निरुक्तम्)

​एवं सप्रसङ्गविवरणेन ममानुग्रहः कृतः। अधुना गोतमवचनमपि परिगणय्य "विसन्धिभाषणं लेखनं वा सर्वोत्तमं न चेदपि च्युतसंस्कृतिरिति न"​ इति निश्चिनोमि।

[Hnbhat B.R.]

१. हे रोहिणि त्वमसि शीलवतीषु धन्या

अत्र, त्वम् असि, इति संहिता कार्यं नास्ति, कुतः पदच्छेदः?

२. एनं निवारय पतिं सखि दुर्विनीतम् ।

एवमेव, अत्रापि, एनंनिवारय, पतिंसखि इति लेखनं संहितायां सत्यपि कुतो न लिख्यते??

३. जालान्तरेण मम वासगृहं प्रविष्टः

अत्रापि  वासगृहंप्रविष्टः इति वा वासगृहम्प्रविष्टः इति वा कुतो न लिख्यते, संहितायास्तुल्यत्वात्???

४. श्रोणीतटं स्पृशति किं कुलधर्म एषः?
अत्र तु, श्रोणीतटं स्पृशति इत्यत्र श्रोणीतटंस्पृशति इति न लिखितं संहितानुसारेण, उत्तरत्र संहितानुसारेणैव कुलधर्म एषः इति लिखितम्, संहितायां कृतायामपि, शिष्टयोः स्वरयोरकारैकारयोः पुनः संहिताया अभावात्! कुलधर्मएषः इति न लिख्यते!

[sadasivamurty rani]

There is a wonderful discussion going on on this topic providing high quality material for researchers to develop many theses on  this topic. 

I have seen some of the postings and tired to see the others. Such has been the rush in attending this issue. 

I don't know whether the doubt which I am going to express has its references in others' mails also or not yet I would like to present it for the consideration of the scholars.

1. Is this question in discussion related to Devanagari writing style or Sanskrit phonetic presentation style in any script? To be more clear - "Won't the problem focussed in this discussion occur if the passage is written in other than Devanagari i.e. Roman script or any other regional script?" 

2. If this problem occurs while writing the passage in other regional or Roman scripts also can this be problem of Devananagari only? or of the other scripts too?

3. In such case is this a problem with script or Sanskrit phonetic principles? 

I request the scholars to enlighten. 

Regards,

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Usha Sanka <usha....@gmail.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 29 September 2015 1:30 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Writing style of Devanagari

Namaste

Here is a question on a particular writing style of Devanagari Samskrt.

Can a Samskrt word be broken as shown below ? 

जानाम्य् उषे 

प्रवृत्तिर् अध्ययनरूपा 

काचिन् निषादी 

स्याद् इति  

वस्तुतस् तु

शिष्टाचारो’ प्यधुनासमये’ ग्निहोत्र...

​प्रमाणतायास् तान्त्रिकैर् व्यवस्थापनात् 

​विरचितो’ यं 

Can the broken part be considered as a पदम्?

Is there any grammatical/phonetic/SiShTa accepted rule which supports this writing system?

​Thank you, in advance, for all the replies.

-विनीता

उषा​

--

"-यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम"

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:17 AM, 'sadasivamurty rani' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 

1. Is this question in discussion related to Devanagari writing style or Sanskrit phonetic presentation style in any script? To be more clear - "Won't the problem focussed in this discussion occur if the passage is written in other than Devanagari i.e. Roman script or any other regional script?" 

mātṛśulkād upagatāṃ te śriyaṃ na viṣehire /

rarakṣuś ca pituḥ kautsās te bhavanti sma gautamāḥ // Saund_1.22 //

The above is usual way of writing in Roman script. The above is a verse in Saundarananda in Roman schript encoded in IAST roman script encoded by a westerner. 
The same verse converted into Devanagari raises the question, as Usha had asked:

1. मातृशुल्काद् उपगतां ते श्रियं न विषेहिरे /

ररक्षुश् च पितुः कौत्सास् ते भवन्ति स्म गौतमाः // 

Is at acceptable in Devanagari writing in comparison to the present practice of writing we of older generation are used to as:

मातृशुल्कादुपगतां ते श्रियं न विषेहिरे /

ररक्षुश्च पितुः कौत्सास्ते भवन्ति स्म गौतमाः // 

or more recent one practice of writing:

मातृशुल्काद् उपगताम् ते श्रियम् न विषेहिरे /

ररक्षुः च पितुः कौत्साः ते भवन्ति स्म गौतमाः // 

particularly in Devanagari, and/or any other Indian language;

 

2. If this problem occurs while writing the passage in other regional or Roman scripts also can this be problem of Devananagari only? or of the other scripts too?

In Tamil script there is no combined conjunct letter and there may be some other scripts, which do not use comjunct letters. The question relates specifically to Devanagari writing following the style followed in Roman IAST. (Simple roman script do not find place in preparing e-texts by scholars).

