Is Sri Rama Jayam wrong?

[Ramesh Kn]

Is Sri Rama Jayam wrong? (In Tamil, ज is made जे  & finished with a anusvaar.)

Heard  श्री रामजय: is grammatically correct.

Why? 

[Jsr Prasad]

If it is wrong in Tamil, then it is wrong in Telugu too.

श्री-राम-जयः is a three word tatpurusha compound. 'जय' word is declined in masculine gender that has 'जि' (-to conquer) as it's verbal root.

--
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.

--

Dr. J.S.R. Anjaneya Prasad,
Associate Professor & Head, Dept. of Sanskrit Studies,
School of Humanities, University of Hyderabad,
Prof. C.R. Rao Road, Hyderabad - 500 046
Tel: +91-40-2313 3803

।। पुरुषोऽयं लोकसम्मितः ।।

[V Subrahmanian]

I think if taken in Tamil, the meaning will still mean the same: let there be victory to Rama. srī rāmanukku jeyam (āgaṭṭum).  

regards

vs

[Jsr Prasad]

True sir. It is same with Telugu. śrīrāmuniki jayamu (agugāka).

Regards,

Prasad

[K.N.RAMESH]

Thanks.

any vyakarana sutras for supporting this sir or to disprove sriramajayam.....?

--
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/g-MUwl0Skn8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Prof. Prasad has already said that the Sanskrit form is श्री-राम-जयः only. 

-mu / -m ending is a result of borrowing into Telugu / Tamil. 

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On 11-Jan-2017 11:17 am, "Nagaraj Paturi" <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Prof. Prasad has already said that the Sanskrit form is श्री-राम-जयः only. 

-

Meaning is "victory of Sriama" and not "let Srirama conquer".:

[Nagaraj Paturi]

"I / We wish victory to SriRama in his lOkapAlana (which includes looking after me/us)".

 Indirectly it seeks blessings from Sri Rama. 

--

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.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:02 AM, K.N.RAMESH <knra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks.

any vyakarana sutras for supporting this sir or to disprove sriramajayam.....?

If one wants to retain the reading with the spelling 'jeyam', nothing can be done about it since it is the way it is written in Tamil, etc. There is a place in TN 'jeyamkonḍān' written ஜெயம்கொண்டான்.       Ignoring that spelling, the whole sentence, with 'm' ending can be justified by adding 'icchāmi' at the endश्रीरामजयम् इच्छामि, when the first word will become dvitīyā. 

regards

vs 

[Jsr Prasad]

Dear Bhat Sir,

Thank you, it's correct as per construction. It is tatpurusha, as I said before. But mostly we seek his blessings, as said by Prof. Nagaraj ji. I guess, we do अध्याहार of the verbal form (bhavatu/astu) to derive that meaning. If not, we may minimise the अध्याहार to vernaculars only.

Regards

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

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.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Getting back to the original question, I think we should be sensitive to the local cultural context of such expressions too. I have never seen the "Sri Ramajeyam(u)" benediction used by anybody except dAkshiNAtyas. It is typically written with rice flour at the home pUjA altar, along with a kolam, or is printed at the top of invitations for weddings or upanayana events, along with expressions like "venkateSvara prasanna," "umAmaheswarar tuNai" etc. I am glad to be corrected, if there is evidence of rAmajayam being used in Maharashtra, Orissa and regions further north. I would think that in those areas it would be more typical to encounter expressions like "jaya jaya rAma rAma" or "jai siyArAm."

Historically, Sanskrit no longer quite remains Paninian once it enters the local lingua and both influences and is influenced by the regional speech. As such, I would also argue that south Indians have not thought of rAmajeyam ending in an anusvAra, but only as a full fledged -m sound and that is how it is written in the local script too. My view is that it is rather unnecessary to hyper-correct the usage to an ending visarga, just to conform to proper saMskRta vyAkaraNa. If we want to be very strict about these things, we might as well say that the addition of ending na-kAra or ma-kAra by Tamil and Telugu speakers when naming their boys is wrong.

The transformation of ja to je in the written Tamil attempts to capture the south Indian pronunciation characteristic. The i-nature of the subsequent yakAra leaks into the preceding jakAra in quick speech. In Tamil script, the name of TN's recently departed CM is typicallywritten as Jeyalalitaa. Even otherwise, Tamilians have a tendency to make the word initial hrasva a-kAra into an e- sound in many places (e.g. MS Subbulakshmi sings it as gengA jala lava kaNikA pItA).

