Use of anusvāra: Sanskrit texts written in Kannada script

[Nityānanda Miśra]

It is good to see that at least some (or all?) ‘vaiyākaraṇas’ of Karnataka like S Jagannatha have preserved the ‘pañcama varṇas’ in in Kannada script. It hurts to see that verses of even original verses of the ‘Bhagavad-Gītā’ are printed with the ‘anusvāra’ replacing ‘pañcama varṇas’ where it should not. No offence to anybody, but the highlighted ‘anusvāra’s in the screenshot from the ‘Bhagavad-Gītā’ are incorrect.

Images from—
https://archive.org/details/ashtadhyayi-in-kannada-script_20200831/page/n1/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/ashtadhyayi-in-kannada-script_20200831/page/n5/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/DLIKannadaBhagavadgeeta/Bhagavadgita%20-%20BHadragiri%20Keshavadasaru/page/n13/mode/2up

Thanks, Nityananda

--

Nityānanda Miśra

[Radhakrishna Warrier]

Interesting.  In modern Kannada and Telugu that I have seen, I have come across mostly anusvara +consonant in place of anunāsika (i.e., pañcama varṇa) +consonant.  

For example: 

Pāṃḍava in place of Pāṇḍava (ಪಾಂಡವ, పాండవ in place of  ಪಾಣ್ಡವ, పాణ్డవ) 

In Malayalam, we use anunāsika (i.e., pañcama varṇa) +consonant, except when the consonant happens to be kh, g, and gh. 

For example പാണ്ഡവ (Pāṇḍava) not പാംഡവ (Pāṃḍava). 

However, it is ശംഖ (śaṃkha), ഗംഗ (gaṃga), and സംഘ (saṃgha). 

Regards, 

Radhakrishna Warrier 

---

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Nityānanda Miśra <nmi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 9:02 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>; नवोन्मेष <Navo...@googlegroups.com>; sams...@googlegroups.com <sams...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Use of anusvāra: Sanskrit texts written in Kannada script

 

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAATk%3DrDUB8Q4ncF3FMRtpbbHGWs2y_hC1a_T9Mq7iEaBYs4A%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Shashi Joshi]

It is there in many manuscripts as well, so not just a print press issue.

https://archive.org/details/DeviMahatmyaBhavaniSahasranama50275034Alm22Shlf5DevanagariTantra_201608/page/n5/mode/1up

One can see from top line onwards:

गंभीर   चंडी  शाकंवरी  मार्कंडेय etc

In manuscripts, it could save a lot of space overall.

Since the pancham-varNa is understood based on grammar, where it is anunAsika, I think it is unambiguous usage, and hence continued.

Thanks,

~ Shashi

[Shrikant Jamadagni]

Dear all

On this issue this is the opinion of Vaman Shivaram Apte in the Preface to his 1st edition of Students English-Sanskrit dictionary :-

"Throughout the work the usual practice of representing every anusvara in the body of the word by its corresponding nasals has been rejected and the anusvara sign is invariably used, where usually a nasal would stand. I have not been able to understand the principle on which scholars reject this system and betake themselves solely to the other; though the anusvara system is most convenient in printing, and occasionally saves much misunderstanding. Besides, it is a practice generally followed in our old Manuscripts, and is sanctioned by Panini as being optional ..."

thanks

Shrikant Jamadagni
Bengaluru

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANu%2BFoCuZOhAT028Q4A1C723jOOmR7meaXVgRnG%2Bw7D_7uKupw%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Adhering to the varga-pañcama may be welcome in Sanskrit circles,

but is much resented/even ridiculed in the context of modern Kannada writing

- primarily because Kannadigas, through decades now, seldom see such formations,

hence not habituated to; also it proves "more difficult to write" for these folks;

space too, as pointed out above, may be a consideration. The argument of Apte

and the evidence of Sanskrit mss. (in other scripts too) go to dilute

the strictness insisted upon.

I was embarrassed by some for writing pāścāttya

(correct Sanskrit formation with double t)

- in lieu of the current pāścātya

(or the more horrible but even more popular pāścimātya).

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANu%2BFoCuZOhAT028Q4A1C723jOOmR7meaXVgRnG%2Bw7D_7uKupw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Dr. K.S.Kannan  D.Litt.

​Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Chair Professor, IIT-Madras.

Senior Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi.

Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.

Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.

Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.

Former Professor, CAHC, Jain University, Bangalore.

