Shadja
Ramesh Gangolli
Recently there was a rather interesting question regarding the etymology of
the word Shadja. I forget who posted the comment (I did not save the
posting, and am too lazy to conduct a search); it raised the following very
nice point (I paraphrase it with apologies to the netter who posted it if I
am not getting it right):
The meaning commonly ascribed to the word shadja is "that which gives birth
to or generates six" (meaning the swara that generates the other six
swaras). This seems to strike a wrong chord with other Sanskrit words such
as "Pankaja" (that which is born from panka = mud), or "ambuja" (that which
is born from ambu = water), where the suffix ja refers to the object that
is born rather than to the objects that it generates;
This comment set me thinking, because I believe that the examples quoted by
this netter are very germane; other examples are "anuja" or "anujaa" (one
that is born later :i.e younger brother or sister), "tanujaa" (one that is
born from the body) etc. Thus inflamed, my curiosity drove me to lokk up
the Sanskrit dictionary of Monier-Williams (1986 reprint), where I found
the following, which I quote exactly : (see page 1109, middle column).
m. "six-born", N. of the first or (according to some) the fourth of the
seven svaras or primary notes of music (so called because it is supposed to
be produced by six organs viz. tongue, teeth, palate, nose, throat,
chest);........
Hmm... I thought to myself, because I had always, without critically asking
the question raised above, believed in the conventional wisdom of Shadja
meaning "that which gives birth to, or generates, six".
Several thoughts come to mind :
1. Monier-Williams was a pretty meticulous lexicographer, so when he refers
to shadja as (so called because it is supposed to be produced by six organs
viz. tongue, teeth, palate, nose, throat, chest), he is probably referring
to some source where this derivation is mentioned. Does anyone know which
it is?
2. The alternative implicit in the phrase "(according to some) the fourth
note" is probably due to the fact that the base-note was often the madhyama
in ancient practice.
3. Where does the commonly accepted conventional meaning "that which gives
birth to, or generates, six" come from? how is the samaasa formed? Is it
"shat janayate iti shadja" ? This seems plausible. But then why is it not
included as an alternate meaning in Monier-Williams? Can anyone comment?
If some morning (perhaps after a little too much wine?), in that private
moment before the mirror, I find myself tending to be a little slap-happy
with the thought that I understand Sanskrit reasonably well, I will remind
myself of this incident, about a word which I had completely taken for
granted! I will look more humbly each morning in the mirror. :-)).
(Is this an appropriate posting for this group?...Well, too late Gangolli,
you have done it again! You cannot let all the one-finger typing go to
waste!)
--
Ramesh Gangolli (gang...@math.washington.edu)
Dept. of Mathematics GN-50
University of Washington
Seattle WA 98195.
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
gang...@frobenius.math.washington.edu (Ramesh Gangolli) writes:
- The meaning commonly ascribed to the word shadja is "that which gives
birth
- to or generates six" (meaning the swara that generates the other six
- swaras). This seems to strike a wrong chord with other Sanskrit words
such
- as "Pankaja" (that which is born from panka = mud), or "ambuja" (that
which
- is born from ambu = water), where the suffix ja refers to the object
that
- is born rather than to the objects that it generates;
The meaning of shadja as above certainly does not fir in with other
Sanskrit words like pankaja or sarasija. The key proposition in hte
derivation is 'from', usually associated with birth. Usually, a word
ending with a 'ja' means something that is born from...... . That need not
be the case always though.
-
-
- This comment set me thinking, because I believe that the examples quoted
by
- this netter are very germane; other examples are "anuja" or "anujaa"
(one
- that is born later :i.e younger brother or sister), "tanujaa" (one that
Note that in anuja, the key proposition is not 'from', but 'to'. Anuja
literally means younger to ......... . Here too the key action is birth,
but the word no longer refers to the one that gives birth, but to one that
is born before. Sanskrit can be tricky at times.
is
- born from the body) etc. Thus inflamed, my curiosity drove me to lokk up
- the Sanskrit dictionary of Monier-Williams (1986 reprint), where I found
- the following, which I quote exactly : (see page 1109, middle column).
-
- m. "six-born", N. of the first or (according to some) the fourth of the
- seven svaras or primary notes of music (so called because it is supposed
to
- be produced by six organs viz. tongue, teeth, palate, nose, throat,
- chest);........