In one of the issues of the Adyar Library Bulletin (I don't have the full reference details handy) Prof Kunjunni Raja had written a paper about pronunciation peculiarities of Malayalam speakers, where he pointed out that the word Ramachandran becomes Ramendran in Kerala. The cha becomes ya, which then collapses into the vowel sound in the preceding ma-, eventually ending up as an e-kAra. It would be incorrect to then give a supposedly Paninian vigraha of rAma + indra to this uniquely Keralite feature of a Sanskrit name.

The point I'm making is that correcting these kinds of usages to agree with grammar runs the risk of putting our charming regional diversity at an unnecessary cultural disadvantage.

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Vidyasankar,

     Thank you for your posting.  It has been my feeling for many years that the regional variation of Sanskrit has not been paid sufficient attention to.  We learn Sanskrit in reference to classical grammars and Shikshas etc., while the actual pronunciation of Sanskrit in each region is definitely not critically studied, and its origin and its connection with local languages is not fully explored.  I hope the future scholars of Sanskrit will take up such studies.

Madhav Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

--

[V Subrahmanian]

It is common in Telugu to have names 'narasimhudu, narasimhulu, ramudu, ramulu, etc.'  jnārd(h)anam, jagannādham, etc. are also common. In Sanskrit WhatsApp groups one can see this diversity when voice messages come from Tamil, Telugu and Hindi  speaking belts. The 'śa' is mostly simply 'sa' when Telugu people and even Hindi people pronounce Sanskrit words. In Kannada literature too 'śrī' becomes 'siri'. 

regards

subrahmanian.v

 

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. sAdhutva (grammatical correctness) of a certain expression is decided based on where, as part of which language, the expression is used. An expression may be grammatically correct in a certain language. The same phonetic/phonemic sequence may be asAdhu, grammatically incorrect when used as part of another language. 

2. Purpose of ashTAdhyAyI is to advise about which expression is correct when used as part of bhAshA (Sanskrit)  or chhandas (Veda). To separately advise bhAshAyAm and chhandasi itself means that a phonetic/phonemic sequence which as sAdhu in bhAshA may be asAdhu when used as part of chhandas, if it does not conform to the rules of (lakshaNa found as a common feature of the lakshyas in) Veda.

3. The same applies to Sanskrita - Prakrita situation also. A phonetic/phonemic sequence that is sAdhu for Sanskrit can be asAdhu for Prakrit and vice versa. 

The verses from vAkyapadIyam

ऎवं साधौ प्रयॊक्तव्यॆ यॊ ऽपभ्रंशः प्रयुज्यतॆ /

तॆन साधुव्यवहितः कश् चिद् अर्थॊ ऽभिधीयतॆ // वाक्य_१।१८० //

पारंपर्याद् अपभ्रंशा विगुणॆष्व् अभिधातृषु /

प्रसिद्धिम् आगता यॆन तॆषां साधुर् अवाचकः // वाक्य_१।१८१ //

were discussed in another thread. 

4. The same logic applies here. Sanskrit expressions ( phonetic/phonemic sequences) i.e.  Sanskrit borrowings (tatsamas and tadbhavas) in south Indian languages such as Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam and Kannada are called grammatically incorrect only when used as part of Sanskrit, not when used as part of the respective languages. 

5. Another distinction that needs to be carefully discerned is between words and sentences. tatsamas and tadbhavas are categories of words. When a Sanskrit expression makes a full sentence, then its grammatical correctness needs to be decided on the basis of Sanskrit lakshaNa only. मूलरामो विजयते is an example. 

6. श्रीरामजयः is a compound. This compound when used in the same form as part of a Telugu, Tamil, Kannada or Malayalam sentence for example as śrīrāmajayah agunu in Telugu, it is a wrong expression in Telugu. śrīrāmajayamu agunu is correct. In śrīrāmajayah bhavati, śrīrāmajayah is a correct expression. In śrīrāmajayam(u) bhavēt, śrīrāmajayam(u) is wrong. 

7. As an independent expression, śrīrāmajayam(u) is perfectly correct as long as it is taken as a Telugu/Tamil expression, a Sanskrit-borrowing into Telugu/Tamil and the full sentence implied is taken as śrīrāmajayam(u) kōredanu /vēṇḍēn. If śrīrāmajayam(u) is taken as a Sanskrit expression and the full implied sentence is taken as śrīrāmajayam(u) ichchhāmi, then only śrīrāmajayam(u) is taken as wrong unless the sentence  śrīrāmajayam(u) ichchhāmi is considered to be maṇipravāl̥am. 

8. Study of sound changes Sanskrit expressions undergo after being borrowed into various south Indian languages is already available in traditional grammars of these languages and modern linguistic studies of the same.  

      

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Prof. Paturi,

My doubt is whether श्रीरामजयः has ever been used by anybody as a matter of course. I have only seen the term with an ending ma-kAra used by south Indians. Perhaps it would be more accurate to view it as part of Sanskritized Tamil/Telugu, rather than as saMskRta per se.

