अनुस्वारस्य ययि परसवर्णः

[shankara]

Pranams to all,

It is said in Laghu Siddhanta Kaumudi, Gita Press edition that as per the sutra 'अनुस्वारस्य ययि परसवर्णः', it is wrong to write गंगा. It should be गङ्गा. I request the scholars of this group to explain whether this is a 'vikalpa vidhi' or 'nitya vidhi'. While I was reading Bhagavad Gita published by a reputed ashram, I saw that in the first chapter it is printed 'न कांक्षे विजयं कृष्ण'. Should it be काङ्क्षे in place of कांक्षे?

 

regards
shankara

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:12 PM, shankara <shanka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Pranams to all,

It is said in Laghu Siddhanta Kaumudi, Gita Press edition that as per the sutra 'अनुस्वारस्य ययि परसवर्णः', it is wrong to write गंगा. It should be गङ्गा. I request the scholars of this group to explain whether this is a 'vikalpa vidhi' or 'nitya vidhi'. While I was reading Bhagavad Gita published by a reputed ashram, I saw that in the first chapter it is printed 'न कांक्षे विजयं कृष्ण'. Should it be काङ्क्षे in place of कांक्षे?

 अनुस्वारस्य ययि परसवर्णः ८।४।५८॥

makes अनुस्वार for the followed by यय् - vowels get परसवर्ण.  

वा पदान्तस्य॥ ८।४।५८||

The next rule makes it optional only at the end of a पद and not in the middle of a पद. Strictly speaking, it is wrong. But due to the influence of Hindi printing, many prints do not follow this strictly. गंगा, मंगल, etc and not any where you will find परसवर्ण in Hindi words. 

It is very simple, since you quoted the rules.    २५-वा पदान्तस्य ।
८.५९। पद के अन्तिम अनुस्वार के अनन्तर यय-श, प, स, ह को छोड़कर 
कोई भी व्यञ्जन) हो तो अनुस्वार को परसवर्श विकास से होगा ।

 

 

regards
shankara

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[Hnbhat B.R.]

 

 गंगा, मंगल, etc  where you never will find परसवर्ण in Hindi words. 

There is no simple derivations also, why there should be any case for  परसवर्ण. The possibility for अनुस्वार is म् at the end of a word which usually be the case ending, अम् or आम् and in the middle both न् and म् would take अनुस्वार. If there is no indication of this अनुस्वार from these two sources, and instead, they are taken as having अनुस्वार naturally, as used in Hindi, I think same holds good for Sanskrit also. But strictly speaking, even if it is अनुस्वार, it should take परसवर्ण. 

"मोऽनुस्वारः and नश्चापदान्तस्य झलि" are the two cases for अनुस्वार originated by transformation. 

 

[shankara]

Sir,

Thanks a lot for the explanation. Can I say, if Panini were alive today, he would have modified this rule, considering the strong trend to use anuswara?

 

regards
shankara

---

From: Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] अनुस्वारस्य ययि परसवर्णः

[Subrahmanian R]

Respected Scholars,

 

I am not conversant with Sanskrit grammar rules, let alone a grammarian. I love Sanskrit but my efforts to learn Sanskrit sufficiently failed due to inability. However, by virtue of my Travel across India I offer the following observations:

Panini's grammar related to speech and not to script. His rules are not applicable as to whether the bindi should be used in a particular context or halanta ma, na, nga, nja etc.

I observe that generally in the South writers and publishers are inclined towards use of halanta nga, nja, Na, na and ma while writers and publishers are inclined towards use of anuswara. In speech, in the Hindi speaking belt,anuswara is pronounced without a clear na or ma as in the words 'hansna', 'gaon' 'haim' etc. Many from the South who learn Hindi or Sanskrit from books substitute it with full-fledged ma. First take the name of the Language - it is Samskritam in the South and even pronounced as Samaskritam, while it is Sa(n)skrit in the North and perhaps, Sanskrit for the foreigners. The ma/ na interchange is there for all anuswaras before स, श ह. Amsam or ansh, vamsam or vansh, samsthanam or sansthan, simham or sinha. The regional influence is there in some other context also, though they may be treated as Regional Languages or अपभ्र्ंश. कुमार् of Sanskrit becomes ku(n)war in Hindi and कुमर or कुमरन् in Tamil.

