[भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् ] Squirrel in Sanskrit

[G S S Murthy]

Dear scholars,

I was looking for a Sanskrit word for the ubiquitous and indigenous squirrel. Apte's dic gives the following words:काष्टमार्जाल, वृक्षशायिका, चमरपुच्छ

​I could not locate these words in Amarakosha. I would be obliged for any information about these words are any other word that denotes "squirrel" in Sanskrit.

Regards,

Murthy

--

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

[Jsr Prasad]

two more synonyms that are in vogue:

- चिक्रोडः

- रामप्रियः (Ramayana setu reference..)

However, both these words could not be located in Vacaspatyam, Sabdakalpadruma etc.

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

का¹`मार्जाल: or Eɹ`¨ÉÉVÇÉÉ®: Beng. EÉ`ʤÉcÉ±É k¡¶hbi¤¡l.

The Sanskrit term might have been a translation of the Desi word  

DB

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Jsr Prasad <jsrap...@gmail.com> wrote:

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (jsrap...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

two more synonyms that are in vogue:

- चिक्रोडः

- रामप्रियः (Ramayana setu reference..)

However, both these words could not be located in Vacaspatyam, Sabdakalpadruma etc.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:00 PM, G S S Murthy <murt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear scholars,

I was looking for a Sanskrit word for the ubiquitous and indigenous squirrel. Apte's dic gives the following words:काष्टमार्जाल, वृक्षशायिका, चमरपुच्छ

​I could not locate these words in Amarakosha. I would be obliged for any information about these words are any other word that denotes "squirrel" in Sanskrit.

Regards,

Murthy

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[ajit.gargeshwari]

I cannot understand what Prof. Bhattacharya intends to convey due to the fonts he is using.
Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

kaathbirhaal.

[ushavishnuvamsi .]

स्क्विरिल् = सिक्विरळ् = शिक्कुरळ= चिक्कुरड=चिक्रोड=चिक्रोड:?

2017, മാർ 16 7:17 PM-ന്, "ajit.gargeshwari" <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> എഴുതി:

[Hari Parshad Das]

Please check Vachaspatyam/Sabdakalpadruma for the term पर्णमृग

sAdhu-caraNa-rajo 'bhilASI,

Hari parshad das

[G S S Murthy]

As per Mudgalakosha:

पर्णमृग / पर्ण--मृग m. any animal which frequents the boughs of trees (as a monkey , squirrel etc. ) Sus3r. [#124426] [Img:606,2]

Regards,

Murthy

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[ushavishnuvamsi .]

कृपया कोशवाक्यमुद्ध्रियतां येनोपक्रियेमहि ।

2017, മാർ 16 9:51 PM-ന്, "G S S Murthy" <murt...@gmail.com> എഴുതി:

[R. N. iyengar]

In the Vaijayati Kosha

 we find on page 150 

In the index it is listed

Thanks

RNI

[ramesh rajagopalan]

Anil~ Srimad Bhagavatham reference

[G S S Murthy]

Many thanks to all the scholars who have taken pains to ferret out Sanskrit words which look like they denote the "squirrel".Prof.Iyengar's quote from Vaijayanti is most convincing. How I wish we could locate a text (other than kosha listing) where it could be said that the author could not have meant anything other than a squirrel, which has so many pretty characteristics.

Sometime back I ran into difficulties in locating a Sanskrit word that denotes "butterfly". I had to finally go by the Great Apte who perhaps coined the word ' चित्रपतन्ग'. There is a need, I believe, to do research in the matter of simple objects apparently missing in Sanskrit vocabulary.

My gratitude to all for helping me.

Regards,

Murthy    

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[ushavishnuvamsi .]

अपि चिक्रोळशब्दो विकारमापद्य squirrelशब्द: सम्पन्न इत्यनुमिमीमहि ? s = चि, quir = क्रो, rl = ळ = ड ।।

2017, മാർ 17 10:42 AM-ന്, "G S S Murthy" <murt...@gmail.com> എഴുതി:

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The story of squirrel helping Rama is said to be from Odiya Ramayana of Balarama Dasa. 

If the Odiya - knowing members can find the word used for squirrel in that book, if that word or one of the words used for squirrel there happens to be of Sanskrit origin, that may help. 

