Sanskrit/ Samskrit/ Samskrut??????

[Madhav Gopal]

Dear Scholars,

PraNAma!

 

As some of you might have noticed, the people in our group are repeatedly misspelling the name of our holy languge. Some spell it Sanskrit, some Samskrit and some even Samskrut! This is happening with the language which is now considered a standard language free of regional/social variation. (Though Panini has given some space for regional variation, but for we people these variations are no more regional but just some available options to use them in expressing ourselves). People are nowadays trying to compliance with Panini so that the deviation in the language may not occur and we have a pure, uniform, uncorrupt languge for which we are proud of.

 

So, in such a situation if we deviate even in spelling the name of the language, it would be very ironic and funny thing. Therefore, I request the scholars to make a consensus to spell the name of the language uniformly. This is a serious issue.

 

With kind regards,

Madhav

 

--
Madhav Gopal
Centre for Linguistics,
School of Language Literature and
Culture Studies,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi-67
India
Mob. +91-9811021605

[hnbhat B.R.]

It would be a help if you can suggest a standardized spelling system to name the संस्कृतं नाम दैवी वाग्
अन्वाख्याता महर्षिभिः to be used in English writing.

There is no native spelling system in संस्कृतम् as it is phonological language, but it is the need of English that it has to use the foreign word with the available spelling system in that language, even though nobody will misread or misunderstand it for any other language in spite of the different spelling system used for encoding using roman letters for the use in English language.

Please help.

With regards

2011/1/21 Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com>

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY

[Sri Raghava Kiran Mukku]

namAmsi

I use Samskrtam and Sanskrit interchangeably. Standard English dictionaries have the entry of "Sanskrit". (See: http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/sanskrit for example.)

dhanyO`smi
rAghavaH

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

There are some problems with writing the name संस्कृत correctly in Roman. To comply with the standard practice with diacritics it may be saṃskṛta. But even this is erroneous as the internationally recognized transcription of ऋ should be with a ring below r and not a dot which is the sign for ड़. The proper sign with a ring below is not available with Unicode. I myself designed and edited an r with a ring below. But though I could use the same for the press in my own publications, Internet did not accept it. I cannot send the same to the forum. One may just write an inter-consonantal r without any diacritical mark. The position itself will indicate its vowel character. Thus we may write Saṃskrta which will mean संस्कृत | In fact in Polish an interconsonantal (theoretically speaking ante-consonant initial or post-consonant final too) r is pronounced somewhat like our ऋ. So also in French in words like Sartre, etre etc. Best wishes to all DB --- On Fri, 21/1/11, Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com> wrote:

[nripendra pathak]

in Baraha devanagari font, we hit these key 'saMskRut' to write संस्कृत.

2011/1/21 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

There are some problems with writing the name संस्कृत correctly in Roman. To comply with the standard practice with diacritics it may be saṃskṛta. But even this is erroneous as the internationally recognized transcription of ऋ should be with a ring below r and not a dot which is the sign for ड़. The proper sign with a ring below is not available with Unicode. I myself designed and edited an r with a ring below. But though I could use the same for the press in my own publications, Internet did not accept it. I cannot send the same to the forum.

--
Kumar Nripendra Pathak

M.Phil. (Sanskrit Computational Linguistics)

Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies,

Jawaharlal Nehru University,

New Delhi-110067.

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

I do use Baraha. But its master roman characters have not yet been recognised by international or national journals as representative diacritics for Sanskrit. Online publishers like Gretil and Sarit use them for their publication. But they are not meant to be the final readable versions. That aims at the readers using an appropriate software for transliterating them into Devnagari or the accepted roman diacritics. Even before the admirable and user friendly Baraha the Tokunaga roman characters served as such transformable mastercopy characters. But they were never to be used for the final version. Being Unicode compliant Baraha serves the purpose in email and is ideal for transformation into Devnagari or other Indian characters for presentation on the Internet. If its master characters ie the pre-transliteration characters are accepted by International journals as the representative diacritic, our problems will be solved. In this connection I think that this forum should try to arrange for some special honour being conferred on the inventors of the Baraha software and thereby solving many problems of Sanskrit writers on the internet. Best DB   --- On Fri, 21/1/11, nripendra pathak <nri.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Sachchidanand Mishra]

Dear Scholars,

Seeing all these responses we can see very clearly that if one is willing to write Sanskrit in English he/she is led with his own grammatical practices. I would suggest to use Sanskrit without any diacritical marks for it is more acceptable. In the list of languages, in the regeonal and Language options of Windows and many version of Linux, in all English Dictionaries the same spelling is accepted. Even if one searches Samskrit at Google it gives result "Showing results for Sanskrit. Search instead for Samskrit". Therefore, using the word Sanskrit is more acceptable.

2011/1/21 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

--
Sachchidanand Mishra
*************************
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy and Religion
Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi
Mobile--09450823808
<http://sites.google.com/site/awebsiteonnavyanyaya/>

[hnbhat B.R.]

In fact it is half way between samskrutam and sanskrit. samskrit, samskrita, sanskruta, etc. are all corrupt forms in between in zeal to reinstate sanskritised forms (influenced by the softwares encoding systems used for getting devanagari fonts) for the anglicized form.

Sanskrit is accepted throughout English writings by western scholars and available as such in English dictionaries too as some scholar pointed out. There is no obvious reason to revert back from it to again sanskritize the same back to Indian English.

And diacritics in roman alphabets are not available in all the softwares used for devanagari. But if one wants, it is already available, in AerialUnicodeMS fonts in the windows which can be conveniently created for typing by creating keyboard shortcuts. Itrans software too has got the facility, but it cannot be used directly as Baraha software in messages or on any web page.

