Learning Sanskrit by fresh approach – Lesson No. 67 संस्कृतभाषायाः नूतनाध्ययनस्य सप्त-षष्टितमः (६७) पाठः ।

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमो नमः !
सहर्षम् निवेदयामि यत् -

Learning Sanskrit by fresh approach – Lesson No. 67

संस्कृतभाषायाः नूतनाध्ययनस्य सप्त-षष्टितमः (६७) पाठः ।

मम जालपुटे उपरीकृतः अस्ति ।
कृपया पश्यन्तु टीका-टिप्पणीः च ददतु ।
धन्यवादाः ।


सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

[davis stephenson]

Dear Sir ,    I would very much like it if you could give the lessons in English as well for I have been studying sanskrit in the English medium and I would like to follow your lessons which I find to be very good, but which I have great difficulty in following in the Sanskrit medium.   Thanking you   Dave --- On Tue, 19/10/10, S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com> wrote:

-- 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.

[G S S Murthy]

Dear Mr. Dave,
Your letter to Mr. Abhyankar has been forwarded to me by him presumably because I conduct a Sanskrit Course through Email in English medium. If you are interested please visit my website and send me answers to the first lesson given at my web-site.
Regards
Murthy

2010/10/19 davis stephenson <davis1...@yahoo.co.uk>

--
Have you visited my web site? http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm

[srivalli anand]

Dear Shri, Murthy,

I have been a regular recipient f all the mails that come in this group.  Though repeated instructions have been given, i have failed to install the sanskrit lipi software. Could you please guide me with the same? Would it also help me in the submission of projects for my college topics? I mean, that I am a Sanskrit Student in the P/G level and am preparing for the NET course, would I be able to use the same for my college assignments as well?
Regards,
Srivalli Anand

[G S S Murthy]

Dear Ms. Anand,
Pl install Baraha 7.0 with BarahaIME (www.baraha.com). Read through its Help file and you will be able to work in Devanagari script without any problem. You can work on all Windows applications like Word, Excel etc.I presume it will be possible to use it for your Sanskrit projects too.
Best wishes
Murthy 

[rahul vedi]

Dear Murthy + others

 

I have been using Baraha for quite some time.

It comes with BRHxxx font set which are used by default.

 

Can anyone tell me how can use third party unicode fonts such as "Sanskrit 2003" with Baraha?

 

thanks

best regards

Rahul

[S. L. Abhyankar]

Dear Mr. Dave,

I appreciate your interest in studying Sanskrit. But I have a few concerns of my own in composing the lessons in English script.

(1) There is quite some difficulty in spelling many Devanagari letters appropriately.

(2) There is lack of standardisation regarding which keyboard character(s) would spell which Devanagari character.

(3) Many transliteration packages are available which work well with Windows OS I have one for Mac, which is not Unicode and I cannot transfer to the internet.

(4) Since Devanagari script is so thoughtfully designed, my honest and sincere advice to all serious students of Sanskrit will be to learn the script as well.

Regards,

सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

2010/10/19 davis stephenson <davis1...@yahoo.co.uk>

--

[Vasu Srinivasan]

abhyankar mahodaya

can you please elaborate on #4 - "the devanagiri script is thoughtfully designed"

I'm not questioning the validity, usage aspects of it, but I have not really found much discussion on the design aspects of it.

I feel that there is alot of "non-symmetry" in the script. for eg

the vertical lines appears non-uniformly in characters (some as part of character, some as part of dIrgha);
dIrgha is done either by adding a vertical line (aa) or curve on top (ii) or curve on side (uu) or curve on down (R) etc.
L (kLpta) and lru (lrut) is difficult to distinguish

it would be great to know your thoughts on that..

dhanyavAda:
vAsu

Regards,
Vasu Srinivasan

[Dr.Dhananjay B. Ghare]

Dear Shri.davejee
    and all those who want to study "sanskRuta"
  namaskaara.

  shreemaan abhyankara mahodayajee has already explained to you his problems, as well as, recommendation to learn sanskRuta in devanagaree Script.

  I fully agree with him and like to add that many Indian languages have a different svara vyanjana compositions (than devanaagaree).
 e.g. kannada has e, e~ ai and o o~ au
   which is not there in sanskRuta and that causes some problems.
 
  I also learn that, tamila has only k for k, kh, ga, gh etc.
  A Tamilian may kindly correct me please.
  Therefore when written in "tamil"
  kaka, khaga, etc. will all be same in Script and difficult to differentiate in reading.

  This is only to illustrate some additional problems that can come and not a particularly accurate way of putting it across.
  I beg pardon of my inability of writing it correctly, but hope people will understand what I want to convey.

  Further, much more Important thing is
    "Why should one Learn sanskRuta at all ?"
  If it is for shopping, it is almost of No_use (except in a village in karnataka and may be a few more elsewhere).
  If it is for conveying your thoughts to others, even then hardly there are people who will understand it and respond.

  I had studied and would keep on studying the "sanskRuta" Language in order to Develop an Ability to
   "Study and Understand the Ancient Texts"
    directly without any madhavan & shankaran
     or Max_mullar and Alexander
         coming in between me (the learner)
    and the Writers (Gods or Sages).
  That is my Opinion.
  I beg pardon if it has offended any body.
  But I thought of expressing my personal Opinion.

  With regards and best Wishes,
  Dr.Ghare, Thursday, 21st Oct. 2010, Portland, OR USA

---

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:21:12 +0530
Subject: Re: Request for [Samskrita] Learning Sanskrit by fresh approach, to be in English as well
From: sl.abh...@gmail.com
To: sams...@googlegroups.com; davis1...@yahoo.co.uk

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear friends

There is a standard transliteration - diacritics with Roman script - used by all serious Western scholars.  I think it is called the Harvard Kyoto system.  It uses symbols from Arial Unicode font in Microsoft Office 2004 – this has all the symbols, and I have programmed my keyboard with the shortcuts. I have transliterated part of KaU and this follows:

 

ṛtam pibantau sukṛtasya loke guhᾱm praviṣṭau parame parᾱrdhe,
chᾱyᾱ-tapau brahma-vido vadanti, pañcᾱgnayo ye ca triṇᾱciketᾱḥ (1)

 

yas setur ījᾱnᾱnᾱm akṣaram brahma yat param,
abhayam titīrṣatᾱm pᾱram nᾱciketaṁ śakemahi  (2)

ᾱtmᾱnaṁ rathinaṁ viddhi, śarīraṁ rathameva tu
buddhiṁ tu sᾱradhiṁ viddhi, manaḥ pragraham eva ca (3)

There is no problem with this at all and is used by scholars in the field.  However I am not sure if this will be read OK by e-mail on your computers, so I would be interested in your feedback.