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

gunduchi musha 

seems to be the Oriya word for squirrel.

[G S S Murthy]

Many thanks Prof.Paturiji. "chikroDa" seems satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Murthy

[Jsr Prasad]

A Vaiyakarana of your stature contemplating so, is really heartening and interesting! Thinking aloud, can we apply such a derivational process to other words, within Paninian framework..

Sent from my Motorola phone

[Mārcis Gasūns]

On Friday, 17 March 2017 08:12:39 UTC+3, G S S Murthy wrote:

Sometime back I ran into difficulties in locating a Sanskrit word that denotes "butterfly". I had to finally go by the Great Apte who perhaps coined the word ' चित्रपतन्ग'. There is a need, I believe, to do research in the matter of simple objects apparently missing in Sanskrit vocabulary.

Had the same issue in 2004, found no answer in Delhi. 

[Bijoy Misra]

spelled as गुण्डुचिमूषा used as one word.

I don't know the origin though.

In oDiA the qualifier+class compound is common.

The qualifier can also be used as the noun, for example  गुण्डुचि only.

In local speech usage, उण्ड्  is a verb with the meaning "search".

So गुण्डुचि may mean "moving and searching", the form as a present participle

[Subodh Bhat]

I have come across another name called 'Daaru Musha' or the rat on trees for squirrel.

K, Subodh Bhat

Vision Automation

#1281, 33rd Cross,

Kumaraswamy Layout,

Bangalore 560078, India

 

TeleFax:+91-80-26609765

Mob: +91-9845756611

 

[ajit.gargeshwari]

There are no Sanskrit equivalents for certain words. New words can be coined as per the rules of grammar If the word चिक्रोडः has been used in Sanskrit Literature for squirrel then perhaps that's the closest equivalent. In Kannada there is no word for Bus. Some people say Bassu for Bus and call it Kannada but no grammar of Kannada can give such a derivation though its a popular usage.
 The word चित्रपतन्ग' can be used for butterflies or even for Kite
Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Bus issue and squirrel issue are not comparable. 

Bus is a new product which did not exist when Kannada was forming its native words or was borrowing words from Sanskrit, Prakrit or Arabic / Persian. So it is natural that the English word was borrowed. 

But if you consider squirrel to be existing and /or widely found in those parts of India where Sanskrit was used and there is no Sanskrit word found for that animal, that is certainly an issue and is natural as Bus not being in Kannada. 

Issue of butterfly is the same. 

If there is no word for a certain entity in a certain language, it can also be conjectured that that entity was either not there or was not widely found  in the area where that language was used, during the period when it was used. 

Were butterflies or squirrels there in the areas where Sanskrit was spoken? If they existed or widely found, but the word for them is not found in Sanskrit, then it is certainly intriguing. 

Is there independent evidence to say they existed then?

--

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[ajit.gargeshwari]

I know they are indeed intriguing not to have known words in usage for squirrels or butterflies in Sanskrit. If one doesn't have new word then a new word has to be coined.  Since Kannada speaking people decided not to coin a new word for bus they started saying bassu for bus. Similarly one can coin a word and start using them in Sanskrit or Can modify a word found in usage from other languages and introduce them to Sanskrit.

How can one arrive at definite answer to the question why there are no words for common squirrels or butterflies for Sanskrit? Words are more artificially coined and introduced in other languages more frequently perhaps than in Sanskrit language since the usage of Sanskrit language is limited to a few scholars and was never the main language of the masses. Sanskrit language doesn't have the flexibility as does other languages have in terms of absorbing or coining of new words.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

On Friday, 17 March 2017 23:58:31 UTC+5:30, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

Bus issue and squirrel issue are not comparable. 

Bus is a new product which did not exist when Kannada was forming its native words or was borrowing words from Sanskrit, Prakrit or Arabic / Persian. So it is natural that the English word was borrowed. 

But if you consider squirrel to be existing and /or widely found in those parts of India where Sanskrit was used and there is no Sanskrit word found for that animal, that is certainly an issue and is natural as Bus not being in Kannada. 

Issue of butterfly is the same. 

If there is no word for a certain entity in a certain language, it can also be conjectured that that entity was either not there or was not widely found  in the area where that language was used, during the period when it was used. 