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Dear Colleagues, No problem rises with the word Sanskrit meaning संस्कृत in day to day transactions like, say, news paper reporst. We have been used to untoward spellings also in marriage invitation cards. But this forum is for specialists. The diacritical marks had been developed for specialists and new learners. So, for them ie also for fora like the BVP a special romanised or otherwise written international character system is necessary. Some Western scholars -- very few in number but they do exist --write Greek words in romanised forms. That means they have given up the Greek characters. That is possible for Sanskrit too. In any case, whatever it be. an international system of Sanskrit  writing/transliteration consistent and unicodised is essential. Barring the vocalic r and l the current diacritics more or less serve the purpose for Sanskrit. But it is insufficient for Tamil, Malayalam, Bengali, Oriya etc.  . Best wishes for all. DB p--- On Fri, 21/1/11, hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Sanskrit/ Samskrit/ Samskrut?????? To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

[VKG]

Dear Madhav!

Who can decide the correctness?

The Letter R. is not found in English. We can draw a somewhat
parallel, but not perfect replica in English from our Language, unless
we use diacritical marks, which are not common for many people.

It is common practice to spell Krishna for the letter R.
Similarly - Sanskrita.

For the letter Ta., some write tha; Some write ta. Where as some
scholars of Hindi mother tongue prefer to use consonant as Samskrit
(Instead of Samskrita). In fact, it is Kta Pratyaya; Hence Samskrita
seems to be a logical conclusion.

The status of Upasarga is another aspect. In the pronunciation, they
use San (instead of Sam). This also has an origin in Panineeya Siksha.

अलाबुवीणा निर्घोषो दन्तमूल्यः स्वराननु।
अनुस्वारस्तु कर्तव्यो नित्यं ह्रोश्शषसेषु च।। (Even here, there are
two versions - Danta Moolya/ Dantya Moola)

One version the practice of Northern Indian Scholars and the second
version, suits the Southern Scholars.

As you spell the word, according to the pronunciation, these
differences creep up.

Sinha, Sanskaar are sample words in Northern India. These are spelt
Simha, Samskaara.

Keeping this facts in mind, the exact transliteration into English is
dependent on the interpretation.

Ekam Sad Vipraa Bahudhaa Vadanti - is my inference.
More thoughts, welcome.

Regards
Vamshi Krishna Ghanapathi

[Madhav Gopal]

I thank all the participants in this discussion. It appears that the word Sanskrit to signify the Sanskrit language is a better option. The Roman script is not perfect for even writing English, so we should not expect it to be suitable for other languages like, say, Sanskrit. Somewhere we have to compromise and the correct pronunciation will only be known when an 'aptapurusha/aptamahila' will pronounce that word as we do in English also. So, as the Roman script is not reliable from pronunciation perspective, only convention has to be respected, and this would come only when we here an 'aptapurusha/aptamahila' uttering a particular word.

There are many words in English also which cannot be represented correctly through the script. A script like Roman is just to give some clue about the pronunciaiotn, and thats why IPA was invented to teach English in non English speaking countries. This orthographic disorder may be due to some historical reasons, which can be investigated separately. But the thing that is important and appreciable in the case of English is its stable, standard, widely accepted and practiced writing convention, which, unfortunately, we Indians do not have for our languages.

So, it is true that संस्कृत cannot be written correctly in Roman script without diacritics but we have to just have a powerful convention to encode it in Roman (without diacritics, as they are great barriers for writing fastly) and it is, as many of you have said, Sanskrit (after considering many factors).

Anyway, I do not claim it to be immune from criticism. Let us see what other scholars, especially from South India, in the group say about this solution.

Jayatu Sanskritam!

Regards,
Madhav

2011/1/21 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

[Madhav Gopal]

Thank you Sir for your reply.

"Ekam Sad Vipraa Bahudhaa Vadanti - is my inference."

Now the time has come to speak uniformly about the one truth by all the vipras to have harmony!!!
Please read my another mail.

With best regards,
Madhav

2011/1/22 VKG <vkghan...@gmail.com>

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[Raghavendra]

This is just a thought

Anglo-saxon provides great felicity writing Sanskrit than devanaagari,

For example

धर्म is simply written as *dharma* the way it is pronounced but not in the case of former. The रेफ़ is written after writing म.

Complex words and constructions of Sanskrit can thus be written easily and with great felicity.

thanks





On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 16:03:34 +0530 wrote

>I thank all the participants in this discussion. It appears that the word Sanskrit to signify the Sanskrit language is a better option. The Roman script is not perfect for even writing English, so we should not expect it to be suitable for other languages like, say, Sanskrit. Somewhere we have to compromise and the correct pronunciation will only be known when an 'aptapurusha/aptamahila' will pronounce that word as we do in English also. So, as the Roman script is not reliable from pronunciation perspective, only convention has to be respected, and this would come only when we here an 'aptapurusha/aptamahila' uttering a particular word.


There are many words in English also which cannot be represented correctly through the script. A script like Roman is just to give some clue about the pronunciaiotn, and thats why IPA was invented to teach English in non English speaking countries. This orthographic disorder may be due to some historical reasons, which can be investigated separately. But the thing that is important and appreciable in the case of English is its stable, standard, widely accepted and practiced writing convention, which, unfortunately, we Indians do not have for our languages.


So, it is true that संस्कृत cannot be written correctly in Roman script without diacritics but we have to just have a powerful convention to encode it in Roman (without diacritics, as they are great barriers for writing fastly) and it is, as many of you have said, Sanskrit (after considering many factors).


Anyway, I do not claim it to be immune from criticism. Let us see what other scholars, especially from South India, in the group say about this solution.

Jayatu Sanskritam!