Former Director, Karnataka Samskrit University, Bangalore.

Former Head, Dept. of Sanskrit, The National Colleges, Bangalore.

[Kushagra Aniket]

I have also seen a similar phenomenon in texts by Gita Press. See सांख्य and किंचित् in the images below. Although these may be excused by मोऽनुस्वारः [८।३।२३] and वा पदान्तस्य [८.४.५९], one is used to साङ्ख्य and किञ्चित्.  

Kushagra Aniket

Cornell University'15

ka...@cornell.edu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7tg6DrHAZM4RofkJkMei5Hmh%2Bf3NxpVjqci8EcOYdMfw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ujjwal Rajput]

पूर्वे॒हम् अपि॑ य॒दा य॒दाप॑श्यम् ए॒वं प॑ञ्चमव॒र्णार्थं॑ बिन्दुप्रयो॒गं त॒दा त॑दा॒ भव॑न्त इव विषा॒दम् अन्व॑भवम्। किन्तु का॒लेना॒त्मानं॑ स॒माश्वा॑सयम्। व॒र्गी॒य॒व्य॒ञ्ज॒नात् प्राग् बि॑न्दुचि॒ह्नं प॑ञ्चमव॒र्णार्थं॑, विरा॒मे म॑का॒रार्थ॑म्, अ॒न्यत्रा॑नुस्वा॒रार्थं॒ चेति॑। नात्र॑ सन्देहावका॒श इति॑ स॒त्यम् उ॒क्तं श॒शिना॑ म॒होद॑येन। न च॒ कोपि॑ पुरा॒तनो॑ वैयाकर॒णो बि॑न्दुचि॒ह्नस्या॑नुस्वारार्थ॒त्वम् उ॒क्तवा॑न्। तेना॑स्ताम् वैयाकरणसम्मतासम्मतविचा॒रः। व्या॒क॒र॒ण॒ग्र॒न्थेषु॑ बिन्दुचि॒ह्नेना॑नुस्वारमा॒त्राङ्क॑नस्य॒ यो नित्यो॑ निय॒मः सोपि॑ वैदेशिका॒गम॑नाद् ऊ॒र्ध्वम् ए॒व मुद्र॑णेषु॒ प्रव॑र्तितः। पूर्वे॒ स लेख॑क॒ आय॑त्त आसीत्।

Earlier, I, too, used to get hurt on seeing the dot mark being used to represent the nasal consonants. But then I consoled myself that it is but a mark, representing the respective nasal consonant, or अनुस्वार, depending on the context. And its unambiguous, as already noted. Also, none of the ancient grammarians discussed its representational meaning. So, there is no point in debating over what is grammatically correct and what is wrong. Moreover, the convention to use the mark only to represent अनुस्वार in grammar texts came into existence only during the British rule. Earlier, it was upon the scribe.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Historians of south Indian scripts in general and Telugu script in particular consider anusvaara to be a borrowing from the north Indian versions of Braamhee. 

Older Telugu inscriptions did not have anusvaara. As such, as a rule, vargaanunaasikas were used in front of the respective vargavyanjanas. 

We see a confusion on the part of the stone inscribing scribes as to which system , the older vargaanunaasika system or the newer anusvaara system to use, during the transition period. 

As a result, there are instances of the scribes using both the systems together for inscribing the same sound. 

Telugu , in addition to anusvaara has ardhaanusvaara standing for an older, now extinct, nasality as a coarticulation . This nasality represented a historically extinct anusvaara / vargaanunaasika or morphophenemically 'dissolved' (druta) 'n', dissolved as part of sandhi. 

This added to the confusion of the scribes and as a result , we see many work arounds employed by the inscribers to signify anusvaara and ardhaanusvaara distinctly. 

So the point is: anusvaara script symbol is considered  by historians of Telugu script, as a recent development occurring through Sanskritization of Telugu script and inscribing /writing vargaanunaasikas as the original native Telugu practice. 

In any case, the adoption of anusvaara seems to have happened as a method of convenience and script- simplification that does not affect the pronunciation as it is the  vargaanunaasikas that are pronounced in the places where such anusvaara is used as a result of a natural partial phonetic assimilation that is compelled by an articulatory convenience. 