Were butterflies or squirrels there in the areas where Sanskrit was spoken? If they existed or widely found, but the word for them is not found in Sanskrit, then it is certainly intriguing. 

Is there independent evidence to say they existed then?

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:41 PM, ajit.gargeshwari  wrote:

There are no Sanskrit equivalents for certain words. New words can be coined as per the rules of grammar If the word चिक्रोडः has been used in Sanskrit Literature for squirrel then perhaps that's the closest equivalent. In Kannada there is no word for Bus. Some people say Bassu for Bus and call it Kannada but no grammar of Kannada can give such a derivation though its a popular usage.
 The word चित्रपतन्ग' can be used for butterflies or even for Kite
Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

On Friday, 17 March 2017 18:31:40 UTC+5:30, Mārcis Gasūns wrote:

On Friday, 17 March 2017 08:12:39 UTC+3, G S S Murthy wrote:

Sometime back I ran into difficulties in locating a Sanskrit word that denotes "butterfly". I had to finally go by the Great Apte who perhaps coined the word ' चित्रपतन्ग'. There is a need, I believe, to do research in the matter of simple objects apparently missing in Sanskrit vocabulary.

Had the same issue in 2004, found no answer in Delhi. 

--

[Hari Parshad Das]

I am attaching an extract from Prākṛta-Hindī Kośa, which gives three prākṛta names for squirrel — खडहडी, खाडहिला and तिल्लहडी. It may be that the hindi term गिलहरी is derived from one of these Prākṛta terms. If anyone can trace a Sanskrit term for these Prākṛta terms, that will be nice.

​sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,

hari parshad das.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/nBHM_GjLIBs/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>  the usage of Sanskrit language is limited to a few scholars and was never the main language of the masses. Sanskrit language doesn't have the flexibility as does other languages have in terms of absorbing or coining of new words.

-------------- This misunderstanding about Sanskrit has been repeatedly discussed in this forum and elsewhere time and again. Thought, does not hurt to discuss it again here in this context.  

1. Standard dialect is the variety of a language that is used by a language group for the purposes common to all the speakers of the language across its various regions where it is spoken in the form of various regional dialects and across its various social strata where it is spoken as social dialects. For example, the variety of Kannada that is used by all the people of Kannada for the purposes such as use in print and electronic media, contemporary literary works, text books, official communication etc. is called standard Kannada. (standard not in the sense of respectable or authentic but in the sense of uniform and relatively slower in change than dialects ). Sanskrit was such a standard form and Prakrits were the regional dialects of the same language. 

2. Do we say Kannada is the main language of the masses; it has two forms : standard and the dialectal or do we say standard Kannada is never the main language of the masses only dialectal Kannada is the language of the masses? We say the first, i.e., Kannada is the main language of the masses; it has two forms : standard and the dialectal. Similarly, we should recognize that 'Sanskrit/ Prakrit' is a single , one and the same language, the main language of the masses with two forms: the standard called Sanskrit and the dialectal called Prakrit(s). 

3. Does standard Kannada absorb more non-Kannada words or the dialects borrow more non-Kannada words? standard Kannada has more Sanskrit and English borrowings than the regional dialects. Similarly, Sanskrit has more Greek and other borrowings than Prakrits. Does coinage of new terms happen more in standard Kannada or its regional dialects? It happens more in standard Kannada. In the same way coinage of new terms happened and has been happening more in Sanskrit than in Prakrits.         

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:22 AM, ajit.gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dr BVK Sastry]

Namaste

 

Can we reframe the question differently in this case and explore this issue ?   The objective is to find out the logic on how a Sanskrit word is framed  for a given entity ? Are there/ were there  any rules and discipline that guides us here ?

 

I fully agree with the observation < Is there independent evidence to say they existed then?   >  and with a suggested sub-question  < What constraints  prompted such words to appear or disappear from language user society ?  >

 

Here is  a thought navigation that  leads to the articulation of the question. The cut off reference line taken is 1700 C.E when the new models of Sanskrit Lexicons and translations found their fore in to the academic system and education process. (And of course the pushing of the traditional lexicons to a ‘coma’ phase>.