There are many such irregular usages gaining ground today. One such example- there is a Hindi bhajan popular among North Indians here in Philadelphia - Jo kehte hain bhagvAn khAte nahIn wo shabari jaise khilaate nahIn, etc. Typically, the singers intersperse the lines in Hindi with acyutaM keSavaM rAmanArAyaNaM kRshNadAmodaraM vAsudevaM hariM. That sounds like it should be saMskRta, but they never supply a saMskRta verb to finish a sentence. So, we should take it as Hindi, maybe? But then, Hindi speakers aren't known to end names routinely with an M sound. If anything, I'd expect them to swallow the end vowel too. The nAma-s then just stand by themselves, apparently in saMskRta dvitIyA vibhakti, but without a verb to complete a syntactic connection. Two weeks ago, I heard the same bhajan being sung by someone at Sringeri. If anybody among the hundred odd people there during that night's pUjA thought about the language and grammar issues, they kept it to themselves, starting from the scholarly Acharya. Nobody thought of correcting the lady who sang.

I think bhakti trumps vibhakti and the vigraha in the pUjA is more important than sandhi/samAsa vigraha for the users of such expressions. Various constructions, regular and irregular, capture their imaginations and vyAkaraNa has to step back! There is an avyAkRta groundswell from which the nAma and rUpa of such usages spring. Perhaps they should just stay as they are, to preserve their original flavor, without being corrected for classical grammar?!!

Best regards,
Vidyasankar

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Poojya Vidyasankarji,

How about the chaturthee in this haunting (literally for Sanskrit scholars) lyric on Ganesha?

http://musiclyrics.in/6824/gananayakaya-ganadaivataya-song-lyrics-vinayaka-chaturthi-2014-songs-download/

https://youtu.be/dQulRe5bE9o

--
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.

[K S Kannan]

Or even

pūjyāya rāghavendrāya

    satyadharmaratāya ca/

bhajatāṁ kalpavṛkṣāya

    namatāṁ kāmadhenave//

which also has no verb.

[Radhakrishnan C S]

There is a second hemistich for the sloka ' acyutam ....' It is ' sreedharam mAdhavam gopikAvallabham jAnakeenAyakam rAmacandram  bhaje ' . The verb is at the end. Another song is Sri. Annamacharya's 'venkatAcala nilayam vaikuntha puravAsam... Through out it is in accusative singular.. Perhaps a stanza of this yet to be traced for the completion with a verb.

Wishing all members a happy Pongal / Makara Sankranthi

Radhakrishnan 

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 at 6:18 PM, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Or even

pūjyāya rāghavendrāya

    satyadharmaratāya ca/

bhajatāṁ kalpavṛkṣāya

    namatāṁ kāmadhenave//

which also has no verb.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Poojya Vidyasankarji,

How about the chaturthee in this haunting (literally for Sanskrit scholars) lyric on Ganesha?

http://musiclyrics.in/6824/gananayakaya-ganadaivataya-song-lyrics-vinayaka-chaturthi-2014-songs-download/

https://youtu.be/dQulRe5bE9o

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Prof. Paturi,





My doubt is whether श्रीरामजयः has ever been used by anybody as a matter of course. I have only seen the term with an ending ma-kAra used by south Indians. Perhaps it would be more accurate to view it as part of Sanskritized Tamil/Telugu, rather than as saMskRta per se.





There are many such irregular usages gaining ground today. One such example- there is a Hindi bhajan popular among North Indians here in Philadelphia - Jo kehte hain bhagvAn khAte nahIn wo shabari jaise khilaate nahIn, etc. Typically, the singers intersperse the lines in Hindi with acyutaM keSavaM rAmanArAyaNaM kRshNadAmodaraM vAsudevaM hariM. That sounds like it should be saMskRta, but they never supply a saMskRta verb to finish a sentence. So, we should take it as Hindi, maybe? But then, Hindi speakers aren't known to end names routinely with an M sound. If anything, I'd expect them to swallow the end vowel too. The nAma-s then just stand by themselves, apparently in saMskRta dvitIyA vibhakti, but without a verb to complete a syntactic connection. Two weeks ago, I heard the same bhajan being sung by someone at Sringeri. If anybody among the hundred odd people there during that night's pUjA thought about the language and grammar issues, they kept it to themselves, starting from the scholarly Acharya. Nobody thought of correcting the lady who sang.





I think bhakti trumps vibhakti and the vigraha in the pUjA is more important than sandhi/samAsa vigraha for the users of such expressions. Various constructions, regular and irregular, capture their imaginations and vyAkaraNa has to step back! There is an avyAkRta groundswell from which the nAma and rUpa of such usages spring. Perhaps they should just stay as they are, to preserve their original flavor, without being corrected for classical grammar?!!