-
That is an interesting definition, because it refers to six organs of
production of sound, not to the six other swaras. Thus, the original
comment that there was no concept of adhara shadja and there were only six
swaras ( as in sama veda singing of the north ) is not supported by this
meaning.
-
- Hmm... I thought to myself, because I had always, without critically
asking
- the question raised above, believed in the conventional wisdom of Shadja
- meaning "that which gives birth to, or generates, six".
However, in retrospect, it is clear that shadja = that which generates six
is not correct. The usual suffix is Sanskrit for such nouns is 'ka' e.g.
janaka = he who gives birth to.
-
- Several thoughts come to mind :
-
- 1. Monier-Williams was a pretty meticulous lexicographer, so when he
refers
- to shadja as (so called because it is supposed to be produced by six
organs
- viz. tongue, teeth, palate, nose, throat, chest), he is probably
referring
- to some source where this derivation is mentioned. Does anyone know
which
- it is?
-
- 2. The alternative implicit in the phrase "(according to some) the
fourth
- note" is probably due to the fact that the base-note was often the
madhyama
- in ancient practice.
This is not so clear though. Unless you number the madhyama as zero,
shadja is the fifth and not the fourth note. Unless of course the base
note was Panchama, which does not seem to be the case.
-
- 3. Where does the commonly accepted conventional meaning "that which
gives
- birth to, or generates, six" come from? how is the samaasa formed? Is it
- "shat janayate iti shadja" ? This seems plausible. But then why is it
not
- included as an alternate meaning in Monier-Williams? Can anyone comment?
The derivation is puzzling. However, given contemporary musical practice,
where the shadja is pradhana and defines the rest, the meaning is apt. We
might as well accept that, rather than split hairs over what was the
correct historical derivation. If Bharata or Sarangadeva or Ilango Adigal
had not written about their contemporary musical practice and theory, we
wouldn't know anything about it today. Are we going to leave our posterity
with no clue about our own?
-
- If some morning (perhaps after a little too much wine?), in that private
- moment before the mirror, I find myself tending to be a little
slap-happy
- with the thought that I understand Sanskrit reasonably well, I will
remind
- myself of this incident, about a word which I had completely taken for
- granted! I will look more humbly each morning in the mirror. :-)).
-
- (Is this an appropriate posting for this group?...Well, too late
Gangolli,
- you have done it again! You cannot let all the one-finger typing go to
- waste!)
Well, I think it is appropriate for this group. We cannot discuss this on
sci, can we?
S.Vidyasankar
-
-
-
-
- --
- Ramesh Gangolli (gang...@math.washington.edu)
- Dept. of Mathematics GN-50
- University of Washington
- Seattle WA 98195.
Jay Naik
From: gang...@frobenius.math.washington.edu (Ramesh Gangolli) :
>Recently there was a rather interesting question regarding the etymology of
>the word Shadja. I forget who posted the comment (I did not save the
My second post for the day... what the heck, my ski trip isn't till
'morrow!
The etymology of shaDja is only slightly more tantalizing than that of
shRti. I have seen three hypotheses, can't say I'd vote for any of them.
1. "born of six" - six here refers to notes. shadja was the last of
a series of six notes in the so called kRshTaadi swara's of
saamagaana - Ni,Dha,Pa,Ma,Ga,Ri,Sa. The last note also called
atiswaarya, or shashTaantya, was an 'extension' of the first six
and was labeled 'shadja'. This is according to saayaNa. But
naarada (not the wanderer) gives the swara sequence as
Ma,Ga,Ri,Sa,Dha,Ni,Pa, or Ma,Ga,Ri,Sa,Ni,Dha,Pa. (o-lower)
o o o o o o
Note that Sa is the fourth note in this sequence.
Does anybody have a copy of saayaNa's saamavidhaana braahmaNa ?!!
2. "born of six" - six refers to the six organs. This first
appeared in the naaradashikshaa :
naasaam kaNTamurastaalujihwaadantaamshcha samspRshan
ShaDbhyaha sanjaayate yasmaat tasmaat ShaDja iti smRtaha
naasa=nose, kaNTa=throat, uras=chest, taalu=palate,
jihwaa=tongue, danta=teeth.
"swara" implies a vocalic sound. What's the role of teeth here?!
All the swaras can be produced with just a-kaara's - more or less
same configuration of the articulators. So this explanation is not
sound from an articulatory phonetics point of view.