Vimala

[Naresh Cuntoor]

A few points to be made here:
 
Thanks to Abhyankar ji for the ongoing series. Clearly, many people like it and we hope it continues to go strong. He is free to choose Devanagari / English script / transliterated script depending on his preference. I echo his comments that one should learn Devanagari because that makes it easier to read more.

Now, I know beginners may have difficulty to read Devanagari fluently - so here's a solution that would work on Windows machines. Download and install baraha. Open BarahaConvert (which is part of the baraha package). Copy/paste the Devanagari portion in there and convert it to unicode / Roman transliteration. Copy / paste the output to some suitable word processor  (e.g., MS Word) for easier reading.


To the point about Devanagari being 'thoughtfully designed' etc. I think Devanagari, like other scripts, has had a natural evolution. People's preference got incorporated over time and it morphed into the form that we see today.

One can write perfectly good Sanskrit in transliterated English text. Just as one can write perfectly good Sanskrit using Sharada script or Kannada script or Telegu script or Grantha script etc.. (I understand that Grantha script does not have the ambiguity that Tamil script has).


And yes, there are several transliteration schemes out there - some more idiosyncratic than others. And Harvard Kyoto transliteration is one of the more idiosyncratic ones - whoever thought that using "z" for "sh" was a good idea?! Ugh.

Itrans and baraha are both easier to read. Although I don't care for the way halanta is treated in Itrans. (Having to use .h to force halanta -- I realize it is because of Hindi. Still, just plain annoying).


Speaking of serious Western scholars - I would hope they read Devangari!




Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com

[G S S Murthy]

I learnt devanagari and Kannada script together before I learnt English. I find it hard to understand why anybody would want to learn Sanskrit without learning devanagari script.
I am one of those who believe that Sanskrit should be learnt not only to delve into the existing vast writings in Sanskrit but also to promote its usage as a medium of modern communication.
We need to come up with a standard set of words for denoting artifacts relevant to modern living.
In fact Internet is an ideal medium for interaction between Sanskrit enthusiasts to arrive at such a set.
I would like to know the views of others in promoting this idea.
Murthy

[Piergiorgio Muzi]

Dear friends, I strongly agree with Ms Vimala about the utility of Harvard-Kyoto convention for transliteration. This does not only match the devanAgarI script, but it is respectful of principles of general phonology, avoiding very common confusion among beginners, like using th for a dental t, or ee for a long i, or ch for c... (therefore the horrible "geethaa"...). To get it, starting from a particular form of Itrans, I use the system provided by www.omkarananda-ashram.org

Do you know any better in order to get a uniform application of it to softwares of all computers of ours? 

The following is an example of application: 

भगवद्गीता।पुरुषः।ब्रह्म। आत्मा। संस्कृतम्। पाणिनिः। पठति।

bhagavadgītā puruṣaḥ |brahma| ātmā| saṁskṛtam| pāṇiniḥ| paṭhati|

Thanks, Piergiorgio

 

[Vimala Sarma]

 

Apologies  the scheme I used is not HK but IAST

International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST).

It is OK and represents all the sounds and can be digitised.  However I agree with Naresh Mahodaya.

Of course it is useful to read Devanageri if you want to get to source texts in original, but is it not essential to use Devanageri if you are just starting off learning the language.

Vimala

[Desiraju Hanumanta Rao]

So, you friends are all unaware of - or disinclined about ITRANS coding and numerous ready made transliterators both online and offline.  As sow. vimala said about HK coding, it is outmoded long back and TRANS - Indian Language Transliteration  has taken its place - because there are problems with visarga and sha - it uses h for visarga, as well as for ordninay h; so also it uses z for sha - which when read in code is oddish. There are some more problems with HK method. Hence we have to switch over to ITRANS. We had to retype whole Ramayana from HK coding given to us by Prof. Tokunaga of Japan - to Itrans. Very few translitaator programs accept this.  Roman diacritics are only for western indologists, not for native people. f it is a can't but - use Georgia Ref Plus font - other fonts show murkily. What vimala has done in Roman diacritics - not to be called as symbols - is appearing correctly - no worry about it,.  As abhayankar said there will be initial bickerings to decipher samyukta aksharA-s, or say glyphs of Sanskrit words - where one inserts into the other complicatedly - but you will get used to it if you practice that way. If you are habituated to Roman diacritics or anglicized Sanskrit, and if you happen to read a printed book p- how can you decipher glyphs.

>>(2) There is lack of standardisation regarding which keyboard character(s) would spell which Devanagari character. <<

Not so, not, it is standardized long back in ITRANS. you can punch sanskrit with just ordinary qwerty keyboard. Basically why should you use self-centred MS Word or their other programs. Use a transliterator and copy/paste that anywhere. Even Mac accepts it.  Have you tried Itranslator of Omkarananda Ashramam and its Sanskrit 2003 font, which is the highest han dler of glyphs. Ulrich Stiehl has designed two fonts for Mac machines - pl see this >> http://www.sanskritweb.net/macfonts/ I am suggesting another translator of Vinodh Rajan - a further development [still being developed] than the above Itranslator - called  AKSHARAMUKHA Asian Script Convertion Tool. It Converts between 19 different South Asian  & East Asian scripts. Also support Web Page Transliteration try it >>  http://www.virtualvinodh.com/aksharamukha << This converts even web pages to your choicest language - if you want to experiment pl  -go to aksharamukha Notes > Website Conversion etc in instal that gadget - which is not even an installation - provided your machines are tuned to support east asian languages and have unicode fonts.  post this file of Raghuvamsham into that web page converter - after dragging it to bookmarks / favorites bar and see the results: >> http://www.giirvaani.net/01_rv_utf.html <<   you may use this file in devanagari to convert into any of your choicest language of that program.

