Is there any possibility of occurrence of halant after vowel or vowel sign

[JAGANADH G]

Dear Scholars

Is there any possibility of occouring halant after a vowel or vowel sign in any language in the world.
EG. हरि् (This is not correct uesage)

--
**********************************
JAGANADH G
http://jaganadhg.freeflux.net/blog

[Vineet Chaitanya]

2010/9/29 JAGANADH G <jaga...@gmail.com>

Dear Scholars

Is there any possibility of occouring halant after a vowel or vowel sign in any language in the world.
EG. हरि् (This is not correct uesage)

       Halant after a vowel or vowel sign, other than "अ" cannot appear because halant is added to subtract previous "अ" (typically implicit "अ").

Vineet Chaitanya
   

--
**********************************
JAGANADH G
http://jaganadhg.freeflux.net/blog

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

[JAGANADH G]

2010/9/29 Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in>

2010/9/29 JAGANADH G <jaga...@gmail.com>

Dear Scholars

Is there any possibility of occouring halant after a vowel or vowel sign in any language in the world.
EG. हरि् (This is not correct uesage)

       Halant after a vowel or vowel sign, other than "अ" cannot appear because halant is added to subtract previous "अ" (typically implicit "अ").

Thanks you sir. I am asking this because in Malayalm some people argue that it is possbile. Some people uses it too EG. अवनु् -(avanu --> to him). They argues that it is logical and it is there in pronunciation

[Madhav Gopal]

Let us first know what halant is? A halant is a word which ends with a consonant sound, for instance, फलम्, रामम् are halant words, because they end with म् sound (a consonant). In Sanskrit and Hindi the sign hanging below the म is a signal for absence of any vowel (not only of अ). So, if a vowel is present in any form, this very symbol can't be used to denote that vowels's absence.

 

Nowdays, the word halant is also used to refer to this particular symbol, which does not seem correct. Our orthrographic system assumes that a letter is always accompanied by a vowel. So, if you need to denote a letter without vowel, you put this particular symbol below that letter, and this symbol makes the letter vowel-less.

However, in other languages such symbols could be used to denote the length of the vowels. And this should be understood from the writing convetion of the languages, and that would be language specific. The case of writing system cannot be generalized for all languages.

 

Thanks and regards,

madhav

2010/9/29 JAGANADH G <jaga...@gmail.com>

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

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

[amba kulkarni]

Dear Jagannath,

I checked with the Malayalam speaker here.

The confusion is because of the old convention of writing malayalam. In case of such characters which have 'u' vowel indicator and a chandrakalaa (halanta marker in malayalam), the characters should be treated as special one. There are 4 such consonants in Malayalam. So these should not be confused with the regular u-ending consonants.

You may like to check the ISCII document which must have discussed this feature.

In the modern Malayalam, I understand, these 4 consonants have been replaced by special glyphs for them.

I hope this helps you.

-- Amba Kulkarni

2010/9/29 JAGANADH G <jaga...@gmail.com>

[Vineet Chaitanya]

Please note I used the word "halant" loosely for the "halant marker" because it was so in the original mail. Normal task of "halant marker" is to subtract the immediately preceding "अ". If there is no preceding "अ" then one is specifying impossible operation. Other languages might overload the symbol to do some other function.

Vineet Chaitanya

[Madhav Gopal]

On 29 September 2010 16:46, Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in> wrote:

Please note I used the word "halant" loosely for the "halant marker" because it was so in the original mail. Normal task of "halant marker" is to subtract the immediately preceding "अ". If there is no preceding "अ" then one is specifying impossible operation. Other languages might overload the symbol to do some other function.

Vineet Chaitanya

That is absolutely correct, Sir.

[JAGANADH G]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:44 PM, amba kulkarni <ambap...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jagannath,

I checked with the Malayalam speaker here.

The confusion is because of the old convention of writing malayalam. In case of such characters which have 'u' vowel indicator and a chandrakalaa (halanta marker in malayalam), the characters should be treated as special one. There are 4 such consonants in Malayalam. So these should not be confused with the regular u-ending consonants.

