" ळ " kaara in saMskRitaM

[Prabhu]

namaH sarvebhyo

I am told that there is no " ळ " kaara in saMskRitaM.

However we do see " ळ " kaara in certain veda maMtras and upanishat-s.

Is the absence of " ळ " kaara,  then,  only in classical (non vedic) saMskRitaM?

Thanks and regards

Prabhu

[Sivasenani Nori]

In the Paninian framework (which covers both vaidika and laukika Sabdas), there is no La (ळ). This is the general position. 

In Veda, La is ordained by the PraatiSaakhyas. Similarly in certain places, usage of La is tolerated in laukikasanskrit, on account of aacaara (I have seen a two-centuries old Sanskrit work in Telugu letters using La regularly). The difference is that these La users in laukikaSabda do not insist on La and are happy with la (ल) as well, but that optionality is not admitted in the vaidikaSabda.

With passage of time usage of La in laukika Sanskrit seems to be decreasing. The situation is similar w.r.t. usage of ba in the place of va. Older works seem to have either more regularly, but newer ones and editions seem to prefer va consistently. Maybe the effect of increased communications and interaction across the country, resulting in more standardisation. 

Regards 

N Siva Senani 

--
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.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

related recent older post:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/achyut$20karve$20%7Csort:date/bvparishat/2XIh1ScPBTs/meN6LH61BAAJ

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Another related older thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/achyut$20karve$20%7Csort:date/bvparishat/DxteixbpxjQ/5VsuSrnVBQAJ

[Subodh Bhat]

- ळ kara was in common Sanskrit usage before Panini. Panini banished from its useage.

- We all agree that Sanskrit was pre-Panini. Vedas and even Vyasa the author of Mahabharat and Puranas was not averse using  ळ karas. 

- Old 'Grantha' and 'Tulu' script manuscripts of Itihasas and Puranas do use  ळ karas sumptuously.

- Modern Devenagari editors of Mahabharat & Puranas have omitted  ळ kara and used ल kara in its place.

- In Vedas however due to the importance to oral traditions, pada-pata and swaras they could not edit and hence ळ kara remains.

Hence in conclusion we can safely say that banning   ळ kara was post-Paninian phenomenon. Before that Sanskrit used   ळ kara in abundance without any reluctance or restrictions.

--

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, Subodh Bhat

Vision Automation

#1281, 33rd Cross,

Kumaraswamy Layout,

Bangalore 560078, India

 

TeleFax:+91-80-26609765

Mob: +91-9845756611

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Which Sutra of Panini banishes  ळ ?

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

Probably Panini and his disciples left out ळ Kara to make Sanskrit more Aryan language. Because Dravidian languages have ळ Kara in them. North Indian languages don't have it. They must have used some rule like Dalayor Abhedaha to get rid of ळ Karas. 

Regards

 

-Venkatesh

[Subodh Bhat]

Not including in the Maheshwara sutras is as good as banishing!

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Banishing means saying " it is not allowed to be used"

Panini never says anything like that anywhere in his book. 

The siddhi of a word which includes  ळ can not be achieved through Panini's sutras, since the phone is not included in the Maahes'wara sutras. This can at the most be called a limitation of Panini's AshTaadhyaayee. 

If it can be shown that post-Paninian authors stopped using  ळ on account of the phone not being included in the  Maahes'wara sutras , then it can be said that Panini's AshTaadhyaayee had a 'banishing effect' with regard to this phone though it did not have a banishing statement in it. 

For this 'banishing effect ' to be proved, details of pre-Paninian and post-Paninian usages in Laukika Samskrita are to be systematically provided. If there is a clear pattern of abundant or even rare use in pre-Paninian times and sudden disappearance after Panini , then there is a scope to attribute the pattern to "banishing effect"

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,

If ळकार is not present in the Maheshvara sutras, Maharshi Panini is not to be blamed, due to traditional acceptance of its origin from Bhagavan Shiva.

Thanks to Sivasenani mahabhAga for confirming prAtiSAkhya ordainment of ळकार। 

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Hnbhat B.R.]

In Veda, " ळ " kaara replaces 'ड' kara and not lakaara as in Dravidian languages. There is ईड स्तुतौ in classical Sanskrit, which is used in Vedic अग्निमीळे etc. with जटा पाठ :- अग्निमीडे ईडे अग्निम् अग्निमीडे । ईडे पुरोहितं पुरोहितम् ईडे ईडे पुरोहितम् । पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य यज्ञस्य पुरोहितं पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य ।

I

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Added to the whole confusion is this Aryan-Dravidian issue. 

Long after it has been discarded this obsolete idea keeps haunting us. 

Panini is made to look to be an Aryan -Dravidian theorist, more, an Aryan purist. 

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

Even today we can hear South Indian priests using ळ Kara in Poojas. They say मंगळनीराजनं समर्पयामि instead of मंगलनीराजनं समर्पयामि. In Venkatesha Mangalam and other Mangalam stotras they regularly say मंगळ only like अमुकदेवाय मंगळम् and so on.  They also say काळिका instead of कालिका in Kali Stotras and Poojas. ळ Kara is alive and well in Laukika Sanskrit words today and used by many people though it is not in Paninian Sanskrit. 

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Sivasenani Nori <sivas...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

Regards

 

-Venkatesh

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri Venkatesh Murthy-ji,

What the south Indian priests say is considered to be an influence of their mother tongues on their ritual Sanskrit expressions. That is not taken into account as standard Laukika Samskrita usage.

Such  ळ is found in the English pronunciation of some south Indians too. But that does not make   ळ one of the phones/phonemes of English. 

[Saroja Bhate]

In continuation with what Dr. Nagraj ji has said ,i want to point out that ळ has been regarded by linguists as a regional variation. Panini did not mention it simply because it did not exist in the language spoken by him.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

कोऽन्यथा ब्रवीति। आचार्यग्रहणं पूजार्थम्। स एवोक्तस्थानो डकारोऽस्य अचार्यस्य मतेन द्वयोःस्वरयोर्मध्ये प्राप्य ळकारभावं याति। किं च स एव डकारो हकारेणोष्मणा सम्प्रयुक्तः सन् अस्यैवाचार्यस्य मतेन ढकारे तथा सति स एव ढकारः ळ्हकातां याति। अस्यार्थस्पष्टत्वात् स्वयमेवोदाहरणनानि दर्शयति। इळासाळ्हा चात्र यथासङ्ख्येन ळकारळ्हकारयोरुदाहरणम्। इळां देवीः, मरुद्भिरुग्रः _ 

From Earlier discussin on ळ kara, i Rikratishakhya

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/t66mMJhN7Vc/3ujqOoGJhFcJ

The information on ळ and ळ्ह as intervocalic variations of ड and ढ will be found in the Ṛkprātiśākhya 1.21 (1.51, 52 in M.D.Shastri’s edition) and also in Ṣaḍguruśiṣya’s commentary on Kātyāyana’s Sarvānukramaṇī on RV.1.28. According to the RP Vedamitra held the place of articulation of ḍ and ḍh to be the root of the tongue and the palate. The verse cited by Ṣaḍguruśiṣya is अज्मध्यस्थडकारस्यळकारंबह्वृचा जगुः। अज्मध्यस्थढकारस्यळ्हकारं च यथाक्रमं ।। Thus वीळु and मीळ्हुषे but वीड्वङ्ग.

[Shashi Joshi]

It is still used in Rajasthan.

There are even popular jokes about a newly wed bride (apparently more urban/educated) using na and la instead of Na and La

Thanks,
Shashi

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 09:01:47 UTC+5:30, Subodh Bhat wrote:

- ळ kara was in common Sanskrit usage before Panini. Panini banished from its useage.

- We all agree that Sanskrit was pre-Panini. Vedas and even Vyasa the author of Mahabharat and Puranas was not averse using  ळ karas. 

- Old 'Grantha' and 'Tulu' script manuscripts of Itihasas and Puranas do use  ळ karas sumptuously.

- Modern Devenagari editors of Mahabharat & Puranas have omitted  ळ kara and used ल kara in its place.

- In Vedas however due to the importance to oral traditions, pada-pata and swaras they could not edit and hence ळ kara remains.

Hence in conclusion we can safely say that banning   ळ kara was post-Paninian phenomenon. Before that Sanskrit used   ळ kara in abundance without any reluctance or restrictions.

The logic, in my opinion, is not tenable. Use of ळ in Grantha/Tulu scripts is not evidence that Mahabharata and Puranas have use of ळ. More likely, it is regional variation for writing ल. As far as Vedic usage is concerned, the Rigveda Pratishakhya explains ळ as a transformation of ड (and not ल): द्वयोश्चास्य स्वरयोर्मध्यमेत्य संपद्यते स डकारो ळकारः. 

Many believe the Unadi Sutra-s to predate Panini (some opine they were authored by Panini, one may refer the book Unadi-sutras in Sanskrit Grammatical Tradition by Kanshi Ram for more on this). The Unadi-Sutras also do not have ळ.