Best regards,


Vidyasankar

--


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.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, 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.

--

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.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

😃

That is based on usages with Arsha sanction, found in the various Gayatri like mantras for various devatAs, isn't it? How can/should a strict vaiyAkaraNika emend such compositions?

Namaskaras,
Vidyasankar

[Nagaraj Paturi]

If that is an Aarsha work, yes, we should not dare to correct or find fault. 

I am sorry, I did not know Chaturthee + dheemahi in that was aarsha. 

I just wanted to say that such popular lyrics have some errors. 

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com> wrote:

😃

That is based on usages with Arsha sanction, found in the various Gayatri like mantras for various devatAs, isn't it? How can/should a strict vaiyAkaraNika emend such compositions?

Namaskaras,

Vidyasankar

--
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.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Indeed, Prof. Paturiji, I'm not saying the usage is not erroneous. However, caturthI + dhImahi is seen in mantras like,

tatpurushAya vidmahe mahAdevAya dhImahi | tanno rudraH pracodayAt ||,

which are found in the ending mahAnArayaNa upanishat of the taittirIya SAkhA. There are mantras with vakratuNDAya, mahAsenAya, suvarNapakshAya, hiraNyagarbhAya, vAsudevAya, tIkshNadaMshTrAya, mahadyutikarAya and lAlIlAya before dhImahi, as well. I'm told that what is called the drAviDa pATha only has some of these mantras, but the version that is called the Andhra pATha has them all. (As an aside, my own adhyayana is as per the Andhra pATha, although I am from a drAviDa desha family!)

Of course, recently composed lyrics like "gaNanAyakAya ... .. dhImahi" are not Arsha, but I think they borrow the idea from having heard such mantras.

The other issue is about the age of specific usages. I expect lyrics of 20th century compositions that have been popularized in recent times to have more errors than otherwise. Perhaps people who compose such things can get better educated and vyAkaraNa vidvAns can help there.

However, with a term like SrIrAmajayam (typically written as jeyam), which has no known author and which has been in use for much longer, should we necessarily emend it to have a visarga at the end, in order to make it into a samAsa that is grammatically proper? Yes, as it stands, the construction is unsound, as per Sanskrit grammar, but is it necessarily wrong, within the cultural context (presumably south Indian) in which it was born and has been used? 

I'm raising a socio-cultural point built into the title of this thread, one which stands outside of the rules of grammar, obviously, so I seek kshamA from the Paninian scholars on this list for it! 

Namaskaras,

Vidyasankar

                    
On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 8:51:59 AM UTC-5, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

If that is an Aarsha work, yes, we should not dare to correct or find fault. 

I am sorry, I did not know Chaturthee + dheemahi in that was aarsha. 

I just wanted to say that such popular lyrics have some errors. 

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com> wrote:

😃

That is based on usages with Arsha sanction, found in the various Gayatri like mantras for various devatAs, isn't it? How can/should a strict vaiyAkaraNika emend such compositions?

Namaskaras,

Vidyasankar

--
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.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 8:11:09 AM UTC-5, Radhakrishnan C S wrote:

There is a second hemistich for the sloka ' acyutam ....' It is ' sreedharam mAdhavam gopikAvallabham jAnakeenAyakam rAmacandram  bhaje ' . The verb is at the end.

Indeed there is, but to date, I've never heard anyone singing that second line as part of their bhajan rendition. The entire rendition gets done with just the first half used as a refrain.

 

Another song is Sri. Annamacharya's 'venkatAcala nilayam vaikuntha puravAsam... Through out it is in accusative singular.. Perhaps a stanza of this yet to be traced for the completion with a verb.

This song is attributed to Purandaradasa and has the mudra, purandara viTThalam, in the end. 

Even a musician-composer like Muthuswami Dikshita, an acknowledged scholar of Sanskrit, has at least one Kriti to his credit, kaumAri gaurIvelAvali, which is basically a nAmAvalI, all in sambodhana, with no verb to finish a grammatical sentence. The composition is included in the sangIta sampradAya pradarSini of Subbarama Dikshita, so it has to be taken as genuine as it is. 

Best regards, and happy Pongal / Sankranti wishes,

Vidyasankar 

    

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri Ramajayam need not be corrected. It need not be treated as an expression in a Sanskrit sentence at all. It can comfirtably be treated as a local language expression , a siddhasamAsa borrowed from Sanskrit and can be left uncorrected , not needing correction.  

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.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Correction:

It can comfortably be treated as a local language expression........ 

not

It can comfirtably be treated as a local language expression........