It is perhaps just allegorical. There are similar descriptions
for the other six swaras also.
3. "that which gave rise to six" - alluding to the aadhaara swara idea.
The samaasa could be "ShaT jaayate yasmaat", that from which the
six are born.
Take your pick!
p.s. to my post this afternoon: while we want to give due credit to
non-sanskrit or non-tamil sources of music tradition, we should
also be cautious about going overboard. If a tamil or bengali or
marathi work describes music theory, it might not *always*
mean that that theory and its practice originated there. People
of India have moved around a lot in the past and there has been
much borrowing and syncretizing for over two millenia.
500 AD. is a relatively late period in the history of India.
The "anything said in sanskrit is an authority" syndrome has
obscured our traditions for too long. Let us avoid that in our
discussions on this forum, in whatever context - sanskrit, tamil,
kannada or marathi or .....
(in plain English : Let's not try to find a tamil or sanskrit root
for everything!)
Cheers,
-----------------------
Jayant Naik
Srinivasan Pichumani
>2. "born of six" - six refers to the six organs. This first
> appeared in the naaradashikshaa :
>
> naasaam kaNTamurastaalujihwaadantaamshcha samspRshan
> ShaDbhyaha sanjaayate yasmaat tasmaat ShaDja iti smRtaha
>
> naasa=nose, kaNTa=throat, uras=chest, taalu=palate,
> jihwaa=tongue, danta=teeth.
and Ramesh Gangolli wrote:
> m. "six-born", N. of the first or (according to some) the fourth of the
> seven svaras or primary notes of music (so called because it is supposed to
> be produced by six organs viz. tongue, teeth, palate, nose, throat,
> chest);........
Essentially, the same list is paraphrased by Tyagaraja in his composition
"shObhillu saptasvara" in Jaganmohini rAgam, rUpaka talam, while referring to
the production of svaras. The phrase goes as follows:
nAbhi hrut kaNTa rasana nAsadulayandu
and refers to the "navel, chest/heart, throat, palate/tongue, nose, etc".
Of course, I think Tyagaraga mentioned "nAsa" in a predictive sense, since
he knew that Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer would come around a century later and
use only that organ to produce music :-) :-) :-)
--Srini.
Todd Michel McComb
these were based on hexachords (the 7th being omitted) and a bizarre scheme
was used by which these hexachords were linked such that a single syllable
like 'mi' (usually 'ga') would refer to a different note depending on which
hexachord it was in. Hence, the western system started with only six names
and in turn this gives some plausibility for such a system in India.
T. M. McComb
William Alves
>I am curious about the origin of the "chromatic scale." What I mean is
>the current system of 12 frequencies divided into 7 notes that seems
>(at least superficially) common to the Indian and Western music
>systems. What is the earliest reference to such a system?
References to the Pythagorean tuning system (tuning by successive 3/2 ratios)
resulting in a 12-tone system go back at least to Boethius (6th century? -
forgive me if my dates are off some, this is from memory). The hexachord
system that Todd refers to is attributed to Guido d'Arezzo in the 11th
(again ?) century. 12-note octaves remained something of only a theoretical
possibility at that time, keyboards generally having either 7 or 8 (split
B/Bb) keys per octave. I believe the modern twelve-pitch keyboard configu-
ration came about the 15th century.
>Does this
>divison in the two systems (Western and Indian) have a common origin?
Unlikely, though some theorists in the past have speculated on some kind
of "universality" associated with this number and also 5 and 7, given
that they pop up quite a bit in tuning systems around the world. Thus
Hornboestel around the beginning of this century came up with the theory
of tuning systems by "overblown fifths" and tried, mostly unsuccessfully,
to show how it fit the tuning systems of such disparate cultures as the
Chinese and the Incas. Actually, 12-note tuning systems are probably in
the minority of cultures, being consistently used (at least theoretically)
only in Europe, India, and China (though, of course, these are extremely
large and important cultures).
>I understand that the
>Chinese (and Japanese) traditional music do not have the 12-and-7
>system. (Is it true? What is their system?)
The Chinese theorists outlined a 12-tone scale and even equal temperament
long before it was used in the West. However, in practice, the Chinese,
Koreans, and Japanese use 5 note modes derived from 7 notes per octave
approximating what Westerners would call a diatonic heptatonic system
(though there are, of course exceptions, such as the Japanese In mode).