 The four consonants are called ass CHILLUS, which is pure consonants where it can exists without any vowel attached to it. These four characters having glyphs from vey early times. Now it is in Unicode also.
It is not the case which I mentioned . some people who works in the field of malayalam grammar and NLP argues that a usual halant ending word may written with an 'u'sign + halant sign. I feel it as illogical . That is why i raised the question here.

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

The halanta sign is typically a feature of Brahmi origin scripts of India. It has to be employed because otherwise a syllable forming -a- has to be assumed. This syllable forming ­-a- is not compulsory in non- Brahmi origin scripts, though in some of them e.g. cuneiform and a few other early middle-eastern scripts a vowel can be assumed from the context creating confusion sometimes. But the compulsorily implied ­-a- is, as far as I know, a feature of some Brahmi origin scripts only. But a consonant may turn into a vowel and vice-versa in Sanskrit, supposed to be a PIE feature retained in Sanskrit. The -ṛ-, -i- and -u- occurs only in inter-consonantal/ante-consonantal initial or post-consonantal final position. They turn into vyañjanas before dissimilar vowels. So kṛta but cakre and karoti. In akar an original vowel (ṛ) has turned into a vyañjana. Regarding that as adding a halanta sign to a vowel is just intellectual exercise.   Best DB --- On Wed, 29/9/10, Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in> wrote:

[pandey pramod]

Using halant after a vowel would be contradictory, in my opinion. The word can be analysed as hal+anta (> halanta> halant), 'hal' being the pratyaahaara in PaaNini that includes all consonants. Thus the word 'halant' simply means 'ending in a consonant'. The pratyaahaaras in PaaNini, presumably, refer to speech sounds.  Pramod Pandey Centre for Linguistics,School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies,Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067 Tel.:+91-11-26704199;-26704226(O),+91-11-26741258(R),+91-9810979446(M) --- On Wed, 9/29/10, JAGANADH G <jaga...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: JAGANADH G <jaga...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Is there any possibility of occurrence of halant after vowel or vowel sign To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

[Vineet Chaitanya]

Dipak Bhattacharya ji,


                  Should we not discuss the facts of scripts separately from the facts of language morphology?

                  I could not understand what are you driving at, by saying:

Regarding that as adding a halanta sign to a vowel is just intellectual exercise.

                 Can you please elaborate?

Vineet Chaitanya

2010/9/29 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

[amba kulkarni]

Dear Jagannath,

I have produced below the 4 combinations you are referring to.
The left ones have a 'u' vowle indicator and a 'chandrakala' - a halanta marker.
The right ones are the modern glyps, called chillu.


നു്, ന്‍ = न्
ണു്, ണ്‍ = ण्
ലു്, ല്‍ = ल्
ളു്, ള്‍ = ळ्
I have two questions:
a) Are these interchangeable?
b) Can we also write the left ones without halanta marker, to indicate the same akshar?

-- amba kulkarni

[JAGANADH G]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:41 AM, amba kulkarni <ambap...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jagannath,

I have produced below the 4 combinations you are referring to.
The left ones have a 'u' vowle indicator and a 'chandrakala' - a halanta marker.
The right ones are the modern glyps, called chillu.


നു്, ന്‍ = न्
ണു്, ണ്‍ = ण्
ലു്, ല്‍ = ल्
ളു്, ള്‍ = ळ्
I have two questions:
a) Are these interchangeable?
b) Can we also write the left ones without halanta marker, to indicate the same akshar?

-- amba kulkarni

Madam

നു് not equal to ന്‍ . I will explain it with usages
1) അവനു് (avanu) mean 'to him' --> here the ending is 'നു് '
2) അവന്‍ (avan) means he --> here the ending is ന്‍
നു് and ന്‍ are not interchangeable . If we do so the morphological as well ass the semantic feature of the word will be altered. Most of the words ends with CHILLU will be in Nominative case.

നു് is used interchange with ന്  .