[Ramakrishnan]

In spoken Vedic, whenever the डकार occurs between two vowels, it is optionally pronounced as a ळकार (similarly the ढकार is optionally replaced by ळ्हकार)

For example अग्निमीडे is pronounced as अग्निमीळे as the ड् is between vowels; and  मीढुषे becomes  मीळ्हुषे in pronunciation. 

Therefore the  ळकार is treated as an allophone of the डकार

​ (and the ळ्हकार is an allophone of  ढकार)

, it is a pronunciation-related observation, not a grammatical change, hence not mentioned in the अष्टाध्यायी

​.

This use of ळकार & ळ्हकार in pronunciation  is optional, and it does not affect the meaning. However ळकार & ळ्हकार dont exist as independent sounds.

Similarly रकार & लकार are considered allophonic in some cases (even in standard sanskrit, but also in vedic) - for example शुक्ल means the same as शुक्र, लाजा (used in Ashokan inscriptions) is the same as राजा etc.

​There is no law that this vedic pronounciation is not fit for use in standard sanskrit - however standard sanskrit tends to favour a regularized pronunciation ​in addition to regularized grammar - to avoid ambiguities after the emergence of prakrits (since the 4th century BCE) -- you are therefore free to use the ळकार and the ळ्हकार when they occur at intervocalic positions (i.e. between vowels).

नमः सर्वेभ्यः,

Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan​

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I like the word 'spoken Vedic'.

Remaining analysis: perfctly logical both from modern linguistic and traditional s'aastric understanding. 

[Achyut Karve]

The use of 'l' kara in Sanskrit in the place of 'L' kara makes the 'l' Kara dental.  Is the 'L' kara in south Indian languages retroflex as is in Marathi.  

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Yes,  'L' kara in south Indian languages retroflex as is in Marathi.  

[RamanaMurthy Bathala]

Dear Sir,

 

The following is from Telugu Grammar by CP Brown.

The following is from Monier-Williams.

The following is from WHITNEY

Is the telugu letter ళ is same as sanskrit ळ ḷa?

How come? The telugu ళ pronounciation is similar to ల ल la in Telugu.

But sanskrit  ळ ḷa changes to ड or ढ instead of to ल la?

There is a bit of confusion here.

One more thing is there is ఱ called బండిర  or శకట రేఫ (शकट रेफ) . I have not seen this letter either in Vedic sanskrit alphabet nor in classic sanskrit alphabet. Does this exists in other south Indian Dravidian languages like Tamil. Kannada? Here is the screen shot from Telugu Grammar by CP Brown.

Did Panini left over this letter also?

When I was studying elementary classes, I used to see the letters ళ ळ ḷa and ఱ. Now I can hardly see them in text books or newspapers.

Once I asked my teacher like this. Sir, the letters are called अक्षरs , which means they do not have क्षर (diminishing / destruction). Now these two letters are vanished / diminished in usage. How can we call them अक्षरs ? I did not get any convincing reply.

Regards

Ramana murthy

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Ramana Muthy garu,

ఱ of Telugu has nothing to do with Sanskrit. 

It has been included in the Telugu VarNamaalaa because it occurs in dEs'ya ( words not borrowed into Telugu from Sanskrit or any other language) words. It occurs in Tamil and other south Indian languages too. 

By the time of early Telugu inscriptions itself it came to exist just as a  script symbol  reminiscent of a past pronunciation. When it was pronounced, it is believed that it was pronounced as the retroflex version of ర.

Yes, Telugu ళ is similar to this in being the retroflex version of ల. This too is included in the Telugu VarNamaalaa because it occurs in dEs'ya ( words not borrowed into Telugu from Sanskrit or any other language) words. It too occurs in Tamil and other south Indian languages too. 

Incidentally this dEs'ya  ళ is close in pronunciation to the Sanskrit /Vedic   ळ. 

--

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.

[Achyut Karve]

This is an excerpt from my book Unveiling the Atlantis of Sanskrit Phonology.

"In the case of ऋ, लृ and ळ, they do not modulate to the points of the consonants, as is the case with अ, इ and उ. There is a difference between ऋ, लृ and ळ. ळ can be voiced only if it is prefixed with any one of the अच्s. It is never suffixed by or conjoined with the अच्s. Wherever they do occur, they have to be disjoined from ळ. Thus, अग्निमीळे will be voiced as अग्निमि+इळ+ए and कमळ will be voiced as कम्+अळ. The ऋ, लृ. र and ल will not be retroflex in voicing कमऋ कमलृ कमर and कमल, i.e., the sub-apical part of the tongue will not touch the pre-palatal at 6 or 7 while voicing कमर and कमल, where as the ळ will be retroflex while voicing ळ in कमळ. ळ therefore is not a variant of ड़ as is commonly believed. ळ is a posterior variant of लृ beyond ण. ळ is more a variant of र as the र् in Hindi words कर्म and धर्म. In conclusion, it may be said, that ऋ, लृ and ळ are voiced one behind the other retroflexsively just as is the case with ट class hard and soft consonants. For reasons best known to Panini, ळ is not included in the Maaheshwar Sutras, even when it is seen and heard in the Vedas. ळ is a सवर्ण of ऋ and लृ and thus can find its place in the second sutra of Maaheshwar after लृ. Thus, the second sutra in the Maaheshwar Sutras should read as ऋलृळक्. This arrangement will leave no room for लृ or ल to be classified as dental."

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I found that the book is written by some scholar Sanket Deshpande.

I do not know why he is putting   ऋ and लृ alongside  ळ. 

ळ  is seen in the environment /pattern Vowel -  ळ - Vowel.  e.g., मीळे

---------------

ऋ and लृ do not occur in  Vowel -   ऋ / लृ - Vowel pattern.  

---------------

Whereas  ऋ and लृ, like vowels , occur in

 #  ऋ / लृ -consonant -vowel (e.g., ऋषि) 

pattern. 

------------------------------

ळ  can not occur in such 

#   ळ -consonant -vowel pattern. 

--------------

ऋ and लृ, like vowels , occur in

# consonant -  ऋ / लृ - consonant -vowel e.g., कृपा

-------------------

ळ  can not occur in such 

# consonant -  ळ  - consonant -vowel pattern. 

pattern. 

[Achyut Karve]

Do we not need to discuss savarna and its need in Sanskrit?

Possibly no other language uses this concept. Why?

On 14 Feb 2018 00:14, "Nagaraj Paturi" <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

I found that the book is written by some scholar Sanket Deshpande.

I do not know why he is putting   ऋ and लृ alongside  ळ. 

ळ  is seen in the environment /pattern Vowel -  ळ - Vowel.  e.g., मीळे

---------------

ऋ and लृ do not occur in  Vowel -   ऋ / लृ - Vowel pattern.  

---------------

Whereas  ऋ and लृ, like vowels , occur in

 #  ऋ / लृ -consonant -vowel (e.g., ऋषि) 

pattern. 

------------------------------

ळ  can not occur in such 

#   ळ -consonant -vowel pattern. 

--------------

ऋ and लृ, like vowels , occur in

# consonant -  ऋ / लृ - consonant -vowel e.g., कृपा

-------------------

ळ  can not occur in such 

# consonant -  ळ  - consonant -vowel pattern. 

pattern. 

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Achyut Karve <achyut...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is an excerpt from my book Unveiling the Atlantis of Sanskrit Phonology.

"In the case of ऋ, लृ and ळ, they do not modulate to the points of the consonants, as is the case with अ, इ and उ. There is a difference between ऋ, लृ and ळ. ळ can be voiced only if it is prefixed with any one of the अच्s. It is never suffixed by or conjoined with the अच्s. Wherever they do occur, they have to be disjoined from ळ. Thus, अग्निमीळे will be voiced as अग्निमि+इळ+ए and कमळ will be voiced as कम्+अळ. The ऋ, लृ. र and ल will not be retroflex in voicing कमऋ कमलृ कमर and कमल, i.e., the sub-apical part of the tongue will not touch the pre-palatal at 6 or 7 while voicing कमर and कमल, where as the ळ will be retroflex while voicing ळ in कमळ. ळ therefore is not a variant of ड़ as is commonly believed. ळ is a posterior variant of लृ beyond ण. ळ is more a variant of र as the र् in Hindi words कर्म and धर्म. In conclusion, it may be said, that ऋ, लृ and ळ are voiced one behind the other retroflexsively just as is the case with ट class hard and soft consonants. For reasons best known to Panini,

...

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Telugu grammarians borrowed this term into Telugu vyaakaraNa books. 

'Allophone' mentioned in one of the posts in the present thread is close to this. 

--

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.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)]

Namaste

 

Do we know what makes the basic ‘ varna- akshara –samooha’ of Samskrutham? Is ळ a part of it or Not ?

 

The debate seems to be using some dangerous suggestions, needing review.

 

1. The Vedic Sukta ‘ where one gets the sound unit ‘ ळि’   is still alive in usage; and existed prior to Panini.  The deliberated kind of phonetic shift < In Veda, " ळ " kaara replaces 'ड' kara and not lakaara as in Dravidian languages.  > has  not taken place till date either in the textual tradition or  ‘spoken vedic’ or ‘ dravidian langauge influenced segment of Vedic lore’ ( in Kerala/ Tamil Nadu or else where). 

