ळ

[dhaval patel]

Recently there was a discussion on the samskrita group regarding this letter.

I thought it would be interesting to float this in this group also..

The crux was that Whitney's grammar provides that 

ळ is used when it occurs between vowels like अग्निमीळे..

whereas ड is used when it has a consonant at any end.

the examples in ऋग्वेद also seem to corroborate it...

अग्ने सुखतमे रथे देवानीळित आ वह | 1.13.4
इळा सरस्वती मही तिस्रो देवीर्मयोभुवः | 1.13.9

ईळते तवामवस्यवः कण्वासो वर्क्तबर्हिषः | 
हविष्मन्तोरंक्र्तः || 1.14.5 etc..

The counterexample of ड is found in this case

विशो-विश ईड्यमध्वरेष्वद्र्प्तक्रतुमरतिं युवत्योः | 
दिवः शिशुं सहसः सूनुमग्निं यज्ञस्य केतुमरुषं यजध्यै || 6.49.2

Thus the empirical evidence suggest that the logic derived by Whitney is correct...

But i would like this august group to shed some more light and if possible with references..

Dr. Dhaval Patel

www.sanskritworld.in

[Surendra Mohan Mishra]

As I see it in case of the counter example cited the '.d ' occurs between a vowel and a consonant,i.e. between ' I' and ' ya ' ,hence it's "I.dya " and not " I.lya ' as otherwise it should have been.The rule is " aj-madhyastha-.da-kaarasya .l-kaara.m baah.rcaa jagu.h ".

regards, s m mishra

2011/10/7 dhaval patel <drdhav...@gmail.com>

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

--
*****
Surendramohan Mishra
Dept of Sanskrit,Pali & Prakrit
Faculty of Indic Studies,Kurukshetra University
KURUKSHETRA-136 119,Haryana,INDIA
Tel : (Off.)01744 238410(extn.)2504
(Mob.)098960 86579;(Res.)01744-238567
Blogs : http://surendrashastram.blogspot.com
            http://surendra-shaastram.blogspot.com

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

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.

Best

DB

---

From: dhaval patel <drdhav...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 7 October 2011 8:58 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} ळ

[Sivasenani Nori]

2011/10/8 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

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.

Best

DB

Here are the above mentioned verses (Mangal Deva Shastri has split the verses into sutra-like phrases in his edition for ease of explanation, but the Pratisakhya is composed in metre; the version I have - from Maharshi Mahesh Yogi University - says, the verses are numbered 11 and 12; there is no difference in the wording though) from Rigveda Pratisakhya and UvvaTa's commentary on that (also from MD Shashtri's edition):

जिह्वामूलं तालु चाचार्य आह स्थानं डकारस्य तु वेदमित्रः ।

द्वयोश्चास्य स्वरयोर्मध्यमेत्य सम्पद्यते स डकारो ळकारः ।। 11 ।।

ळकारतामेति स एव चास्य ढकारः सन्नुष्मणा सम्प्रयुक्तः ।

इळा साळ्हा चात्र निदर्शनानि वीड्वङ्ग इत्येतदवग्रहेण ।। 12 ।।

Mangal Deva Shastri's translation:

51. The teacher Vedamitra, however, says that the root of the tongue and the palate (together) are the places of articulation of ḍ.

52. That ḍ occuring between two vowels becomes ḷ according to the same (teacher). The same (ḍ) becoming ḍh by an addition of a breathing (i.e., h) is changed to ḷh (between two vowels) according to the same (teacher). The examples here are: इळा, साळ्हा, and वीड्वङ्गः (when given) with the Avagraha.

Commentary:

अध _ नं स्थानमुपसंहरन्नाह। आयार्यो वेदमित्रो जिव्हामूलं तालु च डकारस्य स्थानमाह। कोऽन्यथा ब्रवीति। आचार्यग्रहणं पूजार्थम्।

स एवोक्तस्थानो डकारोऽस्य अचार्यस्य मतेन द्वयोः स्वरयोर्मध्ये 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 _ तनासुसाळ्हा। बहुनचनमत्र वक्ष्यमाणोदाहरणापेक्ष्यम्। वीड्वङ्ग इत्येतदुहरणमवग्रहेण सह भवति। _(व्व?)नस्प्प_ीलु। अङ्गः। स्वरयोरिति किम्। वनस्पते वीड्वङ्गः। मीढ्वस्तोकाय तनयाय।। (accents - svaras like udaatta and svarita) - not reproduced).