>>(4) Since Devanagari script is so thoughtfully designed, my honest and sincere advice to all serious students of Sanskrit will be to learn the script as well. <<

this aspect needs more attention - since it is necessary to learn in native script. Past the period of learning - you may do wonders with transliterators etc. If learning by native script is difficult to some of you, I advise ahayankar to become a dwibhAShi and give lessons in both itrans or whatever code you people like - at least up to some stage of learning.  to Dr.Ghare ji only three vowels are not there in Sanskrit vis-a-vis other languages - they are - diirghaa-s like: E, O, and Au - Sanskrit adjusts with e, o, au - hrasvaa-s  it we southerners elongate these vowels. if raama calls "he siite" - with short e at end - it sambodhana prathama ; if he elongate that e at end in his calling - if she is at a long distance - it becomes shouting at her; just a phonetic nuisance thats all...  with regards... desiraju hanumanta rao www.giirvaani.net www.valmikiramayan.net --- On Sat, 10/23/10, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Dave, I appreciate your interest in studying Sanskrit. But I have a few concerns of my own in composing the lessons in English script. (1) There is quite some difficulty in spelling many Devanagari letters appropriately. (2) There is lack of standardisation regarding which keyboard character(s) would spell which Devanagari character. (3) Many transliteration packages are available which work well with Windows OS I have one for Mac, which is not Unicode and I cannot transfer to the internet. (4) Since Devanagari script is so thoughtfully designed, my honest and sincere advice to all serious students of Sanskrit will be to learn the script as well. Regards,

[Sunder Hattangadi]

Namaste,                   It is just amazing how much we owe to our computer wizards to make our learning easy!   Just visit:   http://www.virtualvinodh.com/aksharamukha     http://www.ibiblio.org/sanskrit/tools/sanscript.php     Regards,   sunder --- On Sat, 10/23/10, Piergiorgio Muzi <glo...@comm2000.it> wrote:

From: Piergiorgio Muzi <glo...@comm2000.it> Subject: RE: Request for [Samskrita] Learning Sanskrit by freshapproach, to be in English as well To: sams...@googlegroups.com

[Krishnanand Mankikar]

Dear Mr. Hattangadi,

This virtual vinodh is too good a site to convert from many scripts to many scripts.

 

Thank you

KD Mankikar

[davis stephenson]

Dear SirJis and MadamJis I thank you all for your responses. In fact I can manage well if the instructions and explanations are in English rather than in sanskrit i.e so as to study Sanskrit through English explanations rather than explanations in Sanskrit. E.g if say Ramah is explained as Ramah - Nominative singular masculine, rather than explaining as : Ramah -prathamah purusha puling vibhakti asti With regards --- On Sat, 23/10/10, Krishnanand Mankikar <kdman...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Vimala Sarma]

A very good starting text is Egenes –Introduction to Sanskrit, Parts 1& @.

Vimala

[S. L. Abhyankar]

Dear Mr. Dave,

Ooph!! Your suggestion and my response to it generated so many interactions !!

From the response below of yours, you seem to have hinted one more suggestion, that you would like the grammar also to be explained in English !!

There are many more difficulties on this also. Just to sight one that comes to mind immediately - In Sanskrit there are totally ten moods and tenses I think it is really difficult to explain them properly in terminologies of English grammar.

Mr. G. S. S. MURTHY gives explanations of The ten लकारs:at his web-pages at http://murthygss.tripod.com/dhaatumanjarI.htm

Out of the ten, I am always confused about the three past tenses, especially the  one "लुङ् (lu~G): Grammarians call this Aorist." Just see, what Mr. Murthy says about it -

9. लुङ् (lu~G): Grammarians call this Aorist. ( According to Concise Oxford Dictionary, past tense merely denoting occurrence without limitation as to duration etc.) Ex: अभूत्. It is generally used in dialogues and conversations which refer to recent past actions. Conjugation in लुङ् is quite complex and not easy to master. To the extent that a student has to recognize its conjugated forms in classics, he has to get familiar with it. However for compositions, he best avoids it.

I would also like to sight my mention, "...my honest and sincere advice to all serious students of Sanskrit will be to learn the script as well."

Did I imply that one, who wants to learn Sanskrit without learning the script is not all that sincere in his wanting to learn Sanskrit ?

Looking back at my having learnt English, I don't remember that I ever grumbled, that I had to learn a script which is so unscientific, to say the least -

• what with the vowels sprewn all over,
• although the count of alphabets is said to be 26, but with smalls and capitals, they are actually 52 as far as learning the script is concerned !
• When doing spellings of proper names to write Sanskrit in English script, one would always go askance, whether to use the initial capital or not. If one uses the capital, that can lead to an otherwise pronunciation ! I did say, there are difficulties. I did not want to enumerate all of them. Now, this one also comes to mind extempore !
  
• and the vowels and consonants do not get pronounced in any particular discipline all the time, so,
• one has to learn the spellings also !
  
• As if that is not enough, now the Americans want to spell the words differently than the way the English would spell, although historically, English language originated with the English people. Since most computer software is dominated by the Americans, one will always get red underlining of all spellings, not conforming to the American spellings. Though, "very kindly" the software do allow the facility to activate the style of English !

Since Devanagari does not have any of such glitches, a serious student of Sanskrit should rather start learning Sanskrit by first learning the scientifically designed script, most enthusiastically. I contend that a sincere student would be enthusiastic also and not a complaining type.

Sorry, if this sounds somewhat blunt. I did not want to be that blunt. That is why, in my previous response, I tried to say some things implicitly rather than explicitly.

People have made observations about which transcription modes are good, etc. But frankly I think they miss the main point, of yours which started off all this. I think your point was - Sanskrit text in my lessons should be written in English script. What is in English is already in English. So, there is no problem on that, right ? To my naive understanding, transcription modes are employed to convert English typing to get converted into other scripts, not the other way around, although they can also serve that purpose.

But, honestly, for myself, I am at a total loss to read Sanskrit if it is written with diacritics and all that. May be that is my fallibility. I would accept that. I have similar problem in reading Tamil. I always need to read every word twice :-( I have often seen cement being written as "chiment" So I read it first as "chiment". Then I realise "Oh, the writing is meant to be read "cement"..  Should I keep complaining about it ? My difficulty is because, I have not practised reading Tamil enough. That is my fault.

Basically, for me, as a person who is compsoing lessons in Sanskrit, if I am myself at discomfort with those diacritics and at discomfort in reading what I write, there is both a predicament and an embarrassment :-(

I do not want myself to be in a mode of discomfort, predicament and embarrassment. And with Devanagari script the reading and writing is all so very clear, so much free of predicaments and embarrassments.