 

1.       Samskrutham ( Sanskrit) has been there in  Indian  society for  6000 plus  years ( or less if one wants to scale down ) or  1000 plus years ( for conservatives)  and used in Indian landscape and society. During this period, language users have taken note of the ‘ entities – objects – animals – artifacts..’ in  nature and society for which the users gave a name.   

 

                - The entities like ‘ butterfly’ existed in India (   http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/   says : Welcome to Butterflies of India, an internet-based and peer-reviewed resource devoted to Indian butterflies. India is one of the 17 "mega diverse" countries of the world. It is host to a spectacular number of butterflies: approximately 1,800 species and subspecies. About 15-20% of these are endemic to the Indian Region, which makes this an especially important region for butterfly diversity and conservation.

          

                    Question (butterflies) :  Did the Indian communities  use a word to identify the varieties of ‘ butterflies’ ?  Varieties of  butterflies ?  and keep a word for them in Sanskrit ?  And for all the 1800 species to be identified individually ?  what would have been the reason to frame a word like < नक्रमक्षिका -   (H3) नक्र--मक्षिका [p= 524,1] [L=102820] f. a kind of fly L.     >?   The notation ‘ L’ means LEXICOGRAPHERS Addition.

 

                - The objects like bus did not exist ( And so did many of the artifacts like computer, cell phone, E-mail, Voice Message, Internet  used in our society). So why do we even make an expectation of a ‘word’ for such entities in ancient period vocabulary ?  The Sanskrit language lovers have come out with new terms for current use.

 

                                    Question (bus) :  Who is the agency responsible for this ‘  Sanskrit Word Manufacturing for every object around us ’ and feeding it user society ?    and ‘ language resource maintenance to fit the new words to the firm –frame work of Samskrutham ?

 

Note:   What are we to understand in Sanskrit vyakarana tradition, by  Patanjali’s observation on ‘shabda –vyavahara’ and Panini Sutra – ‘tadashishyam samjnaa pramaanatvaat’ ?  Did any grammarian or lexicographer  in Sanskrit stake claims for such a work? OR, did  a Sanskrit language using society    go to the ‘ grammarian - lexicographer’ to  ask them  for a ‘ prescription word’ or ‘approval of word-in-usage’ and a  ‘ grammar rule justification’ for  derivation !   Is grammarian- lexicographer  combine’  responsible for this ‘ Lexicon  Enhancing and upkeep –clean up activity ’ ?   (  This kind of language activity is an ongoing work in many social languages like English, which produce  annual Lexicons, Word usage standards, new word listings, Meaning shade changes, media and literature nuances of usage )  

 

- IF there is no word for a certain activity in certain language, it can be conjectured …..     This is a logic with serious defects in the ‘ Thought-womb’ itself. Taking Current language usage as a ‘Telescope or  a microscope’ for ‘ over projecting ‘ History’  and ‘ intelligence of a civilization’ to ride  on ‘Current usage of an ancient rule bound language’  carries a serious limitation. I will limit my  analysis here  to the  domain of Samskrutham to show the fallacy here.

 

   Take the ‘ lexicon term for denoting the shining objects up above the sky, called ‘Stars and planets’ in English. The word I am focusing is ‘ nakShathra’.  The lexicon lists the following word , along with many others, with a specific translation as below:

 

नक्षत्रजा -  (H3) नक्षत्र--जा [p= 524,2] [L=102844] mfn. star-born  ; (H3B) नक्षत्र--जा [p= 524,2] [L=102844.1] m. son of the stars AV.  

 

                    Question ( no word for certain activity…. ) :  Just because such words exist in the lexicon, and lend themselves to a plausible translation as above,   can one infer a state of advanced life sciences or Astro-physics concepts association ‘during the period when it was used’ ? which we somehow seem to have missed in the current teachings of Sanskrit ?

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

 

 

 

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nagaraj Paturi
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 2:28 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} [भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् ] Squirrel in Sanskrit

 

Bus issue and squirrel issue are not comparable. 

 

Bus is a new product which did not exist when Kannada was forming its native words or was borrowing words from Sanskrit, Prakrit or Arabic / Persian. So it is natural that the English word was borrowed. 

