pronunciation and roman/phonetic transliteration of ब्रह्म, अह्न,चिह्न etc.

[nagarajpaturi]

Was there already a thread on the issue of the right pronunciation, the present devanagari spelling, and justified roman/phonetic transliteration of ब्रह्म, ब्राह्मी, अह्न, आह्निक, चिह्न etc.?

 

If yes, can anyone please guide me to that thread?

 

Is there a discussion on this at any other source?

 

 

 

 

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Dr. Paturi,

In my article "Linguistic Presuppositions of Pāṇini 8.3.26-27" [pp. 23-42, in Proceedings of the International Seminar on Pāṇini (held in July 1981), ed. by S.D. Joshi and S.D. Laddu, Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class E, No. 9, University of Poona, Pune, 1983], I have discussed Pāṇini's treatment of the anusvāra before hm and hn, and have noted that Kātyāyana extends this pattern to hy, hv, hl.  I have shown that Pāṇini's treatment restricted to hm and hn, is due to specific linguistic environment of the northwestern frontier region, while Kātyāyana's extension of the same treatment to hy, hv, hl, is most likely due to the Prakritized pronunciation of Sanskrit, where all h-initial clusters of Sanskrit undergo metathesis.  This metathesis is widely documented in inscriptional and literary Prakrits from Ashokan inscriptions onwards.  The fact that both Pāṇini and Kātyāyana formulate their rules (he mapare maḥ, napare naḥ, Kātyāyana's Vārttika: yavalapare yavalā vā) as option rules probably indicates that the metathecised pronunciation of the h-clusters was still not universal, but only optional.  I don't have a scan of my article, but it should be available in libraries in India.

Madhav Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks Prof. Deshpande.

 

I will check in Libraries.

 

Do you have any information on whether there is any empirical study or documentation of the 19th/20th/21st century state of affairs with regard to this in Vedic recitations, Sanskrit scripture-recitations, gurukula teacher-student conversations in Sanskrit etc. in different parts of India including the north-western frontier region? 

 

Metathesis seems to be the widely prevalent tendency. If this is true, what could be the reason behind all the roman/phonetic transliterations following the non-metathesis version? This is the question which prompted me to ponder over the issue.

 

You are the best source for a right understanding in this regard.

 

Thanks in advance for help.

 

 

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sir

This has been discussed in the following threads:

May 2011 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/samskrita/l85fCym6klM/ZUF-qUbRtR4J

Jan 2013 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/vU7OpO74t4k/IDlOlg3y8lAJ

Jan 2014 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/LCJpMbMywxY/ZVuRPqcOYToJ

April 2014 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bvparishat/tMSkglQYmfU (about ह् + र्)

My understanding is ब्रह्म is to be pronounced as bramha (and similarly अपराह्णः, वह्निः etc.) based on the following:

1. शिष्टाचारः - I learnt Vedic mantras like that from my teacher; all the respectable people in my family pronounce like that; all my teachers like Pumbhaavasarasvati Prof. Korada Subrahmanyam garu pronounce like that and this is undoubtedly the practice of Sishtas in Telangana and AP.

2. Paniniyasiksha talks about an eighth place of pronunciation - उरः. Sistas say that the हकार in examples cited by you is the only letter which is औरस्य. 

हकारं पञ्चमैर्युक्तम् अन्तस्थाभिश्च संयुतम् । औरस्यं तं विजानीयात् कण्ठ्यमाहुरसंयुतम् ॥  पाणिनीयशिक्षा

​, १६ ॥​

3. कौण्डिन्यशिक्षा is even more explicit - हकारान्नणमा ऊर्ध्वाः पूर्वं तु प्रसरन्ति हात् ।

4. Taittiriya and Atharva Pratisakhyas have sutras which state something similar.

हकारान्नणमपरान्नासिक्यम् ॥ तैत्तिरीयप्रातिशाख्यम्, २१-१४ ॥

हकारान्नासिक्येन ॥ अथर्वप्रातिशाख्यम्, १-१०० ॥

Regards

N. Siva Senani

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

AadaraNIya Sivasenani garu,

 

This is my training and my understanding too.

 

My curiosity is about the roman/phonetic transliteration. Why is it not according to this widely prevalent pronunciation?