 

3. In such case is this a problem with script or Sanskrit phonetic principles? 

 

The above has been taken with both phonetic principle परः संनिकर्षः संहिता and whether it is followed in writing as we know as given in the 2nd Devanagari writing with word space which is taken/mistaken as violating the परः संनिकर्षः संहिता, or a moderated system of writing, with or without word space, according to convenience in writing the conjunct letters as ररक्षुश्च, कौत्सास्ते, without word space, in pursuance of परः संनिकर्षः in संहिता, and गतां ते श्रियं न with space even it is संहिता, without space as गतन्ते, श्रियन्न when writing is convenient than गतन् ते, श्रियन् न a mixture of both with and without space. This is the long and short of the discussion is centered.  And यथासंभवं the problem could be applied to other scripts also where they are applicable.

 

கதாம் தே    ச்ரியம் ந ஁in Tamil, it writes only the conjunct letters are written as ablove only split.

దుపగతాం తే శ్రియం న in Telugu as in Devanagari we use.

It has extended, the विसन्धि and संहिता as the normal way of संहिता and श्लोक-s excepting श्लोकार्ध. 

[K S Kannan]

Ancient Greek too had scripta continua.  No space between words, or even sentences.

Read this Wiki note :

Ancient Greek was written scripta ontinua without spacing or interpuncts. Over time, a variety of symbols appeared. A system of dots credited to Aristophanes of Byzantium was developed in the 3rd century bc: a low dot ⟨.⟩ marked an occasion for a short breath after a short phrase, a middot ⟨·⟩ marked an occasion for a longer breath after a longer passage, and a high dot ⟨˙⟩ marked a full stop at the end of a completed thought. Other writers employed two dot punctuation ⟨⁚⟩ to mark the ends of sentences or changing speakers. Less often, arrangements of three ⟨⁝⟩, four ⟨⁞⟩and ⟨⁘⟩, and five dots ⟨⁙⟩ appeared. Such interline punctuation could be noted or replaced by a variety of paragraphoi, long marks which trailed between lines of text; these might also mark changes of speakers. Blank lines or various coronidesmarked the ends of sections. (A separate coronis was used to mark contractions; its early forms looked like an apostrophe between the two ellided words.) Over time, the main punctuation came to be a full stop marked by a single dot at varying heights, a partial stop marked by various forms of commas, and the hypodiastole ⟨⸒⟩ and papyrological hyphen ⟨‿⟩ or⟨ ͜ ⟩. These served to show whether an ambiguous series of letters should be read as (respectively) a single word or as a pair of words.^[1]

Following the advent of printing, most Greek punctuation was gradually standardized with French: the hypodiastole was fully unified with the comma, the comma serves as the decimal point (and in this use is called the "hypodiastole"), the full stop serves as the thousands separator, and guillemets and em-length quotation dashes typically serve to indicate direct speech.^[3] The principal difference is the Greek question mark ⟨;⟩, which developed a shape so similar to the Latinatesemicolon ⟨;⟩ that Unicode decomposes its separate code point identically.^[1] The ano teleia middot serves as the Greek semicolon but is so uncommon that it has often been left off of Greek keyboards.^[2]

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[K S Kannan]

Lack of punctuation and spacing in Ancient Greek. The image is from Codex Sinaiticus, Philippians 1:1-2.

Source :  Internet

KSKannan

[K S Kannan]

One of the most complex problems to handle in Natural Language Processing is marking off word-boundaries, the hardest being the spoken material (any language). The notorious Problem of Juncture as it is called, it is quite common even in written sentences in Sanskrit.

A simple example is:

na tena likhitam patram, pitur Ajn"A na lopitA !

(which can also be construed as 

natena likhitam patram, pitur Ajn"A na lopitA !).

Examples can be multiplied.

Handling the complex cases of sabhan'ga-s'les"a and abhan'ga-s'les"a , (and s'abda-s'akti-mUla-dhvani) are, of course, a far cry !

KSKannan

[Hari Parshad Das]

a few days ago, i had shared in this group an article on the history of punctuation in Western scripts:

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150902-the-mysterious-origins-of-punctuation

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,

hari pārṣada dāsa
-----------------------------------------

[sadasivamurty rani]

At the outset I should thank Shri HN Bhat ji. Sir, as I observe, your replies are always brief, accurate and to the point. I have never seen you exceeding the limits of propriety of context. This time also you have maintained the same balance. You were the first one to answer Dr. Usha's present question. 

Of course I proceed further with my second phase of doubts before I present what I would like to add to this context. 

As I observe the role of संहिता s established here by almost all scholars in the process of giving a reply to this present question. Yes it is essential also. But the result of संहिता or phonetic conjunction can be invariable (नित्य) or optional (विकल्प). 