If the substitution of anuswara for the halanta nasal is eliminated completely, many puns will lose their beauty.

गंगाजलंकेशवनारिकेतु: नगाह्वयो नाम नगारिसूनु: which is apparently गङ्गा, जलं, कॆशव, नारि केतु: but in fact गङ्गाज, लङ्केश, वनारि केतु: is possible only by use of [the optional] anuswara instead of the halanta nasal.

Similarly in

अगजानन पद्मार्कं गजानामहर्निशम्।

अनेकदंतं भक्तानां एकदंतमुपास्महे॥ एकदन्तं but अनेकदं तं

Scholarly members of the group know hundreds of such instances.

With reverence

R Subrahmanian

[Hnbhat B.R.]

"Yamaka" and "shlesha" have many times to override grammatical rules of "sandhi" which is the licence of the poets to play with words and have nothing to do with Grammar. In Yamaka काव्य-s you can find thousands and hundreds of such formations, with splitting or without splitting, that doesn't grant automatically for any body use licentiously overriding the Paninian rules.

Thanks for your observations.

[Sita Raama]

Namaste Subrahmanianji

your statement - "Panini's grammar related to speech and not to script. "

I would like to point a fact - In sanskrit there are no silent letters like english and other language. Its pretty straight forward. You write what you pronounce and you pronounce whats written, there is no disconnect between the two. 

Sanskritam is not like English where you write Walk and pronounce without "L" 

Colonel - There is no "R" but you pronounce it as "Kar-nal"

However if you find some disconnect in pronunciation, thats because of influence of regional language be it Hindi, telugu, Tamil etc etc. 

Wrong is wrong no matter where and how many are pronouncing it. 

धन्यवाद: - राम 

[Viswanath B]

Namaste SitaRamaji,

No silent letters is probably not the same as what-you-pronounce-is-what-is-written. There are vedic verses where the pronunciation is slightly different from what is written,

1. When you get a double g, (gg) you need to pronounce nasal, and not literally with two ggs. (The mantras during Sandhya-vandana, just before arghya pradana come to mind).

2. When you have a visarga, you pronounce it half except when a ksha comes in immediately after it, in which case you are required to stop a little while at visarga, pronouncing it fully, before commensing again with the word staring with ksha. (couple of such occurrences in Namakam come to mind ).

As long as one learns from guru, memorizes and recites, there are no issues. We have a problem only if we start looking at the script and try to pronounce.

I don't know if this is because of the script we use is unable to cater to these requirements, or something else.

Thanks,
Vissu

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Sita Raama <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subrahmanianji

your statement - "Panini's grammar related to speech and not to script. "

I would like to point a fact - In sanskrit there are no silent letters like english and other language. Its pretty straight forward. You write what you pronounce and you pronounce whats written, there is no disconnect between the two. 

Sanskritam is not like English where you write Walk and pronounce without "L" Nam

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Viswanath B <vegav...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste SitaRamaji,

No silent letters is probably not the same as what-you-pronounce-is-what-is-written. There are vedic verses where the pronunciation is slightly different from what is written,

1. When you get a double g, (gg) you need to pronounce nasal, and not literally with two ggs. (The mantras during Sandhya-vandana, just before arghya pradana come to mind).

2. When you have a visarga, you pronounce it half except when a ksha comes in immediately after it, in which case you are required to stop a little while at visarga, pronouncing it fully, before commensing again with the word staring with ksha. (couple of such occurrences in Namakam come to mind ).

As long as one learns from guru, memorizes and recites, there are no issues. We have a problem only if we start looking at the script and try to pronounce.

I don't know the purpose of this writing. 

If it is to show, incompatibility of Script and Vedic recitation, it has been long ago said one who recites looking at the written material is the worst of the पाठक-s:

गीती शीघ्री शिरः कम्पी तथा लिखितपाठकः ।

अनर्थज्ञोऽल्पकण्ठश्च षडेते पाठकाधमाः ॥

along with the other defective readers, which imlies that it was customary to read from the written texts and was not approved and considered as lower grade ones as the purpose of this write up seems to convey.

Otherwise, there are many symbols used in different print outs used according to the Vedic recensions which carry the specific symbols needed by the users/teachers of the recensions after the invention of the printing convention at least. All may not need the same set of representations, as many are governed by प्रातिशाख्य of the recension and regional users at least in manuscripts form even though not available in public printing texts in general.  