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Dr. Paturi,

     If you are not able to find my article in a library accessible to you, I can scan it in the next few days.  As best as I know, historically all these clusters are h-initial clusters.  The reasons are not hard to see.  Just as -jñ- in forms like rājñaḥ is a contraction of -jan- in rājan, similarly -hn- in ahnaḥ is a contraction of -han- in ahan.  However, the metathecised pronunciation sets in very early.  It is certainly the norm in the Marathi region today, and most likely this is a very old phenomenon.  This is also a common error in manuscripts.

Madhav Deshpande

[Vineet Chaitanya]

Even in Devanagari the written form clearly shows that the sequence ब् र ह् म (b ra h ma). So we can understand that roman form assumes the same sequence as it is in Devanagari.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Prof. Vineet Chaitanya,

 

Current Roman form is following the devanagari sequence of graphemes/glyphs. This is justified if brahma is the way ब्रह्म is to be pronounced. But this is not justified if bramha is the way ब्रह्म is to be pronounced.

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Prof. Deshpande,

 

To make my focus in this thread more clear, let me frame my questions as below:

 

What is your pronunciation of these words?

 

How do you ask your students to pronounce these words?

 

If you yourself follow the metathesis version and ask your students to follow the same, how do you explain the discrepancy between the roman/phonetic transliteration and the instructed pronunciation?

 

If your own pronunciation and the pronunciation you instruct to your students is not different from the roman form, there is no requirement of an explanation for any discrepancy, as there is none in that case.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

 

Nagaraj

 

[Madhav Deshpande]

I have added my responses to your questions just below those questions:

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Prof. Deshpande,

 

To make my focus in this thread more clear, let me frame my questions as below:

 

What is your pronunciation of these words?

DESHPANDE: WHEN I AM IN MARATHI SPEAKING MODE, I SAY BRAMHAN, RATHER THAN BRAHMAN.  BUT WHEN I AM CAREFULLY READING OR SPEAKING SANSKRIT, I SAY BRAHMAN, AND NOT BRAMHAN.  I DO THE SAME THING FOR JÑ. IN THE MARATHI MODE, THIS IS PRONOUNCED AS -DNY-, BUT IN MY SANSKRIT CLASS, I INSIST ON -JÑ-.  THE REASON IS THAT I KNOW THAT HISTORICALLY THESE CLUSTERS ARE -HM- AND -JÑ-, AND NOT -MH-, -DNY- OR -GY- OR -GN-.

 

How do you ask your students to pronounce these words?

DESHPANDE:  I ASK MY STUDENTS IN USA TO PRONOUNCE THESE SOUNDS AS -HM- AND -JÑ-.  I WANT THEM TO UNDERSTAND SANSKRIT PRONUNCIATION AS IT IS HISTORICALLY JUSTIFIED, RATHER THAN AS IT VARIES REGIONALLY IN INDIA. 

 

If you yourself follow the metathesis version and ask your students to follow the same, how do you explain the discrepancy between the roman/phonetic transliteration and the instructed pronunciation?

DESHPANDE:  THE METATHESIS DOES OCCUR IN MARATHI, WHICH IS MY MOTHER-TONGUE, AND GENERALLY IN THE MARATHI PRONUNCIATION OF SANSKRIT.  HOWEVER, SEVERAL OF MY PROFESSORS (ESPECIALLY PROFESSOR MEHENDALE AND PROFESSOR GHATAGE) IN PUNE WERE CONSCIOUS OF THE HISTORICAL PRONUNCIATION AND EXPLAINED WHY THE HISTORICAL PRONUNCIATION CHANGED DUE TO METATHESIS, DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF THE MOTHER-TONGUES ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF SANSKRIT IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS OF INDIA.

 

If your own pronunciation and the pronunciation you instruct to your students is not different from the roman form, there is no requirement of an explanation for any discrepancy, as there is none in that case.