1. When the effect of phonetic conjunction is invariable  (नित्य) , in all scripts may it be Devanagari or Roman or Telugu or Tamil or any other scripts such as Granthi  or Sarada, is it written alike are differently in spite of the deficiency of representing all characters as in case of Tamil (where such sounds are substituted by the available sounds in that script)? 

2. When the effect of phonetic conjunction is optional (विकल्प) are all the possible optional results as per the Paninian prescriptions used by us in our normal writings or are we habituated to use only one or two possible optionals as per our convenience? 

Ex: 

ककुम्नेता/ककुब्नेता

वाङ्महिमा/वाग्महिमा

रामस्थाता or रामस्स्थाता or राम: स्थाता

हरिस्फुरति or हरिस्स्फुरति or हरि:स्फुरति

सञ्छिव: or सञ्च्छिव: or  सञ्शिव:

Do we use all these options? When we use only a few forms as per our convenience don't all the rest of the possible optionals disappear from the vision of the normal users who couldn't have any chance to specialize in Sanskrit Vyakarana Sastra?

Can this kind of instances stand as examples for historical survival?

While writing these optional variations shouldn't all the scripts in vogue follow similar patterns or should they differ? 

Let not the deficiency of characters be a criterion to differentiate the writing style here because when such deficiency  is there the scribes of that language don't skip the characters but substitute them with the available characters and read them with their due sthana and prayatna only. 

3.  In the manuscripts of past centuries, if proper punctuation rules were not followed while writing, was it scribes' inefficiency (may be of one generation or of a series of generations) or the very language's recommendation? 

I request the scholars to help me in getting enlightened.

Warm regards, 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Writing style of Devanagari

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 7:39 PM, 'sadasivamurty rani' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> At the outset I should thank Shri HN Bhat ji. Sir, as I observe, your replies are always brief, accurate and to the point.

Thank you for your appreciation. I will try to clear your doubts raised to the extend I could understand.

 
>
> As I observe the role of संहिता s established here by almost all scholars in the process of giving a reply to this present question. Yes it is essential also. But the result of संहिता or phonetic conjunction can be invariable (नित्य) or optional (विकल्प).

Rightly observed.

 
>
> 1. When the effect of phonetic conjunction is invariable  (नित्य) , in all scripts may it be Devanagari or Roman or Telugu or Tamil or any other scripts such as Granthi  or Sarada, is it written alike are differently in spite of the deficiency of representing all characters as in case of Tamil (where such sounds are substituted by the available sounds in that script)?
>

The Grantha Script is devised to represent all the Sanskrit characters, supplementing Tamil alphabet, with new Malayalam like characters, which use all the characters in Sanskrit and in addition to those specific for Malayalam. Hence it is oftern Grantha-Tamil or Malayalam-Grantha or Sometimes called Tulu (in South Kanara where the spoken language is Tulu which is not seen in writing much literature except few by Sanskrit Scholars of late 19th century) script or Tigalari (in Noth Karnataka). The Nevari script on the other hand has five different varieties of  writing Nevari Script which present individuality of each script. Sharada uses almost the same letters as Devanagari, with slight variation and some entirely different letters. It is called also Kashmiri script sometimes. So each alphabet has individual characterestics which may or may not change in conjunction of letters. There is one more Nandi Nagari script which is used in Karnataka and Tamilnadu, the conjunct letters hard to differenciate the consonts in conjunct from their shape. I could not understand your question completely to give a precise reply as expected by you.

 
>
> 2. When the effect of phonetic conjunction is optional (विकल्प) are all the possible optional results as per the Paninian prescriptions used by us in our normal writings or are we habituated to use only one or two possible optionals as per our convenience?
> Ex:
> ककुम्नेता/ककुब्नेता
> वाङ्महिमा/वाग्महिमा
> रामस्थाता or रामस्स्थाता or राम: स्थाता
> हरिस्फुरति or हरिस्स्फुरति or हरि:स्फुरति
> सञ्छिव: or सञ्च्छिव: or  सञ्शिव:
> Do we use all these options? When we use only a few forms as per our convenience don't all the rest of the possible optionals disappear from the vision of the normal users who couldn't have any chance to specialize in Sanskrit Vyakarana Sastra?

This is a question which has to be replied by the scholars and present day Sanskrit users alike. I also add to this question to be specific. If we use only convent forms splitting each word, as रामः वनम् गच्छति or even रामो वनं गच्छति, the other optional रामो वनङ्गच्छति is lost for ever. In manuscripts they opt the convenient form in Telugu, or Kannada, the anusvara is preferred to परसवर्ण, even in  पञ्च, गङ्गा also whereas in Grantha manuscripts, the परसवर्ण is preferred due to the convenience of conjunct letters with ञ् and ङ्. Normally the copyists are not scholars and they copy from the proto-type without adding or losing anything into the same script or another script. The scholars who use the text for learning, often correct the scribal errors if they are experts. But do not change the optional forms therein as they could read anyway. The same with all the manuscripts, levaing no space or punctuation marks. Reading text itself will make them to understand the words and sentences or verses as the case be, even without space or punctuation. The optional forms are to be learnt today separately from the grammar texts, if one wants. There is a similar discussion, why I should learn व्याकरण in another group, which consisted mostly the learners. Majority preferred not to learn व्याकरण and in this case also, many would prefer not use the optional forms.