 

But if you consider squirrel to be existing and /or widely found in those parts of India where Sanskrit was used and there is no Sanskrit word found for that animal, that is certainly an issue and is natural as Bus not being in Kannada. 

 

Issue of butterfly is the same. 

 

If there is no word for a certain entity in a certain language, it can also be conjectured that that entity was either not there or was not widely found  in the area where that language was used, during the period when it was used. 

 

Were butterflies or squirrels there in the areas where Sanskrit was spoken? If they existed or widely found, but the word for them is not found in Sanskrit, then it is certainly intriguing. 

 

Is there independent evidence to say they existed then?

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:41 PM, ajit.gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

There are no Sanskrit equivalents for certain words. New words can be coined as per the rules of grammar If the word चिक्रोडः has been used in Sanskrit Literature for squirrel then perhaps that's the closest equivalent. In Kannada there is no word for Bus. Some people say Bassu for Bus and call it Kannada but no grammar of Kannada can give such a derivation though its a popular usage.
 The word चित्रपतन्ग' can be used for butterflies or even for Kite
Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

On Friday, 17 March 2017 18:31:40 UTC+5:30, Mārcis Gasūns wrote:

On Friday, 17 March 2017 08:12:39 UTC+3, G S S Murthy wrote:

 

Sometime back I ran into difficulties in locating a Sanskrit word that denotes "butterfly". I had to finally go by the Great Apte who perhaps coined the word ' चित्रपतन्ग'. There is a need, I believe, to do research in the matter of simple objects apparently missing in Sanskrit vocabulary.

 

 

Had the same issue in 2004, found no answer in Delhi. 

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

--

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.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

If one says Prakrit is 'Sanskrit/ Prakrit' is a single , one and the same language then one can say there exists only a few languages in India apart from Sanskrit. The answer is begging the question.

All languages except Sanskrit absorbs new words that is what I was trying to say. Sanskrit words are fixed and scope of adding new words exists but is limited.

There is absolutely no misunderstanding Sanskrit Langauge is fixed and was fixed long time back whereas prakrit are evolving languages and are still evolving

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/nBHM_GjLIBs/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>If one says Prakrit is 'Sanskrit/ Prakrit' is a single , one and the same language then one can say there exists only a few languages in India apart from Sanskrit. The answer is begging the question.

If you are looking at today's multiple Indian languages and are imagining that 'Sanskrit/Prakrit is a single language' is against this fact, the mistake is in bringing today's data as counter to the statement 'Sanskrit/Prakrit is a single language' which is about a situation many centuries older. 

Even during the period when the single language called Sanskrit/Prakrit was spoken, apart from this (single) language other vibhaashaas, dEs'abhaashaas, bhaashaas of the nishaada and other human groups which did not have genetic connection with the (single) language Sanskrit-Prakrit were spoken in India and were spoken of in ancient Sanskrit and Prakrit literature. In modern parlance, these bhaashaas may refer to the languages of Dravidian, Austroasiatic, Sinotibetan families and some other languages outside these families. 

Please remember that different languages of the same language family are believed /theorized to be once dialects of the same language which in course of evolution develop into mutually unintelligible entities and as a result, turn out to be /are called as different languages. 

The same happened to the dialects of the (single) language Sanskrit -Prakrit. The dialects called Prakrits of this language, in course of evolution, changed into several mutually unintelligible entities and thus became different languages which are the ancient forms of the older versions of the contemporary north Indian languages. 

' Sanskrit is fixed ' etc. are naive understandings of nature of languages. No language is fixed. 

Books like "Evolution of the Sanskrit language from Pāṇini to Patañjali " by Sureshachandra Dnyaneshwar Laddu and many similar works provide evidence for evolution of Sanskrit from time to time. 

Apart from this, Sanskrit expressions getting rusticized into Prakrit expressions and Prakrit expressions getting 'refined' into Sanskrit expressions was a perpetual  two way process. As such, one of them changing/evolving, the other not changing/evolving is improbable and even impossible. 

Modern researchers talk of substrata of other languages in Rigveda itself and talk more freely of such substrata in laukika Sanskrita. Viewing Sanskrit as some insulated entity, retaining its 'pure' uninflunced and uninfluencable form is considered to be against the spirit of modern research.  