 

If any one has heard /  endorsed / modified  the use of बळित्था  with any of the variations incorporated , noted above , i would be obliged .

 

2.  The new phonemic variant   -  ऴ  ( ऴ    - unicode 0933 with Nukta – listed as a separate Character )   -    in Unicode and NEW DEVANAGARI SCRIPT post 1970  in Digital media  needs a  traditional Paninian perspective analysis . And this extends to several new script symbols incorporated in Unicode for which  Samkrutha Varna-maalaa teaching seems to be still not ready.

 

3. If Vedic akshara-samooha had < ळ  and its combines and conjuncts >, If post Paninian Non-Samskruth /Dravidian languages carry the < ळ  and its combines and conjuncts   >     and current documents of Vedic Samskruthamstill carries < ळ  and its combines and conjuncts> in the live tradiiton,  What might be the reason for Panini NOT to list it in Shiva-Sutras or consider for Pratyaharas OR for Sutras ( and pushing this  ळ sound to Dhatu –Patha / anubandhas) needs to be explored. Panini  must have had a good reason for doing this, if he was so careful to wrok with the nearest similar sounds ‘ ॡ लृ’.

 

4.   This also opens up an interesting and critical debate : How authentic would be the claim of Schoalrs of Vedic tradiiton claiming ‘total rigidity / staticness/ invariance’ of the ‘ Sounds and structures of Veda’  to the last limit of ‘ even a single swara’ ?   Dont we find the phonetic unit ‘ळ’ in Vedas ?  If this phonemic unit is postualted as a ‘ part of Vedic voiced document’, then  why we dont have a conssitent tradiitonal posiiton on what this sound unit should be ? What would be the ‘Veda –Lakshana’ for this unit with all the 33 or 64 descriptors ?  Why only Mantra shaastra holds on to this phonetic unit ळ ?  And from where the so called Prakruts and Dravidian langauges invented or improvised on their ‘akshara- samooha’  and made it a part of  several words ?  If Shiva is  considered as a ‘Dravidian God’, why was he averse to part with ‘ ळ’ to  ‘Vedic tradition rule maker Panini in Shiva-sutras ?  and confine it only to ‘ Tamil’ where the last sound is ळ्’ ??    

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[Subodh Bhat]

- I still maintain that ळ kara was banished from Sanskrit, because of the act of omission. He did not include  ळ kara in his Maheshwara Sutras, which are meant to enumerate the अच् s and the हल् s permitted in Sanskrit. 

- This is also supported by the usage of  ळ kara in Grantha and Tulu lipi manuscripts of Mahabharata, Puranas and other Manuscripts available in various Orient Libraries all over South India.

- In fact by this act of omission, several words in ancient Sanskrit is Lost to us. For example काळ means dark and काल means time in ancient Sanskrit. Now in Paninian Sanskrit both becomes  काल and the ancient usage of  काळ meaning dark is totally lost to us today.

[Achyut Karve]

How do we intonate  काळ and काल so that the words become sadhu words.  Secondly whether in both the words is the 'l' Kara and 'L'kara are retroflex. Both these words are used in Marathi.  Whether they also appear in Sanskrit?

...

[Hnbhat B.R.]

It is not among the varnarashi enumerated in Pratishakhya. But ड and ढ the same described by Panini in his Varnasamamnaya are replaced when occuring between6 vowels are chaned by Rkpratishakhya into ळ and ळ्ह respectively. 

...

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Both words are not retroflex, the 'l' Kara being dental and   'L'kara is retrflex.

Please check before whether these are sadhu words, in which language both are used. Isolated the cannot be said sadhu words or not.

...

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

It is observed in some languages the educated class people can easily pronounce Retroflex letters like Na and La but the illiterate people cannot. This shows evolution and refinement of language requires retroflex La also. Banishing away La from language is a backward step. There is a nice article in Economist blog saying the retroflex letters in Sanskrit are coming from Dravidian Languages. From  Sanskrit they came to North Indian languages.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/02/language-india

But the mystery is why Panini did not allow La when he knew he had to allow other retroflex letters like Na?

--
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.

--

Regards

 

-Venkatesh

[Bijoy Misra]

This discussion is veering out.  

Panini as he claims and as the way one can analyze, is trying to put together

a grammar for the language that is used among the people around him.

He would give many examples where the Vedas would have a different use.

Maheswarisutra is not derived from the Vedas but it a compilation of varNa

that are units of expression.  I have not seen any studies claiming the completeness

of the system from the human point of view.  My feeling has been that the varNa

assembly was discovered independently from biological and acoustic reasons and 

then mapped on to the language to create the grammar.  varNa is a speech unit.

[Achyut Karve]

Why must Panini not have included ळ in the Maheshwar Sutras? The first possible reason is 'ळ does not come at the beginning of a word but the same is the case with लृ.  But there appears to be one more reason. ळ can neither be called a consonant because one cannot prefix it to a vowel because the moment one suffixes a vowel to it it loses its retroflex character.  It cannot be called a vowel because it cannot be prefixed or suffixed to a consonant.

...

[Nagaraj Paturi]

 Venkatesh Murthy-ji,

In Tamil , retroflex L is pronounced by common rural rustic speakers of the language. So generalising that only educated pronounce retroflex L , is not tenable. 

In Kannada too retroflex L has a phoneme status , i.e., the status of a distinct sound causing difference in meaning. huLi = sour / a liquid dish ; huli = tiger. 

In Telugu , we have minimal pairs such as kala = dream kaLa = art. 

Interestingly, kaLa = art is a Sanskrit borrowing. But you know that it is kalaa.

So retroflex L is typically south Indian. 

If Panini not accommodating retroflex L in his Maahes'wara sutras, is to be accrpted as a limitation of his coverage of Sanskrit phonemes, that should be proved by showing the phonemic status of retroflex L in Sanskrit. 

kaaLa does not help this purpose becsuse kaala is used in Sanskrit where  kaaLa is used.

But even when the phonemic status of L is proved it does not support any conspiracy theory.

...

[Shashi Joshi]

Nagaraj ji,

This retro La is common in Rajasthan as well, again, common rural folks.

But both La and la are in use, not exclusive La. But a word that is said with La is NOT said also with la.

E.g.

bALa = hair; to burn

bAla = as in bAlakANDa, but not used alone as bAla, that would be a chhoro, TAbar (child or children), tingar (toddler)

kALa = death, end time, Yamaraj

kAla = tomorrow, kal of Hindi

kALoo = name of a person, as in Kaliya of Sholay

loddo = the head, back of the head, skull

roLA = ruckus, shouting,

moLi = the red sacred thread we tie on wrist

Etc.

None of these words will carry a meaning or the same meaning if La was replaced with la.

Thanks,
Shashi

...

[Nagaraj Paturi]

What do we infer from this?

There are two ways:

Modern lingiists say it is Dravidian influence.

If it is native to north western languages and is proved to be inherited from their Prakrit stage, still it can be said that Panini was not covering Prakrits.

...

[Achyut Karve]

Is there any word whether vedic or otherwise where ळ comes either at the beginning or in the middle?

If not if it only appears at the end of a word how can the Pratyayas be suffixed for the word to be capable of conveying meaning.  This in the light of my previous comment that one cannot suffix a vowel or a consonant to ळ This might be another possible reason for not including ळ in the Maheshwar sutras.

...

[Shashi Joshi]

I just to wanted to make sure members know that at least Rajasthani has a good sprinkling of La all over. Haryanavi also has.

Thanks,
Shashi

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Shri Karve,

     I have been reading your comments and it appears to me that you are not aware of the context of the occurrence of ळ and ळ्ह in the R̥gveda and in the Kāṇva Śākhā of the Śukla Yajurveda.  The Prātiśākhyas clearly state that ड and ढ occuring between vowels are replaced with ळ and ळ्ह respectively.  This makes it abundantly clear that the sounds ळ and ळ्ह do not occur at the beginning of words or at the very end of the words, but they can occur only between vowels, for example ईडे being replaced with ईळे in the first verse of the R̥gveda.  According to the R̥gveda Prātiśākhya, this change occurs according to Vedamitra, suggesting that this change was not universal, but occurred only in certain schools of the Veda.  Pāṇini shows no awareness of this change, perhaps because the R̥gveda version that he was familiar with did not have this change.

Madhav Deshpande

Campbell, California

--

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Deshpandeji,

Thank you for your pointed comments.  It is late night here.  I will surely put forth my doubts tomorrow. 

...

[Venkata Sriram]

Dear Sir,

Just to add :

ळ appears also in स्वाध्याय ब्राह्मणं of तै०आरण्यक भागः.  

1) यद्देवा देवहेळनं......

2) अव ते हेळ उदुत्तम मिमं....

3) अस्मे दीदिहि सुमना अहेळञ्छर्मन्ते...........