This is my experience.

 

[Viswanath B]

Shriman Bhat Mahodaya,

You write what you pronounce and you pronounce whats written,

I was merely suggesting that the above assertion by Sri SitaRamaji may not be 100% accurate.

Thanks
vissu

[Sita Raama]

Vissuji,

can you please provide the argya Pradana mantra. 

Also an example for : and क्ष 
if my understand is wrong then I would like to correct myself, its not a good idea to give opinions without fact checking. 

Thanks 

Raama

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

[Viswanath B]

Hi Sitaramaji -

Here are some examples -

1. For the double gg  -

TS : Kanda 7 - Anuvaka 1 - sarvagghyasthUriNA ....

Here the double 'gg' should be pronounced with nose, almost as if it is 'gn'.

2. For the visarga & ksha -

TS : Kanda 4 - Rudradhyam (4-5-4)

....mahadbhyaH KshullakEbhyascha....

Here the visarga needs to be fully pronounced, the flow of mantra-uchcharaNa needs to be stopped for a very little while (so that it is not continious).

Likewise, if there is a visarga right before a 'ka' or a 'pa', they only need to be pronounced in half.

And other visargas (well, from what i read so far) are combined using sandhi, and shouldn't be pronounced explicitly.

3. Another example - (sandhya vandana, right before arghya pradana )

hiraNyavarNA shshuchayaH pavakA.......agniM ya....bhavantu.

In this the 'agniM ya' should be pronounced as 'agniyya'

This is the sandhya vandana example i mentioned incorrectly under double gg. Its not a double gg, but another example of such a  rule.

I am not sure i am able to explain these perfectly and correctly. All i am trying to say was that whats being written, is not exactly the same as what is to be pronounced.  It is more retrofitting the speech to a written form. Matches 99.999999% but not 100%. It will mostly work for all practical spoken/written purposes.

Thanks
vissu

[Sita Raama]

Vissuji

Thanks for your detailed mail however you have to excuse my itrans reading capabilities. 

here is a link to Sandyawandanam 

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_veda/Sandhyavandanam.pdf

can you please point me to devanagari text. it's my personal opinion others can have their own but I do not read anything thats written in itrans or in roman fonts. 

So I can not appreciate your description. For me Sanskrit is Devanagari text only and so far I did not come across the disconnect you mentioned. In devanagari text the nasalization is clearly represented. 

If the discussion is going of the topic please let me know we can go over this separately without involving the group. 

regards

Raama

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Here is the specific mantra I was referring to in Sandhya Vandana in deva-nagari lipi. This mantra (and some others) are missing from the vidhi as mentioned in your link. (these mantras are from taittiriya samhita, 5th kanda, 6th prasna).

सन्ध्यावन्दनमन्त्र-s are compiled from the Vedic Texts मन्त्र-ब्राह्मण-s and not form as a part of a separate section of Vedic Literature, tailored to needs of the people from time to time. And it need not be the same, but according to the शाखा, सूत्र, गोत्र of the students of वैदिकसंप्रदाय. No point in generalizing the practices as applicable to whole of Sanskrit Literature. 

 

 

I have highlighted the two portions where the pronunciation is different from what is written here. As shri Bhat mahodaya mentioned, the pronunciation is driven by the pratishakhya.

But, as I thought about this topic for some time, it occurred to me that what-you-write-is-what-you-pronounce is kind of marrying a given lipi (in this case, deva-nagari) with a language - sanskrit. So if we are probably talking about the limitations of deva-nagari here, than anything about sanskrit. This is my passing thought only and is likely because of my limited knowledge of the lipi.

The deficiency is in the Unicode fonts used to represent a general notation for all the शाखा-s, but in print they were used in the print in the regional prints for the मन्त्र texts or संहिता texts. Now we are discussing only the Unicode alphabets, may the correct statement. Still, there have been attempts to reproduce, ardhavisarga, rotated ardhavisarga, जिह्वामूलीय, उपाध्मानीय, etc. vedic signs by the scholars in the fields gaining access software technologies. One discussion had been there in our group, about these signs long ago and I think I had given the link. If not noticed, here is the same reproduced:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/samskrita/SzjcM19cjK8/discussion

 With regards