sandhi splitting prohibitions

Sunder Hattangadi

unread,

Mar 20, 2019, 2:56:01 PM3/20/19

to Samskrita

Namaste,

Are there any guidelines or rules regarding prohibitions for splitting of sandhi in prose or poetry? Thanks.

some examples:

सुखासीनान् अभ्यगच्छद् ब्रह्मर्षीन् संशितव्रतान्।

अभिवाद्य मुनींस् तांस् तु सर्वानेव कुताञ्जलिः।

सुरैर् ब्रह्मर्षिभिश् चैव श्रुत्वा यदभिपूजितम्

psho...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 20, 2019, 4:28:32 PM3/20/19

to samskrita

Wikipedia entry on Sanskrit grammar has a section titled phonology and Sandhi:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_grammar#Phonology_and_sandhi

It concludes with, "The phonological rules which are applied when combining morphemes to a word, and when combining words to a sentence, are collectively called sandhi "composition". Texts are written phonetically, with sandhi applied (except for the so-called padapāṭha)."

So, can we conclude, perhaps a bit simple-mindedly, that the text you presented might be some sort of padapāṭha?

More on padapatha here --> https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/?q=padap%C4%81%E1%B9%ADha (tinyurl --> http://tinyurl.com/y4kejolb)

I also remember reading (in a grammar book) that sandhi rules are optional and that, though optional, they're almost always applied.

If we already know how to split sandhis etc, this kind of text (like the one you presented) can be a bit annoying to read, don't you agree? :-)

Shreevatsa R

unread,

Mar 20, 2019, 5:31:55 PM3/20/19

to संस्कृतसन्देशश्रेणिः samskrta-yUthaH

Sandhi is a phonological phenomenon, i.e. it has to do with sound / how words are pronounced.

As a rule of thumb, splitting sandhi is optional in prose and mandatory in poetry.

These examples in the question are purely orthographical, i.e. they just have to do with spelling: the conventions we use for representing sounds.

Example of split sandhi:

सुरैः ब्रह्मर्षिभिः च एव श्रुत्वा यत् अभिपूजितम् = suraiḥ brahmarṣibhiḥ ca eva śrutvā yat abhipūjitam

(generally not allowed in verse)

Example of joined sandhi:
सुरैर्ब्रह्मर्षिभिश्चैव श्रुत्वा यदभिपूजितम् = surairbrahmarṣibhiścaiva śrutvā yadabhipūjitam

OR

सुरैर् ब्रह्मर्षिभिश् चैव श्रुत्वा यदभिपूजितम् = surair brahmarṣibhiś caiva śrutvā yadabhipūjitam

OR

सुरैर्ब्रह्मर्षिभिश्चैवश्रुत्वायदभिपूजितम् = surairbrahmarṣibhiścaivaśrutvāyadabhipūjitam

OR

सु रै र्ब्र ह्म र्षि भि श्चै व श्रु त्वा य द भि पू जि तम् = su rai rbra hma rṣi bhi ścai va śru tvā ya da bhi pū ji tam

-- all four are pronounced exactly the same (and regarded as joined sandhi); it is only a matter of convention which spelling one chooses, for the convenience of the readers.

In many older manuscripts and inscriptions we could see either of the last two forms (either everything unbroken or everything broken); in recent years (after say 1800, with the rise of printing) one convention, especially in Devanagari printing, is to use the first form. But this practice is not universal.

The Sanskrit grammarians give rules on sound/pronunciation (where to pause etc); they don't give rules on printing (obviously).

When to include a visual space in the printed text is a matter of convention adopted by the writer and reader.

- In the first form, the rule is roughly "include a space after word that ends with a vowel if the next word starts with a consonant". Note that even under this convention, a space does *not* denote a pause, e.g. we write रामो गच्छति even though that's the form with sandhi (without pause) while रामः गच्छति is the form without sandhi (pause allowed).

- In the second form, the rule is roughly "include a space after words wherever possible to do so such that the sound isn't affected if the spaces are ignored". Here the reader must remember (or be told) to read continuously, without pausing where spaces appear: the spaces are just for convenience in knowing where (some) words end.

When my friend and I were assembling the first bunch of a collection of essays by him (called Sadasvada), we chose to adopt the second form and gave some reasoning at the start of the volume. (The web page where it was hosted seems to have gone offline but there's an archived copy online; also attached a screenshot.)