Can this kind of instances stand as examples for historical survival?

It is already seen in Grammar texts now itself. We cannot go back to 3rd century or 1500 century back to revive writing.
 
I am not replying the next questions as scholars may have different opinions.

 "3.  In the manuscripts of past centuries, if proper punctuation rules were not followed while writing, was it scribes' inefficiency (may be of one generation or of a series of generations) or the very language's recommendation?" 

 Never. As I have said, the scribe need not be a scholar always and the scholars who use those manuscripts for learning, did not find the necessity of punctuation at all as an inflectional language, all the words are self explanatory.


The understanding retains खलेकपोतन्याय, and where the आकाङ्क्षा ends, the sentence also ends, निराकाङ्क्षं वाक्यम् There are several definitions of वाक्य, as एकतिङ् वाक्यम्, etc.  आकाङ्क्षा, योग्यता, मंनिधिः are the three factors generating शाब्दबोध. 

The expression दशरामशराः would appear stange on hearing, than दश रामशराः with or without space. There is no effect of संहिता, only leaving space for words. 

This is what I have to offer. Other scholars may have different opinions.

[sadasivamurty rani]

Once thanks to Shri HN Bhat Ji. Sir, from the answers I received from you I shall 

re-present them in the way I understood your material to pave a way to give expression to my thoughts.

1. Whether it is Devanagari or Roman Script or Granthi Script or Sharada or Nevari or Nandi Nagari  - All these as you said have their respective sets of characters (to represent all possible speech sounds of Sanskrit). From script to script these characters may vary in shape but the sounds represented by those characters are the same. For instance: The basic अ in Devanagari is  అ in Telugu,   அ  in Tamil, അ in Malayalam, અ in Gujarati, ਅ in Punjabi and so on. An observation of illustration hints us that the same speech sound is represented through different characters in different scripts. The same can be a matter to be understood with regard to the the characters or signs used in the scripts such as Granthi or Sharada or Nevari or Nandi Nagari etc.

As in case of isolated units of speech sounds the phonemic units resulted from the phonetic conjunctions in Sanskrit too can be represented alike by all these scripts with character-shape variation. What I mean is the shape of character (script wise) may differ the phonetic unit represented by it  is the same in each instance. 

Hence I would like to know whether it is right or wrong if I draw a conclusion that  as far as the writing style is concerned it need not be confined  to Devanagari only but it can be extended to other scripts also in representing All Possible  Sanskrit Speech sounds.

2. Now my thoughts further find breath in your supporting statements such as:

"the scribe need not be a scholar always and the scholars who use those manuscripts for learning, did not find the necessity of punctuation at all as an inflectional language, all the words are self explanatory."

From this instance  what I would like to say is  - if two or more word units or all the word units in a sentence are found written without any intervening spacing it need not be taken as an instance of Not observing the Punctuation rules by our predecessors. Instead we can say that they depend on scribes' habit only. 

3. Basing on these I would like to add a few of my thoughts related to the present topic:

Our predecessors - Ancient Seers,  have a definite idea of the following concepts.

1. While uttering even VARNAS they suggested us to utter giving sufficient spacing between a VARNA and its succeeding VARNA while performing JAPA with uttering MANTRAS.

मन: संहृत्य विषयात् मन्त्रार्थगतमानस:।

नद्रुतं न विलम्बं च जपेत् मौक्तिकपङ्क्तिवत्॥. 

Similar is the case with the words, Samasas and Sentences also. 

This illustration helps to infer the spacing awareness of the seers between a syllable and syllable, word and word and sentence and sentence. 

To say further: 

"विरामोऽवसानम्" is another instance which is an evidence to say how punctuation minded our seers were.

Another instance form the Ramayana can help us to estimate the verse - punctuation knowledge also of our Sages. Here is a sloka from the Balakanda of the Ramayana uttered by Valmiki.

पादबद्धोऽक्षरसम: तन्त्रीलयसमन्वित:।

शॊकार्तस्य प्रवृत्तोऽयं श्लोको भवतु नान्यथा॥

This sloka is a clear instance of the punctuation knowledge of Slokas of  those seers. 

Similarly ""यतिर्विच्छेदसंज्ञक:" is another instance which suggests the writers to give adequate space even in the middle of the running of a metrical compositions. Many illustrations are found through out the Lakshana granthas on Prosody, Siksha and Sangita regulating the punctuation marks. Of course those punctuation marks need not be the same with the western punctuation marks. We have our own marks. 