[hn bhat]

In my opinion, they are specific letters to Malayalam and could not be compared to Sanskrit. These letters are noted as "Adhikaakshara" for Malayalam language, by the writer of Lilatilaka, and has nothing to do do with Sanskrit halant forms. Cil is a special case in Nambudri pronuncitation, just when they recite "gayatri" pracodayaat will be pronounced as "pracodayaal". These are in fact, "samvruta" ukaara, as in Hindi it is "a" is pronounced. The same case with "ukara" if I am correct in my memory of reading "Keralapaniniyam" a treatise on Malayalam grammar like the rule "Kharanunastikaatiprasara" another speciality of Malayalam language. In hindi, it is only "a" pronounced "samvruta" as as it is substituted with VivRuta by the last Sutra of Ashtadhyayi. Hence there was not any necessity to invent a orthographical sign. Since they were considered as "Adhikakshara" only the adhika-letters representing them are provided. In the revised fonts used for printing, to be clear to non-speakers also read correctly or advantage without using specially designed fonts, they had used such halant-like simbols. Software fonts also take it granted for creating special fonts. Also there was a movement write as you hear it. It may also be an influence. 

But in older printed books you will see separate letters for them without using the halant signs.

This simply orthographic conventions but evidently in the earlier times there were no such use of "candrakala" according to Gundert. Both linguists of last century called it as saMvRuta ukaara. While other linguists may hold that it is half u-kara. In the words of Kerala Panini, they are called shorter "u" "hrasvatara" the Gunderts rules of phonetic change and writing system kept in tact.  

 

 saṁvr̥tōkāram, an epenthentic vowel in Malayalam. Therefore, it has no independent vowel letter (because it never occurs at the beginning of words) but, when it comes after a consonant, there are various ways of representing it. In medieval times, it was just represented with the symbol for /u/, but later on it was just completely omitted (that is, written as an inherent vowel). In modern times, it is written in two different ways - the Northern style, in which a chandrakkala is used, and the Southern or Travancore style, in which the diacritic for a /u/ is attached to the preceding consonant and a chandrakkala is written above.

The problem is with "N" is a different one. It is like the Tamil, has two difference phonemes, but with without two distinct orthography for each. Only Malayalam native speaker can use them without erring.  The general rule is like the Tamil, which uses still two different characters :

நான்

It is the same justification for the others also as noted by Gundert:

Malayalam Vowels

They were written with simple U sign itself as I have noted above. Only the conventions can be known by native speakers correctly. 

It is preferable that morphological and orthographic discussions could be separately discussed.

I will get back after some time with more details from Kerala Panini. Or you can yourself search the relavent section in the online Kerala Panini which in in Malayalam:

http://ml.wikisource.org/wiki/KERALAPANINIYAM

With regards

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

[JAGANADH G]

Thanks for the valuable input sir.

[S P Narang]

Halanta marker is only for the facility of students. Hal is an independent sound without a vowel. that is why hal k is diferent from ka. To mark hal is only to show that it is independent. In actual pronunciation, ending hal is pronounced with a vowel in a number of languages. At the end it is prolonged also. e.g. kaaaa particularly in music which does not necessarily follow grammar. that is why ai and au are not spoken in Hindi and it changes to a mild e and o. It is exculsively found in Pali which is a differentiating feature of Pali and Prakrit. Prakrit preserves both like many Modern Indian languages whereas Pali does not. Pronunciation without a script and with script should be differentiated. Regards, spnarang

---

From: amba kulkarni <ambap...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 11:41:39 AM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Is there any possibility of occurrence of halant after vowel or vowel sign

[swa...@asianetindia.com]

Hello,
In Malayalam we have all the three- ന് നു് ന്‍ and siilar is the case
of ണ് etc. ന് is used to denote the consonant without "a" which is
supposed to be there with every consonant for the sake of pronouncing
the same. In the end of words ന് will not stand as such and so
"samvrtokara" is added and hence നു് . Chillukal are consonants which
can stand without consonant marker since they have separate letters.

> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:41 AM, amba kulkarni <ambap...@gmail.com>wrote:

>> I have produced below the 4 combinations.
>> The left ones have a 'u' vowel indicator and a 'chandrakala' - a halanta

>> marker.
>> The right ones are the modern glyps, called chillu.
>>
>>
>> നു്, ന്‍ = न्
>> ണു്, ണ്‍ = ण्
>> ലു്, ല്‍ = ल्
>> ളു്, ള്‍ = ळ्
>> I have two questions:
>> a) Are these interchangeable?

Yes, these are interchangeable sometimes.

>> b) Can we also write the left ones without halanta marker, to indicate the
>> same akshar?