Regards,
Madhav


2011/1/21 Dipak Bhattacharya

Dear Colleagues,
No problem rises with the word Sanskrit meaning संस्कृत in day to day transactions like, say, news paper reporst. We have been used to untoward spellings also in marriage invitation cards. But this forum is for specialists. The diacritical marks had been developed for specialists and new learners. So, for them ie also for fora like the BVP a special romanised or otherwise written international character system is necessary. Some Western scholars -- very few in number but they do exist --write Greek words in romanised forms. That means they have given up the Greek characters. That is possible for Sanskrit too. In any case, whatever it be. an international system of Sanskrit  writing/transliteration consistent and unicodised is essential. Barring the vocalic r and l the current diacritics more or less serve the purpose for Sanskrit. But it is insufficient for Tamil, Malayalam, Bengali, Oriya etc.  .

Best wishes for all.
DB

p--- On Fri, 21/1/11, hnbhat B.R. wrote:

Thanks and regards,
B. Raghavendra Vishvamitra
Bangalore

[hnbhat B.R.]

2011/1/22 Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com>

I thank all the participants in this discussion. It appears that the word Sanskrit to signify the Sanskrit language is a better option. The Roman script is not perfect for even writing English, so we should not expect it to be suitable for other languages like, say, Sanskrit. Somewhere we have to compromise and the correct pronunciation will only be known when an 'aptapurusha/aptamahila' will pronounce that word as we do in English also. So, as the Roman script is not reliable from pronunciation perspective, only convention has to be respected, and this would come only when we here an 'aptapurusha/aptamahila' uttering a particular word.

As usual, the question/suggestion to write "Sanskrit" with correct spelling (to denoted the language denoted by that name in English usage of the word)  asked casually but seriously has received from different ends different considerations.

First , the use of the spelling for writing the word "Sanskrit" in english language to denote the language as per the English dictionaries seems to be acceptable from the use of the word in any context of discussion in the English language and there is no possibliity (generally) to use the word "Sanskrit" in writing using Sanskrit Language (using Devanagari alphabet) unless the writer volitionally intends to do so. The word "Sanskrit" is an accepted English word form to denote the Sanskrit Language. Hope this is clear that in the above the word "Sanskrit" is not the same as the word "संस्कृतम्" which is a perfectly inflected Sanskrit word with different meanings than denoting the language (which can be used to denote the language too). And this word can be given wide range of usage in Sanskrit and definitions and etymologies within the scope of the word and the discussion has gone round about from English usage of IPA/ Anglosaxon history of alphabets to Vedic period of usage of Sanskrit language among the learned members of OUR forum.

The use of diacritical marks using IPA is fine option to safeguard against misinterpretations in writing the words/sentences Sanskrit language if one wants to use roman alphabet. (so that "mala" = माला, मल, मला, माल the confusion may be avoided in the sentences/words) embedded/quotations inside an article in English and on the other hand, the message/article can be written using Devanagari (देवनागरी/देव-नगरी) fonts even within English/Sanskrit message. Using "baraha" software as in this to clearly mark the word may be helpful too. This is the other option for using IPA diacritical marks which is not easily accessible for writing in messages here for everybody. Whenever possible, diacritical marks may be used to avoid confusion between the actual word intended. (I have not tried using key-board shortcuts to ArialunicodeMS fonts (symbols) in messages online, but was useful in creating word documents with Sanskrit words. I-translator has the transliteration system too, but it cannot be used to type on web page directly unlike Baraha software (which doesn't have transliteration IPA like Itranslator). It would have been better if such transliteration device was included inside BarahaDirect itself. 

Hope this sums up the discussion from different angles as it has been discussed so far.

Thanks to Mr. Madhavji for raising the question and all others who contributed to the discussion on the issue.

 

[SHRINIVASA VARAKHEDI]

Namaskaara to all.

I was away from discussion for long. This discussion thread on the word "sanskrit" is very interesting one. I had this problem when i came to the Sanskrit Academy three years back. I dont recall all points that were discussed in those days, however, i remember that we had resolved to set a proper standard for such usages instead of following the bad tradition.

The modern usage of "sanskrit" does injustice to the spelling of saMkqta. Both M' anusvAra as well as q kaara are wrongly spelt. Hence, it is better to set a new proper standard as per our standard transliterations. Though it is highly impossible to write the word exactly as it is written in any of the standard transliteration schemes, it is better to write it as close as possible to the same. Let us start writing Samskrta, which may become standard after some years of use and this will be accepted by one and all.

In this age of Internet it is very easy to set the new standards. What do you say?

jayatu Samskrtam.

regards,
shrivara

2011/1/22 hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>

--

अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
warm regards,
shri.varakhedi
-----------------------------------------
Dr. Shrinivasa Varakhedi
Director, Sanskrit Academy
(Adarsh Shodh Sansthan - recognised by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, MHRD. Govt. of India)
Osmania University, Hyderabad.

Mobile : +91-9490061741
Fax/Ph Off : +91-40-27070281
Land Res: +91-40-20050506

[Madhav Gopal]

Namaste to all!

 

Actually sir if we want to have "Samskrta" then we should have "Samskrita" instead, as only 'r' will not be able to represent the ऋ. Thus it would be close to the same. The respected scholars do not seem to be interested in this matter. So, now what you and I can do for the new standard?