So if these ancient principles are ignored need it be taken as a generalized principle that our ancient language users didn't maintain the required spacing between the word and word, sentence and sentence and so on or can we consider them as scribes' habit of some generations which were even ignored by the then scholars? 

Now I have to add my findings regarding the doubts of Dr. Usha for which I shall take one more occasion probably by tomorrow. 

Warm regards to all, 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Writing style of Devanagari

[sadasivamurty rani]

Once again thanks to Shri HN Bhat Ji. Sir, from the answers I received from you I shall re-present them in the way I understood your material to pave a way to give expression to my thoughts.

---

From: 'sadasivamurty rani' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 4 October 2015 7:11 PM

[S R Ivaturi]

It seems that both Dr. Rani S. Murthy and Shri H. N. Bhatt  hit the nail on the head by focussing on the part played by the scribes. And I may add that the engravers or etchers of the inscriptions also must have influenced the writing style or rather non-style.

1. As it was pointed by Shri Bhatt, most of the time the written manuscripts were used as reference books only in those days rather than as text books. The scholar already knew or at least had studied the book, and was keeping a written copy only for the sake of reference or some other purpose. So he was not confused by the punctuation or lack of punctuation. He knew his text. 

2. Writing in the early days was mostly confined to inscriptions on rock or copper. Such a writing might have had its restrictions on the size of the copper plate or the rock area. So punctuation might been given secondary importance in the face of such constraints. (Writing on palm leaves also might have put some constraints of space on the scribe forcing them to adopt a chain like writing style.)

3. When printing was first introduced and the Sanskrit texts were printed, the early letter press composers followed the manuscript or inscription style. But later proper spacing technique has evolved to make the text more readable. The avagraha or double avagraha being used to denote a savrna dirgha sandhi that has a long a at the beginning of the  second word or at the end of the first word as in माङ्गल्यदाऽस्तु / माङ्गल्यदाऽऽसीत् is such a new notation to make the text unambiguous. 

So we can conclude that writing styles may change with time. (Nowadays the printing styles and writing styles differ sometime. But that may be another topic) And though any punctuation marks were not specifically mentioned, the concept of punctuation surely did exist in the earlier days. 

Regards,

Dr. I. Srinivasa Rao

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Because sometimes a continuous chain style of writing causes an ambiguity. The early lekhakas would have resorted to some kind of separating symbol to resolve such issues. What are they? 

                                                                          --- Vidvan S R Ivaturi

There were no punctuation marks before 15 th Century , according to a source .

In order to indicate the end of an अध्याय , some sages used repetition of the last सूत्रम् or a word --

1. वेदान्तदर्शनम् (बादरायणः) -- एतेन सर्वे व्याख्याताः व्याख्याताः (end of first अध्याय)

2. छन्दश्शास्त्रम् (पिङ्गलः) -- अष्टौ वसव इति ( इति - is to indicate the end of first अध्याय)

3. निरुक्तम् (यास्कः) -- नैघण्टुकानि नैगमानि इह इह (end of first अध्याय)

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

How old is this problem of संहिता ( speech and writing ) --

it is as old as यजुर्वेद --

Jaimini , in his पूर्वमीमांसादर्शनम् -  (2-1) - defined ऋक् , साम and यजुस् --

सा ऋक् यत्रार्थवशेन पादव्यवस्था 

गीतिषु सामाख्या 

शेषे यजुश्शब्दः 

But if we look at यजुर्वेद it is difficult to decide the length of a यजुस् (यजेः उस्) -

इषेत्वोर्जेत्वावायवस्थोपायवस्थ ......

Then he started  यजुःपरिमाणाधिकरणम् (2-1-14-46) --

अर्थैकत्वात् एकं वाक्यम् साकाङ्क्षं चेद्विभागे स्यात् 

यजुः means वाक्यम् ।

Sabarasvamy explains --

 

अथ प्रश्लिष्टपठितेषु यजुःषु कथम् अवगम्येत - इयदेकं यजुरिति ? यावता पदसमूहेन इज्यते तावान् पदसमूहः एकं यजुः ।

कियता इज्यते ? यावता क्रियायाः उपकारः प्रकाश्यते । तावद्वक्तव्यत्वात् वाक्यमित्युच्यते । तेनाभिधीयते - 

अर्थैद्कत्वादेकं वाक्यमिति । एतस्मात् चेत् कारणात् एकवाक्यता भवति । 

तस्मात् एकार्थः पदसमूहो वाक्यम् ।यदि च विभज्यमानं साकाङ्क्षं पदं भवति ।

किम् उदाहरणम् ? देवस्य त्वा सवितुः प्रसवे इति ।

.....एकं वाक्यम् एकं यजुरिति सूत्रं व्याख्यातम् -- भाष्यविवरणम् ।

Here Kumarilabhatta clarifies that the same वाक्यलक्षणम् is applicable in मन्त्र , ब्रह्मण and  लोक -