On the whole, I would like to continue writing Sanskrit text in Devanagari script and Sanskrit grammar in Sanskrit terminology.

Regards,
सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com

[Eddie]

S. L.

 

    What you are saying is that your ‘Learning Sanskrit by a fresh approach’ is really only intended for native Hindi speakers.

 

I think I can speak out for the international members of this group, which is after all, an English language based group – French, German, Russian, Taiwanese . . . when I ask

why are you using the Latin script for your heading – it is attracting English readers, keen to learn Sanskrit – only for us to get the Saṃskṛta in Devanāgarī and their meanings - also in Devanāgarī, albeit it Roman Transliteration with the odd few English words dotted about! It is not a lot of use to anyone that isn’t already familiar with Sanskrit and its script.

 

You are one of these Sanskritists, that give Sanskrit a bad name!

 

 

"लुङ्  (luṅ)

    •  (in gram.) N. of the terminations of the Aorist or Third Preterite and N. of that Tense itself. [904,1]

 

     Even though there is no aorist tense in the English language, It is easily understood as “a form of the past tense, that expresses a past action without indicating whether the action was on-going at the time in question (the past imperfect tense) or whether the action was completed (past perfect tense), and called by some the past indefinite tense!

 

It is ‘indefinite’, even to the learned ones. I quote from Coulson:

“... and the aorist became a learned formation little used in simple Sanskrit. In classical literature it takes its place beside the imperfect and the imperfect as a narrative tense.”

 

Although he doesn’t elaborate on ‘narrative tense ’, I don’t think he talking in a grammatical sense.

 

Yes, of course there is more to the aorist, for the academics, but for readers and beginners, it serves only to send them to sleep . . .

 

 

Please feel free to explain the aorist in native Sanskrit if you must, but in doing so, please add transliteration in standard IAST, as many like myself soon tire of copying and pasting squiggles into an auto squiggle-to-Roman transliterator, of which there are many!

 

Eddie

 

    2000 years, and still they are still coming out with their tutorials, teaching Saṃskṛta Grammar.

Native Indian PH.D’s in Sanskrit have difficulty making sense of it.

 

While it is indeed most difficult (i.e. awkward) language to make sense of, it being lauded as the most ‘perfect’ of grammars, hides the fact that whereas there is indeed a lot of sense in it, there is quite a bit there that has no sense in the first place, rather imperfect!

 

Perhaps it is neither perfect not imperfect – a  bit aorist, maybe.

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3218 - Release Date: 10/25/10 07:34:00

[Piergiorgio Muzi]

Dear Mr Abhyankar,

I can only agree with you about the importance of studying a language from inside and learning the grammatical explanations of their traditional scholars and theoreticians. But, as happens also for every human science, knowledge from inside needs to be integrated with knowledge from outside.

An Italian teacher of Italian language can't understand clearly all the subtle aspects of his language, if he doesn't accept also general cross-linguistic approach to his traditional notions and disregards the use of English or other modern languages for grammatical explanation. Using is not knowing. We can go on bicycle, but we have no clear ideas about how. The same we can say about the complementation of diachronical and synchronical knowledge in spite of the fact that present linguistics favours the synchronical approach. There is an enormous difference between the teachers of Italian who knows Latin and those who don't. Some of the most important notion of Italian linguistics have been built amid of the modern general linguistic research and using English language to publish them.

Using English terminology for grammar doesn't mean to force all the grammatical categories of Sanskrit or Italian into the ones of English language, which has no perfect, no imperfect, no aorist, but simple past  (+ periphrastic past tenses, etc.). English terminology has already incorporated Latin and Old-Greek grammar's categories since centuries ago. For instance, aorist is not a tense of English, but a tense of Old-Greek. The justification of the word "aorist" is that Sanskrit and Old-Greek have the same morphological structure (and also the same polymorphism, with sigmatic and a asigmatic forms, etc), even if along the history of Old Greek, as well along the history of Sanskrit there were a lot of changes. This is enough to understand each other and also to be encouraged to study the reasons and ways of development of languages. In this case, for instance, while in Old-Greek, the aorist, which originally expressed a "perfective aspect" (very probably, see Speijer, Szemerenyi...), tended to be used as an historical past tense. In Sanskrit we know that the difference between those three "tenses" in Vedic became vague during classical period of the Sanskrit literature. Of course, the matter is much more complicated, but I don't believe that we can find simplification by closing ourselves inside arbitrary borders. 

When Sanskrit was discovered in Western world, some Latin- and Old-Greek-philologists refused to recognize the kinship of Sanskrit and their "classical languages" and said a lot of stupid things about those such evident connections. Unluckily only a minority of scholars opened their minds to the treasures of India and gave their passionate work and life to understand and learn them. Their knowledge of Latin was enriched a lot and the linguistic studies had an enormous advancement. I believe that working inside and outside the borders is what we need in modern world too much divided in spite of a commercial (and terribly westernizing) global civilization. Globality is not universality...

This is enough for now, but I admit that there are possible objections, which I don't want to avoid.

Regards,
Piergiorgio Muzi

P.S. Of course there are some pervert aspects of "anglism", mainly in Sanskrit transliteration. For instance the horrible ee to spell long i, or oo to spell log o, or the confusing ch for voiceless palatal stop, and sh, which has been used for each kind of fricative sound... But these facts reflect only the defective knowledge of general phonology, if they have not to be forgiven for historical or practical reasons.

[Vasu Srinivasan]

Eddie

Im sorry to say, but you are wrong on several counts.

"What you are saying is that your ‘Learning Sanskrit by a fresh approach’ is really only intended for native Hindi speakers"

-- Wrong. I am not a native Hindi speaker, neither I see any Hindi influence in SL-ji's approach. Where possible he even quotes Tamil/Dravidian languages. I know a teeny-weeny bit of Sanskrita, I learnt the devanaagiri script the hardway and I thoroughly enjoy both his flow and meander.

"It is not a lot of use to anyone that isn’t already familiar with Sanskrit and its script."

-- Really, seriously, how could you judge? I know and see there are people passionate about learning Sanskrita and they learn it anywhich way they could get, instead of demanding that knowledge come to them in the format they wish. Please do not judge the utility by your standards.