 

DESHPANDE: THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE TRADITIONAL WRITING OF SANSKRIT AND ITS REGIONAL PRONUNCIATION TODAY.  THIS IS NOT LIMITED TO -HM-, -HN- OR -JÑ-, BUT EXTENDS TO THE PRONUNCIATION OF A WHOLE RANGE OF SOUNDS LIKE -Ś-, -Ṣ-, -S- (ALL THREE BEING PRONOUNCED AS -Ś- IN BENGAL, AS -S- IN PARTS OF NORTH-INDIA, AND NO REGION RETAINING A THREE-WAY DISTINCTION IN MODERN PRONUNCIATION), PRONUNCIATION OF -V- AND -B-, BOTH BEING PRONOUNCED AS -B- IN BENGAL.  SO WE NEED TO DISTINGUISH THE HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE WRITING AND PRONUNCIATION OF SANSKRIT FROM ITS REGIONAL VARIATIONS, ALL OF WHICH ARE PRIMARILY DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF THE MOTHER-TONGUES.  IF THE SEQUENCE "TAD + JÑĀNAM" IS REPRESENTED AS "TAD + DNYĀNAM" OR "TAD + GYĀNAM" FOLLOWING THE MODERN MARATHI OR NORTH-INDIAN PRONUNCIATION, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE SANDHI SHOULD BE "TAJ + DNYĀNAM" OR "TAJ + GYĀNAM."  NO LOGICAL LAWS OF PHONETICS WOULD ALLOW SUCH A CHANGE. "D" CHANGES TO "J" BEFORE "J" OF "JÑĀNAM", BUT THERE IS NO LOGIC WHY THIS CHANGE SHOULD OCCUR BEFORE "DNYĀNAM" OR "GYĀNAM".  

[Vineet Chaitanya]

Namaskaara Nagraj Paturiji.

                     My assertion follows from the general convention of Devanagari script. In this script one indicates the order of consonants by top to down and left to right convention. here are some examples:

Top to down: द्ध, र्प, प्र ,त्र, क्त, द्य

Left to right: क्य, प्ल, च्छ, म्ल

One writes ब्राह्मण as ब्राम्हण when one wants to make it clear that ह follows म् as it done by Marathi speakers.

Regards

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sir

Pranam.

What modern linguistics calls as metathesis is strictly accepted in our tradition only in deriving words like सिंहः from हिंस्. In that view, there is no metathesis in the pronunciation of ब्रह्म etc. The ह when conjoined with ण, न and म becomes the aurasya ह, i.e. ह is sort of "nasalized" (for want of a better word, the upamaana pramaaNa is being used) or as if it is transformed to ण्-ह, न्-ह and म्-ह, due to sandhi. The latter ण, न, and म are then not distinctly heard. Since lipi is always only a linga for varnas, which are transmitted orally, and since we do not have a separate varna to represent the aurasya ह, it is written as the kanthya ह - but this fact does not change the spoken sound, nor is a reason to say that metathesis occurs.

Since Roman / IAST does not have a glyph for it, we represent the aurasya ha as we do in Devanagari. Now, if we change it to bramha etc., it might give rise to moha in students as to the correct form of the word and is hence avoided. Going by the experience over the last few centuries, if we want to introduce a more accurate phonetic representation of the spoken word, it would be better to introduce a new glyph, and make it similar to "h" to indicate ह् in ह्ण, ह्न and ह्म (there are enough diacritic marks readily available, say the breve, sicilicus and the titlo, to be pressed into service). So, if we were to agree that 1h, 2h, and 3h stand for these, then if we write aparA1hna, va2hni and bra3hma then we will achieve more precision without confusing anybody. Of course, the downside is that everybody would have to then learn this convention. 

The learning from the last few centuries is this: In representing Vedic sounds we find differences in different recensions to indicate (in Devanagari) the elongated anusvaara and the dvittva of the anusvaara (Taittiriya saakhaa, Maadhyandina samhitaa etc.), svaras (Rigveda, Samaveda etc.) and so on. These are the good practices as they do not create confusion but increase precision of representation of the spoken sounds. The use of bindu to represent ङ, ञ्, ण, न and म is, in my view, an example that we should avoid. Though this practice is widespread in the manuscripts and in early printed versions, students of the present day are quite confused about the correct forms of the words like गङ्गा etc. due to this practice of orthography.