यजुर्भेदं च मुक्त्वैतत् वाक्यैकत्वस्य लक्षणम् ।

मन्त्रब्राह्मणलोकेषु वक्तव्यं क्वोपयुज्यते ॥

अस्त्यस्मिन् आकाङ्क्षा इति साकाङ्क्षम् ( महाभाष्यम् under विभाषा साकाङ्क्षे पा सू )

The same वाक्यनिर्वचनम् is taken by other systems ( implied are योग्यता and आसत्ति) and अमरकोश ।

The वाक्यलक्षणम् ( समर्थः पदविधिः , 2-1-1) , ’ एकतिङ् ’ (वाक्यम्) offered by Katyayana is technical and is useful only in व्याकरणम्  - समानवाक्ये निघातयुष्मदस्मदादेशाः (वा) -

एकतिङ् वाक्यमित्येतत् शास्त्रे यत्परिभाषितम् ।

साकङ्क्षावयवं तेन न सर्वं तुल्यलक्षणम् ॥   ( वाक्यपदीयम् , वाक्यकाण्डः)

Even in some पाणिनिसूत्रs , such as विप्रतिशेधे परं कार्यम् ( परम्  or अपरम् ) , स्वरितेनाधिकरः ( स्वरितेन अधिकारः or स्वरिते नाधिकारः )  Patanjali discusses the issue.

So the answer / device provided is - व्याख्यानतो विशेषप्रतिपत्तिः न हि सन्देहात् अलक्षणम् (परि)

The best we can do is to teach शास्त्रविधि , but follow the punctuation marks in writing in terms of संहिता ।

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[K S Kannan]

Your kind attention is drawn to my post under the thread  Natural Language Processing, as it has some bearing on some of the issues raised by the various scholars, and clarifying some of the points that I myself posted, wrt the Writing Style of Devanagari.

KSKannan

[sadasivamurty rani]

Now I come back to make an attempt to answer the root question. This has already been well answered by Prof. Korada Subrahmanyam Garu and other scholars after a thorough discussion having shed light on great many Pramana vakyas. 

I would like to add my content to the context:

The question of Dr. Usha is that in the following illustrations if a split takes place can such broken part be considered as a padam or not?

Before answering this question we should concentrate on the occasions where such splitting is felt necessary.

As far as my observations go while typing the modern Theses in Devanagari Script there shall be some justification problem with the typed matter to maintain the margins of the page vertically straight without allowing any protrusions of a letter or letters. in such case most of the researchers cling to this type of splitting:

Dr. Usha has given us three choices to show support from:

1. Any Grammatical Rule

2. Any Phonetic Rule

3. Sishta Accepted Rule

If thesis writing is  an example for Sishta Accepted Rule 

 then the analysis of the possibilities whether to accept Padtva or not can be decided in the following manner

1. जानाम्य् उषे  - Cannot be considered: It is phonetically a wrong splitting: 

2. प्रवृत्तिर् अध्ययनरूपा - This is as per Sishtabhyaasa (In the theses for Margin Justification purpose accepted) by hyphenating this प्रवृत्तिर्- at the end of the previous line and then in the beginning of the next line अध्ययनरूपा |

3. काचिन् निषादी - Grammatically Wrong splitting  (By virtue of AnunAsika sandhi rule यरोऽनुनासिकॆऽनुनासिको वा the optional form can be काचिद् निषादी and not काचिन् निषादी | This is also normally accepted for Margin Justification purpose in the Ph.D theses. 

4. स्याद् इति  - The Questioner her self asked to ignore this.

5. वस्तुतस् तु - Inconvenient Splitting.

6. शिष्टाचारो’ प्यधुनासमये’ ग्निहोत्र... Here apostrophe mark is used for ऽ - अकारप्रश्लेषप्रयोग। It can be replaced by it in stead of using the apostrophe mark. 

7​प्रमाणतायास् तान्त्रिकैर् व्यवस्थापनात् 

​विरचितो’ यं  - This is also normally done on the occasion of Margin Justification in the Ph. D theses. 

Before I conclude I would like to discuss on one point i.e. about the example of : 1. जानाम्य् उषे  - Cannot be considered: It is phonetically a wrong splitting: 

Why this considered a Phonetically wrong splitting?

Here we should take the account given in the Rk Pratisakhya.

There is a discussion on the Angatva of an Anusvara and Vyanjana: 

1. अनुस्वारो व्यञ्जनं चाक्षराङ्गम् । 

When either Anusvara or a Vyanjana is preceded by a Vowel (Akshara is a Vowel only स्वरोऽक्षरम् and सव्यञ्जनस्सानुस्वारो शुद्धो वा स्वरोऽक्षरम्।) such Anusvara or Vyanjana should be a part of that preceding Vowel only. 