Yes, when they are not followed by a vowel.
A.R.Rajarajavarma has dealt with all these things in his
Keralapaniniyam (see pithika).
Regards
K.Maheswaran Nair
Thiruvananthapuram

[JAGANADH G]

Dear Dr Maheswarn Sir
What I am excately looking is the logic behind using a 'halant' after the 'u' sign. 

[Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma]

നമസ്കാരം,
അറുപതു -എഴുപതുകളില്‍ നു് ഈ പ്രയോഗം
ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല.
During the 1960-70s the usage of yellow highlighted form was not at all
prevalent. It was introduced to facilitate Malayalam Typewriting "Made simple".
I was a student in Malayalam medium school during my primary-high school education.
I remember very well the criticism which arose in the wake of the new script introduced
in the schools later.
 

--

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

--
Aangirasa/Dr.S.Ramakrishna Sharma. M.A.,Ph.D.(Eng.Lit.),Ph.D.(Sanskrit.).

[hn bhat]

Dear Dr Maheswarn Sir
What I am excately looking is the logic behind using a 'halant' after the 'u' sign. 

 

Dear Jagannath,

Our friend Maheswaran Nair also has exactly confirmed my reply quoting Gundert and ARR. It is only merely conventional that it it is used when printing convention than typesetting in the older times have taken place. The sign is conveniently used in respect of consonants with the sign as in Sanskrit क and क् ക and ക്.

Dr.S R Sharma has also reinstated my statement in my earlier post regarding their prevalence.

You choose to call them as "halant sign" as you use it to identify in technical contexts the constant ക क whereas in other context it is implied and technically explained as vyanjana-s that need vowels to explicitly present their audible form. In Varnamala, it has been explained also by the commentators in Sanskrit. 

In contrast to Sanskrit, this Samvruta Ukaara is special character for Malayalam, it is used in respect of this special vowel also, which was always conveyed by the normal writing. In the new printing convention, it was invented to replace the original letters used in earlier printing. The very simple logic is Malayalam script where it can use its own signs. The other logic is if you can use the sign to show separately the "hal" from the letter ക with the sign, you can use the same to show separate "vowel u" from the letter ഉ. instead of inventing a new sign for the use of a single vowel. I had noted this earlier in my posting as it was called as "half u-kaara" by some and with the same logic, if ക് is half of the letter ക, BY THE SAME LOGIC, ഉ will take the same sign with it as half. The final consonants had distinct letters in respect of special phonemes for Malayalam as I had noted. The sign is used to replace them to the advantage of minimizing the number of type fonts (elimenating earlier 4-6)

But on other hand it would be wrong to label it as "halant" sign as it is exclusively used in Sanskrit, while this is used exclusively in Malayalam language and script to the exclusion of Devanagari script and Sanskrit Language. 

Can you on your part come forth with a logical justification of naming the sign used in writing Sanskrit in Devanagari Script, as "halant" sign and the logic behind it? Somebody had raised the same question in a post long ago. Anyway, grammar has nothing to do with these signs used in writing. Thats a different thing. Alphabets are enumerated and explained therein to some extent. Panini notes dialectal variations for some phonemes as "sannatara, laghuprayatnatara" which could not at all be represented in orthography without having the necessity of it.  

To repeat the question again, can you explain what you mean "halant sign" and logic behind using it (the term)?

With regards

-- 

[Vineet Chaitanya]

To repeat the question again, can you explain what you mean "halant sign" and logic behind using it (the term)?

   1. In Devanagari script the units अक्षर (akshar) are "vowel ending syllables" e.g. प्रि (pri).

   2. The representation of simple consonants by default end in vowel अ(a). Thus प stands for "pa". In other words there are no pure consonants(hal) in the script. This has been done wisely for the sake of brevity in writing. So "kamala" according to this convention could be written as "kml".

   3. When a pure consonant (hal) is needed it is indicated by the "hal marker". So it has been recommended that "halant sign" should be called "hal sign".

   4. However, one can justify the usage "halant sign" also in the following manner:

       Because technically one may need a sequence of pure consonants which thus ends in a hal, so such a sequence is "halant". So the mark to show this would be called "halant sign". The क्ष् (ksh) in the dhatu भक्ष् (bhaksh) is an example. (Please note because of the defects in the fonts the display on your machine may not be correct.)