4) वातरशना...........देवहेळनं यद्दीव्यनृणमहं...

Also, in संहिता भागः, it is to be found.

rgs,

sriram

<font face="DVOT-Saraswati" size="2" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:DVOT-Saraswati;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weigh

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Sri Dr. Nagaraj-ji

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sri Venkatesh Murthy-ji,

What the south Indian priests say is considered to be an influence of their mother tongues on their ritual Sanskrit expressions. That is not taken into account as standard Laukika Samskrita usage.

But nobody says the  use of   ळ in Laukika words like मंगळनीराजनं by priests is wrong. It is accepted everywhere I have heard in the South. 

Such  ळ is found in the English pronunciation of some south Indians too. But that does not make   ळ one of the phones/phonemes of English. 

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmur...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste

Even today we can hear South Indian priests using ळ Kara in Poojas. They say मंगळनीराजनं समर्पयामि instead of मंगलनीराजनं समर्पयामि. In Venkatesha Mangalam and other Mangalam stotras they regularly say मंगळ only like अमुकदेवाय मंगळम् and so on.  They also say काळिका instead of कालिका in Kali Stotras and Poojas. ळ Kara is alive and well in Laukika Sanskrit words today and used by many people though it is not in Paninian Sanskrit. 

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Sivasenani Nori <sivas...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the Paninian framework (which covers both vaidika and laukika Sabdas), there is no La (ळ). This is the general position. 

In Veda, La is ordained by the PraatiSaakhyas. Similarly in certain places, usage of La is tolerated in laukikasanskrit, on account of aacaara (I have seen a two-centuries old Sanskrit work in Telugu letters using La regularly). The difference is that these La users in laukikaSabda do not insist on La and are happy with la (ल) as well, but that optionality is not admitted in the vaidikaSabda.

With passage of time usage of La in laukika Sanskrit seems to be decreasing. The situation is similar w.r.t. usage of ba in the place of va. Older works seem to have either more regularly, but newer ones and editions seem to prefer va consistently. Maybe the effect of increased communications and interaction across the country, resulting in more standardisation. 

Regards 

N Siva Senani 

On 12-Feb-2018 6:59 AM, "Prabhu" <prabhu...@gmail.com> wrote:

namaH sarvebhyo

I am told that there is no " ळ " kaara in saMskRitaM.

However we do see " ळ " kaara in certain veda maMtras and upanishat-s.

Is the absence of " ळ " kaara,  then,  only in classical (non vedic) saMskRitaM?

Thanks and regards

Prabhu

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Regards

 

-Venkatesh

--
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.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Regards

 

-Venkatesh

[Nagaraj Paturi]

No usage is 'wrong'.

The whole point is whether it is considered as part of the standard version of Sanskrit or not. 

How is the 'standard' version decided?

On the basis of whether the lakshaNa work covers it or not? 

or

On the basis of whether the lakshyas from s'iShTas include it or not?

If the books in laukika Samskrita with a date establishing that Panini knows the work prove that L was used by the stage, Panini can be found fault for not covering the corpus adequately. 

If the books in laukika Samskrita with a date establishing that Panini knows the work prove that L was not used by the stage,  Panini can not be found fault for not covering the corpus adequately. 

If the books in laukika Samskrita with a date later to Panini have L,  Panini can not be found fault for not covering the corpus adequately. 

[Madhav Deshpande]

Thank you, Shri Venkat Sriram, for pointing out that ळ also occurs in the Taittirīya texts.  My point was simply to say that ळ occurs only in some of the Vedic Śākhās and not universally.  As far as I know, the only word where it occurs at the end of a word is बाळ्  in बाळिति in the Atharvaveda Saṃhitā.

Madhav Deshpande

--

[Shashi Joshi]

And what does it mean?

Thanks,
Shashi

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

16/2/18

The retroflex ळ ½ is an allophone of · occurring in intervocalic position. In NIA languages in intervocalic position it usually occurs as the trilled QÌÍ.  P¡¸ini does not mention all the allophones. The nasals are all mentioned including allophones; cf. mo’nusv¡raÅ and the jhal¡Æ ja¿ rule. But one is left to find out which d is a phone as in deva and which an allophone as in sadbhiÅ (<sat).

Best DB

[K S Kannan]

aj-madhyastha-ḍakārasya ḷakāraṁ bahvṛcā jaguḥ

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu> wrote:

[Achyut Karve]

A letter is a sensuos object.  However in Grammar it is appreciated as an object proper.  A thing on which various operations can be carried out.

While I was investigating the characteristics of various letters in the Maheshwar Sutras  I was quizzed by not seeing  ळ included in it though in the Marathi alphabet it was present..

While writing the book 'Unveiling the Atlantis of Sanskrit Phonology' I still pondered over why  ळ  might not have been included in the Maheshwar Sutras.  

During the course of the investigation I happened to draw some conclusions which I included in my Marathi Book 'मराठी आणि संस्कृत उच्चार शास्त्र' .

I am giving below the part relating to    ऋ लृ ळ,

'आधी म्हटल्याप्रमाणे अणांसारखे ऋ लृ ळ हे स्वर व्यंजनांना जोडून उच्चारल्यास ते जोडलेल्या व्यंजनस्थानी संक्रमित होत नाहीत. ऋ लृ ळ हे तीनही स्वर जिव्हा मूर्धन्य करून एकामागे एक तालव्य उच्चारली जातात. परंतु  ऋ लृ ळ मध्ये फरक आहे. ऋ लृ हे स्वर कोणत्याही व्यंजनाला जोडून उच्चारले जाऊ शकतात. ‘ळ’ मात्र तसा उच्चारता येत नाही. कोणत्याही व्यंजनाला जोडता येत नाही. या उलट ऋ लृ हे प्राथमिक स्वर असल्यामुळे ते अ इ उ ला जोडून उच्चारता येत नाहीत. मात्र त्यांच्यात गुण संभवतो. या उलट ‘ळ’ अचांना जोडूनच उच्चारला जाऊ शकतो. जसा अळ, इळ, उळ, एळ, ऐळ, ओळ, औळ.  मात्र ‘ळ’ ला स्वर जोडून उच्चारता येत नाही. अग्निमिळे मध्ये अग्निम+इळ्+ए असा उच्चार होतो. कमळ या शब्दाचा कम+अळ् असा उच्चार होतो. वरील विवेचनावरून असे लक्षात येईल. की ‘ळ’ हा ना धड स्वर, कारण तो व्यंजनांना जोडून उच्चारता येत नाही. ना तो धड व्यंजन! त्याला पुढे स्वर जोडून उच्चारता येत नाही म्हणून संस्कृत वैयाकरण्यांनी ‘ळ’ ला अक्षरांमधून वगळला असावा. पण असे करून चालणार नाही. कारण ‘ळ’ ला विशेष कार्य आहे. ऋ लृ, क या सूत्राचे विवेचन करताना ‘क्लृप्ती’ या शब्दात लृ काराचा ऋकार करून उच्चारला तर अपभ्रंश होतो. म्हणून ‘लृ’ असणे आवश्यक आहे. त्याच न्यायाने ‘ळ’ चा उच्चार करणेसुद्धा आवश्यक आहे. ऋचा, व लृचा गुण अर् व अल् होतो. हा अर् किंवा अल् चा मूर्धन्य उच्चार होत नसेल तर अळ् चा उच्चार (मूर्धन्यच आहे. म्हणून तो अर् व अल् चा सवर्ण आहे.) करावा लागतो. म्हणून वेदांमध्ये ‘ळ’ आढळतो. उदा. अग्निमीळे असे लिहिल्यामुळे अपभ्रंश होतो. काही हस्तलिखितात तो अग्निमईळे लिहिला गेला आहे. याचा अर्थ मकाराला इकार जोडून लिहिला तर पदं ‘मी’ आणि ‘ळे’ अशी पडतात. मात्र जर मकार हलंत केला म्हणजे नि ला अनुस्वार दिला तर पद ‘अग्निं’ आणि ‘ईळे’ अशी पडतात. मात्र खरं पाहिलं तर अग्निमीळे हा शब्द अग्निम्+ईळ्+ए असाच लिहावयास पाहिजे होता. असा लिहिल्यास शेवटचा एकार आपल्या मूळ स्थानी गेला असता. आता ईळ् एच्या जागी इरे किंवा इले म्हटला तर ‘र’कार आणि ‘ल’ कार मूर्धन्य होणार नाही. म्हणूनच ‘ईळे’ असा उच्चार केला आहे. मराठी सोडून अन्य भारतीय भाषिक ‘कमळ’ हा शब्द ‘कमल’ असा उच्चारतात. ‘कमल’ असा उच्चारल्यास ‘ल’ अपभ्रंश होतो म्हणजे दंत्य होतो. हे टाळण्यासाठी ‘ल’च्या जागी ‘ळ’ चा उच्चार केला आहे. थोडक्यात ‘ळ’ हे अक्षर ऋ लृ यांचा सवर्ण आहे. म्हणून ‘ळ’ चा अंतर्भाव ऋलृक् या सूत्रात करायला हवा मात्र ‘अर’ चा ‘अल’होऊन अळ झाल्यास ‘र’ ‘ल’ प्रमाणे ‘ळ’ उच्चारताना जिव्हा मुख छताला स्पर्श करत नसल्याने ‘ळ’ चा अंतर्भाव ‘लण्’ या सूत्रात करता येत नाही. दुसर्‍या माहेश्वर सूत्रांचा उपदेश ऋ लृ ळ क् असा करायला हवा होता. लौकिक संस्कृतात ‘ळ’ चा उपदेश न केल्यामुळे ‘ल’ चा दंतव्य उच्चार करायला वाव मिळाला. लौकिक संस्कृत यामुळे अपभ्रंश होऊ लागले. व प्राकृत भाषांचा जन्म झाला.'