 

Regards,

madhav

2011/1/28 SHRINIVASA VARAKHEDI <shri...@gmail.com>

--

[S P Narang]

Regards, R. has gone to a number of vowels and consonants which are in Sanskrit and Modern Indian Languages or has taken a different shape. It is evident from the Paninian sutra itself: uraNaraparah. Infact, it was an independent sound like Lr. ( which took a different shape in MIL and also disappeared or difficult to pronounce). Details: Wackernagel, Macdonell, Renou. So its pronunciation like ri or ru is only regional variant and cannot be universalized. Its gun.a and Vr.ddhi had further nazalised forms which are not noted by Sanskrit grammarians but are preserved in the dialects like Multani, Jhangi, Peshawari (expected from Pahini) e.g. karendaa, karaindaa>kr.>kar. Panini did not touch them because he was concerned with Sanskrit only. The variants can be further found slowly in the lost Samhitaas which are not noted by Bloomfield. For acceptance of R. we should accept both ri and ru and its variants. Our persian teacher spoke: samskirit which is a Persanized version of Sanskrit because he was not able to speak R. We can accept only one form and respect it like : we the people of Sanskrit. spnarang

---

From: Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 1, 2011 11:42:00 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Sanskrit/ Samskrit/ Samskrut??????

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

My interest is not lost. Why should ऋ that is ṛ be understood as रि that is ri? A Sanskritist, a specialist in Sanskrit phonetics, is expected to know the difference between ऋ and रि. The apprehension may come true with non-specialists in non-peninsular North where ṛ is now-a-days pronounced as ri. But in the South and peninsular India it is likely to be pronounced ru. The student may be trained the actual pronunciation. Fortunately, in Avesta we do get a relic of the actual pronunciation in the form of ǝrǝ. Pandits like my revered teacher late Pattabhiram Shastrī  could produce this pronunciation। That is true also of late Durgamohan Bhattacharyya who learnt Vedic pronunciation from his teacher Lakshmana Sastri Dravida. Such scholars are few in number, but they should still exist. Best DB

--- On Tue, 1/2/11, Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Sanskrit/ Samskrit/ Samskrut??????

[Upendra Rao]

dear madhav,

you think that ऋ has to be pronounced as RI because in some parts of India it is pronounced in that way. but you should note the ऋ is pronounced as RU in other parts. once i was discussing this problem with a renowned scholar in Delhi, he said actually ऋ has to be pronounced neither as 'RU' nor as 'RI'. it has to be pronounced as R as a pure consonant, without the addition of any vowel.  hence it seems 'Samskrta' is better, instead of Sanskrita.

dr. c. upender rao,

centre for sanskrt studies,

JNU, NEW DELHI 110067 

---

From: Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 1, 2011 11:42:00 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Sanskrit/ Samskrit/ Samskrut??????

[Madhav Gopal]

Dear Scholars,

I never said that 'ri' is the exact transliteration of ऋ. I only meant
it would be close to ऋ, please kindly read my mail again. Its
transliteration and pronounciation as 'ru' is very unnatural in North
India. I guess, you will not find a single North Indian scholar
spelling it as 'ru' while we have many southern scholars spelling it
as 'ri'. We all know that ऋ is symbolized as ṛ as Prof. Deepak
Bhattacharya says, but this symbol is out of Roman script, so we are
proposing some close representation in the script which we find 'ri'.
In Roman script when we write 'ri' for ऋ, it does not necessarily
require that one has to pronounce it as रि. I hope things are clear
now.

regards,
madhav

2011/2/2 Upendra Rao <chou...@yahoo.com>:

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

<but this symbol is out of Roman script, so we are proposing some close representation in the script which we find 'ri'.>

I did not followun how writing ri instead of ṛ  will make it non-Roman. ri is as Roman as ṛ. Best DB

--- On Wed, 2/2/11, Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Madhav Gopal]

Actually, in Indian context where by Roman script we mean 26 letters from A to Z, ṛ is out of these letters, so could be thought of as non-Roman loosely speaking. Also, our keyboards do not facilitate its printing easily. So, we need 'ri' which is within Roman as it does not have any external symbols. In fact, sir you have understood me again wrongly.

2011/2/2 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

[Shrikant Jamadagni]

"Fortunately, in Avesta we do get a relic of the actual pronunciation in the form of ǝrǝ. "

This pronunciation is also described by mahabhashyakara. Off-hand I am not recollecting which ahnika. This issue was also described in an article in Sambhashana Sandesha magazine of Samskrta Bharati (September 2009 issue) by vidwan shri.ramana sharma. regards Shrikant Jamadagni Bangalore --- On Wed, 2/2/11, Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Tirumala Kulakarni]

Dear Scholars

Interestingly in प्राकृतप्रकाश (व्याकरण of प्राकृत), which lists the rules for संस्कृत to प्राकृत, there are 4-5 sutras for ऋ.
1. इत् ऋष्यादिषु - ऋषि becomes इसी
2. उत् ऋत्वादिषु - ऋतु becomes उदू
3. ऋ रीति (अनादौ) - ऋणम् becomes रिणं

We all are speaking प्राकृत/अपभ्रंशs in modern age. So some of us tend to use ri and some of us ru. Itrans, which developed by North Indians, uses R^i for ऋ. Baraha, developed by South Indians, uses Ru!

TK

2011/1/21 Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com>

--

अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

--
Dr. Tirumala Kulakarni
Asst. Prof. Alankara Dept.
Poornaprajna Vidyaapeetha
Vidyapeetha Circle
BANGALORE 560 028

[Madhav Gopal]

Thank you sir for enriching our understanding of these things. Your observation is wonderful!

2011/2/3 Tirumala Kulakarni <tkula...@gmail.com>

[hnbhat B.R.]

Interestingly in प्राकृतप्रकाश (व्याकरण of प्राकृत), which lists the rules for संस्कृत to प्राकृत, there are 4-5 sutras for ऋ. 

1. इत् ऋष्यादिषु - ऋषि becomes इसी
2. उत् ऋत्वादिषु - ऋतु becomes उदू
3. ऋ रीति (अनादौ) - ऋणम् becomes रिणं

We all are speaking प्राकृत/अपभ्रंशs in modern age. So some of us tend to use ri and some of us ru. Itrans, which developed by North Indians, uses R^i for ऋ. Baraha, developed by South Indians, uses Ru!