You can find much more detail (with lot of information about manuscripts etc) about such visual word-division in the 30-page introduction by Lanman, editor of the Harvard Oriental Series, when he was printing a Panchatantra text with such word-division: https://archive.org/stream/panchatantracoll00purnuoft#page/xix/mode/1up -- see e.g. "Hindu devices for showing word-division" on page xxiv, and "Virama in the manuscripts" on page xxxvii.

In short, such (purely typographical) word division is contrary to the (relatively short) ~200-year-old Devanagari printing practice, but it's definitely not contrary to Sanskrit tradition as a whole.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Sadasvada-Script-Conventions.png

Hnbhat B.R.

unread,

Mar 20, 2019, 6:31:19 PM3/20/19

to sams...@googlegroups.com

Well said. I only know first mentioned rule that it is optional in prose and mandatory in verses with break in half verse in print followed with a danda if split in four lines or two lines.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Hnbhat B.R.

unread,

Mar 20, 2019, 7:34:40 PM3/20/19

to sams...@googlegroups.com

In verse lines not making sandhi is considered as visandhi dosha in poetics even if it is done according to sandhi rules prakritibhava.

2,2,07 विरूपपदसन्धिर्विसन्धिः ।

विरूप-पद-सन्धिः विसन्धिः

2,2,08 पदसन्धिवैरूप्यं विश्लेषोऽश्लीलत्वं कष्टत्वञ्च ।

Examples:

मेघानिलेन अमुना एतस्मिन्नद्रिकानने!

Here there is not any prohibition for making sandhi according to grammar as in the second example.

Sanhhi not done according to sandhi rules:

कमले इव लोचने इमे अनुबध्नाति विलालपद्धतिः!

In the second example, sandhi is not done due to प्रकृतिभाव according to the rule प्लुतप्रगृह्या अचि नित्यम् <6-1-125>

Here the ई, ऊ, ए endings in द्विवचन cannot be be joined with the following vowels according to grammar.

(100) ईदूदेद्द्विवचनं प्रगृह्यम् <1-1-11>

ईदूदेदन्तं द्विवचनं प्रगृह्यसंज्ञं स्यात् । हरी एतौ । विष्णू इमौ । गङ्गे अमू । पचेते इमौ ।

And in verses without sandhi are considered as दोष by Vamana in काव्यालंकारसूत्र cited above. Examples also cited by him.

Naresh Cuntoor

unread,

Mar 20, 2019, 8:42:40 PM3/20/19

to Sanskrit

That's a good explanation, Shreevatsa. Thanks.

Regarding the examples in your email -

1. सुरैर्ब्रह्मर्षिभिश्चैव श्रुत्वा यदभिपूजितम् = surairbrahmarṣibhiścaiva śrutvā yadabhipūjitam

2. सुरैर् ब्रह्मर्षिभिश् चैव श्रुत्वा यदभिपूजितम् = surair brahmarṣibhiś caiva śrutvā yadabhipūjitam

3. सुरैर्ब्रह्मर्षिभिश्चैवश्रुत्वायदभिपूजितम् = surairbrahmarṣibhiścaivaśrutvāyadabhipūjitam

4. सु रै र्ब्र ह्म र्षि भि श्चै व श्रु त्वा य द भि पू जि तम्

In my opinion, option #1 makes the most sense. If a word is extremely long, then introducing a couple of hyphens is helpful. Option #2-4 hamper correct reading. I understand the temptation in using #2, especially for beginner readers. If they want to read existing material, they will have to get used to reading text written in #1 anyway. In that sense, I don't know what problem #2 solves. Moreover, the unintended effect of #2 is to introduce mini pauses where there are spaces.

Naresh

S. L. Abhyankar

unread,

Mar 21, 2019, 2:25:20 AM3/21/19

to samskrita

नमस्ते श्रीमन् सुन्दर-हट्टंगडी-वर्य !