   5. By the way, some people may find it interesting to note the following equation:

          "A vowel sign (मात्रा)" = "halant sign" + "the corresonding vowel"
           e.g. ी = ् + ई

   As a matter of fact the above should hold for all Brahmi based scripts.

   Now, it is also true that all sorts of arbitrary overloading has been done in these scripts. For example in Marathi to write "bara" one would write "बरं" because if one simply writes it as "बर" it would be pronounced as "बर्" (bar) because of the common habit of dropping the last vowel अ!

Vineet Chaitanya

--

[Vineet Chaitanya]

Sorry, I forgot to add that "halant sign" precisely stands for the subtraction of the vowel "अ" from the preceding unit.

Vineet Chaitanya

[JAGANADH G]

To repeat the question again, can you explain what you mean "halant sign" and logic behind using it (the term)?

I found that using halant after a vowel sign is strange.
By halant I mean ്   sign in Malayalam which is equivalent to ्

[hn bhat]

I forgot to add that "halant sign" precisely stands for the subtraction of the vowel "अ" from the preceding unit. 

I found that using halant after a vowel sign is strange.
By halant I mean ്   sign in Malayalam which is equivalent to ्

Thanks for clarification by both. I may add that Mr.Vineet forgot the very important function of the sign called "halant" sign to add in his first post, which I was also intending to point out. In other words, it is used to exhibit 'hal' separately from the complete  अक्षर "क" by subtracting the other letter (which is of zero value in the alphabet). 

And this function is never conveyed by the name 'halant' given to the sign :) It could have been as 'hal' sign contrast with 'ac' sign corresponding to consonant sign and vowel sign (following a consonant), but it would not work as it is alway many in vowel signs differ in isolation and when preceded by consonants and consonant signs differ when in conjunct with other consonants and when followed by vowels and in the final position. Especially this sign is used as marker of consonants in their final position or rarely isolated to the exclusion of the 'a' used in the alphabet. 

By very name sign 'halant = ending in consonant", doesn't have anything to do with its function. It would convey only the sign ending in consonant, which is to mark the preceding letter as 'hal' or consonant. This I wanted to bring out. In this respect, its use is in no better position than the use of 'cil' sign equated to it in Malayalam by function (which is native to that language and script). If this sign is used to exhibit 'hal' part of the complete letter "क", THE SAME LOGIC applied to exhibit "samvruta U' from the complete vowel letter  U IN isolation (both native to it).

Sorry for my cute remarks.

Thanks again for all who contributed to this topic, which was interesting by itself.

[Vineet Chaitanya]

Dear Shri H.N. Bhat,

Please do not try to read too much in a name! Would anybody use "halant sign" in Devanagari, to get hal part of कि?

 My purpose was simply to point out the essential nature of the Brahmi based scripts.

As I mentioned, for various reasons, languages do overload symbols. If its function has been generalised in Malayalam, for the convenience of using it on a typewriter, to subtract any vowel let it be so. Now that typewriters are outdated, it may be better, in my opinion, to revert back to separate symbols, to avoid unnecessary confusions.

Vineet Chaitanya

--

[Madhav Gopal]

On 5 October 2010 11:23, Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in> wrote:

Dear Shri H.N. Bhat,

Please do not try to read too much in a name! Would anybody use "halant sign" in Devanagari, to get hal part of कि?

I think yes, if we want to get the hal part of कि, we have to split it in the consonant and the vowel, and this would like like:

कि = क् + इ

 

Here "halant" sign is substracting इ vowel not an अ.

Sorry to intrude.

[Vineet Chaitanya]

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5 October 2010 11:23, Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in> wrote:

Dear Shri H.N. Bhat,

Please do not try to read too much in a name! Would anybody use "halant sign" in Devanagari, to get hal part of कि?

I think yes, if we want to get the hal part of कि, we have to split it in the consonant and the vowel, and this would like like:

कि = क् + इ

 

Here "halant" sign is substracting इ vowel not an अ.

   You missed the point! The question is does the "halant sign" subtract any vowel or only the vowel "अ"?

Vineet Chaitanya 

[Madhav Gopal]

Sir,

That I have tried to show. It can substract any vowel not only अ. If we have a word like वृद्धि, its components would be analysed as follows:

 

वृद्धि = व् + ऋ + द् + ध् + इ.