"You are one of these Sanskritists, that give Sanskrit a bad name!" - Is this supposed to be a comic line? If so, it didnt tickle me.

Ok so you came to learn Sanskrita seeing a latin-script based title, you didnt find what you want, so what ? There are so many different ways to learn Sanskrita, why find fault with something that does not fit you?

Out of the 2000+ years, for 1600 years people were contended learning Sanskrita in Sanskrita or other Indian languages. It is because of learning Sanskrita through English, we are still scratching our heads and bones. A little bit of time spent on devanAgari is worth a lifetime spent on hit-and-run scripts.


dhanyavAda: |
vAsu

Regards,
Vasu Srinivasan

[S. L. Abhyankar]

namaste Mr. Eddie Hadley,

I am surprised by your comments

1. Since all my comments and the translations "anuvaadaaH" are always in English, does it not address the International audience ? In fact nothing of that is really for "only native Hindi speakers" !
2. You are branding me as a "Sanskritist, that give Sanskrit a bad name" simply because I write the Sanskrit text in Devanagari, I think it is the most logical thing to do. Why should one, writing Sanskrit text in devanagari be charged as one, bringing Sanskrit a bad name ? If Sanskrit is best written and best read in Devanagari, why should that practice bring a bad name to the whole language of Sanskrit ?
3. I had it in my mind always, that by making explicit, what was implicit in my first response to Mr. Dave, I knew it well that some people will feel offended, when it becomes explicit. But the point is basically how, I think, a serious student should approach studying a language, especially a language like Sanskrit, which has its own beautiful script - what you speak, so you write, absolutely phonetic; no confusions of spelling and diacritics etc. If one wants to learn Greek, should not one learn the Greek alphabet also ? Or, if one wants to learn Arabic, should not one learn Arabic script also ?
4. I can still attempt writing the Sanskrit text both in Devanagari and in transliteration. But I have already had difficulties, as I had mentioned right in my first response to Mr. Dave. Examples of my recent difficulties are writing नञ्-तत्पुरुषः I was able to do it comfortably by using BARAHA. But I do not know how I would spell it in English.

In Lesson 68 I had to write
तीर्त्वा “tRU ” १ प. (= to cross over) इति धातुः |
I do not have BARAHA on hand on this laptop. So, it is left as that, though I am not sure if it represents tRU properly. In the on-line Apte's dictionary they spell it as "tRR" What is needed is to put together the syllables "t + RU" where RU is the long vowel.

I do not know whether people have read in this lesson # 68 tRU, as it should be read.

I have no intentions of being an adamant "Sanskritist", Mr. Hadley. That does not befit a student of Sanskrit. Also, as I have always been saying, I do these lessons NOT AT ALL, from the position of a teacher. I am a student myself and am just sharing my learning and my notes टिप्पणयः | also. I have received criticisms also. Have I not acknowledged all the criticisms from Dr. Avinash Sathaye ? If I were to be an adamant person, would I have acknowledged those ?

In my first response to Mr. Dave, I had very much mentioned that I have difficulties. I request, earnestly request Mr. Hadley, that people be sympathetic to the difficulties. Most of the difficulties do not remain difficulties, at all if Sanskrit is written in Devanagari. Difficulties crop up when I have to transliterate from English to Devanagari and vice versa. I do not want to represent words and text in Sanskrit wrongly. That will earn Sanskrit a bad name, will it not, Mr. Hadley ?

The language is rich and glorious by its own merits ! How can that language get a bad name ? Will Sanskrit get a bad name by you or I calling it bad ? Giving a bad name to Sanskrit is like spitting at the sun. Can one spit at the sun ? If I do not understand the glory of the language, the fault is more with me, not with the language. If the language can be best understood by reading it in Devanagari, why should "not being able to read Devanagari" be not recognised as one's own short-coming ? Why should a serious student not make efforts to overcome the short-coming ? Why should one charge one who writes Sanskrit text in Devanagari be branded as a Sanskritist ? Does one brand one writing Greek text in Greek as "Greekist" ?

Is it not good to self-introspect than criticise and call names ? My lessons are for serious students, whosoever they are and wherever they are, definitely not just for the Hindi natives. I am myself not a Hindi-speaking person. My mother tongue is Marathi. My lessons are well-received by people of all Indian languages, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, for whom also the Devanagari script is quite an alien script. You should recognise this, if you do not know, that these scripts are far different from Devanagari. They are all written above the line, just as English is also written above the line, whereas Devanagari is written hanging from the reference line. In India itself, people of these languages do have difficulty in reading Devanagari. I do sympathise with them also. But, none of them has ever complained. I appreciate them to be serious students.

For your information please note that anything written in Devanagari does not become only for "Hindi native". If the text is Sanskrit, it remains Sanskrit, not Hindi. If there is any misunderstanding about this, may it be known that Devanagari script is used for at least three Indian languages - Sanskrit, Marathi and Hindi. Gujarati script, also Bangla and Punjabi, appear to be similar, but are distinct variants, in many instances substantial variants. All people even within India, except those having Hindi and Marathi as mother tongues, will have difficulty in reading Sanskrit text written in Devanagari. But they have all accepted and appreciated my lessons with an open mind.

Thanks and regards,

सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

[Samskrita-list Admin]

Everybody, take a deep breath.

Eddie: Using or not using transliteration in his postings is Abhyankar
ji's prerogative. If you don't like to read Devanagari, you are free
to ignore his postings. Saying someone who writes Sanskrit using
Devanagari gives Sanskritists a bad name is just, well, silly.

[Shobha Saraiya]

Namaste,   Dear all,   I for one feel very fortunate to have S. L. Abhyankar mahodaya in this mailing list and all his contributions  to date.   I love his lessons. They are well thought off and I am grateful for that and I am sure many to this list will agree to it.   Above all I love the way all his lessons are composed and the use of  Devanagari. in his lessons .    Hair Om shobhA

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Friends

The only I want to add this to help clarify this debate. There should be a distinction made between language and script.  The English language is written in Roman script, like other Latin-based  languages,  but there are plenty of English words written in devanageri script (see road signs all over India).  The Sanskrit language can be written in a variety of scripts, but to-day it is written chiefly Devanageri, but also Roman with diacritics - IAST.

The dhatu for "cross” is written as tṝ in IAST transliteration – hope this displays correctly, and not as squiggles. ( I know many Indian speakers give the u sound to the ṛ vowel but this is not universal) .  However people should chose to write a language in whatever script is easiest for them. It is not known if Pannini himself used a script and if so what.