भवतः उद्धरणे एक एव सन्धिविच्छेदः (पदच्छेदः वा) दृश्यते <सुखासीनान् अभ्य..> इत्यत्र |

<अभ्यगच्छद् ब्रह्मर्षीन्> इत्यत्र पदच्छेदः तदैव मन्तव्यो भवति, यदि <अभ्यगच्छत् ब्रह्मर्षीन्> एवं लिख्यते | <अभ्यगच्छद् ब्रह्मर्षीन्> एतत्तु लेखनपर्यायः एव इति मे मतिः |
<मुनींस् तांस् तु > इत्यत्र पदच्छेदनम् यदि <मुनीन् तान् तु> एवं लिख्यते तदैव | अन्यथा <मुनींस् तांस् तु > एवं लेखनं मात्रं लेखनपर्यायः |
<सुखानेव> इत्यत्र तु <सुखान् एव> इति न लिखितम् ?
<सुरैर् ब्रह्मर्षिभिश् चैव> इत्यस्य पदच्छेदैः <सुरैः ब्रह्मभिः च एव> एवं भवेत् | अन्यथा <सुरैर् ब्रह्मर्षिभिश् चैव> एवं लेखनं मात्रं लेखनपर्यायः |

अत्र <चैव> इत्येतत् <च एव> इति पदच्छेदेन लिख्यते चेत् एकमक्षरमधिकं भवेत् | तेन छन्ददोषः संभवति |

<यदभिपूजितम्> इत्यस्य पदच्छेदेन <यत् अभिपूजितम्> एवं खलु !

सारांशतः मन्येऽहम्, लेखनपर्यायेण तदैव लेखनीयं यदि छन्ददोषः न संभवति |

पदपाठे तु पदच्छेदाः कर्तव्याः एव |

पदच्छेदाः न कृताः चेत् तल्लेखनं मात्रं लेखनपर्यायेण लिखितम् |

Hnbhat B.R.

unread,

Mar 21, 2019, 4:06:58 AM3/21/19

to sams...@googlegroups.com

यद्यपि छन्दोदोषो न संभवति चेदपि काव्ये विसन्धिर्नाम दोषो भवति! सन्धावपि प्रकृतिभावे विसन्धिः दोषाय भवति काव्ये!

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

S. L. Abhyankar

unread,

Mar 21, 2019, 4:25:23 AM3/21/19

to samskrita

कृपया उदाहरणेन (उदाहरणैर्वा) स्पष्टीकरोति चेत् साधुतरमवगमनाय |

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 13:36, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

यद्यपि छन्दोदोषो न संभवति चेदपि काव्ये विसन्धिर्नाम दोषो भवति! सन्धावपि प्रकृतिभावे विसन्धिः दोषाय भवति काव्ये!

On Thursday, March 21, 2019, S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com> wrote:

नमस्ते श्रीमन् सुन्दर-हट्टंगडी-वर्य !

भवतः उद्धरणे एक एव सन्धिविच्छेदः (पदच्छेदः वा) दृश्यते <सुखासीनान् अभ्य..> इत्यत्र |
<अभ्यगच्छद् ब्रह्मर्षीन्> इत्यत्र पदच्छेदः तदैव मन्तव्यो भवति, यदि <अभ्यगच्छत् ब्रह्मर्षीन्> एवं लिख्यते | <अभ्यगच्छद् ब्रह्मर्षीन्> एतत्तु लेखनपर्यायः एव इति मे मतिः |
<मुनींस् तांस् तु > इत्यत्र पदच्छेदनम् यदि <मुनीन् तान् तु> एवं लिख्यते तदैव | अन्यथा <मुनींस् तांस् तु > एवं लेखनं मात्रं लेखनपर्यायः |
<सुखानेव> इत्यत्र तु <सुखान् एव> इति न लिखितम् ?
<सुरैर् ब्रह्मर्षिभिश् चैव> इत्यस्य पदच्छेदैः <सुरैः ब्रह्मभिः च एव> एवं भवेत् | अन्यथा <सुरैर् ब्रह्मर्षिभिश् चैव> एवं लेखनं मात्रं लेखनपर्यायः |
अत्र <चैव> इत्येतत् <च एव> इति पदच्छेदेन लिख्यते चेत् एकमक्षरमधिकं भवेत् | तेन छन्ददोषः संभवति |
<यदभिपूजितम्> इत्यस्य पदच्छेदेन <यत् अभिपूजितम्> एवं खलु !
सारांशतः मन्येऽहम्, लेखनपर्यायेण तदैव लेखनीयं यदि छन्ददोषः न संभवति |
पदपाठे तु पदच्छेदाः कर्तव्याः एव |
पदच्छेदाः न कृताः चेत् तल्लेखनं मात्रं लेखनपर्यायेण लिखितम् |