Sanskrit today has another problem when it comes to representation in a modified Roman script. There are so many encodings (WX, Harvard-Kyoto, iTrans, Velthuis etc.) in addition to the IAST, that many scholars are put off. For instance, a group of students started a study of the play आगमाडम्बरः of Jayanta Bhatta; though the Clay Sanskrit Library made a version in their own version of IAST available, the person who took the initiative re-typed in Devanagari! This should caution us against too much tinkering.

So on balance, my view is that letting things be is the best course of action.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

PS: When I referred to tradition in Telangana and AP, I was referring to pronunciation of Sanskrit - not Telugu. Specifically I am referring to GhanapaaThees and Kramaantasvaadhyaayees, and the pronunciation of Veda by others, even if they might not have completed their Vedic education.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Prof. Deshpande,

 

You said:

 

"BUT WHEN I AM CAREFULLY READING OR SPEAKING SANSKRIT, I SAY BRAHMAN, AND NOT BRAMHAN"

 

Fair enough.

 

That solves all the problems for you. You are not in requirement of any explanation to your students about the discrepancy between the pronunciation and transliteration.

 

My students hear 'mh' and 'nh' not only in the pronunciation of tatsama words in Telugu but in the pronunciation of Sanskrit words in Sanskrit during Sanskrit speaking and Sanskrit recitation, Vedic recitation etc. I am in need of an explanation to my students.

 

If both Panini and Katyayana consider 'mh' and 'hm' pronunciations as vibhaashaas to their respective 'mainstream' versions, and if who considers which as the mainstream version depends on the region from where he comes, I can not say, one of these is wrong.

 

Your reason for why you choose 'hm' and 'hn' is your historical understanding that the 'hm', 'hn' versions precede the 'mh' 'nh' versions chronologically. You are basing on the etymologies too in this regard. In fact historical itself seems to be based on etymological.

 

If I accept that 'hm' 'hn' versions as the 'ideal' ones, I will have to tell my students that what they hear from the s'ishTas is not the 'ideal'. If I ask them to go with the s'ishTas, I need to explain why roman transliterations are different from that.

 

That apart,

 

Is not ब्रह्मन् related to बृंह? (Nirukta does not derive it from बृंह, of course.) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Savinaya namaskaara Vineet Chaitanyaji,

 

I agree. This is true about Devanagari writing convention. Let us take : र्प, प्र . In र्प the sequence of phonemes is r, p, a whereas in  प्र, it is p, r, a . 

 

From a popular/ layman's perspective, consonant immediately followed by the vowel is considered to be full 'letter' / 'akshar' and the consonant immediately followed by another consonant in such clusters is considered to be half 'letter'/ 'akshar'. Devanagari script-learner sees the principle of 'half scripts' such as the symbol on the top of प being used for half 'letter'/ 'akshar' (consonant immediately followed by another consonant in clusters ) being followed as a rule. For him, प्र  appears to be an exception to this rule, as the slanted line / put in the middle of प is considered to be 'half script' being used for a full 'letter' / 'akshar'.

 

So, it is not as straight forward as "One writes ब्राह्मण as ब्राम्हण when one wants to make it clear that ह follows म् ".

 

Hope you understand the point.        

 

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Dr. Paturi,

Just to clarify my observation.  You have made the following comment:

"If both Panini and Katyayana consider 'mh' and 'hm' pronunciations as vibhaashaas to their respective 'mainstream' versions, and if who considers which as the mainstream version depends on the region from where he comes, I can not say, one of these is wrong."

To be clear, neither Pāṇini nor Kātyāyana have openly declared that there is optional metathesis in the h-initial clusters of Sanskrit.  What I am saying is that when Pāṇini says that kim + hnute can optionally become kinhnute in sandhi, the most likely reason could be optional Prakritized metathecised pronunciation of such clusters.  This is not a literal understanding of the words of Pāṇini and Kātyāyana, but a possible conjecture.

The Pāṇinīyaśikṣā distinguishes between urasya and kaṇṭhya pronunciations of -h- in different contexts, but does not strictly speak about metathesis of -h- [हकारं पञ्चमैर्युक्तमन्त:स्थाभिश्च संयुतम् । उरस्यं तं विजानीयात् कण्ठ्यमाहुरसंयुतम् ।।].