Coming back to the topic the Pratishakhyas say that if  ड and ढ occur between vowels they are replaced with ळ and ळ्ह respectively.  

So the question arises are  ळ and ळ्ह savarnas of  ड and ढ  according to the Pratishakhyas.  Secondly, why do  ड and ढ require or need such a replacement.  As per my understanding  ड and ढ cannot be voiced retroflexively in the said words.  Hence they need a replacement by another retroflex letter which may be any one of the ट class letters other that  ड, ढ and ण and  ऋ लृ or र or ल.  However when we place these letters in the place of   ड and ढ  they too cannot be voiced retroflexively and hence the choice of  ळ.  However  ळ  too does not fulfill the task completely.  

As written above  अळ, इळ, उळ, एळ, ऐळ, ओळ, औळ can be voiced with a retroflex  ळ.  However when we try to phonate  ळ by suffixing the vowels as   ळ,  ळा, ळि, ळु, ळे, ळै, ळो, ळौ we find that the  ळ loses its retroflex character.  In the circumstances the attempt to replace  ड and ढ with  ळ and ळ्ह is equally ineffectual.  Only if we phonate   अग्निमीळे as  अग्निम्+ईळ्+ए is the purpose served.  In short while phonating  अग्निमीळे we invariably get a stop in between  ईळ् and  ए thus contradicting the sutra परः संनिकर्ष संहिता.

But also why replace    ड, and ढ with  ळ and ळ्ह.  Instead we can do द्विरुक्ती of  ड and say अग्निमीड्डे.  Or there are other options viz., saying अग्निमीटे.  In both the cases the retroflexion will be maintained.  In short if त can be replaced by द than is the other way not permissible i.e. द being replaced by त. 

The views that I have presented हेरे is in the light of my study of the Maheshwar Sutras which I carried out for the sake of scripting the compositions of the Tabla.  However I believe that they equally hold good for a chaste language as Sanskrit.

Achyut Karve.

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

  "ऋ लृ ळ मध्ये फरक आहे. ऋ लृ हे स्वर कोणत्याही व्यंजनाला जोडून उच्चारले जाऊ शकतात. ‘ळ’ मात्र तसा उच्चारता येत नाही. कोणत्याही व्यंजनाला जोडता येत नाही. या उलट ऋ लृ हे प्राथमिक स्वर असल्यामुळे ते अ इ उ ला जोडून उच्चारता येत नाहीत. "

That is what I said, when you posted Saket Deshpande

--

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.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Patriji,

 The book in question excerpts of which you have cited has been written by me and not by Sanket Deshpande who has just uploaded the video.

Achyut Karve.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

So, putting  ऋ लृ ळ in the same category was done by you?

[Achyut Karve]

Yes

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Your Marathi citation explains excellently how that's wrong.

[Achyut Karve]

If I am not wrong there is one more characteristic of  ळ, it fails to combine with other consonants.  It does not follow the rule हलोनंतरः संयोगः.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Shri Karve,

     Some of your statements are factually incorrect.  In Vedic texts, depending upon the Śākhā, ळ combines with ह yielding ळ्ह, for instance गूढ becomes गूळ्ह.  In languages like Marathi, ळ combines with other consonants, i.e. ळ्य.  Your statement "As per my understanding  ड and ढ cannot be voiced retroflexively in the said words." makes little sense in terms of known phonetics of this sound.  Depending upon the Veda Śākhā, we can have ईडे or ईळे.  The Śākhā readings provide something like dialectal variation in Vedic Sanskrit.  

Madhav Deshpande

[K S Kannan]

tama AsIt tamasA gULham agre

[Ramakrishnan]

Madhav ji,

You might want to check if in ḍh, ḍ combines with h, or whether this is a single phoneme not involving any merger.

If ḍh is a single akṣara, ḷh is its allophone and is also a single letter - not a samyuktākṣara.

We write it as ḍh or ḷh not because it is  ḍ+h or ḷ+h but because of a lack of a unique letter in the script.

In Marathi (and in dravidian languages), ळ is not an allophone but a distinct akṣara so please do not retrofit this on Old-Indo-Aryan.

Thanks,
Ram 

[Madhav Deshpande]

I agree with you.  These are limitations of script.

Madhav Deshpande

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

The 5 prashna-s  taittirIya brAhmaNa 3.10-12, AraNyaka 1 and AraNyaka 2 are borrowings from the kAThaka shAkhA. The examples below are from the last chapter. These prashna-s have a number of phonological features different from the rest of the taittirIya corpus. One of them is retaining the samyutAkShara shn and not converting it to sh~n. The latter would make the insertion of the consonant t between sh and n as abhinidana as required by the taittirIya prAtishAkhya redundant and is followed at least by Tamil taittirIyaka-s. I have discussed this in the paper which I had submitted to the WSC and had posted its link a while back.

Nevertheless, there are 3 instances of La occurring in the AraNyaka chapter 6, pitR^i-medham anuvAka 7.

naLamplavamArohaitan naLena pato.anvihi | sattvannaLaplavo bhUtvA santarapratarottara |

The La is substituted for Da as pointed out by Prof. Deshpande, but here the la is converted to La. They are all from the word nala - a reed.

I am interested in knowing where this occurs in the samhitA. Admittedly my knowledge of the samhitA is not as good as the shAkhA. I know of no instance where this occurs in the samhitA. In the shAkhA, La occurs only in AraNyaka chapter 2 and the instance I quoted above. It is entirely non-existent in the brAhmaNa. As a matter of fact the taittirIya prAtishAkhya does not mention La as a consonant at all in chapter 1. The commentator of the tribhAshya-ratna cites the sUtra 13.16, pR^iktasvarAtparo lo DaM pauShkarasAdeH pauShkarasAdeH | to include La in his list of consonants. But the fact is that it talks about conversion of la to Da and not la to La or Da to La. The commentator is actually unable to cite any valid examples from the saMhitA, but does quote the AraNyaka 6. The bhAShya for that sUtra is pretty confusing and not up to the mark (as pointed out correctly by Whitney)

Interestingly, the shAyana bhAShya published by the bibliotheca Indica uses la and La in the chapter 6 and chapter 2 as well. This seems to be incorrect. True the word nala is pronounced naLa in chapter 6, however the instances in chapter 2 are conversions of Da to La (similar to the R^ig veda), as shown by the same mantras occurring in the acchidra section with the Da instead of La.

Ramakrishnan

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Shri Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan,

     I am so glad you brought up the issue of Kāṭhaka sections in the Taittirīya tradition.  While they contain ळ in the place of intervocalic ड, it is important to note that the Kāṭhaka-Saṃhitā retains the intervocalic ड and does not change it to ळ, as you can see from the following extract:

    This probably suggests that as some Kāṭhaka passages were incorporated into the Taittirīya corpus, they were phonetically assimilated with the norm of the Taittirīya tradition.  Thus, the presence and absence of ड and ळ is a matter of a specific Śākhā tradition, and ultimately relates to different dialects in which the Śākhās were transmitted.

Madhav Deshpande

[Rishi Goswami]

हरये नमः।
विद्वद्भ्यो नमः।

With due respect to all schollars and Karveji, I think it is not necessary for 2 aksharas to be Savarnas for having abhed between them.
For eg, when we say ralayorabhedah, one is murdhanya while the other is dantavya, still, they are replaced by each other in many instances. For eg, Raghu and Laghu.
Similarly, va and ba are replaced by each other when they are not Savarnas, even their talvadisthan is different. Va is dantoshtha and Ba is Oshtha. The eg, here is Suvahu and Subahu, I have seen many examples as such.

If we say that Pratishakyas state that !a(I am writing ळ् as ! in english as I don't have the font). !a and !ha can be replaced by da and dha, that doesn't mean they should have the same talvadisthan and abhyantar-prayatnas, not necessary for them to be svaras also.

For concluding ! and !ha as a svara or a vyanjana, I wont say anything. But we can certainly find out by counting Matras or aksharas in various chhandas, for if it is a swara, it can be considered as "laghu" like मसृण is नगण for all 3 are laghu. It can be a vyanjana if the sanyoga-poorva-varna is a guru. I don't think there is any other way to find out it's achtva or haltva.