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 00:26, 'Sunder Hattangadi' via samskrita <sams...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Namaste,

Are there any guidelines or rules regarding prohibitions for splitting of sandhi in prose or poetry? Thanks.

some examples:

सुखासीनान् अभ्यगच्छद् ब्रह्मर्षीन् संशितव्रतान्।

अभिवाद्य मुनींस् तांस् तु सर्वानेव कुताञ्जलिः।

सुरैर् ब्रह्मर्षिभिश् चैव श्रुत्वा यदभिपूजितम्

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.

Hnbhat B.R.

unread,

Mar 21, 2019, 4:49:35 AM3/21/19

to samskrita@googlegroups com

स्पष्टीकृतमेव आचार्यवामनेन। उपरिष्टाद् दृश्यताम्।

Shreevatsa R

unread,

Mar 21, 2019, 10:33:02 AM3/21/19

to samskrita

When the pronunciation of सुरैर्ब्रह्मर्षिभिश्चैव श्रुत्वा यदभिपूजितम् and सुरैर् ब्रह्मर्षिभिश् चैव श्रुत्वा यदभिपूजितम् is identical, it is not possible that is one is padapāṭha and the other not. (Padapāṭha would split sandhi as in सुरैः ब्रह्मर्षिभिः च एव श्रुत्वा यत् अभिपूजितम्, i.e the pronunciation itself would change.)

See the related thread at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/69maR5wwmKw/O_An86DgBgAJ from September 2015 where (after the perfect initial reply of hnbhat pointing out that grammar does not prescribe any rule for writing), many scholars opine that writing in this form (with more word boundaries indicated) is a flaw. IMO they fall under the misapprehension that the spaces or virama have any phonetic significance (in which case it would indeed be a flaw, i.e. if you don't pronounce सुरैर् ब्रह्मर्षिभिश् चैव and सुरैर्ब्रह्मर्षिभिश्चैव identically), for example Sri Janardan Hegde says "संहितारहितरूपस्य लेखनं दोषाय एव" but doesn't say why he considers "जानाम्य् उषे" or "वस्तुतस् तु" to be "संहितारहितरूपस्य लेखनं"; similarly Sri Korada says "if I write राम् अ , then I have to read it as it is , i e giving a pause between the two parts" but doesn't say why it is necessary to read it that way (when the whole point is that राम् अ and राम can be read identically).

Presumably they infer that a space indicates a pause / gap in reading, but as in the example of "रामो गच्छति", clearly it doesn't indicate a pause.

But whether they are right or not, it's worth knowing that many people hold that opinion or will draw that inference (chiefly because 200 years of printing have made everyone accustomed to a different convention), so if you choose to add spaces you may want to re-emphasize that spaces don't indicate pauses, and consider that you may turn off (like the previous poster who considers it "annoying") a certain section of your audience for the benefit of others.

There's also a related thread from around the same time (2015) showing that manuscripts did use ad-hoc punctuation to indicate word boundaries: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/SnXQyc5o0Ek/fiq_9aSBCAAJ (as also pointed out by Lanman as I linked in my previous reply here.)

At least, more or less everyone agrees that writing सुरैर्ब्रह्मर्षिभिश्चैव श्रुत्वा यदभिपूजितम् rather than सुरैर्ब्रह्मर्षिभिश्चैवश्रुत्वायदभिपूजितम् is a modern development (albeit one that most are willing to accept).

Prakash Raj Pandey

unread,

Mar 21, 2019, 10:49:54 AM3/21/19

to sams...@googlegroups.com

A humble submission:

Does हलोऽनन्तराः संयोगः apply to written form and prescribes सुरैर्ब्रह्मर्षिभिश्चैव instead of सुरैर् ब्रह्मर्षिभिश् चैव, or does this sutra apply to pronunciation only?

Prakash

Hnbhat B.R.

unread,

Mar 21, 2019, 11:06:34 AM3/21/19

to sams...@googlegroups.com

This depends how you treat the space between the words whether it represents pause or antara or not. Those sponsors of splitting in this way seem to consider it doesn't represent pause.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.