TK

आदेः [अतः]। (आदेरेत्याध्यायपरिसमाप्तेरधिकारः) 

ऋतो ऽत् ।१.२०।

इदृष्यादौ।१.२१॥

उदृत्वादौ।१.२२॥

अयुक्तस्य रिः॥१.२३॥

क्वचिद् युक्तस्यापि॥१.२४॥ तारिसो तादृशः।

This is the sequence of replacement of vowel ऋ in Prakrit. The general rule is that ऋ in the initial postion of the words except those included in the exceptional list of ऋष्यादि and ऋष्यादि have got the ऋ in the initial position only. In other cases, than those included, this vowel will be replaced by रि when it is not appended to other consonant.  Only exceptional cases are just listed like तादृशः - तारिसो। And exceptionally वृक्ष becomes रुक्खो.

And it is not अनादेः as noted by Prof. Kulakarni.

This is just for information about the phonetic change of the vowel in question in Prakrit. But nothing to do with  the debate on how to represent the word "Sanskrit" or the pronunciation of the vowel nor justifying any of the orthographic representation.

 

[Vaishnavi Rao]

Namaste,

This is an old discussion thread. Nevertheless I wish to share my personal typing scheme of the saMskRta-varNas which closely follows the diacritic marking scheme, but using a regular keyboard, hence easy to type. It is as follows -

अ - a

आ - A

इ - i

ई - I

उ - u 

उ - U

ऋ - R

ए - e

ऐ - ai

ओ - o

औ - au

अं - aM

अः - aH

क - ka

ख - kha

ग - ga

घ -gha ङ - `na (` - backtick)

च - ca

छ -cha

ज -ja

झ -jha

ञ - ~na (~- tilde)

ट - Ta 

ठ - Tha

ड - Da

ढ - Dha

ण - Na

त - ta

थ - tha

द - da

ध - dha

न - na

प - pa

फ - pha

ब - ba

भ - bha

म - ma

य - ya

र - ra

ल - la

व - va

श - Sa

ष - sha

स - sa 

ह - ha.

evaM krameNa A`nglAksharANi adhikRtya saMskRta-lekhane viSesha-kleSaH na bhAti iti me matiH. paThituM Ta`nkituM ca sulabho'pi j~nAyate.

vidvad-vidheyA

vaishNavI

--

[Girijesh Rao]

साधक जन,
यह इस मंच पर पहला प्रश्न है जो कि उच्चारण और देवनागरी लिपि से सम्बन्धित है।
सन्धि के नियमानुसार:
1. म् के परे कोई व्यञ्जन हो तो म् के स्थान में अनुस्वार हो जाएगा।
2. तथा अनुस्वार के स्थान में परवर्ती व्यञ्जन के ही वर्ग का पञ्चम व्यञ्जन हो जाएगा।
अत: सम्स्कृत नहीं अपितु संस्कृत होगा। अनुस्वार के परे स् है जो “लृतुलसा: दन्त्या:" के अनुसार न् का सवर्ण है, अत: सन्स्कृत तो फिर भी कहा जा सकता है किन्तु सम्स्कृत कदापि नहीं।

प्रश्न यह है कि देवनागरी लिपि में 'सम्स्कृत' लिखना सही है या नहीं?

सादर,
गिरिजेश

[Hnbhat B.R.]

What is the question? Please be specific that quoting all that you know.

प्रश्न यह है कि देवनागरी लिपि में 'सम्स्कृत' लिखना सही है या नहीं?

 संस्कृत is correct word. 

[Satish Kumar Dogra]

I think the question is valid and needs consideration by the group. अनुस्वार is the substitute for the म् sound. Thus, रामं is pronounced as रामम्. But in संस्कृत the अनुस्वार is pronounced as न् and not as म्. This is because the म् gets assimilated to न् under the influence of the स् that follows. So, the question by our friend is: once म् has changed to न् will it not be more appropriate to write संस्कृत as सन्स्कृत?

I think he has a point.

Regards,

Dogra

============================================
Read my websites:
Sanskrit: sweetsanskrit.blogspot.in/
English: satishkumardogra.com

Tamil: dogratamil.com

My contact number:
+91 98400 93148

--
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.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Satish Kumar Dogra <dogra...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think the question is valid and needs consideration by the group. अनुस्वार is the substitute for the म् sound. Thus, रामं is pronounced as रामम्. But in संस्कृत the अनुस्वार is pronounced as न् and not as म्. This is because the म् gets assimilated to न् under the influence of the स् that follows. So, the question by our friend is: once म् has changed to न् will it not be more appropriate to write संस्कृत as सन्स्कृत?

I think he has a point.

I think not grammatically. If he pronounce otherwise, that is not grammatical and according to grammatical rules. 

संस्कृत the अनुस्वार is pronounced as न् and not as म्. This is because the म् gets assimilated to न् under the influence of the स् that follows.

Not according to Panini's rules.  

 

[Sati Shankar]

AdarNiya visvadjana,

Found interesting information here in this thread, Thanks to you all for all the arguments.

Please allow me to put my observation, though related but in wider sense.

The point is ,

When we go through all the indological literature right from 18th century, we find, quotes from Greek, Latin, Arabic, etc etc in their original scripts for sake of originality and ,barring a few, ,while writing Sanskrit quotes they adopt roman, diacritical etc...not devnAgari. Why is it so.... to make devnAgari extinct? For us at least, use of devnAgari should be preferred while quoting, then, in a way, the problem of this thread itself will be solved.

Just an observation.