I don't understand Marathi. What was the part where Karveji mentioned that they can be used in Lan-sootram? According to his research, ! Is used in rilri(!)k maaheshwar sootra. So does Karveji, mean to say it can't be antarbhoot in Lan-sootram?

Thankyou
Regards
Rishi.

[Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)]

Namaste

1. Savarna is NOT decided by thinking ! Savarna is decided by IDENTIFYING the ' Sthana-Prayatna Saamya'.

2. The replacement or substitution of <ra - la replaced by each other in many instances>  is technically called  ' Apa-Shabdita'. The process of uccharana and shravana shows the clear independent nature of the two phonemic units. The ' acceptance of slack pronunciation' and 'technical replacement in Vyakarana Process' are independent issues. Slack pronunciation is user fault. Technical replacement is a rule convention.

On < Raghu and Laghu  >  see how meaning changes by substitution and process in  [Raghu-Vamsha and Laghu -Vamsha] ; <Raghu-- Raaghava and Laghu-- Laaghava>

For further contemplation please.

Regards

BVK Sastry

--

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.

[Ramakrishnan]

Dr. Śāstry ji,

On Raghu vs. Laghu - meaning does not change because of the use of l or r, but simply due to convention and dialectal variation. 

Before sanskrit was standardized by Pāṇini, there were certain spoken dialects that used laghu and certain others which used raghu (to mean the same/similar things), and that is how we have inherited both these words in standard sanskrit.

In standard sanskrit we use these words with slightly different meanings because sanskrit is not spoken in multiple dialects today (like it once was) - so there is no need to use both raghu and laghu with identical meanings.

Regards,
Ram

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Achyut Karve]

We cannot be oblivious to the fact the by changing ra to la it also effects/changes the point of articulation of ghu.  Thus the akruti of both the words differ conventionally though they may attract the same or slightly different meanings.

[Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)]

Namaste Ramakrishna

 

1.     On < On Raghu vs. Laghu - meaning does not change because of the use of l or r, but simply due to convention and dialectal variation.   >  

 

It seems that my teachers of Samskrutham and Your Teachers of Samskrutham follow different rule books and resources.  

 

May I know which  illustrious  school  and tradition of Samskruth Paninian / Indology studies is championing this model of ‘ Samskrutha – Pada –artha Nirvachana’ ? 

 Seems there is a need to revisit the  fundamentals of the definition: What makes a Samskrutha Shabda/ Padam ? Sup-ting antam  OR  slack usage ?

 

2. On < that is how we have inherited both these words in standard sanskrit. >  

 

What is Standard  and Non-Standard Sanskrit ? What I have been taught is there are two categories : Chandas and Bhahsaa . Chandas is ‘ Darshana’ (Transcendental Vision / Shruta – Shruti in Tradition; Pre- Paninian, archaic  in modern Academic )

 

Which ever root you go, Raghu is NOT the same as Laghu : by meaning or usage or articulation. If this is to be taken as a dialectical variation, how may I be sure that your name  will still be the same by ra-la change ?

Rama -  is NOT the same as ‘Lama ’ ??    would it be a dialectic variation ??

 

3.  On < sanskrit is not spoken in multiple dialects today (like it once was) - so there is no need to use both raghu and laghu with identical meanings. >

 

   I am not able to understand this statement. Please help me understand on  what  you mean by < Sanskrit-  multiple dialects  - like it once was… ?? > 

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Achyut Karve
Sent: Sunday, 18 February, 2018 12:09 AM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} " ळ " kaara in saMskRitaM

 

We cannot be oblivious to the fact the by changing ra to la it also effects/changes the point of articulation of ghu.  Thus the akruti of both the words differ conventionally though they may attract the same or slightly different meanings.

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Ramakrishnan]

Dr.  Śāstry ji,

Do you know/agree there were multiple Sanskrit dialects spoken in Pāṇini's lifetime - and his grammar is a 'standardization' of their morphology?

If there was just one spoken dialect, then there was no need to standardize its grammar - the aṣṭādhyāyī would have been entirely unnecessary.

I maintain that raghu/laghu, roma/loma, śukra/śukla, nīra/nīla etc are dialectal variations in those spoken sanskrit dialects (some dialects of sanskrit conventionally used l instead of r). These dialectal variations of r/l were not used for every word, so there are no r/l equivalents for all words, but certainly the variations did exist, and l was more common in some dialects while r was more common in other dialects of sanskrit. 

Regards,
Ram

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Achyut Karve]

The question that Panini possibly dealt with was not standardisation but correctness.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Descriptive grammars standardise. They may or may ot intend to do that. But they work as instruments of standardisation only. 

For a mother tongue speaker of the language correctness need not and can not be taught. 

Second language speaker of the language takes the grammar as a guide for correctness. 

[Rishi Goswami]

Haraye namah.

Vidvadbhyo namah.

With due respect to all schollars,
Everything can be derived 8 types. Samhitartha, adhyayartha, shlokartha, vakyartha, paadartha, shabdartha, aksharartha and Tatparyartha. Raghu and Laghu in shabdartha maybe same, but their Tatparyartha varies according to usage. Whereas Romaharsha and Lomaharsha have the shabdartha and Tatparyartha as the same.

We see the vyutpatti of Rama as 3 types mainly. 1 is yoigik shabdartha, ramate anena iti Raamah (ghayn pratyayant). 2nd is Tatparyartha - Sundara/Manojnya and TamAlapatra and Dasharathaputra, Balarama, Parashurama etc many Tatparyarthas. 3rd is aksharartha - “राशब्दो विश्ववचनो मश्चापीश्वरवाचकः । विश्वानामीश्वरो यो हि तेन रामः प्रकीर्त्तितः ॥"

So we saw the last 3 arthas - shabdartha, aksharartha and Tatparyartha in the word Raama. Same as shlokartha uptill Samhitartha.

So Raghu and Laghu cannot be considered as one example applicable to all contexts. Some dhatus such as girati/gilati, or sphura/sphula are applicable in all contexts based on their Tatparyartha. Vyakaran is based on Laukik(Pauranik/Samhitaadi Rishivakyas) and Vaidik usage. Rishivakyas are to be considered as pramana for Vyakaran. So Paniniji has only constructed vyakarana based on the practical usages of words. Some words can also be found that are not siddha by Ashtadhyayi. Panini Vyakaran doesn't deal with Arthasiddhi, it only deals with Vyutpatti and Prakriti-pratyaya. Aacharyas have understood the Vedas and have written down their commentaries based on 8 principles.

So there is no rule or mechanism assigned to such words and their usage. Rishivakyas are the only Pramanas for their formation and usage. Aacharya-vakya is Pramana in their Arthas and Vyutpattis. Each shabda can be derived differently based on each Aacharyas point of view. We can't equate one eg woth all the other examples.

This is what I have understood. Thankyou.

Pranam to all schollars.

Regards

Rishi.

[Saroja Bhate]

I agree with Nagraj ji that descriptive grammars standardise .Panini never gives a clue that he meant to standardise but postpaninians made him प्रमाणभूतः

[Achyut Karve]

So in the case of those who speak sanskrit is it spoken as the first language (as a mother tongue) or as a second language.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Older thread on descriptive -prescriptive issue:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bvparishat/HWKIPJQF5_4/mkNLj-x0CQAJ;context-place=pendingmsg/bvparishat

[Nagaraj Paturi]

My post in that thread:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/HWKIPJQF5_4/jRbSYgKpCQAJ

[Nagaraj Paturi]

On the history of spoken status of Sanskrit, you might want to read the article by Prof. Aklujkar, being shared here:

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Here, you have Prof. Deshpande's book>

[L Srinivas]

When Janaka and Yajnavalkya indulged in their famous conversation, was there a servant standing around holding up sub title placards so Yajnavalkya  and the rest of the Brahmin group present could understand what Janaka was saying?  Alternatively, were sub titles involved when rishi Parasara was trying to get Satyavati to take off her top? 

I dont know what the 19th century European Indologists (and following them 20th and 21st century Indologists) mean by saying Sanskrit was not anybody's mother tongue. These same jokers esp., English Colonists and professors back at Oxford spoke posh (RP English) all the time - didnt they speak it at home? Didnt they sing lullabies to their babies in posh - is 'twinkle twinkle little star' in Yorkshire English? Did they speak at home Geordie, Yorkshire dialect or the dialect of whatever home county  they came from? Did they reserve posh for their fathers while using Geordie with their Mothers, as Indologists would have us believe of ancient Sanskrit speakers? 

For some reason, these English colonists never thought about their own situation when they wrote about Sanskrit. They were, I suppose, too caught up with 'hieratic' and other notions they had recently picked up from their hastily constructed theories of ancient Egypt and so forth, which they were itching to apply. In this sense they were no different from their august and much revered predecessor Aristotle who believed women had less (or more, I forget which) teeth than men. Bertrand Russell believed he should have opened his wife's mouth and counted. We are informed that he had the means, motive and opportunity as he was married more than once. 

Sanskrit drama also shows that there was no comprehension problem. 