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM 'Ujjwal Rajput' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

पूर्वे॒हम् अपि॑ य॒दा य॒दाप॑श्यम् ए॒वं प॑ञ्चमव॒र्णार्थं॑ बिन्दुप्रयो॒गं त॒दा त॑दा॒ भव॑न्त इव विषा॒दम् अन्व॑भवम्। किन्तु का॒लेना॒त्मानं॑ स॒माश्वा॑सयम्। व॒र्गी॒य॒व्य॒ञ्ज॒नात् प्राग् बि॑न्दुचि॒ह्नं प॑ञ्चमव॒र्णार्थं॑, विरा॒मे म॑का॒रार्थ॑म्, अ॒न्यत्रा॑नुस्वा॒रार्थं॒ चेति॑। नात्र॑ सन्देहावका॒श इति॑ स॒त्यम् उ॒क्तं श॒शिना॑ म॒होद॑येन। न च॒ कोपि॑ पुरा॒तनो॑ वैयाकर॒णो बि॑न्दुचि॒ह्नस्या॑नुस्वारार्थ॒त्वम् उ॒क्तवा॑न्। तेना॑स्ताम् वैयाकरणसम्मतासम्मतविचा॒रः। व्या॒क॒र॒ण॒ग्र॒न्थेषु॑ बिन्दुचि॒ह्नेना॑नुस्वारमा॒त्राङ्क॑नस्य॒ यो नित्यो॑ निय॒मः सोपि॑ वैदेशिका॒गम॑नाद् ऊ॒र्ध्वम् ए॒व मुद्र॑णेषु॒ प्रव॑र्तितः। पूर्वे॒ स लेख॑क॒ आय॑त्त आसीत्।

Earlier, I, too, used to get hurt on seeing the dot mark being used to represent the nasal consonants. But then I consoled myself that it is but a mark, representing the respective nasal consonant, or अनुस्वार, depending on the context. And its unambiguous, as already noted. Also, none of the ancient grammarians discussed its representational meaning. So, there is no point in debating over what is grammatically correct and what is wrong. Moreover, the convention to use the mark only to represent अनुस्वार in grammar texts came into existence only during the British rule. Earlier, it was upon the scribe.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1083892907.1831971.1608715734351%40gov.in.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director,  Inter-Gurukula-University Centre , Indic Academy

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

 

 

[Sahiṣhṇu Pārāśharya]

pariṣade namaḥ pāriṣadbhyo namaḥ

I take this opportunity to ask a question, so that I may learn more about this.

In the Bengali script (and in common Bengali pronunciation), there is a change that happens which has confused me at times: 

(1) Saṃgha, even though written as saṃgha (সংঘ) or saṅgha (সঙ্ঘ), is always pronounced as saṅgha.

(2) In Bengali, it is always written 'mīmāṃsā' (মীমাংসা), but it is always pronounced as 'mīmāṅgsā'.

(3) In Bengali script, it is written 'kāryya' and 'bhaṭṭācāryya' (double Y), which in Bengali pronunciation becomes J (and double J).

Please could you shed some light on this, on the correctness or incorrectness of it? I would like to learn more about this.

Sahiṣhṇu Pārāśharya

[Ujjwal Rajput]

महो॑दय बिन्दुचि॒ह्नम् इत्य॒स्य शब्द॑स्य॒ स्थाने॑नुस्वारशब्दप्रयो॒गः प॑रिहर्त॒व्यो३॒॑स्माभिः॑।

---

[Shashi Joshi]

Nagaraj ji,

When you say - "Historians of south Indian scripts in general and Telugu script in particular consider anusvaara to be a borrowing from the north Indian versions of Braamhee."

Do you mean to say that in traditional Telugu script the bindu on top wasn't used at all, even for anusvAra, or not used just for the anunAsika? How was anusvAra represented then? Like in saMshaya, saMsAra, saMskRita ?

Thanks,

~ Shashi

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eYR18ct3L8G8zSi6dAJnN6P6MgErFu8cQSdrnpBHk42WQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ujjwal Rajput]

सा॒ध्वे३॒॑वं वि॑वे॒कः स्या॑द् बिन्द्वनुस्वारश॒ब्दयोः॑। किन्तु तद् बि॑न्दुचि॒ह्नं ते॑लुगुलि॒पाव॒न्यैर॒क्षरैः॑ स॒हैव लि॑ख्यते॒, न तु तेषा॑म् उ॒परि॑।

Good! This is how the words anusvaara and bindu should be differentiated. However, in Telugu script, the bindu mark is written along with other glyphs, not above them.