The only traditional text that explicitly says that there is a metathesis is the Kauṇḍinyaśikṣā passage pointed out by Professor Shivasenani Nori:

कौण्डिन्यशिक्षा is even more explicit - हकारान्नणमा ऊर्ध्वाः पूर्वं तु प्रसरन्ति हात् ।

Madhav Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

[Vineet Chaitanya]

Namaskaara Nagaraj Paturiji,

                   Let me stretch my neck out and state categorically that Devanagari is a carefully designed script and it does not leave any room for ambiguities as far as order of consonants is concerned.

                   Order of vowel is not a problem because in the basic unit of script, there is at exactly one vowel which  is always at the end. Absence of vowel is indicated by a halant marker. If there is no maatra then अ is understood. Other vowels are indicated by corresponding maatras:

                  A maatra is a halant_marker + corresponding vowel. (Halant marker is there to subtract the built in "अ"). e.g ि = ् + इ

                 As far as consonant order is concerned it is determined by top to down and left to right convention. For left to right order the consonant would be at the same level. In case of top to down case starting point of of the following consonant has to be at least a little lower. द्य is good prototype example.

                 I also admit that most of our Hindi knowing population is not aware of these conventions and I have seen "बुद्धि" written as "बुध्दि" which is clearly wrong.

Regards

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Good and inventory discussion, going around history, linguistics and grammar and the spoken/Vedic pronunciation/regional practice.

The points brought out are the same as in the earlier ones as I had been watching the earlier threads closely and had posted replies in some and now the new participants are very firm in their assertions. Now let me make out the essentials of the problem which I too had asked my paternal uncle why it should be pronounced so differently from what is written unlike ther Sanskrit words? I got only the it is traditionally pronounced so  शिष्ट pronunciation as remarked by Prof.N agaraj, the initiator of the question this time and that makes the difference. It is either the pronunciation other than that is  शिष्ट-s is incorrect and the orthographic presentaion in roman/Devanagari not representing the pronunciation of the  शिष्ट-s is incorrect which seems to be the focus of the arguments of dear professor.

1. The real nature of the problem lies is the rules of Panini do nothing for the pronunciation of individual letters like h, m, n like others. It is left  to the domain of शिक्षा texts and पाणिनीय शिक्षा in these cases of clusters with h and the पञ्चमवर्ण-s make the letter ह् as औरस्य pronounced in the articulatory point उरस् which is not assigned to any other letters a to h in other cases. This makes the pronunciation in these cases rare one for these words. And in addition, unlike other classes like Anunasika, there is not a sign than the popular one ह like अनुनासिक vowels in the regular alphabet list.

So there is no point in asserting that either the pronunciation or the orthographic presentaion should be correct and the other shouldn't be correct. It seems a moderate way as suggested by Mr. Shivanoori to follow the practice without making in the present orthographic presentation making it clear as special case of traditional pronunciation, to avoid confusion to the students. This aurasya ,"h" in these clusters looks like as if they are pronounced mh, nh,Nh as the case be --- ब्रह्म, मध्याह्न and पूर्वाहण the representative words for the aurasya "h" as per the pronunciation guide in the पाणिनीयशिक्षा quoted in earlier discussions and in this also,The clusters not covered are ह् + ञ and ह् + ङ.

It is a point to be noted that पाणिनीयशिक्षा doesn't prescribe any metathesis  as in the other cases Panini  and Katyayana  have noted and Prof.Deshpande has illustrated as the cases of metathesis. This includes the cases discussed undergone in Prakrit words in respect of these words and clusters.

Now the deviation discussed is the cluster of h+ल as in the cases of कल्हार,बिल्हण etc. I have seen these written pronounced as ह+ल.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I read Prof. Deshpande's recent message after I posted my reply. The cases quoted as examples are not at all like those under discussion which he made clear. And in the cases of external sandhi only the rules quoted. It is as follows :

8-3-26 हे मपरे वा. काशिका. हकारे मकारपरे परतो मकारस्य वा मकार आदेशो भवति। किं ह्मलयति, किम् ह्मलयति। कथं ह्मलयति, कथम् ह्मलयति। यवलपरे यवला वा। यवलपरे हकारे मकारस्य यवला यथासङ्ख्यं वा भवन्ति इति वक्तव्यम्। किय्म्\उ0310 ह्यः, किं ह्यः।

There is already म् in the preceding word for which m is substituted in the case of clusters m, l, etc. And it is optional with अनुस्वार and म्  and not between h transposed with m.