Vimala

-----Original Message-----
From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samskrita-list Admin
Sent: Tuesday, 26 October 2010 2:25 PM
To: samskrita
Subject: Re: Request for [Samskrita] Learning Sanskrit by freshapproach, to be in English as well

--

[Shobha Saraiya]

Namaste,   I agree ||  why would anyone who wants learn sanskrit not want to know devanagari  script .||   Hari Om shobhA --- On Sat, 10/23/10, G S S Murthy <murt...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: G S S Murthy <murt...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Request for [Samskrita] Learning Sanskrit by fresh approach, to be in English as well

[Eddie]

Mr or Mrs Moderator,

Yes, of course. I agree entirely.

However, you are don't seem to be replying to an e-mail that was actually
written, but to something else. Please, what was written and what it is
that I am actually saying that is silly, is the making of an invitation,
written in English, to an English media Forum, inviting people to read a
tutorial to learn Sanskrit, when the tutorial is in Devanāgarī!

This, by the same "Sanskritist" who states that , "absolutely phonetic; no
confusions of spelling and diacritics etc." as his reason in avoiding Roman
Transliteration, even though IAST, sanctioned by the Indian government ...
allows a lossless transliteration of Devanāgarī (and other Indic scripts,
such as Śāradā script), and as such represents not only the phonemes of
Sanskrit, but allows essentially phonetic transcription (e.g. Visarga ḥ is
an allophone of word-final r and s). iti.

Again, from another defender of the faith, we have: "for 1600 years people

were contended learning Sanskrita in Sanskrita or other Indian languages."

And well they might have been (past imperfect), but what about non-people
people - us people here, from the big wide World at large?

Silly or what?

Those that genuingly care for Sanskrit, should check out
http://www.ibiblio.org/sanskrit, as an example of Sanskritists that give
Sanskrit a good name - it comes complete not only with phonetic
transcription but also with phonetic pronunciation.

I rest my case!

Eddie

-----Original Message-----
From: Samskrita-list Admin
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 4:25 AM
To: samskrita
Subject: Re: Request for [Samskrita] Learning Sanskrit by freshapproach, to
be in English as well

--

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.

No virus found in this incoming message.

[Jonathan Da Fonseca]

Namaste
Yes Shobha Saraiya, I deeply agree and I must confess that when the first time I read about Learning Sanskrit By a Fresh Approach in English as Well, I become afraid of the results. Can look selfish but I spent some years learning the Devanagari and I spent this years making efforts and loving all what I was doing, since some years I have the pleasure to write a lot using the Devanagari. All the languages I have learned and they are a few, I could not imagine learn any one without the respective alphabet(s). Out of the alphabet(s) I would loose the soul of them.
This is my humble believe
Sincerely yours

[Upendra Watwe]

Namaste Dear all,

I would also like to support the great effort Abhyankarji  is making to bring Sanskrit closer to those of us bred on English language and the Roman script.

Learning Sanskrit through the Roman script ( with its serious deficiencies and inconsistencies in  phonetics)  is like learning to swim -with one hand tied behind the back and stones on the legs :).

Tomorrow someone might come up with objection to discussing shlokas with reference to  Gods from the Hindu Pantheon.

This is bound to happen because of the great literary works in Sanskrit have also been written in a country which followed the Hindu pantheon of Gods.

 

C'mon lets get serious about this - A language should be learnt in its full essence- including the speech, script and spirit.

Upendra

[davis stephenson]

Dear Sirs/Madams I have been having introductory course in sanskrit through the english medium, which i found to be quite convenient to follow. See for example the courses at www.chitrapurmath.net -which are with Devanagri 'terms'  and with english explanations. I am sure you will all agree that at the beginning this is quite ok rather than learning sanskrit in sanskrit when one does not know even the basic sanskrit ! Can I look to a favourable response please. I have no problem with davanagri script, but with the explanations being in English ! With regards Dave

--- On Tue, 26/10/10, S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Request for [Samskrita] Learning Sanskrit by freshapproach, to be in English as well To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Cc: davis1...@yahoo.co.uk, "Eddie Hadley" <edd...@ontology.demon.co.uk>

[G S S Murthy]

Dear Sri.Abhyankar,
It is indeed painful that your laudable efforts are being subjected to unsavoury adverse comments. There are a large number of Sanskrit enthusiasts who appreciate what you are doing. If anyone wants to learn Sanskrit without learning devanagari script, let him try elsewhere.
विस्तीर्णा पृथिवी जनाश्च बहवः किं तन्नसम्पद्यते।
Warm regards
Murthy

[S. L. Abhyankar]

Dear Mr. Dave,

I am deeply impressed by your consideration, "I have no problem with Devanagari script, but with the explanations being in English !

Glad to inform, to you in particular, that I just now posted new lesson # 69 detailing the grammar in English also. I guess, I shall have a lot to improve on this score. Please help.

सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
http://slezall.blogspot.com
स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044

[Naresh Cuntoor]

[Moderator hat on]

Looks like this has been a useful discussion to lay out members' expectations. At this point, it seems that the thread has reached a point of saturation. So unless you have something significantly new to add to the discussion, let us consider the thread closed.

Thanks,

Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com

[Vidya R]

Namaste!

It is unfortunate that because of the lack of clarity in knowing what is intended by the words 'English' / 'Roman' / 'Sanskrit' / 'Devanagari', we have ended up in this convoluted discussion that has gone off in many tangents.  The first email was a genuine learner's request to benefit from the consistency demonstrated by Shri SLA.

I do have a question on an issue I have tripped up on regularly. When calculating the number of 'akSharAa's in a syllable for laghu, guru, I realize that I have to go back and forth to do the calculation.  Sometimes, I have to do a double take to determine if the half syllable (consonant) is before or after the vowel -> 

         for example, let's consider the word 'vakratuNDa' - वक्रतुण्ड.

Visually, in the devanAgarI notation, the vowel 'a' seems to be associated with the consonant 'k'.  But, orally, we know right away that the 'a' is associated with 'r'.  I have attempted (several times) to master this basic skill of counting 'laghu' and 'guru', but am always on shaky grounds and come away scathed.

There is possibly some key that needs to turn in my head for me to get over this stumbling block.  And, this key might very well be 'Practice, PRACTICE, Practice'!