Even today if you go to a commercial establishment in small town Punjab ( where the customer is Sikh and the trader is a Hindi speaking merchant), you will continuously hear the customer speaking rather rural Punjabi and the trader continuously responding in Hindi (Khadi boli, not Rajasthani, not Haryanvi, not anything else). Someone might be tempted to conclude that Khadi Boli was some kind of a traders' argot used in the shop and wasnt even the trader's mother tongue. 

Sometimes one gets the impression that Sanskritists wrote about Sanskrit the same way Nirad Chaudhury wrote about Wordsworth. 

My 2c,

Srini

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

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.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

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.

[Ashok Aklujkar]

A rare post in which “c” in "My 2c” stands for ‘gold cent”.

Classical diglossia was India’s great strength. Even in 1980’s I could, in Kerala, get over my handicap of not knowing Malayalam by speaking Sanskrit slowly and clearly.

What a great damage India has done to itself in the last seventy years or so!

How great our gratitude should be for organizations like Sanskrit Bhāratī that are trying to rebuild the cultural palace of India, no matter how many shortcomings beset their effort!

Thanks Shri L. Srinivas.

a.a.

> On Feb 20, 2018, at 6:20 AM, L Srinivas <lns2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...

[Nagaraj Paturi]

What a lovely post by Sri L Srinivas-ji! What a golden support for the gold cents from our golden guide!

What does Bhartrihari mean by लोकः whenever he says things like 

व्याप्तिमांश् च लघुश् चैव व्यवहारः पदाश्रयः /

लॊकॆ शास्त्रॆ च कार्यार्थं विभागॆनैव कल्पितः // वाक्य_२।३४५ //

Which vyavahaara is he talking about as parallel to the prraakrita vyavahaara in the following?

शब्दः संस्कारहीनॊ यॊ गौर् इति प्रयुयुक्ष्यतॆ /

तम् अपभ्रंशम् इच्छन्ति विशिष्टार्थनिवॆशिनम् // वाक्य_१।१७५ //

अस्वगॊण्यादयः शब्दाः साधवॊ विषयान्तरॆ /

निमित्तभॆदात् सर्वत्र साधुत्वं च व्यवस्थितम् // वाक्य_१।१७६ //

तॆ साधुष्व् अनुमानॆन प्रत्ययॊत्पत्तिहॆतवः /

तादात्म्यम् उपगम्यॆव शब्दार्थस्य प्रकाशकाः // वाक्य_१।१७७ //

न शिष्टैर् अनुगम्यन्तॆ पर्याया इव साधवः /

तॆ यतः स्मृतिशास्त्रॆण तस्मात् साक्षाद् अवाचकाः // वाक्य_१।१७८ //

अंब्वंब्व् इति यथा बालः शिक्षमाणॊ ऽपभाषतॆ /

अव्यक्तं तद्विदां तॆन व्यक्तौ भवति निश्चयः // वाक्य_१।१७९ //

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 //

दैवी वाग् व्यतिकीर्णॆयम् अशक्तैर् अभिधातृभिः /

अनित्यदर्शिनां त्व् अस्मिन् वादॆ बुद्धिविपर्ययः // वाक्य_१।१८२ //

उभयॆषाम् अविच्छॆदाद् अन्यशब्दविवक्षया /

यॊ ऽन्यः प्रयुज्यतॆ शब्दॊ न सॊ ऽर्थस्याभिधायकः // वाक्य_१।१८३ //

 

 

 

--
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.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Related older posts:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/_w1ShqfczhY/27iVBdXsCQAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/_w1ShqfczhY/OBRKUsDuCQAJ

Full thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/prakrit$20sanskrit%7Csort:date/bvparishat/_w1ShqfczhY/OBRKUsDuCQAJ

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

The position I am taking and the questions I am putting out are based on my experience while studying the literature of the tabla.

This literature evolved in a course of about 300 years in the plains of western Uttar Pradesh.

It evolved in small isolated Muslim communities as an art form and yet reflects the uniqueness of Sanskrit phonation.

The literature that I now have at hand reflects the process of phoneticrefinements that art forms undergo in the process of evolution before they can be captured in the form of certain phonetic rules. 

I believe that Sanskrit whether Vedic or laukik also must have gone through such stages before it could be presented in the form of rules.  

Such an effort i.e formulation of rules becomes necessary only when the unique form that has evolved is exposed to the possibility of total annihilation.  I have heard performing artists of the day express that their arts would die with their death.

In the circumstances to treat the Ashtadhyayi merely as a rule book at par with contemporary grammar may do more damage than good to the subject.  

The Ashtadhyayi in my opinion should be dealt with or interpreted more as a book on Sanskrit aesthetic rather that just a book on grammar.  This will avoid mechanistic interpretation and help in reproducing if I may say daivi vak.

Any grammar of a language starts with instruction of the alphabet.  That is precisely what Panini has done in the Maheshwar Sutras. One should not however forget  that they have not been presented as discreet individual letters but as Sutras which have an aesthetic form.  That they also serve the purpose of anubandhas shows Panini's ability to compose.  

By putting Panini's work to the rigour or Western Logic will do no good to the purpose of understanding Panini's ideation of the then existing unique form that Sanskrit took as a language.

Where can modern grammarians reach if they believe that Panini's articulation of the alphabet was the same as theirs?  Foisting western phonetic standards on Panini  is debasing the very heart of the subject.  It is no wonder therefore that scholars find the subject becoming more confusing than it was before,  creating more differences of opinion on account of the different tongues that each scholar speaks.

It would be better if scholars start doubting their own tongues and bring them in line with the instruction of the Maheshwar Sutras rather than doubting the rules of the Ashtadhyayi. 

Such type of effort of ordering all the letters into sutra form is I thing not available even in the pratishakhyas.  It is for this reason I believe that the Ashtadhyayi is a work far beyond that of the Pratishakhyas.

With regards,

Achyut Karve

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

I am attaching a pdf of my book titled 'Unveiling the Atlantis of Sanskrit Phonology'.  The book, I think, is self explanatory.   The book is a product of the results experienced by me after I started doubting my own tongue and trying to understand what the Maheshwar Sutras could mean.

With regards,

Achyut Karve.

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

Dear Prof. Deshpande,

I believe that the La was actually not original to the taittirIyaka-s. The taittirIya prAtishAkhya does not even recognize the La as a vya~njana in the first chapter. The commentator has to resort to special pleading to include that in his list of consonants and his commentary there is not really up to the mark in that section. shrI Venkata Sriram did say that there are occurrences of La in the samhitA, but I very much doubt its existence there (Whitney said the same thing 150+ years back). There is however no occurrence of it in the brAhmaNa portion except the ones I quoted before. There are many instances where the intervocalic Da is preserved as is in the taittirIya texts. In fact, it is very uniformly preserved. As for adaptation of the kAthaka passages, phonological peculiarities were actually preserved by the taittirIyaka-s and not discarded. They are:

1. retaining the samyutAkShara shna and not converting to s~na 

2. the vyAhR^iti-s are bhUr-bhuva-svaH in these 5 chapters only and not bhUr-bhuva-suvaH as in the rest of the taittirIya corpus

Whether these were the only differences between the two shAkhA-s is uncertain, but these two are preserved. The matter is more complicated than that since:

1. The intervocalic D and Dh are not converted to L and Lh in the other kAthaka borrowings. For example, sumR^iDIkA sarasvati occurs twice in the AraNyaka 1, and is not converted to sumR^iLIkA sarasvati. In the brAhmaNa 3.11, ShoDasheShu shrayadhvam and not ShoLasheShu shrayadhvam. There are other examples as well.

2. The same R^ik yaddevA devaheLanaM in the AraNyaka 2 occurs in the brAhmaNa 3.7 (not a kAThaka borrowing) with a very minor variation, but the intervocalic D is preserved.

So these suggest that 

a. The La is not original to the taittirIyaka-s and it is very consistent except for the occurrence in AraNyaka 6 (unless shrI Venkata Sriram can produce some references to the samhitA)

b. it was not uniformly pronounced like that by the kAThaka shAkhinaH either, unlike the R^ig vedins. If they did not have the L at all, then somehow only these passages in the AraNyaka 2 got the L conversion by the taittirIyaka-s for some reason, but not because of their shAkhA norms.

Regarding b, another piece of evidence is the edition of the kapiShThala kaTha samhitA by Raghu Vira, has the following on page 7:

"D and Dh between two vowels are thrice changed to L and Lh" 

Ramakrishnan

[Venkata Sriram]

You are right Rama-ji.  There is no ळ in samhita.  It is found in AraNyaka bhAga.

rgs,

sriram

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Shri Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan,

     Thank you for your finer analysis of the Taittirīya texts and the occurrence of ळ in those texts.  I have wondered why the Taittirīya Prātiśākhya does not have this sound, and yet some commentators to struggle to include it.  Most likely this reflects a change in the tradition since the composition of the Prātiśākhya.  I have documented such shifts in the recitation of the Śaunakīya Atharvaveda, but I have not studied the Taittirīya tradition in such detail.  Your message makes it clear that we need such detailed studies of possible transition in the transmission of these texts.  With best wishes,

Madhav Deshpande

Campbell, California

[Sreekanth Rao]

Namaskara,

As per Sri Dayanand Saraswati ji ळ कार is considered as one of the four yama varna. And is a pratyeka varna.