2. स्वारान्तरे व्यञ्जनान्युत्तरस्य। If the Vyanjana is in between two vowels it should be the beginning part of the succeeding Vowel and not of the previous Vowel.

3. पूर्वस्यानुस्वारविसर्जनीयौ।But the Anusvara and Visarjaniya become the parts of the preceding Vowel only even when they fall between two vowels. 

4. संयोगादिर्वा। If there is a combined or doubled consonants between two vowels the first consonant should be the part of the preceding vowel and the second consonant should be the part of the succeeding vowel. 

These rules are applicable in this context.

All this is acceptable in above said manner mostly in the process of Margin Justification while typing our Theses in Devanagari Script. 

I request the scholars to suggest me if any corrections are necessary in my views. Thanks to all in advance. 

Warm regards, 

 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Usha Sanka <usha....@gmail.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, 29 September 2015 1:41 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Writing style of Devanagari

स्याद् इति  -- please remove this from the list.

2015-09-29 13:30 GMT+05:30 Usha Sanka <usha....@gmail.com>:

Namaste

Here is a question on a particular writing style of Devanagari Samskrt.

Can a Samskrt word be broken as shown below ? 

जानाम्य् उषे 

प्रवृत्तिर् अध्ययनरूपा 

काचिन् निषादी 

स्याद् इति  

वस्तुतस् तु

शिष्टाचारो’ प्यधुनासमये’ ग्निहोत्र...

​प्रमाणतायास् तान्त्रिकैर् व्यवस्थापनात् 

​विरचितो’ यं 

Can the broken part be considered as a पदम्?

Is there any grammatical/phonetic/SiShTa accepted rule which supports this writing system?

​Thank you, in advance, for all the replies.

-विनीता

उषा​

--

"-यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम"

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

"-यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम"

[Mārcis Gasūns]

On Thursday, 1 October 2015 21:12:27 UTC+3, Madhav Deshpande wrote:

Dear Amba,

     Your observation, "Similarly I often come across रामो गच्छति instead of रामः गच्छति ? and यतो हि  instead of यतः हि ? and ते इह instead of  त इह ?" is very correct, and reflects the current style of writing and printing Sanskrit.  The technology of printing Devanagari developed during the British colonial period, and the notion of leaving gaps between Sanskrit words, where possible, was a result of the editorial decisions made during the colonial period.  If you look at the handwritten manuscripts, most of them show no gaps between words anywhere, and this is the case with most inscriptions.  So, in part, we are dealing with norms of representing Sanskrit that developed during the colonial period.  Whether those norms conform to or reflect Pāṇinian grammar is a different question.  However, these modern norms are found everywhere in the modern printed editions of Sanskrit texts, though these editions are based on manuscripts that show no gaps between words.  This is the case of the printed Vedic Saṃhitā texts as well, while the word Saṃhitā refers to a form of recitation that is continuous, without gaps.  Simplification or ease of reading may have been the principle motivation in introducing gaps in written and printed Sanskrit, and they clearly do not reflect the ancient notions of sandhi or saṃhitā.

Madhav Deshpande

Dear Prof. Deshpande,

  Do you believe it was because of economy of space or what was the main reason for leaving out the gaps?

M.G. 

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Marcis,

     It looks like writing continuous texts without gaps was the norm for the early form of writing Sanskrit and Prakrit, as it was for the ancient Greek.  Leaving gaps between words probably developed as an aid to facilitate reading.  I have attached an article of K.R. Norman on Ashokan rock edicts that shows how continuously written segments, without gaps, have been interpreted variously. Best,

Madhav Deshpande

M.G. 

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

2015-10-04 11:11 GMT-07:00 'sadasivamurty rani' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>:

Before I conclude I would like to discuss on one point i.e. about the example of : 1.

​​

जानाम्य् उषे  - Cannot be considered: It is phonetically a wrong splitting: 

Why this considered a Phonetically wrong splitting?

Here we should take the account given in the Rk Pratisakhya.

There is a discussion on the Angatva of an Anusvara and Vyanjana: 

1. अनुस्वारो व्यञ्जनं चाक्षराङ्गम् । 

When either Anusvara or a Vyanjana is preceded by a Vowel (Akshara is a Vowel only स्वरोऽक्षरम् and सव्यञ्जनस्सानुस्वारो शुद्धो वा स्वरोऽक्षरम्।) such Anusvara or Vyanjana should be a part of that preceding Vowel only. 

2. स्वारान्तरे व्यञ्जनान्युत्तरस्य। If the Vyanjana is in between two vowels it should be the beginning part of the succeeding Vowel and not of the previous Vowel.

3. पूर्वस्यानुस्वारविसर्जनीयौ।But the Anusvara and Visarjaniya become the parts of the preceding Vowel only even when they fall between two vowels. 

4. संयोगादिर्वा। If there is a combined or doubled consonants between two vowels the first consonant should be the part of the preceding vowel and the second consonant should be the part of the succeeding vowel. 