     

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Thank you Prof. Paturi. I have nothing much to add about what you had written. It is well established theory there is no doubt. I think writing more might deviate away from this thread. This is a possible theory that has been proposed that There was only one language in India (leaving south India and may smaller regions of out )  that was Sanskrit and that language evolved to many languages that India has. This is a good theory which is highly debatable and problematic. When one asks the question how did that one Language became many and why that one language remained fixed and remained static all the time. Perhaps the answer would be Sanskrit remained fixed by its own grammar and was always restricted to certain class and section of society or was the medium for higher education and Prakrits were languages that was used by the masses.

Now let me write about a theory that Sanskrit is static a language after the time of Muni traya  Has there been any data to show that Sanskrit language evolved no there is not there is enough literature which shows Sanskrit language was fixed and remained static by its own grammatical rules.

During the past 400 years years or Kannada, Telugu  Tamil etc are the medium of instruction even to study Sanskrit at elementary level and for day to day activities so was it is in  north India they have different langauges

Recently there has been a trend or a group which thinks the only way to keep Sanskrit studies alive is to tell I speak Sanskrit  who do this to distort census report and not for the love of language.

Now since there is no Sanskrit word for squirrels and butterflies one has to see Prakrit words or accept words proposed in this thread

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

Were butterflies or squirrels there in the areas where Sanskrit was spoken? If they existed or widely found, but the word for them is not found in Sanskrit, then it is certainly intriguing. 

Is there independent evidence to say they existed then? इति पातूरिगळु।

अत्राधोदेशे दृश्येते द्वौ चिक्रोडौ।
भरहुतग्रामे, सतनाजनपदे, मध्यप्रदेशे। स्तूपनिर्माणकालः १०० बीसी।

[ajit.gargeshwari]

Has the word चिक्रोडः  been used in 200 BC inscriptions is the question
Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

On Saturday, 18 March 2017 15:38:59 UTC+5:30, उज्ज्वल राजपूत wrote:

Were butterflies or squirrels there in the areas where Sanskrit was spoken? If they existed or widely found, but the word for them is not found in Sanskrit, then it is certainly intriguing. 

Is there independent evidence to say they existed then? इति पातूरिगळु।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

His response is to Nagaraj's 

"Is there independent evidence to say they existed then?"

So no mistake in the response. 

--

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I asked a question wanted to know what the picture tries to show. Not pointing to any errors. Squirrels existed much before man is well known.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/nBHM_GjLIBs/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

There is a squirrel in the sculpture. Evidence for squirrels during the date of the inscription '100 BC'. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> This is a possible theory that has been proposed that There was only one language in India (leaving south India and may smaller regions of out )  that was Sanskrit and that language evolved to many languages that India has. 

-- That can be better worded as follows:

There was a period in Indian history when major geographical area of the Indic subcontinent, particularly its northern part had speakers of one single language,  standard variety of which is (today being) called Sanskrit and the dialects of which are (today being) called Prakrits. The dialects of this language evolved into different languages that are being spoken in the northern parts of the Indic subcontinent. 

> This is a good theory which is highly debatable and problematic.

-- This is not a theory but a fact staring into the observer's face. Evidences:

1. If the language situation reflected in Sanskrit plays, viz., Sanskrit speaker speaking to Prakrit speaker and vice versa with mutual intelligibility and Prakrit used there always being suited to Sanskrit chaayaa with a small change of sounds, was not the reality at any part of Indian history, the plays would not have been received by their readers /audience as reflecting sociolinguistic reality. If there is a reality of that kind, the two forms of language can not be considered as two different languages. 

2. Books like Vakyapadiyam dealing with language issue always treated the two as different versions of the same language. 

> When one asks the question how did that one Language became many 

--- That question is not asked because researchers do not move from that one language to the many languages. They start from the many different languages of north India and trace their history. When they keep moving backwards into the various stages through which these many different languages evolved, they are bound to reach a stage where the ancestral forms of these languages were nothing but the Prakrits, the dialects of a language, standard form of which was Sanskrit.Since no one is saying that it is Sanskrit, the standard form which evolved into many language, since what is being said is that it is the different dialects of that language which evolved into many different languages, there is no scope for such a question. 

> why that one language remained fixed and remained static all the time. 