There are many other tuning systems around the world, though the need
for a standardized system is strongest in the West. Only there do you
have a class of important instruments with one sounding body per pitch
(the piano and other keyboards) that have to be able to play with any
other instrument. The sruti-box aside, traditional Indian musicians may
retune much more easily, meaning that there doesn't have to be a standard.
The same is largely true throughout Africa, East Asia, and many other
cultures.
In Indonesia, there are a also great number of instruments with a single
sounding body per pitch (the metallophones) requiring a tuning system.
However, the Indonesians don't ask to "mix and match" their instruments the
way the Westerners do. Thus each orchestra of instruments, or gamelan, is
tuned to itself. One is not likely to be able to take an instrument from one
gamelan and play it in another. They do, nevertheless, have two "families"
(or generally-defined) tuning systems: a heptatonic system called pelog
and a pentatonic system called slendro.
Bill Alves
P J Narayanan
I am curious about the origin of the "chromatic scale." What I mean is
the current system of 12 frequencies divided into 7 notes that seems
(at least superficially) common to the Indian and Western music
systems. What is the earliest reference to such a system? Does this
divison in the two systems (Western and Indian) have a common origin?
What does Bharatha say about it? What are the references from Tamil
works? What period is Todd referring to above? Someone mentioned
Greek music having an entirely different scheme. I understand that the
Chinese (and Japanese) traditional music do not have the 12-and-7
system. (Is it true? What is their system?)
We seem to be going through the most history-based phase of rmic.
It's great, though it doubles my reading assignment every day... :-(
PJN
--
---
Robotics Institute, CMU p...@cs.cmu.edu
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
---
Corvin Russell
>
>to or generates six" (meaning the swara that generates the other six
>swaras). This seems to strike a wrong chord with other Sanskrit words such
>as "Pankaja" (that which is born from panka = mud), or "ambuja" (that which
>is born from ambu = water), where the suffix ja refers to the object that
>is born rather than to the objects that it generates;
>
>3. Where does the commonly accepted conventional meaning "that which gives
>birth to, or generates, six" come from? how is the samaasa formed? Is it
>"shat janayate iti shadja" ? This seems plausible. But then why is it not
>included as an alternate meaning in Monier-Williams? Can anyone comment?
>
>--
>Ramesh Gangolli (gang...@math.washington.edu)
>Dept. of Mathematics GN-50
>University of Washington
>Seattle WA 98195.
While I neither know nor care what the originally intended meaning
of the samAsa "SaDja" is, I can give a vigraha for the samAsa which
shows the conventional interpretation to be plausible, though it
is not evident prima facie.
Recall that a samAsa like pankaja is a pancami or saptami
tatpuruSa, [that which is] born from/out of mud.
In order to interpret the samAsa to allow for the conventionally
accepted meaning, we have to treat it as a bahuvrIhi application
of a karmadhArayasamAsa. A suitable vigraha with commentary-style
gloss follows:
(H=visarga, M=anusvAra; sh, S, s corresponds to normal Sanskrit
alphabetical order). I have left sandhi unanalyzed, though I have
separated words normally written together due to the peculiarities
of the Nagari script.
SaD jA yasmAt saH SaDjaH | SaNNAM parasvarANAM prathamasvarAnuga-
manAt prathamasvaraH SaDjanAme 'ti sheSaH |
My apologies to pandits who may find whatever errors I have made.
Please, quibblers sundry, write in to propose your own derivation
from a regional language of your choice! I myself will come forth
with a definitive posting showing that all Indian music and languages
ultimately derive from English! I will accomplish this feat
with reference to secret and mysterious texts about which I can
argue convincingly because none but I will have read them!
My, we can have fun imagining all sorts of futile and very boring
exercises. Having let loose some sarcasrm, I do feel compelled to
say that some netters have a point in saying that N. Indian scholar-
ship neglects South Indian sources (particulary the cilappadikAram,
which besides being a literary masterpiece, is full of good info on
music practice of its time). This shortcoming is hardly limited to
the world of music, however. Nor is it news.
Please, let's avoid indulging ourselves in these nationalistic harangues.
This group is about MUSIC. That's MUSIC -- rag, swar, tal etc.
Those wishing to act out their puerile tirades had best bounce over to
alt.parochial.etymology or some such other group where hot air may be
tolerated, nay, welcomed.