 

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[hnbhat B.R.]

2011/10/8 Sivasenani Nori <sivas...@gmail.com>

Thanks for both providing enough attestation for the usage of ळ and  ळ्ह. 

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

9 10 11

Dear Dr. Bhat,

You are welcome!

Please note that the two verses जिह्वामूलं तालु चाचार्य आह etc and ळकारतामेति स एव चास्य have been numbered differently by me and Shri N. Siva Senani as 21, 22 and 11,12 respectively. This is so because I followed the Sanskrit Sāhitya Parishad edition by P. Shastri where the numbering starts from the very first verse while Shri Senani followed M. D. Shastri’s edition where the numbering starts after the first ten verses enumerating the Varnas and dealing with other introductory matter. The rationale of M.D.Shastri’s enumeration is not clear to me.

Best

DB

---

From: hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2011 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} ळ

[V Subrahmanian]

आन्ध्रभाषायां तु अनेकैः  ’कला / वती’ इत्यस्य కళావతి ’कळ  / कळावति’ इत्येव  व्यवहारः ।  गायकवर्गा अपि एवमेव उच्चरन्ति ।  ’वेला’ इति शब्दः द्रविड / तेलुगु / कन्नडभाषासु ’वेळ’ इति परिवर्तितो भवति ।

अपि च ’मिलत्वा’ इति संस्कृतप्रयोगो दृश्यते । ’मेलनम्’ इत्यस्य ’मेळनम्’ इत्यपि प्रयोगोऽस्ति ।

सुब्रह्मण्यशर्मा

[Sivasenani Nori]

नत्वा तत्रभवन्तम् आचार्यदीपकभट्टाचार्यमहोदयं सविनयं समर्पयति शिवसेनानीः

Sir

I heard my teacher Srimaan Prof. B. Narasimhacharyulu, former Head of Dept., Department of Sanskrit, Osmania University speak very highly of you. I deem it an honour to correspond directly with you, Sir.

I gather from the introduction (attached) to his edition, that MD Shastri followed UvaTa in determining the text of the praatiSaakhya. MD Shastri has shown with internal evidence that UvaTa does not consider the first ten stanzas to be a part of the praatiSaakhya. There is an available commentary (vritti, not bhaashya) on the first ten verses which, according to the colophons, is by Vishnumitra. MD Shastri has also shown how earlier editors were mistaken in their opinion about the first ten verses.

The introductory pages are attached. (It is a large file - 1.9 MB).

इति विनीतः 

शिवसेनानीः

2011/10/9 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Thank you Dr. Nori! Professor Narasimhacharyulu, himself a brilliant scholar and an old friend of mine, is undeservingly eloquent on me. Do not take that seriously.

In fact I studied mainly the Sanskrit Sahitya Parishad edition of the RP because when I became a student M.D.Shastri's edition of the text with Uvata's Commentary was not available in the market. It was reprinted later but I thought that P. Shastri's commentary was sufficient for me. The division by M.D.Shastri into suutras was also not quite palatable to me. Obviously the verses are meant as verses and not as suutras. Is it not so? The imposed extraneous character by M.D.Shastri was one of the reasons for my not taking to the M.D.Shastri edition. The same thing happened with Surya Kanta's edition of the Atharva Pratisakhya. Surya Kanta's many ideas cut at the root of our long standing tradition. It seemed to me, perhaps wrongly, that M.D.Shastri's work also required careful study before being accepted in toto. I may be wrong but I have to state my position. I shall read his arguments very carefully from the pdf. file sent by you.

As for Surya Kanta you may see that Professor M. G. Deshpande too argued against him. I myself have dealt with very extensively with Surya Kanta in the very recently published third volume of the Paippaldasamhitaa.

Best wishes and sincere thanks

Dipak Bhattacharya

---

From: Sivasenani Nori <sivas...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2011 12:27 PM

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

9 10 11

Dear Subramanianji,

I thank you for your observations. You are absolutely correct. But these things deserve much more intensive study than they have till now got. What I can hesitatingly pronounce is the following. But I remind you that it is not that I claim absolute correctness in so enigmatic a phenomenon.