-- That one language is not just the standard form called Sanskrit but its dialects called Prakrits too. So that one language remained fixed is not a fact. 

Even if one understands your statement as 'the standard form of that language called Sanskrit remained fixed, it is not a correct understanding. All standard forms of all languages are slow in their change compared to their dialects. This slowness in change may give the impression of no change. But it is just a false impression. Not a fact. 

It is this impression/claim of no change in the literary or classical variety of languages such as Telugu and Kannada,that was contested and countered by the leaders of the spoken language movements that arose during the advent of modern period. Those who opposed the spoken language movements and advocated the continuance of the literary variety, (at least in the case of Telugu ) argued that the greatness of the literary variety was that it remained static /unchanged through the course of centuries of history. The leaders of the spoken language movement (at least in Telugu) published well argued and well substantiated pieces establishing that the literary variety underwent change at every stage of its history. This awareness that languages , even their literary varieties, can not remain static and to understand the histories of languages was considered to be the gift of modern research to humanity. 

In the same spirit, to consider that Sanskrit remained static can be viewed as contrary to the spirit of modern research. 

What is ironical is that the understanding of those of the modern researchers who consider Sanskrit to have remained without change, make the same claim as the target of ridicule, viz., traditional Sanskrit scholars who consider remaining unchanged as the greatness of Sanskrit achieved thanks to the power of anus'aasana of Panini's grammar. 

Those of the modern researchers who take pride in being historicists or historical researchers of language take pride in disproving the claim of the traditional scholars that Panini could bring in unchangeability to Sanskrit. 

Grammars like all other tools of language standardization do certainly contribute to slowing the change in the standard form but they can never completely arrest the change in that language. Panini's grammar is no exception to this.    

      

  

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Thank you for your views

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/nBHM_GjLIBs/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[G S S Murthy]

Thank you Ujjvalji.It is a great find

.

Murthy

--

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

जातकादिषु बौद्धग्रन्थेष्वस्माकं चिक्रोडः कलन्दक इत्यभिधीयते।
कदि कलदि अव्हाने रोदने च। कन्दति, पक्‍कन्दति। पक्‍कन्दुं, कन्दन्तो, कलन्दको।
इत्येकस्मिन्पाळिव्याकरणग्रन्थे।

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Thank you for this verse as many scholars have indicated a search in Prakrita text will yield results as there may be no Sanskrit word for squirrel.

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

--

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Nagarajji,

In the Ramayana, to my knowledge, Hanumanji says about two languages, one of them being the Sanskrit, and he was in a dilemma as to in which language he should speak to mother Sita. In the Manu Smriti, if I am right, the sage Manu says that there were two languages, one of them being the Arya bhasha and the other the Mleccha-bhasha.. This makes us visualize that in the ancient times,there were two bhashas one of them was the Sanskrit or the Arya-bhasha and the second was the unrefined or Mleccha bhasha. Lord Budddha preached in Magadhi Prakrt and this commoners' language  of that time came to be known as Pali and became canonical bhasha  for the Buddhists. Magadhi prakrt evolved further into the other variants with passage of time. For example, much later in Lord Mahavira's time, one of the evolved languages was the Ardhamagadhi or the Jaina-prakrt. I am open to correction,

Regards,

Sunil KB

Virus-free. www.avast.com

[shivraj singh]

On Sun, 3/19/17, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2017, 12:39 AM

> This is a possible theory that has
been proposed that There was only one language in India
(leaving south India and may smaller regions of out )  that
was Sanskrit and that language evolved to many languages
that India has. 
-- That can be better worded as follows:
There was a period in Indian history
when major geographical area of the Indic subcontinent,
particularly its northern part had speakers of one single
language,  standard variety of which is (today being)
called Sanskrit and the dialects of which are (today being)
called Prakrits. The dialects of this language evolved into
different languages that are being spoken in the northern
parts of the Indic
subcontinent. 

----------------------------
What is the relationship of Tamil to Sanskrit?

What about the relationship of other south Indian languages to Sanskrit?

Shivraj

[ajit.gargeshwari]

These question have been extensively dealt with in relevant books and articles. Is there something new that can be added is a question?
Regards
Ajit Gageshwari

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Shivaraj Singh,

I think I know where you are coming from.