These rules are applicable in this context.

​मान्यवर, इमे ऽक्षरसंज्ञाविधायकनियमा नात्र प्रासङ्गिकाः। न क्वापि वेदानाम् प्रातिशाख्येषु लेखेने तात्पर्यमुक्तं संज्ञानाम्। अक्षरसंज्ञायाः फलन् त्व् अत्राऽन्यदेव प्रातिशाख्ये।​ लेखने यद्वा तद्वा प्रातिशाख्योक्तलक्षणानि लक्ष्याणीत्य् आग्रहो मा स्म भवत्। प्रयोजनम् उद्दिश्यैव संज्ञाः प्रवर्तिता ऋषिभिः, न च विपरीतम्।

अत्र "​जानाम्य् उषे" इत्यादौ व्याकरणस्य "सुप्तिङन्तं पदम्" इत्य् अनेन विहिता पदसंज्ञा महत्त्वं भजते। "जानाम्य्" इत्यत्र दृश्यमानस्य पदसंज्ञा तिङन्तत्वाद्, आदेशस्य स्थानिवद्भावात् स्पष्टन् ननु। अनयैव दृष्ट्या "काचिन् निषादी" त्य् अपि साध्व् एव।

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

4. संयोगादिर्वा। If there is a combined or doubled consonants between two vowels the first consonant should be the part of the preceding vowel and the second consonant should be the part of the succeeding vowel. 

                                                -- Vidvan Rani Sadasivamurty

Please check with ( I did not) --

अन्तादिवच्च ( 6-1-85) ' एकः पूर्वपरयोः ’ - अनुवृत्तिः -- यो’यमेकादेशः सः पूर्वस्य अन्तवत् परस्य आदिवत् स्यात् ।

In  the earlier post I quoted Patanjali ( डः सि धुट्) in this regard .

May be also -- 

अलो’न्त्यस्य ( 1-1-52) - उत्सर्गः , आदेः परस्य (1-1-54) and अनेकाल्शित्सर्वस्य (1-1-55) - अपवादौ ---

’ अलो’न्त्यस्यादेःपरस्यानेकाल्शित्सर्वास्येत्यपवादविप्रतिषेधात् सर्वादेशः ’ -- वार्तिकम् (1-1-54).

In case there is any clash between प्रातिशाख्या and पाणिनि , then पाणिनि prevails .

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[sadasivamurty rani]

Dear Professor K. Subrahmanyam Garu, 

There is no clash between Pratisakhyas and Panini sir in this regard.

Please the following examples:

वाङ्मनसी - व्+आ+ङ्+म्+अ+न्+अ+स्+ई ।

          वाङ्+म(म्+अ)नसी। = वाङ्+मनसी।

Here ङ्म is a संयुक्तवर्ण| Here ङ्+म् are in between आ and अ | So ङ् becomes the part of आ and म् becomes the adyavayava of अ|

Similar is the case with द्वित्ववर्ण|

तद्दिवा - त्+अ+द्+द्+इ+व्+आ। (तद्+दि(द्+इ)वा) - तद्+दिवा)

 Best Regards, 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2015 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Writing style of Devanagari

[Savitri]

NAMONNAMAH

SAMASA PADAM CANNOT BE BROKEN.....Eg...RAMALAXMANABHARATHASATRUGHNULU....ITS A SAMOSA WORD...IF NOT, RAMA, LAXMANA, BHARATHA and SATRUGHNA BHRATHAH can be written...

Sent from my iPad

On 29-Sep-2015, at 1:30 pm, Usha Sanka <usha....@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste

Here is a question on a particular writing style of Devanagari Samskrt.

Can a Samskrt word be broken as shown below ? 

जानाम्य् उषे 

प्रवृत्तिर् अध्ययनरूपा 

काचिन् निषादी 

स्याद् इति  

वस्तुतस् तु

शिष्टाचारो’ प्यधुनासमये’ ग्निहोत्र...

​प्रमाणतायास् तान्त्रिकैर् व्यवस्थापनात् 

​विरचितो’ यं 

Can the broken part be considered as a पदम्?

Is there any grammatical/phonetic/SiShTa accepted rule which supports this writing system?

​Thank you, in advance, for all the replies.

-विनीता

उषा​

--

"-यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम"

--

[Hnbhat B.R.]

2015-10-13 21:23 GMT+05:30 'Savitri' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>:

NAMONNAMAH

SAMASA PADAM CANNOT BE BROKEN.....Eg...RAMALAXMANABHARATHASATRUGHNULU....ITS A SAMOSA WORD...IF NOT,

Indeed the above is a  A SAMOSA WORD! and the first really a Sanskrit Samosa. The underlined is not a Sanskrit word at all. 

Please carefully read carefully, before you click send to the group. Otherwise there will be such funny errors.