Yours, Corvin
stx...@uoft02.utoledo.edu
>> naasaam kaNTamurastaalujihwaadantaamshcha samspRshan
>> ShaDbhyaha sanjaayate yasmaat tasmaat ShaDja iti smRtaha
>>
>> naasa=nose, kaNTa=throat, uras=chest, taalu=palate,
>> jihwaa=tongue, danta=teeth.
>
> and Ramesh Gangolli wrote:
>
>> m. "six-born", N. of the first or (according to some) the fourth of the
>> seven svaras or primary notes of music (so called because it is supposed to
>> be produced by six organs viz. tongue, teeth, palate, nose, throat,
>> chest);........
>
> Essentially, the same list is paraphrased by Tyagaraja in his composition
> "shObhillu saptasvara" in Jaganmohini rAgam, rUpaka talam, while referring to
> the production of svaras. The phrase goes as follows:
> nAbhi hrut kaNTa rasana nAsadulayandu
> and refers to the "navel, chest/heart, throat, palate/tongue, nose, etc".
>
> Of course, I think Tyagaraga mentioned "nAsa" in a predictive sense, since
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> he knew that Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer would come around a century later and
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> use only that organ to produce music :-) :-) :-)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe you have added this comment in a lighter sense but in reality
the swaram ni is produced only by the nose. When you carefully observe
while singing 'ni' it is very obvious. And it is only due to this reason
that Semmangudi gas a nasal accent.He has a very bad sinus problem and it
is to be appreciated as to how this man intelligently changed his problem
into an asset.In fact this is where a musicians worth is seen i.e.,changing
his setbacks into assets or atleast evolving a style where this does not
affect his presentation.
In fact,as one carefully observes each swaram should (if sung correctly)
originate from each part of the body which Tyagaraja mentions.
Of course it is definety foolish of any body to imitate this nasal accent
while singing instead of taking the musical aspect of his or in fact anybody's
music.
Thank Youm,
SATHISH
K. N. Raghavan
[Comments about the etymology of "ShaDja" deleted.]
>(Is this an appropriate posting for this group?...Well, too late Gangolli,
>you have done it again! You cannot let all the one-finger typing go to
>waste!)
I hope that Dr.Gangolli's post was appropriate. This posting is
in similar vein. Both my questions are about specific usages of
compound words (samaasas) by muttusvAmi dIkShitar.
1) In his navagraha composition on candra (the "planet" moon)
"candram bhaja mAnasa", dIkShitar describes candra as
"venkaTEsha-nayanam", meaning presumably "(worship him, who is)
the eye of lord venkaTEshvara". My problem is this: is
<xxx>nayana the eye of <xxx> or vice-versa? Or does the answer
depend on structure of the word <xxx>? Since more often than
not <xxx>nayana seems to refer to the person with <xxx> for his
eye, I conclude that in the above usage dIkShitar is taking li-
berties with the language, and that the usage is an instance of
"mahAkavi prayOga". Does anyone have a better explanation? I
would appreciate comments on the construction of compounds with
the last word being "nayana" or some other word meaning "eye".
2) In the song "bAla-gOpAla" (raga bhairavi, Adi tAla), dIkShitar
applies to lord kRShNa such adjectives as "nata-bhUsura" (meaning
"one to whom the brahmins bow") and "apahata-kamsAsura (meaning
"killer of the demon(ic) kamsa"). Note that the order of the
parts of the compound are reversed (the normal order being illus-
trated for example by "guruguha-nuta" and "puravairi-vinuta"
which incidentally are phrases from the same song). My ques-
tion is this: is there any rule of grammar which provides for
such a reversal of order? If this is a technique which is
not uncommon in music/poetry, some examples would be wel-
come. By the way, dIkShitar exploits this technique to the
hilt. He uses it even when the case is not nominative, e.g.,
"natEndrAdi-lOkapAlakayA" (meaning "(I am protected by sarasvati,
who is) worshipped by indra and other lords of the world(s)")
in "sarasvatyA bhagavatyA", and "khaNDIkRta-dashakaNTham"
(meaning "(I seek soundararAja,) who punished the ten headed
(rAvaNa)") in "soundararAjam".