You probably consider that the theory that south Indian languages belong to a different family of languages ( which is given the name Dravidian family of languages) than the family of languages to which Sanskrit, Prakrit(s) and north Indian languages belong to be an invalid theory and a western conspiracy. 

But as long as you can not come up with a new theory that can explain the facts that are explained by the theories of Dravidian and Indoeuropean families, there is no point in harping on the theory that all Indian languages come from Sanskrit. 

I can help you understand the reasoning through which these theories are arrived at. 

If you have / develop a strong counter to that reasoning, then you may publish it and get it accepted in the academic circles. 

Until then, the theory that south Indian languages have no genetic connection with Sanskrit, shall stay. 

--

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks for this verse Sri Ujjwal Rajputji since this removes the intrigue and proves that the word for squirrel is found in one of the dialects of a language whose standard form is Sanskrit. Word for certain entities being found in dialects of a language and the same not being found in the standard form of the language and vice versa is common and found in contemporary languages too. 

--

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[G S S Murthy]

I am unable to see the verse, Sirs.

Regards

Murthy

[Nagaraj Paturi]

जातकादिषु बौद्धग्रन्थेष्वस्माकं चिक्रोडः कलन्दक इत्यभिधीयते।
कदि कलदि अव्हाने रोदने च। कन्दति, पक्‍कन्दति। पक्‍कन्दुं, कन्दन्तो, कलन्दको।
इत्येकस्मिन्पाळिव्याकरणग्रन्थे।

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

यद्यपि न मयेदं मूलपाळिग्रन्थे पठितं तथापि ज्ञेयमस्ति।
कलन्दकजातक एका चिक्रोडी वृक्षशाखाया नीडस्थानि समुद्रे पतितानि स्वान्यपत्यानि त्रातुं स्वेन चमरसदृशेन पुच्छेन समुद्रं शोषयितुमुपचक्रमयिति।
अपि चाधुनिकेषु पाळिकोशेषु कलन्दको नाम गिलहरी स्क्विरल्चेति दृश्येते।

[shivraj singh]

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

On Sun, 3/19/17, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} [भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् ] Squirrel in Sanskrit
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Cc: "shivraj singh" <shivk...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2017, 3:08 PM

================================
Some points :

a) Prakrit grammars have a fourfold division of words (pada) into: naman(noun), akhyata (verb), etc.

b) In Tamil the four classes of words are : peyarssol (name word), vinaissol (act-word), etc. The first is a literal translation of the Sanskrit nama(pada), the second is for kriya; akhyata being , apparently, untranslatable in Tamil.

Pada occurs in all these works as the term for a word. Furthermore in Talkappiyam, moli==word, being a translation of pada is used. In the Nannul, pada is preferred, sol with the sense of word is also used.

If we come to phonetics in Tolkappiyam a vowel is call uyir, that is, breath, or life. In Sanskrit grammars a svara (or sara in Pali) is used for a vowel. This word is obvioulsy the original of uyir; svara means sound and breath also.

Why so much similarity in grammars if these two languages do not share a genetic origin?

[Jsr Prasad]

It is strongly suggested to change the subject line.

Regards

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

J.S.R. Anjaneya Prasad,
Associate Professor, Dept. of Sanskrit Studies,
School of Humanities, University of Hyderabad,
Prof. C.R. Rao Road, Hyderabad - 500 046
Tel: +91-40-2313 3803

।। पुरुषोऽयं लोकसम्मितः ।।

[Vrindavan Today]

Languages are cognate by vocabulary, syntax, etc. not by grammatical theory which obviously can be translated.

Vrindavan Today brings you daily news of Braj and Vrindavan Dhams — 

the temple and ashram life, special events, environmental and heritage protection. 

Come here to stay in touch with the land of Radha and Krishna!

Jagadananda Das (editor) 

India mobile: +91 7055 8455 40

vrindav...@gmail.com

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

​Dear Jagadananda Das ji,​

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Vrindavan Today <vrindav...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 7:03 AM, Jsr Prasad <jsrap...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is strongly suggested to change the subject line.

Regards

[Nagaraj Paturi]

please post it in reply to the thread started on this topic to avoid digression.

--

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--