Here undoubtedly, the halant sign has been used to show the absence of vowels ऋ, 0, and इ respectively. Thus, we can't say this sign substracts only अ vowel.

 

Madhav

[Vineet Chaitanya]

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sir,

That I have tried to show. It can substract any vowel not only अ. If we have a word like वृद्धि, its components would be analysed as follows:

 

वृद्धि = व् + ऋ + द् + ध् + इ.

Here undoubtedly, the halant sign has been used to show the absence of vowels ऋ, 0, and इ respectively. Thus, we can't say this sign substracts only अ vowel.

   Please note you have not written "वृ+्" you have written "व+्" (व = consonant part + अ). So simply अ is getting subtracted.

Vineet Chaitanya

[Madhav Gopal]

I haven't written "व+्". Please check my line again. We should not presuppose अ in such cases. व is made up of व् + अ and वि is made up of व् + इ. In the second example why do you presuppose the existence of अ. There exists इ only, no possibility for assuming any अ.

[Vineet Chaitanya]

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com> wrote:

I haven't written "व+्". Please check my line again. We should not presuppose अ in such cases. व is made up of व् + अ and वि is made up of व् + इ. In the second example why do you presuppose the existence of अ. There exists इ only, no possibility for assuming any अ.

    Please note there is no basic symbol in the script for व्. So when you write व् it is equivalent to writing व+्. 

[Madhav Gopal]

Please tell me the process of decomposing वि.

 

As per your assumption you will be doing it:

 

व + ् + इ

and it will be equivalent to

 

व् + अ + ् + इ

 

you can again write it as per your assumption

 

व + ् +अ + ् + इ and you can continue it as long as you wish.

 

Thus we will never reach the end.

[Vineet Chaitanya]

Please keep following points in mind:

     1. The script does not have any basic symbol for hal. All consonants have an added अ.
     2. This is unlike Roman script which has pure consonants. However, for the convenience of pronunciation some arbitrary vowels are added which are not really part of the consonants symbol.
      ि = ् +इ
   So वि = व +ि = व + ् +इ. There is no need to go beyond this step because every thing has been expressed in terms of the basic symbols of the script.

   Yes one can add any number of (अ + ्) to any equality. Just as in mathematics one can add to any number, any number of [1 + (-1)] pairs without changing the value of the number.

 Vineet Chaitanya

2010/10/5 Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com>

[nilakantha dash]

Dear Members of Bidvatparisat
I am a new member looking at discussions. First of all this interaction is great.
about halant I agree with Vineet and Dr Harinarayan of pundichery.
to add-
there are ajanta (ac-anta) and halanta words in sanskrit. means that ends with a vowel and that ends with a consonant.
So ac means a vowel and hal means a consonant.(as per paninian system)
When hal-anta sign is put after some alphabet, that means it is hal only without any ac (vowel) following.
Ndash.EfLU

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:02 AM, hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

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

--
Nilakantha Dash, Department of India Studies, EFLU, Hyderabad-500061.
Mobile-09989353187

[Vineet Chaitanya]

Please also keep the difference between the script and spoken language in mind.

Vineet Chaitanya

[VKG]

Pranaam!

I am surprised by the Explanation/ Comment that Roman Script has Pure
Consonants. Which alphabet is consonant?

Similar to Samskruta, an over is enjoined by prefix or suffix. At some
letters such as "Z" & "Q" two consonants are seen.

In fact, the addition of Vowel is to falicitate easier pronunciation.
मुख सुखोच्चारणार्थम्।
Regards
Vamshi Krishna Ghanapaathi
VKG

On Oct 5, 3:33 pm, Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in> wrote:
> Please keep following points in mind:
>
>      1. The script does not have any basic symbol for hal. All consonants
> have an added अ.
>      2. This is unlike Roman script which has pure consonants. However, for
> the convenience of pronunciation some arbitrary vowels are added which are
> not really part of the consonants symbol.
>       ि = ् +इ
>    So वि = व +ि = व + ् +इ. There is no need to go beyond this step because
> every thing has been expressed in terms of the basic symbols of the script.
>
>    Yes one can add any number of (अ + ्) to any equality. Just as in
> mathematics one can add to any number, any number of [1 + (-1)] pairs
> without changing the value of the number.
>
>  Vineet Chaitanya

> 2010/10/5 Madhav Gopal <mgop...@gmail.com>> Please tell me the process of decomposing वि.