Regards

Yours

Sati Shankar

[Shankarji Jha]

Sati Shankar's view is noteworthy. I agree with him. Sanskrit in other script is a joke and quite detrimental to it also. Regards,

Sent from Outlook Mobile

[shivraj singh]

Saul Levin (https://www.binghamton.edu/cnes/people/emeriti/saul.html) in his books routinely used devnagari to write sanskrit. It was so refreshing to read his books because one did not have to keep ITRANS/Harvard Kyoto etc. around.

Is this a sign of cultural imperialism whereby a group who cannot read sanskrit/indic languages natively, decided to come up with a phonetic alphabet and made all "brown people" learn it?

What is the status of academic journals? Would they not accept papers if sanskrit quotes are in devnagari and not IPA etc.?

Also does some vidwan know / or can we create a list which shows what sounds from other Indo European languages *cannot* be pronounced using devnagari alphabets?

Shivraj

[Hari Thapliyal]

नमस्ते

Irrespective of what you write Sanskrit/ Samskrit/ Samskrut it is critically important what do you speak when you read. Do you read संस्कृतम् or some other word. If one do not read/speak this word as संस्कृतम् than is it highest corruption. Anyway संस्कृतम् is a phonetic language and many scripts of the world has tried to document this language but I tell you roman script cannot do justice for the phonetics of this languages. No matter how hard you try. Best it can be written in any Indian script like Kannada, Telgu, Malyalam, Bangla and Devnagari. Therefore, if you want to write it properly use these languages because these languages provides the framework to catch every sound of संस्कृतम् . Sanskrit/ Samskrit/ Samskrut are search engine friendly words for non-indian people who cannot speak/write any of the Indian languague. 

Warm Regards

Hari

[अलंकार]

विद्वज्जनों को प्रणाम,

पूरे सूत्र का अनुगमन करने से भी मुझे लगता है जो प्रश्न उठाया गया है, उसके साथ न्याय नहीं हुआ है |

सूत्र बहुत पुराना है २०११ से चल रहा है, और इस बीच विद्वान सत्यव्रत शास्त्री जी के सन्दर्भ से विश्वविद्यालय अनुदान आयोग ने इस शब्द को "Samskrit" बना देने का आदेश दे दिया है |

इतने वादों के पश्चात भी मैं मूर्ख अभी दुविधा में ही हूँ, और नहीं समझ पा रहा कि -

1. संस्कृत में "सम्" ध्वनि आनी चाहिए या "सङ्" या "सन्"? अनुस्वार को कैसे बोलें ?
2. "कृ" के  प्रति में आश्वस्त हूँ कि यह "ऋ" के अनुसार बोला जायेगा न कि "रि" या "रु" |
3. लिप्यन्तरण में कैसे लिखा जाए, यह प्रश्न बाद का है, परन्तु कैसे उच्चारण किया जाए वह पहले निर्विवादित होना चाहिए |
4. इस समय में मात्र लिखित से अधिक दृश्य और श्रव्य माध्यम भी उपलब्ध हैं यथा youtube, howtopronounce.com इत्यादि, हमें उनका उपयोग कर कोई मानक उच्चारण नहीं बना देना चाहिए ?
5. रोमन लिपि में कैसे लिखा जायेगा यह मेरे लिए सबसे निम्न वरीयता का प्रश्न है |

विश्वविद्यालयों, विद्यालयों में जो विद्यार्थी पढ़ रहे हैं, वे भ्रमित और संशय में हैं | विशेष अज्ञ विद्वानों से अपेक्षा है कि सामान्य जन के लिए (न्यूनतम इस मंच पर) एकस्वर से मानक बताया जाये |

-अलंकार

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Why do you write your questions regarding Sanskrit either in Sanskrit or English?

--

[Prakash Pandey]

We generally pronounce ऋ  as रि, but as रे when reciting Veda (Shukla Yajurveda Madhyandina Samhita), and if someone pronounces ऋ as रु we regard them to be influenced by the accent of western or southern India (not sure) .  

I think all three pronunciations to be equally valid, having forgotten how our ancestors vocalised the letter. 

Prakash

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Why proonounce ऋ as ri?

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Dr. Bhat,

     The regional variation in the pronunciation of r̥ is very old and the evidence comes from many sources including Prakrits/Pali.  The Pāli words miga [Skt. mr̥ga], tiṇa [Skt. tr̥na], kicca [Skt. kr̥tya] indicate the "(r)i" pronunciation, but the same language has kata [Skt. kr̥ta], mata [Skt. mr̥ta] indicating the "a(r) or (r)a".  The vernacular variations of Kr̥ṣṇa as kaṇṇa, kānhā, kisnā, kisan etc, indicate a similar variation.  The English spelling "Sanskrit" is probably based on what the British heard in north India.  

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

13/10/18

Dear Colleagues,

It may sound heretical but the  pronunciation of the vocalic r̥ as in mr̥ga occurs outside Sanskrit. The final -r in Sartre_, for example. is uttered as a vocalic r.Phonetic concepts still somewhat lag behind in Europe; at least behind good Pāṇinians. Kuiper uttered the final re of sartre as re while it should be like the Vedic ṛ.

Sorry for the lecture

Best

DB 

[Prakash Pandey]

ऋषिः is transliterated as Rishi, because ऋ is spoken as ri, and is evidenced by Rishi Goswami, a member of this group.  

Prakash

[Hnbhat B.R.]

It is English spelling, not Sanskrjt pronunciation!

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.

--
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.

--
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.

--
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.

--
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.

--
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.

--
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.

[अलंकार]

Dear Sir,

Revered scholars, would you please look at the queries I posted in the same thread yesterday, on "संस्कृत" pronunciation.

Thanks,

Alankar

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.

--
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.

--
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.

--
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.

--
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.

--
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.

--
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.