A good time to remind ourselves of 'sahanAvavatu ...'

Vidya

---

From: Naresh Cuntoor <nare...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, October 26, 2010 11:12:51 AM

Subject: Re: Request for [Samskrita] Learning Sanskrit by freshapproach, to be in English as well

[Moderator hat on]

Looks like this has been a useful discussion to lay out members' expectations. At this point, it seems that the thread has reached a point of saturation. So unless you have something significantly new to add to the discussion, let us consider the thread closed.

Thanks,

Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:38 AM, S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Dave,

I am deeply impressed by your consideration, "I have no problem with Devanagari script, but with the explanations being in English !

Glad to inform, to you in particular, that I just now posted new lesson # 69 detailing the grammar in English also. I guess, I shall have a lot to improve on this score. Please help.

सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"

http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com/
http://slezall.blogspot.com/

http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com/ http://slezall.blogspot.com/

[G S S Murthy]

If I understand Vidyaji's problem correctly, the manner in which compound letters in which "r" is a part is represented in devanagari script is somewhat different from other compound letters. Normally, what is pronounced first is shown in a truncated manner and what comes later is shown full, in case of a compound letter consisting of two consonants. If however र् (रेफ) comes later in a संयुक्ताक्षर like in क्र it appears truncated and क् which should really get truncated  is shown full! This is an exception. Just as त्र and क्ष and ज्ञ assume special shapes, we need to accept this peculiarity.

Those who know Kannada script will agree that almost as a rule what should be shown truncated is shown full and what should be shown full is truncated!

ಕ್ಯ,ಕ್ತ,ಕ್ವ etc.

Does this help?

Murthy

[धनंजय वैद्य <deejayvaidya@yahoo.com>]

Yes. Thanks to Shri. Abhyankar for this series.

Shri. Abhyankar is doing the best he can do. If it is convenient for
him to compose his lessons in devanAgarI, we should respect that.

After all, even for the English language, the roman script and the
traditional orthographic (spelling) rules are quite idiosyncratic. The
only reason we stick to them is the convenience of not breaking with
tradition. If someone wants to write a course of English lessons in
the roman script with its strange spelling rules, they should not be
drawn into some barren controversy about using the International
phonetic alphabet instead. (It is obvious that the IPA is more
unambiguous at rendering English sounds than the Roman script with the
traditional spelling.)

If someone does not want to learn the devanAgarI script, but still
wants to read Shri. Abhyankar's lessons, they should take the help of
a transliterator. Someone (or a computer program) can convert all of
Shri. Abhyankar's lessons into Harvard-Kyoto or whatever their
favorite script may be.

Shri. Abhyankar's time and skill is better spent composing lessons
rather than learning to type in Harvard-Kyoto.

If someone thinks that they have the right to manage Shri. Abhyankar's
time better than he currently sees fit, they should convince him off
the email list. Spare us.

(I happen to disagree with Shri. Abhyankar that the devanAgarI script
is logically constructed, etc. Any script is fine in theory. No
script, pure auditory transmission is even better. Yet I tend to agree
with his practice. Because of my personal experience of learning the
devanAgarI script as a child, I can read and write saMskRta much
faster in the devanAgarI script than in some other script. If I had
learned some other script, that script would be more time-saving. If
anyone wants interfere in managing MY time because they prefer THEIR
time to be saved, I will ask them very brusquely to stop bothering me.
Thus I am sympathetic to Shri. Abhyankar.)

Back to my English analogy: If someone will not read Shakespeare
except when his works are printed in the international phonetic
alphabet, I respect their ideological purity. But if they ask me to
stop writing about Shakespeare's work with traditional English
spelling, if they insist that I learn and write in the international
phonetic alphabet, if they accuse me of medieval-ism that gives
Shakespeare a bad name, I will ask them to take a break and leave me
alone.

Regards,
Dhananjay

> >  Dear friends
>
> > There is a standard transliteration - diacritics with Roman script - used
> > by all serious Western scholars.  I think it is called the Harvard Kyoto
> > system.  It uses symbols from Arial Unicode font in Microsoft Office 2004 –
> > this has all the symbols, and I have programmed my keyboard with the
> > shortcuts. I have transliterated part of KaU and this follows:
>
> > ṛtam pibantau sukṛtasya loke guhᾱm praviṣṭau parame parᾱrdhe,
> > chᾱyᾱ-tapau brahma-vido vadanti, pañcᾱgnayo ye ca triṇᾱciketᾱḥ (1)
>
> > yas setur ījᾱnᾱnᾱm akṣaram brahma yat param,
> > abhayam titīrṣatᾱm pᾱram nᾱciketaṁ śakemahi  (2)
>
> > ᾱtmᾱnaṁ rathinaṁ viddhi, śarīraṁ rathameva tu
> > buddhiṁ tu sᾱradhiṁ viddhi, manaḥ pragraham eva ca (3)
>
> > There is no problem with this at all and is used by scholars in the field.
> > However I am not sure if this will be read OK by e-mail on your computers,
> > so I would be interested in your feedback.
>
> > Vimala
>

> > *From:* sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] *On
> > Behalf Of *Dr.Dhananjay B. Ghare
> > *Sent:* Friday, 22 October 2010 4:30 AM
> > *To:* sanskRuta Group sanskRuta Lovers Group; davis1552...@yahoo.co.uk
> > *Subject:* RE: Request for [Samskrita] Learning Sanskrit by fresh

> > approach, to be in English as well
>
> > Dear Shri.davejee
> >     and all those who want to study "sanskRuta"
> >   namaskaara.
>
> >   shreemaan abhyankara mahodayajee has already explained to you his

> > problems, as well as, recommendation *to learn sanskRuta in devanagaree
> > Script*.