Most of the retroflex laterals represented by ḷ in modern Indian languages are not descended from the Rgvedic intervocalic ḷ that comes as a combinatory variant of ḍ. For example, in Oriya the ḷ will be found in words like kuḷa, mūḷa etc. But the ḷ here has nothing to do with the intervocalic ḍ pronounced as ḷ in the Ṛgveda. The ḷ in kuḷa is probably of dental lateral origin and is by no means a trilled intervocalic retroflex in origin as in, say, the Oriya word amaṛā pāṭha or in Jharsuguṛā. The Oriya word amaṛā pāṭha has the intervocalic ḍ uttered as a trilled ṛ. Clearly this has no connection with the Ṛgvedic phenomenon.

The matter was extensively dealt with by the present writer long ago. But I do not claim that all the problems relating to them have been solved. The zh<>ḷ phenomenon of many Dravidic words is an enigma that deserves closer attention than it has. This is a phenomenon that asks for enquiry by its own merit and, according to me, might help in better appreciation of some standing problems.

Best

DB

---

From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2011 12:14 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} ळ

आन्ध्रभाषायां तु अनेकैः  ’कला / वती’ इत्यस्य కళావతి ’कळ  / कळावति’ इत्येव  व्यवहारः ।  गायकवर्गा अपि एवमेव उच्चरन्ति ।  ’वेला’ इति शब्दः द्रविड / तेलुगु / कन्नडभाषासु ’वेळ’ इति परिवर्तितो भवति ।

अपि च ’मिलत्वा’ इति संस्कृतप्रयोगो दृश्यते । ’मेलनम्’ इत्यस्य ’मेळनम्’ इत्यपि प्रयोगोऽस्ति ।

सुब्रह्मण्यशर्मा

[Shrisha Rao]

El oct 9, 2011, a las 3:40 p.m., Dipak Bhattacharya escribió:

> 9 10 11
>
> Dear Subramanianji,
>
> I thank you for your observations. You are absolutely correct. But these things deserve much more intensive study than they have till now got. What I can hesitatingly pronounce is the following. But I remind you that it is not that I claim absolute correctness in so enigmatic a phenomenon.
> Most of the retroflex laterals represented by ḷ in modern Indian languages are not descended from the Rgvedic intervocalic ḷ that comes as a combinatory variant of ḍ. For example, in Oriya the ḷ will be found in words like kuḷa, mūḷa etc. But the ḷ here has nothing to do with the intervocalic ḍ pronounced as ḷ in the Ṛgveda. The ḷ in kuḷa is probably of dental lateral origin and is by no means a trilled intervocalic retroflex in origin as in, say, the Oriya word amaṛā pāṭha or in Jharsuguṛā. The Oriya word amaṛā pāṭha has the intervocalic ḍ uttered as a trilled ṛ. Clearly this has no connection with the Ṛgvedic phenomenon.

However, it is certain that some ळ usages other than intervocalic are traditional; e.g., the word बहळ survives in Kannada and is found in older manuscripts, but contemporary editions are likely to modify it to बहुल. In his 1971 edition of Madhva's महाभारततात्पर्यनिर्णय, Bannanje Govindacharya says in one footnote that the word बाहुषाळी is the correct form and that बाहुशाली is पाश्चात्य (not sure what his justification is for this claim).

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

[V Subrahmanian]

2011/10/9 Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org>

However, it is certain that some ळ usages other than intervocalic are traditional; e.g., the word बहळ survives in Kannada and is found in older manuscripts, but contemporary editions are likely to modify it to बहुल.  

In the recently quoted verse from the mAdhavIya shankara vijayaH there is this word 'बहल’:

ब्रह्मैकं परमार्थसच्चिदमलं विश्वप्रपञ्चात्मना
शुक्ती रूप्यपरात्मनेव बहलाज्ञानावृतं भासते ।

When I came across this word for the first time I was reminded of the Kannada बहळ.  As you say, it is likely that this word could get modified to 'बहुल’ from where we get the word 'बाहुल्यम्’.    

However, the word बहल is also listed in the Apte dictionary and down the line the word बहुल too appears.  The meanings: very much, copious, abundant, plentiful, etc. are given for both the words.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v 



 

[hnbhat B.R.]

The question is not whether there ळ in Dravidian languages and in some other Indian languages. The available are the substitutes for the palatal ल turned to ळ as in common in Sanskrit - ल to ळ, in selected words, and native in the languages. But the question is whether the same is identical with the intervocalic velar substitute  

ळ  for the ड and ढ as described in the प्रातिशाख्य with clear instructions of articulation तालु च जिह्वामूलीयं च स्थानामाह वेदमित्रः quoted in the first post.