[Dr. Rama kant Shukla]

आप आज से"सम्स्कृत"लिखने भी लगेंगे, तब भी सैंकड़ों वर्षों से छपती आ रही पुस्तकों और पाण्डुलिपियों में कहाँ तक सुधार करेंगे?

[अलंकार]

प्रिय शुक्ल जी,

लिपि में कैसे लिखा जाय वह वरीयताक्रम में बाद में है पहले उच्चारण ध्वनि क्या होनी है वह कोई विद्वान कृपया बताएं ।

पुरानी पुस्तकों, ग्रन्थों में सुधार तो और बाद की बात है ।

-अलंकार

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

Namaste

1.      This whole exercise of   chasing the question  of ' How to Pronounce'  placed in the frame  of how to 'read properly the ( manu-) scripted text' / How to  manu-script the voiced text of Samskrutham -   is a wild goose chase !  

          The base and basics of ' Samskrutham' are thrown to wind using  inappropriate linguistic models , pushed in  through different conventions of ' language scripting, publishing and digital ( Language) technology innovators ! !   

         There is a wise saying : When in doubt, go back to basics !  So let us get to the basics of Samskrutham- Scripting of Articulation .   In Technology terms, this is ' Speech to Text' - 'Text to Speech' challenge.  

Note: This is not lecturing or exercise to earn a brownie point. This is sharing one plausible approach that may resolve the issue debated in this thread. 

           I do understand and respect the wisdom of senior scholars in this forum who may hold a different perspective and alternative explanations.

  

2.    The debated question has several perspectives and  parts, combined !: The debate is not new ! Patanjali has addressed this in the Bhashya at the outset; and declared that ' Shikshaa' is the Base and Basics of Shuddha Samskrutha  Uccharanam; and SHIKSHAA is built  by the standards of ' Veda'.

       ( What happens when Veda itself is corrupted? Go back to the physiology, Anatomy, Science of Human Body as presented in the Yoga and Ayurveda Shaastra). 

 

Getting back to the cluster of questions debated in this thread, there are four involved issues : 

संस्कृत में "सम्" ध्वनि आनी चाहिए या "सङ्" या "सन्"? अनुस्वार को कैसे बोलें ? - Focus  is on Script to Articulation  .

"कृ" के  प्रति में आश्वस्त हूँ कि यह "ऋ" के अनुसार बोला जायेगा न कि "रि" या "रु" |  Exclusion of Phonetic value linked to a script symbol .A filtering criterion. 

लिप्यन्तरण में कैसे लिखा जाए, यह प्रश्न बाद का है, परन्तु कैसे उच्चारण किया जाए वह पहले निर्विवादित होना चाहिए |  Scripting and Transcription / Transliteration - Porting of phonetic value across scripts of different alphabet sets using languages.

इस समय में मात्र लिखित से अधिक दृश्य और श्रव्य माध्यम भी उपलब्ध हैं यथा youtube, howtopronounce.com इत्यादि, हमें उनका उपयोग कर कोई मानक उच्चारण नहीं बना देना चाहिए ? रोमन लिपि में कैसे लिखा जायेगा यह मेरे लिए सबसे निम्न वरीयता का प्रश्न है | - Challenges of Self- Learning  Sanskrit / Corrections to available resources using  digital media resources thrown in to cyber space by enthusiastic volunteers desiring ' Glory of Sanskrit'   :: The challenge of ' Samskrutha Shuddha Uccharanam ' ( as Patanjali declared :  शुद्धाः पठ्यन्ते 

 And these can be resolved only when  Paniniya Samskrutham is studied  as 'Vedanga,  Yoga- Bhashaa, Vak- yoga'  using the ' base and basics of Paniniya Shikshaa'. Any other model would be improper pedagogy and inappropriate. 

{ Ground reality hypothesis taken to build the above position   are as follows :

 ( i) Devanagari scripting of current period (  and used in digital devices / computers as Fonts/ Glyphs) is not the ancient original historical script of Samskrutham, which can be pushed back to the time of Panini or earlier to him !  The ' script of that earlier period  could be any thing  per wild guess, fancy and strong voice of proposing  scholar, to be called as  -  Brahmi, Cuneiform, Hieroglyph,  PIE Script,  IVC seal script, ancient Tamil ….. .  

        Therefore, if the Word form has been derived using Paninian rules, then the base of ' Paninian rules': namely the Maheswara Sutra  Varna -Samaamnaaya' needs to be implicitly accepted for its ' Phonetic Value'.  If English does not have the script / phonetic equivalent for the ' Varna -  ऋ ', then the scripting of the word '  संस्कृतं / सं स्कृ त  म्  using characters of Roman alphabet set always causes a confusion. 

(ii)   What we have for current debate  is having a focus on specific scripting convention of  Indic Brahmi languages - human voice as  a ' Devanagari Script standard form '.   The technical traditional name for this is ' lipi-Shaastra' : a forgotten tradition in Indian Linguistics ; and ignored / discredited in other wise academic linguistics ! The available studies have a heavy leaning on the ' western model of Script evolution in Social languages, substantiated as ' manuscript evidence'.!   The focus of Computational linguists on 'Font rendering on screen' does not address the issue of ' Logic of Language Scripts' Designing : Why a specific shape for  the phoneme अ   and how elongated sound is by a side marker आ ? and not a Capital convention letter symbol or ' aa' as two characters ?  . The design philosophy of  ' Brahmi Devanagari Scripts' is not adapted in scripting conventions .