---

[Radhakrishna Warrier]

I have seen the Telugu ardhānusvāra previously.

అం  - anusvara

 అఁ – ardhānusvāra

Although Kannada and Telugu scripts are very similar, Kannada does not seem to have (or previously had) this ardhānusvāra.

In Hindi, the word for serpent is written as साँप , never as साम्प or सांप.   The pronunciation is different in these three cases -  साँप, साम्प  and सांप.

Is the Telugu అఁ (ardhānusvāra) pronounced like Hindi अँ ?

If I write సాఁప్  will it be pronounced like Hindi साँप ? (I know that there is no such word as సాఁప్ in Telugu.)

---

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 2:08 AM
To: Bharatiya Vidvat parishad <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Use of anusvāra: Sanskrit texts written in Kannada script

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eYR18ct3L8G8zSi6dAJnN6P6MgErFu8cQSdrnpBHk42WQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[L Srinivas]

> In Hindi, the word for serpent is written as साँप , never as साम्प or सांप.

You will be surprised at the number of hits you get when you google सांप!  Also, hardly anybody writes यहाँ वहाँ etc anymore, only यहां वहां  . Even a few orthodox Sanskrit teachers of my acquaintance living or trained in northern India, advocate anusvara instead of the anunasika when a stop follows a upasarga. Thus संपर्क instead of सम्पर्क and संजय instead of सञ्जय on the grounds that upasarga has pada status and thus वा पदान्तस्य may be pressed into service. 

Reverting to Hindi, India Today etc have abolished the chandrabindu. It's all anusvara. Aside from this, the Hindi world is also generally abolishing the ङ and the ञ. Today in a cellphone it's very hard to type शङ््कर ,  you can only type शंकर. In other words you can type Hindi but not Sanskrit, at least not what's being talked about in this thread i.e., anusvara will replace the anunasika (the nasal vowel and the nasal stop) every time.

I  would request grammarians on this list to address this issue for the Sanskrit context (the original post raised in the thread) in the spirit of प्रतिज्ञानुनासिक्याः पाणिनीयाः . I understand in the eyes of the Pratisakhyas, the parasavarna is obligatory  whereas Panini seems to offer an option.  

Thanks in advance,

Srini

[Radhakrishna Warrier]

Reminds me that Urdu doesn’t differentiate the anunāsika from the anusvāra.  Urdu has only two anunāsika-s, meem and noon (ن,م).  The word साँप is written as sānp (سانپ).  The nasalized vowel at the end of a word is represented by the noon without its dot.   For example, यहाँ is written as یہاں 

---

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of L Srinivas <lns2...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 11:47 AM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/bffb7556-3a4d-4597-87f6-ee95e3c353cdn%40googlegroups.com.

[Ujjwal Rajput]

Android - Microsoft SwiftKey - संस्कृतम् - Devanagari (Inscript)

इत्य॒स्मिल्ँ लि॒खँस्तु॑ष्याम्य॒हङ्किम् अ॒न्यद् इ॑ष्यते।

---

[Ujjwal Rajput]

iOS-कृ॒तेपि॑ दृश्यते।

https://apps.apple.com/in/app/microsoft-swiftkey-keyboard/id911813648

---

[Srinivasakrishnan ln]

Thank you, sir. This is useful. 

Srini

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/9OPu9_zxHto/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/229834992.2035280.1608798809043%40gov.in.

--

Sent from my iPhone

[Sahiṣhṇu Pārāśharya]

I found an interesting paper related to this issue (anusvara and anunasika) comparing the pratishakyas and Panini by George Cardona published in the Tokyo University Linguistic Papers (vol. 33, 2013, pp. 3-81). The abstract is given below, and the PDF is attached.

" The development of nasals in early Indo-Aryan has been the object of dispute. A major point of contention has been whether the distinction which Pāṇini and authors of prātiśākhyas and śikṣās make between the entities referred to by anunāsika and anusvāra has to do with a difference in the language or is a difference regarding merely how various scholars viewed the same matter. Whitney maintained the second view. He was criticized by later scholars but his position has not been refuted definitively. In this paper, I establish that the distinction in question definitely reflects a difference in language, between nasalized vowels and nasal stops, referred to by anunāsika, and a postvocalic nasal segment, referred to by anusvāra, which had different dialectal realizations. I consider also related questions concerning differences in timing, transitions and consonant doubling."