In the case of ब्रह्मन the derivational process derivation ation अ for the न् represented by अनुस्वार and it is not the reason for correctness of m+h in the word as it is clear from the derivation given in उणादि :

ब्र(व्र)ह्मन्¦ न० वृं ह--मनिन् “वृंहेर्नोऽच्चेति” उणा० नकारस्या-
कारे ऋतो रत्वम् । १ देवे “तस्मादेत्दु ब्रह्म नाम रूपमन्नञ्च
जायते श्रुतिः” । “तेन ब्रह्म हृदा” भाग० १ । १ । १ ।

The above is the derivation given in वाचस्यत्य.
To be clear the derivational process is as follows:

The root has बृनह  n added to the original form of the root बृहि as per इदितो नुम् धातोः which makes बृह् into बृंह् with अनुस्वार whenever followed by a consonant and here it h and it cannot be बृम्ह in and case to make the word as bramha. It is clear in clear in the verbal forms of the verb. Now coming to the derivation as per the quoted rule of Shakatayana, this augmented न् in the root itself replaced by the short vowel अ and the suffix added is मन्[इन्] :

बृ+अauthother   c न् =  ब्र्+अ+ह्+मन् == ब्रह्मन्

There is no possibility of म्ह as per the above derivation and it is only according to Kaundinya Shiksha that metathesis seems to happen as it is interpreted in Tue posts it is quote  and this is against the शिक्षा of Panini quoted. Both refer to the pronunciation of the ह् clusters differently. And without resolving which one is authentic and the real articulation and pronunciation of the औरस्य हकार it will be difficult to decide by arguments which one pronounced is correct and this leads finally the choice of one of the two शिक्षा-s as authentic and the other unauthenticated or accepting both as optional
which is impossible till the pronunciation of औरस्यहकार differentiated from कण्ठ्यहकार.

[dhaval patel]

Ghsr

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sir

Pranam.

I have not yet completed my Ph. D., nor am I in the line of teaching. Kindly refer to me by my name only. The mere fact that kritakrityas like you notice is an honour by itself. Secondly the passage from कौण्डिन्यशिक्षा was first shared on BVP by Brahmasri Vedamurtulu Prof. Korada Subrahmanyam garu, when he first addressed this question, and I thought that this should be stated explicitly.

Budhajanavidheyah

N. Siva Senani

[Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)]

Namaste

 

On the observation :<  Sanskrit today has another problem when it comes to representation in a modified Roman script. There are so many encodings (WX, Harvard-Kyoto, iTrans, Velthuis etc.) in addition to the IAST, that many scholars are put off. For instance, a group of students started a study of the play आगमाडम्बरः of Jayanta Bhatta; though the Clay Sanskrit Library made a version in their own version of IAST available, the person who took the initiative re-typed in Devanagari! This should caution us against too much tinkering.   So on balance, my view is that letting things be is the best course of action.    >

 

 

This is NOT ANOTHER PROBLEM! This is the major problem that needs attention, especially in Sanskrit Computational linguistics claims !

 

The Three baskets  in which this ‘ ANOTHER PROBLEM’ needs to be addressed  has Three hydra heads .

   (1)  ‘ Script order and sets differential

   (2)    Phonemic Voice order differentials’  accentuated due to first one  by writing  Sanskrit (Both Bhashaa  and Chandas) in the Indian language Variants with a ‘Prakrit touch’ and  ‘Roman Script convention of several varieties noted

(3)   The ‘Accent’ (= Swara –Prakriyaa)  processing issues that sub differentiate the Bhahsaa and Vedas , where in Pratishaakhya and Shikshaa works come in to play.

 

All these are muddled up with add on layers drawn from  ‘ linguistics, translation and indology research streams’ where ‘ language is  considered as valuable only to the extent of  a peripheral significance and as  disposable simply as a  diaper’.