(iii)   The ' ( modern) Devanagari Brahmi Scripting  convention'  belongs to  a specific historic period, not older than some 1500 years from now, a human construct of scripting ( mainly) languages of Bharath.  This convention carries  an alphabet set - sequence and agglutinating character representation model to script the sounds of Indian languages.  This ' Character set, sequence, structure of Devanagari Brahmi/ Naagari' is different from the  foreign languages   like  Latin- Greek, Hebrew, Modern English, Aramaic, French, German, Chinese, Japanese's, Thai...  and  'Within India language scripts  also, like Gujrati, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Tulu and the like. 

        The  adoption of  common character set does not make strong ground to make phonetic equivalence of scripted form same across languages.  This argument, possibly opens a new line of exploration on Samskruth- Prakruth relations as ' Common Shikshaa- Different Grammars' model of language relations.    

(iv) The Script Symbol- Sound Value association in modern Devanagari Brahmi Scripting uses the ' Character set- sequence' provided by the Shikshaa Shaastras (  and probably some from Praatishaakhyas). The history of 'Shikshaa shastra based Character set -sequence' goes back to Pre-Paninian period; and forms a foundational input to build the rules of   Vedanga- Vyakarana  (grammar) . 

   Here also, regional languages have a slight variation in the Swaras- Vyanjanas compared to  Paninian Shikshaa set. The significance of these variations in base set of  'Swara- Vyanjana'-  phonemes  is a key issue that needs to be understood and  highlighted in Samskruth studies. So also is the issue of ' Accent marking on Swaras'-  a convention which historically goes back way before the IPA diacritic conventions ! and Arabic scripting conventions ;  and European language scripts differences .

These  prime issue are addressed in the Vedanga Vyakarana Texts as : How does the speaker  make a ' Word' ( Technically ' Pada' -  which is carved out from ' given base Prakruti' by addition of ' prataya' ( meaning modifiers) using a set of processing rules ( - Prakriyaa) and make it  a part of 'Communicative Sentence (= Vaakya) , which is ARTICULATED ( =  उच्चारित ) . This is what Patanjali brings up right upfront in the discussion : ' That is a 'Shabda' - by articulation of which the ' communicative meaning is conveyed  ( - येन उच्चारितेन संप्रत्ययो भवति  स शब्दः ) This is also the reason to carefully understand the opening question of Vedanga Vyakarana  reading ' अथ शब्दानुशासनम्  and NOT as ' पदानुशासनम्  or  वाक्यानुशासनम्  '). 

The tradition of 'Vedanga Vyakarana' has kept its unmodified singular focus on ' SHUDDHA  UCCHARANA' ; and has not diluted itself to the debate of 'How to Script a sound'.  The decoding of scripted text was the exclusive domain and skill of the Masters of Language Traditions ( Achaarya ). The scripting conventions of Veda- Shaastra related were held by Shaastra -Guru- Kuls; The scripting conventions  of state administration were regulated by the State education ( Raja - Guru - Kulas / Vanik- Vyavahara - Guru Kulas).  

Shikshaa Shaastra provides the ' Voice - Pronunciation basics  of Vedanga Vyakarana; and delegates the 'scripting convention to another discipline called ' LIPI -Shaastra'.  LIPI-Shaastra has different conventions in domain specific applications - as ' Bhoota- Akshara lipi ( for Tantras), Bhashaa Lipi for Administration ( Artha Shaastra Vyavahara), Encrypted Scripting for Secure transmission of messages ( Guhya / Goodha lipi), Popular language scripts by regions ( desha bhashaa lipi). 

In other words,  The scripted form and convention  is RIGHT  for SAMSKRUTHAM if it yields the '  Shuddha - uccharana of Pada /Shabda'. If not, it is NOT ! It does not matter who promoted the convention -  Be it Harvard Kyoto, or ISCII  or  IPA diacritics.  

The corollaries  of this are : 

Samskrutha Shabda can not be scripted properly using  ' arbitrary spelling model conventions of users choice scripting language'. Any effort to do this will always lead to a cleavage between the ' Scripted Text  and  Articulated Sound'.  

Samskrutham can not be taught- learnt as  ' Shuddha - Bhashaa'  just based on scripted book model resources, device centric voice repeaters in applications which carry  regional language flavors ;   Learning Samskrutham as ' Classical Language: meaning NOT SPOKEN/ NOT ARTICUALTED  is an Oxymoron that damages the 'Paninian Tradition' and along with it pulls down the ' Vedic Education- application- utilities'. An error of modeling the pedagogy of Samskrutham in the last three hundred years  can not be allowed to kill the Paninian pedagogy of Samskrutham with a grater historicity and practical utility. 

I stand open for correction on the above points, by the learned scholars. 

Regards

BVK Sastry

  

 retrieving the 

< regional variation in the pronunciation of r̥ is very old and the evidence comes from many sources including Prakrits/Pali.  The Pāli words miga [Skt. mr̥ga], tiṇa [Skt. tr̥na], kicca [Skt. kr̥tya] indicate the "(r)i" pronunciation, but the same language has kata [Skt. kr̥ta], mata [Skt. mr̥ta] indicating the "a(r) or (r)a".  The vernacular variations of Kr̥ṣṇa as kaṇṇa, kānhā, kisnā, kisan etc, indicate a similar variation.  The English spelling "Sanskrit" is probably based on what the British heard in north 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.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

 

Regards

 

Dr. B V Venkatakrishna Sastry
(G-Mail)

 

 

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Dr. BVK and friends,

I would think that we avoid using phonetic transliteration as much as possible

such that the words read as we might speak.  Hence I suggest replacing "kru"

with "kR" and do reevision wherever we can.  Our goal must be not that the 

reader may read but to drive the point that the sound is important.  Hopefully 

individual efforts locally would catch up to help clear the articulation.

Thank you.

BM   

[RamanaMurthy Bathala]

Dear Sir,

One more pronunciation "SUNSCRIT"

Regards

Ramana murthy