>
> >   I fully agree with him and like to add that many Indian languages have a
> > different svara vyanjana compositions (than devanaagaree).
> >  e.g. kannada has e, e~ ai and o o~ au
> >    which is not there in sanskRuta and that causes some problems.
>
> >   I also learn that, tamila has only k for k, kh, ga, gh etc.
> >   A Tamilian may kindly correct me please.
> >   Therefore when written in "tamil"
> >   kaka, khaga, etc. will all be same in Script and difficult to
> > differentiate in reading.
>
> >   This is only to illustrate some additional problems that can come and not
> > a particularly accurate way of putting it across.
> >   I beg pardon of my inability of writing it correctly, but hope people
> > will understand what I want to convey.
>
> >   Further, much more Important thing is

> >     "*Why should one Learn sanskRuta at all ?*"

> >   If it is for shopping, it is almost of No_use (except in a village in
> > karnataka and may be a few more elsewhere).
> >   If it is for conveying your thoughts to others, even then hardly there
> > are people who will understand it and respond.
>

> >   *I had studied and would keep on studying the "sanskRuta" Language in

> > order to Develop an Ability to

> >    **"Study and Understand the Ancient Texts"

> >     directly without any madhavan & shankaran
> >      or Max_mullar and Alexander
> >          coming in between me (the learner)

> >     and the Writers (Gods or Sages).**
> >   That is my Opinion.*

> >   I beg pardon if it has offended any body.
> >   But I thought of expressing my personal Opinion.
>
> >   With regards and best Wishes,
> >   Dr.Ghare, Thursday, 21st Oct. 2010, Portland, OR USA

> >  ------------------------------

>
> > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:21:12 +0530
> > Subject: Re: Request for [Samskrita] Learning Sanskrit by fresh approach,
> > to be in English as well

> > From: sl.abhyan...@gmail.com
> > To: sams...@googlegroups.com; davis1552...@yahoo.co.uk

>
> > Dear Mr. Dave,
>
> > I appreciate your interest in studying Sanskrit. But I have a few concerns
> > of my own in composing the lessons in English script.
>
> > (1) There is quite some difficulty in spelling many Devanagari letters
> > appropriately.
>
> > (2) There is lack of standardisation regarding which keyboard character(s)
> > would spell which Devanagari character.
>
> > (3) Many transliteration packages are available which work well with
> > Windows OS I have one for Mac, which is not Unicode and I cannot transfer to
> > the internet.
>
> > (4) Since Devanagari script is so thoughtfully designed, my honest and
> > sincere advice to all serious students of Sanskrit will be to learn the
> > script as well.
>
> > Regards,
> > सस्नेहम् ,
> > अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
> > "श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
> >http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
> >http://slezall.blogspot.com
> > स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
> > चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044
>

> > 2010/10/19 davis stephenson <davis1552...@yahoo.co.uk>

>
> > Dear Sir ,
>
> >  I would very much like it if you could give the lessons in English as well
> > for I have been studying sanskrit in the English medium and I would like to
> > follow your lessons which I find to be very good, but which I have great
> > difficulty in following in the Sanskrit medium.
>
> > Thanking you
>
> > Dave
>

> > --- On *Tue, 19/10/10, S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abhyan...@gmail.com>* wrote:

>
> > From: S. L. Abhyankar <sl.abhyan...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: [Samskrita] Learning Sanskrit by fresh approach – Lesson No. 67
> > संस्कृतभाषायाः नूतनाध्ययनस्य सप्त-षष्टितमः (६७) पाठः ।
> > To: sams...@googlegroups.com
> > Date: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010, 11:05
>
> > नमो नमः !
> > सहर्षम् निवेदयामि यत् -
>

> > *Learning Sanskrit by fresh approach – Lesson No. 67*
>
> > *संस्कृतभाषायाः** **नूतनाध्ययनस्य** **सप्त**-**षष्टितमः** (**६७**) **पाठः*
> > * **।*

>
> > मम जालपुटे उपरीकृतः अस्ति ।
> > कृपया पश्यन्तु टीका-टिप्पणीः च ददतु ।

> > *धन्यवादाः **।
> > *

>
> > सस्नेहम् ,
> > अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
> > "श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
> >http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
> >http://slezall.blogspot.com
> > स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
> > चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044
>
> > --
> > 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<samskrita%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > 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<samskrita%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > सस्नेहम् ,
> > अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
> > "श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
> >http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com
> >http://slezall.blogspot.com
> > स्थापित-दूरभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 22 2849 5365
> > चलितभाष-क्रमाङ्कः +91 98330 72044
>
> > --

> > 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<samskrita%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Ramakrishna Upadrasta]

namaste,

My thoughts are same as Shri Dhananjay's, Thanks to Shri Abhyankar-ji
for his series and he is free to choose whichever script he prefers.

I read the thread again. If an teacher chooses to use a text book or a
mode of teaching, which has been well accepted in a community, though
not accepted in its entirety, it is entirely for a student to choose
to attend the classes, or instead attend another which suits his/her
own choice.

Instead, resorting to mud-slinging (like labeling "... Sanskritists,
that give Sanskrit a bad name", "2000 years ...") is indeed in very
poor taste and I hope that it does not happen in future in this forum.
We do not need a indologists vs. traditionalists debate in everything
we discuss!

praNAms to all sanskrit lovers
Ramakrishna

Currently I prefer ITRANS a little more because some of forums I write
in do not still allow devanaagari, and it allows one to use the same
encoding, with minor tweaks to post the same sanskrit-itrans text in
my mother language: Telugu. Also, it allows one to search for words in
the itx files, using simple text editors like vim. When some of the
problems with the fonts have been standardized, including converters,
I would have no doubt in completely shifting.

2010/10/27 धनंजय वैद्य <deejay...@yahoo.com> <deejay...@gmail.com>:

[Piergiorgio Muzi]

Dear Mr Dhananjay and all friends,
I much appreciate your open-minded observations and the appropriate
comparisons, you have done. They seem to be an invitation to dialogue
between traditionalists and indologists. There are indeed a lot of possible
hints and advices to improve our views with courage and modesty. BTW,
indologists learned a lot not only from the corpus of Sanskrit texts, but
also from the Indian grammarians. The precious Sanskrit Syntax, written by
Speijer at the late XIX century is full of quotations from Panini and other
Indian grammarians. And what to say about Max Muller, Monier-Williams,
MacDonell, etc.? At present the cultural (and geopolitical) world scene is
quite different. But this doesn't mean that what true and universal was
searched for or incompletely caught in India or elsewhere must be forgotten
or deleted anyhow. I believe that an open and universalistic attitude like
the one of Bhartrhari in the field of human language(s) could be appropriate
to reciprocal understanding. This without dogmatisms:
असंसारं जगत्यस्मिन्नेका नित्या ह्यनित्यता।
Regards,
Piergiorgio

Regards,
Dhananjay

samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

.