 

When a document in Vedic Sanskrit, a language  which is sensitive to the slightest modifications in ‘accent –sequence and ordering’ is subject to all the above cooking and  is used to derive the ‘Meaning, Purpose and Identity through a Yajna ritual’  as understood today ( which certainly may not be the same as it was understood or composed some 6000 years ago ), and is used globally for ‘Vedic  document and language studies’, How wise would it be wise to take a stand < letting things be is the best course of action.    > ?

 

Wise people to please guide further.

Regards

BVK Sastry

[Nityanand Misra]

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 4:20:29 PM UTC+5:30, Madhav Deshpande wrote:

The Pāṇinīyaśikṣā distinguishes between urasya and kaṇṭhya pronunciations of -h- in different contexts, but does not strictly speak about metathesis of -h- [हकारं पञ्चमैर्युक्तमन्त:स्थाभिश्च संयुतम् । उरस्यं तं विजानीयात् कण्ठ्यमाहुरसंयुतम् ।।].

The only traditional text that explicitly says that there is a metathesis is the Kauṇḍinyaśikṣā passage pointed out by Professor Shivasenani Nori:

I am not aware if there has been a study on this already, but one can go through Abhinavapāṇini Paṇḍita Rāmaprasāda Tripāṭhī's compilation of 32 Śikṣā works - The Śikṣāsaṃgrahaḥ (1989, SSU) - and see how many Śikṣā works have rules which ordain this metathesis. Some of the works included in the book have commentaries. 

As Prof. Deshpande has pointed out, the Pāṇinīyaśikṣā does not state anything about metathesis, and so to cite it in support of the ‘bramha’ pronunciation is not a sound argument.

Paṇḍita Rāmaprasāda Tripāṭhī's work can be viewed here 

https://archive.org/details/shikshasamgraha

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear BVP Colleagues,

     Since several members have requested the article of mine that I referred to in my earlier message, I am attaching a scan of that article ["Deshpande-Linguistic-Presuppositions-of-Panini-8.3.26-27"].  This was a paper presented at the International Seminar on Panini held in 1981 at Pune University, and the proceedings were published in 1983.  The article is only tangentially related to the current discussion, but may be of interest to some of you.

Madhav Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The following is only limited to a part of the theme of the thread, only with regard to  ब्रह्मन्  and related words:

"बृहत्त्वाद्बृंहणत्वाद्वात्मैव ब्रह्मॆति गीयतॆ /"

----- introductory part of Bhamatee

He banks upon this derivation repeatedly on several occasions inside the book.

I request those interested in the thread not to focus on the advaitic content of the quote (lest the discussion should digress from the theme of the thread) . The focus here is only on the fact that a great scholar such as Vachaspati Mishra derives  ब्रह्मन् , at least as one of the options, from बृंह .

 

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I have already given the derivation of the word from the same root grammatically as usual or derived which eliminates the न्- म् - ं - element in the root to get the form बृहि - बृन्हि - बृंहि - बृंह्  up to ब्रह्मन् while suffixing मनिन् = मन् the न् after the ृ in the root element replaced by अ  which makes ब्रह्मन् finally and it is not lost in the formation of बृंह्+अन -- बृंहण in the process of derivation. Vacaspati only emphasizes on the meaning of the verb बृंहण = वृद्धि attached to the verb and the explanation is not in any way responsible for interchange of the consonant in the word Brahman hm  into mh as heard as pronounced. Regarding the two शिक्षा-s quoted, it has been made clear that पाणिनीय does not treat metathesis h m/n/N after h interchanged there position and instead treats the h element as औरस्य. As for the quotation from Kaundnya also it doesn't speak of an interchange between h with these clearly as the Saskritword for the interchange is विपर्यय derived from the verb विपर्येति. The statemenwto hf कौण्डिन्यशिक्षा is even more explicit - हकारान्नणमा ऊर्ध्वाः पूर्वं तु प्रसरन्ति हात् । seems emphasis on the pronunciation aspect by the use of the verb पूर्वं प्रसरन्ति. This point is to be noted based on the meaning of the verb प्रसृ than the English word metathesis or the Sanskrit विपर्यय in contrast with the ऊर्ध्वप्रसर of Kaundinya may be distinct.

And reconciliation with the औरस्य हकार may be needed or the contrast between the two has to be drawn to take a decision on these quotations regarding their pronunciation/OrthoGraph/phonograms.