He published a sutratmaka panini shiksha which he found was much more ancient than the slokatmaka shiksha which is famous now.

Sri yudhishthir mimamsak ji has later published this shiksha aswell.

I have attached couple of screen shots from his varnocharana shiksha regarding this for your kind perusal.

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

Interesting. But as per the taittirIya prAtishAkhya, 21.12-13, that's not the definition of a yama. 

sparshaad-anuttamad-uttama-paraad-AnupUrvyan-nAsikyAH | 21.13

tan-yamAn-eke | 21.14

The other prAtishAkhyas also call only these the yama-s. So do pretty much every vedic shikShA text. No one mentions the La-kAra anywhere.

This makes me doubt how ancient or authentic this text actually is.

Ramakrishnan

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Forwarded message from Sri Ananda Hudli 

Dear Scholars,

Since we are on the topic of prAtishAkhyas of the yajurveda, it is interesting to note that the vAjasaneyi-prAtishAkhya commentary on 4.146 DaDhau LaLhAvekeShAm says, "tasmin LaLhajihvAmUlIya-upadhmAnIyanAsikyA na santi mAdhyandinAnAm". However, the saMhitAof the kANva shAkhA, which is believed to be closer to the Rigveda, has the LakAra in various places, including, for example, षोळश च मे in the chamaka portion (19th adhyAya). 

Anand

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Achyut Karve]

Kindly check whether it is षोळश च मे or षोळश्चमे and whether ळ is udatta.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Shri Anand Hudli's observations based on the Vājasaneyi-Prātiśākhya are important.  According to this Prātiśākhya, while the Kāṇva Śākhā has the sounds ळ, ळ्ह, Jihvāmūlīya, Upadhmānīya and Nāsikya, the Mādhyandina Śākhā does not have them.  In modern times, while the Kāṇva Śākhā is found in the south, the Mādhyandina Śākhā is generally found in the north, including the northern Maharashtra.  It is not clear if the difference in the phonologies of the Śākhās began already in north India, before the Kāṇva Śākhā was transmitted to the south, or whether these differences arose as a consequence of the geographical bifurcation of the Śukla Yajurveda.  This needs a substantially deeper historical study of these traditions and their transmission.  With best wishes,

Madhav Deshpande

Campbell, California

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Sivasenani Nori]

प्रणम्य विद्वांसः समर्प्यते। 

Veda influences laukikavyavahaara, not the other way round. Otherwise there ought to be no mahaapraaNas in the Vedic recensions popular in South India. At the very least, the wide spread omission of mahaapraaNas in daily usage must have resulted in at least one Vedic word where the alternative form has an alpapraaNa. No such changes are found. On the other hand, we find usages such as yaddevaa (now popular as eddevaa) meaning avaheLanam in Telugu, resulting from Vedic texts like यद्देवा देवहेळनं कुर्वन्ति।

Regards 

N Siva Senani 

[Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)]

Namaste  

 

 < What a great damage India has done to itself in the last seventy years or so!> 

 

And my  expansion on this is   <  the damage  caused by Home teams  who voluntarily and willingly  gave up constructions of  Samskrutham by  native traditions of  ‘Swa- bhashaa –shaastra –dharma’  and  imposed   ‘para-bhashaa –desha- dharma’ forcefully to  keep ‘Samskrutham as  Sanskrit in  the company of language streams traced to IE origin ’- A legacy of  three hundred years .

 

A unified action would be needed to contain the  continuance of the above damage ! And this starts with  an  acknowledgement of where we are and  why .  

 

          I would like to suggest  three points to make a course correction to  start the first step of healing from the   ‘self-inflicted’ damages.

 

A)   Restoring  the definitional and functional clarity  and  unity between Chandas and Bhashaa:   between   Chandas  (‘ Vedic / Vaidika) Varnamaalaa (given in Pratishaakhyas and Shikhsaa, used for Mantras)  and Bhashaa Varna-maalaa ( given in laukika Shikshaa works and used for  teaching Samskruth forvyavahaara.

 

        The last authentic recognition, listing and mapping of Samskruth varna-maalaa aksharas to Devataas -  comes in the work of Acharya Madwa ( Chakrabja Mandala).

        

        " ळ " kaara of saMskRitaM is clearly listed and associated with a Vishnu Devataa swaroopa. This is a part oftradiitonal mantra-maatrukaa nyaasas,

 

       The same practice is seen in Rudra- Parayanam, many Tantra works, Prarthanas.   This is a consistent and continuing practice.

 

     Ignoring all this  and making tall claims that ‘" ळ " kaara in saMskRitaM  is an intruded sound  or a post Paninian sound  or Panini did a great injustice by not including " ळ " kaara in  maheswara sutra .. is all ‘ prajnaa –vaada’ (=  imaginary constructions of self damage ).

 

B)  Restoring the definitional clarity of  what constitutes ‘Samskrutham’ and what makes ‘Samskruth to become  Prakrut ( not the other way around )  .  This is  Understanding the relation between Samskrutham and Prakruts/ Apabhramsha :: Daivee and Maanushee Vaak :  by the standards provided by ‘Bharturhari- Vaakyapadeeya quoted below by Sri Paturi ji: reading

 

शब्दः संस्कारहीनॊ यॊ गौर् इति प्रयुयुक्ष्यतॆ /

तम् अपभ्रंशम् इच्छन्ति विशिष्टार्थनिवॆशिनम् // वाक्य_१।१७५ //

This is  the tradiiton which Hemachandra Suri has endoresed in his work on Prakrut Gramamr  following what Bharata had indicated in NAtya Shaastra ; and what existed in Mahabharata period.

Melccha, Apabhramsha  Prakrut are  social usage  derivatives  of Samskrutham.  

When ‘Vyakarana based Shada-Damskaara’ is not complete  on the final world /sentence, that expression is called an ‘ Apa-Bhramsha’. The measure of slippage (= apa- bhramsha) marks the unique name for the specific Prakrutham. One Samskrutham – Many Prakrutham ;; One Prakrutham- Many Desi’s ; The unspecified mix of allSamskrut- Prarktu-Desi   is called ‘ Mlecchita’ (- corrupted by desire .

( - icchita = desired , inability based , practical convenience ) ;  pleasure (- mlaa ) . The desire is  to corrupt the language( mlaa – icchita). The

 

C)  Restoration of ‘ Vak-Yoga’  approach in understanding the  Vedic documents:   That is  Restoring   ‘Vedanga-Vyakarana Paddhati’  approved by Patanjali-Tradition of studying Samskrutham as ‘ Vak-Yoga’: The Yoga way of studying Samskrutham.

 

Samskrutha Bharati work has created an ambience and  welcome platform to introduce the corrective steps as above.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

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.

 

[Achyut Karve]

Is the Paniniya Shiksha dated?  Who wrote it?  To which tradition does it belong?

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

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Shri Karve,

     The best source for the versified Pāṇinīya Śikṣā is the critical edition by Manomohan Ghose published from Calcutta in 1938.  It provides this Śikṣā in five available recensions and two commentaries with a translation.  There is a prose version of Pāṇinīya Śikṣā published by Yudhishthir Mimamsak along with Āpiśali Śikṣā and Cāndra Varṇasūtras.  The versified version is more well known as compared to the prose version.  The versified version refers to the story of Pāṇini being blessed by Śiva.  However, this story is unknown to Kātyāyana, Patañjali and even to Bhartr̥hari around 500 A.D.  The prose version of the Śikṣā is very close to the Āpiśali Śikṣā and is probably older.  However, upto the time of Bhartr̥hari, there is no awareness of a Pāṇinīya Śikṣā as such.  Perhaps, Ashok Aklujkar can say something more authoritative about Bhartr̥hari.  The phonetic categories given in the different versions of Pāṇinīya Śikṣā do not completely match what is required for the functioning of the Aṣṭādhyāyī.  My student James Bare wrote a dissertation in 1975 on this subject comparing the phonetic categories of this Śikṣā and the various Prātiśākhyas with the requirements of the rules of the Aṣṭādhyāyī.  George Cardona has also written a monograph on this subject.  All I can say is that this is a very complex subject and there are no easy answers.

Madhav Deshpande

Campbell, California

[Achyut Karve]

From where does the statement of the existence of 64 letters come into the Paniniya Shiksha.  Is it made in the Paniniya Shiksha for the first time or is it borrowed from somewhere else?  Ofcourse no mention of it is found in the Mahabhashya.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Shri Deshpandeji,

Thank you very much for you enlightened reply.

With regards,

Achyut Kave.

On 26 Feb 2018 22:27, "Madhav Deshpande" <mmd...@umich.edu> wrote:

[Ramakrishnan]

Many thanks Deshpande ji for your scholarly view.

Regards,
Ram