There is no question of the मूर्धन्य ळ existing in Dravidian languages. To focus the point, whether it is identical with the one described in the प्रातिशाख्य or not. It is described as trilled palatal by Bhattacharya and his opinion is that it is not identical with any of the ones existing now. It is his opinion.

-- 

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

<However, it is certain that some ळ usages other than intervocalic are traditional; e.g., the word बहळ survives in Kannada and is found in older manuscripts, …...  In his 1971 edition of Madhva's महाभारततात्पर्यनिर्णय, Bannanje Govindacharya says in one footnote that the word बाहुषाळी is the correct form and that बाहुशाली is पाश्चात्य. ….>

 

The ḷ in बाहुषाळी = bāhuṣāḷī is intervocalic. Also that in बहळ unless it is read bahaḷ instead of bahaḷa. Kittel’s entry (p.1093)is  ಬಹಳ that is bahaḷa.

Best

DB

 

---

From: Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2011 9:24 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} ळ

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

I said trilled lateral and did not comment on whether that exists now or not. By genre it is not different from the Rgvedic ळ. Ignoring for the moment the Prague-school phoneticians' view that no two sounds of two languages are the same, we may maintain that they often belong to the same genre. In the IPA both might appear as the same sound under the same symbol. This is true of the Rgvedic ळ in ईळे and the Oriya ळ  in मूळ

DB

---

From: hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>

To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2011 9:58 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} ळ

[Shrisha Rao]

El oct 9, 2011, a las 11:16 p.m., Dipak Bhattacharya escribió:

> <However, it is certain that some ळ usages other than intervocalic are traditional; e.g., the word बहळ survives in Kannada and is found in older manuscripts, …... In his 1971 edition of Madhva's महाभारततात्पर्यनिर्णय, Bannanje Govindacharya says in one footnote that the word बाहुषाळी is the correct form and that बाहुशाली is पाश्चात्य. ….>
>
> The ḷ in बाहुषाळी = bāhuṣāḷī is intervocalic. Also that in बहळ unless it is read bahaḷ instead of bahaḷa. Kittel’s entry (p.1093)is ಬಹಳ that is bahaḷa.

However, in that generous sense almost all consonant letters in Sanskrit are intervocalic! For it to be so in the RV sense, one would have to parse the words as बहट् + अ (or बहड् + अ), and बाहुषाट् + ई (or बाहुषाड् + ई) respectively. Perhaps you mean that this is indeed so, but in my much more limited experience I have never come across बहट् or बाहुषाट् and wouldn't know what to make of them.

There are also usages like ल becoming ळ under the influence of the prefix प्र, as लय becomes प्रळय (as with मान and प्रमाण), which does not necessarily happen with other उपसर्गs (cf. विलय, विमान). This surely needs a more specific explanation than being intervocalic.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> Best
> DB

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

11 10 11

Dear Colleague,

Many thanks!

The rules are valid for saṃhitā. The state exists in bahaḷa and bāhuṣālī. There is no pause (virāma) after ḷ in them, nor after the vowel preceding them. Hence the ‘ḷ’s are intervocalic (ajmadhyastha). The basic postulates have been dealt with in the Ṛkprātiśākhya and the Mahābhāṣya.

Best

DB

---

From: Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2011 5:45 AM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} ळ

[vijayanand patel]

wvan\ dIpk: mhody: 

"AJm@ySy DkarSy baHv<ca jgu||"

[TySy ]`aid sUt/e` Ay. +pm\ wvit| wvt: ij)asa pirpU`aR ? [it mNye|

a wt<Rhirna +vn ivxe picy Apo

अग्ने सुखतमे रथे देवानीळित आ वह | 1.13.4
इळा सरस्वती मही तिस्रो देवीर्मयोभुवः | 1.13.9

ईळते तवामवस्यवः कण्वासो वर्क्तबर्हिषः | 
हविष्मन्तोरंक्र्तः || 1.14.5 etc..

The counterexample of ड is found in this case

विशो-विश ईड्यमध्वरेष्वद्र्प्तक्रतुमरतिं युवत्योः | 
दिवः शिशुं सहसः सूनुमग्निं यज्ञस्य केतुमरुषं यजध्यै || 6.49.2

Thus the empirical evidence suggest that the www.sanskritworld.in