>
> > As per your assumption you will be doing it:
>
> > व + ् + इ
> > and it will be equivalent to
>
> > व् + अ + ् + इ
>
> > you can again write it as per your assumption
>
> > व + ् +अ + ् + इ and you can continue it as long as you wish.
>
> > Thus we will never reach the end.
>
> > On 5 October 2010 12:35, Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in> wrote:
>

> >>  On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Madhav Gopal <mgop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I haven't written "व+्". Please check my line again. We should not
> >>> presuppose अ in such cases. व is made up of व् + अ and वि is made up of व् +
> >>> इ. In the second example why do you presuppose the existence of अ. There
> >>> exists इ only, no possibility for assuming any अ.
>
> >>     Please note there is no basic symbol in the script for व्. So when
> >> you write व् it is equivalent to writing व+्.
>
> >>> On 5 October 2010 12:17, Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in> wrote:
>

> >>>>  On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Madhav Gopal <mgop...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>> Sir,
> >>>>> That I have tried to show. It can substract any vowel not only अ. If we
> >>>>> have a word like वृद्धि, its components would be analysed as follows:
>
> >>>>> वृद्धि = व् + ऋ + द् + ध् + इ.
> >>>>> Here undoubtedly, the halant sign has been used to show the absence of
> >>>>> vowels ऋ, 0, and इ respectively. Thus, we can't say this sign substracts
> >>>>> only अ vowel.
>
> >>>>    Please note you have not written "वृ+्" you have written "व+्" (व =
> >>>> consonant part + अ). So simply अ is getting subtracted.
>
> >>>> Vineet Chaitanya
>
> >>>>> Madhav
>
> >>>>>   On 5 October 2010 11:51, Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in> wrote:
>

> >>>>>>  On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Madhav Gopal <mgop...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>  On 5 October 2010 11:23, Vineet Chaitanya <v...@iiit.ac.in> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Dear Shri H.N. Bhat,
>
> >>>>>>>> Please do not try to read too much in a name! Would anybody use
> >>>>>>>> "halant sign" in Devanagari, to get hal part of कि?
>
> >>>>>>>> I think yes, if we want to get the hal part of कि, we have to split
> >>>>>>> it in the consonant and the vowel, and this would like like:
> >>>>>>> कि = क् + इ
>
> >>>>>>> Here "halant" sign is substracting इ vowel not an अ.
>
> >>>>>>    You missed the point! The question is does the "halant sign"
> >>>>>> subtract any vowel or only the vowel "अ"?
>
> >>>>>> Vineet Chaitanya
>
> >>>>>>>  Sorry to intrude.
>
> >>>>>>>>  My purpose was simply to point out the essential nature of the
> >>>>>>>> Brahmi based scripts.
>
> >>>>>>>> As I mentioned, for various reasons, languages do overload symbols.
> >>>>>>>> If its function has been generalised in Malayalam, for the
> >>>>>>>> convenience of using it on a typewriter, to subtract any vowel let
> >>>>>>>> it be so. Now that typewriters are outdated, it may be better, in my
> >>>>>>>> opinion, to revert back to separate symbols, to avoid unnecessary
> >>>>>>>> confusions.
>
> >>>>>>>> Vineet Chaitanya
>

[Vineet Chaitanya]

2010/10/6 VKG <vkghan...@gmail.com>

Pranaam!

I am surprised by the Explanation/ Comment that Roman Script has Pure
Consonants. Which alphabet is consonant? 

Similar to Samskruta, an over is enjoined by prefix or suffix. At some
letters such as "Z" & "Q" two consonants are seen.

   Take the statement in tthe proper spirit. I had already given examples:

        In Devanagari one would write: कमल
        In Roman script one has to write: kamala

   I hope now at least you see what I mean.
 

In fact, the addition of Vowel is to falicitate easier pronunciation.
मुख सुखोच्चारणार्थम्।

   Not in the script. as illustrated above.

Vineet Chaitanya