---Raghavan (ragh...@math.msu.edu)
Krishna Kunchithapadam
:In article <1lgs5j...@shelley.u.washington.edu> you write:
[ various disclaimers deleted ]
:
:1) In his navagraha composition on candra (the "planet" moon)
:"candram bhaja mAnasa", dIkShitar describes candra as
:"venkaTEsha-nayanam", meaning presumably "(worship him, who is)
:the eye of lord venkaTEshvara". My problem is this: is
:<xxx>nayana the eye of <xxx> or vice-versa? Or does the answer
:depend on structure of the word <xxx>? Since more often than
:not <xxx>nayana seems to refer to the person with <xxx> for his
:eye, I conclude that in the above usage dIkShitar is taking li-
:berties with the language, and that the usage is an instance of
:"mahAkavi prayOga". Does anyone have a better explanation? I
:would appreciate comments on the construction of compounds with
:the last word being "nayana" or some other word meaning "eye".
An interesting observation. As far as I can tell `<xxx>nayana'
takes on the meaning of `eye of <xxx>' _only_ if <xxx> is in the
genitive case. So, a grammatically correct usage for `eye of
Venkatesa' would be `venkataeSasya-nayanam'. Just using
`venkataeSa' is vocative (and not correct if the `eye of' meaning
is intended).
However, the word `nayanam' has a huge number of connotations
(apart from the well known `eye'). For example, it could mean
`leading' or `guiding' or `ruling' or even `obtaining'. So,
dhEkShethar could have meant `candra, who leads/rules
venkataeSa', probably a reference to the graha of Lord VenkataeSa
in his mortal incarnation. My gut feeling is that, given
dhEkShethar's deep knowledge of astrology, mythology and the
occult, he would have meant the phrases to be interpreted in this
sense. He may have also chosen this `alternative' (which has a
different simplistic interpretation) from among different ones as
a poetic device---a riddle perhaps.
There certainly does not seem to be a metre (guru/laGu) reason
for preferring `venkataeSa' to `venkataeSasya', if `eye of ...'
was indeed meant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
:2) In the song "bAla-gOpAla" (raga bhairavi, Adi tAla), dIkShitar
:applies to lord kRShNa such adjectives as "nata-bhUsura" (meaning
:"one to whom the brahmins bow") and "apahata-kamsAsura (meaning
:"killer of the demon(ic) kamsa"). Note that the order of the
:parts of the compound are reversed (the normal order being illus-
:trated for example by "guruguha-nuta" and "puravairi-vinuta"
:which incidentally are phrases from the same song). My ques-
:tion is this: is there any rule of grammar which provides for
:such a reversal of order? If this is a technique which is
:not uncommon in music/poetry, some examples would be wel-
:come. By the way, dIkShitar exploits this technique to the
:hilt. He uses it even when the case is not nominative, e.g.,
:"natEndrAdi-lOkapAlakayA" (meaning "(I am protected by sarasvati,
:who is) worshipped by indra and other lords of the world(s)")
:in "sarasvatyA bhagavatyA", and "khaNDIkRta-dashakaNTham"
:(meaning "(I seek soundararAja,) who punished the ten headed
:(rAvaNa)") in "soundararAjam".
:
About the phrase `natha-BUsura'---there seems to be an
inconsistency here (atleast wrt Sanskrit grammar). `natha' is a
past passive participle form, hence the phrase above would
literally translate to `one who is bowed to (sic) by the
brahmins'---which would imply `BUsuraeNa-natha'. I can only
think of rhyme as a reason (no pun intended) for this usage---so
that this meshes with the endings of almost all the other phrases
in the song.
I don't see a problem with `apahatha', so my guess is that this
kind of word order reversal is simply the exercise of poetic
license by dhEkShethar.
One the other hand, `nathaendhrAdhe lokapAlakayA' is
grammatically expected. `lokapAlakayA' is in the instrumental
case. (fem. nom. is `lokapAlakayA' [as in bAlA -> bAlayA]). So,
the phrase would initially start off as `(aham) endhrAdhe-loka-
pAlakayA natha asme' and since Sanskrit does not impose any word
order, the `natha' can move to the head of the preceeding word
and participate in sanDhe to give `nathaendhrAdhe...'
Once again, `KandhEkRtha dhaSakaNTam' is the correct usage for
`verb + accusative'.
I have generally been frustrated time and again trying to
grammatize krithis in any sensible manner. Almost all words are
in the vocative/nominative case (hail <xxx> who is <yyy> and the
like, where <xxx> is vocative and <yyy> is nominative adjective).
There is a paucity of verbs and subject---you need to include
`asthe' and `aham' in a lot of places to get parsable sentences,
I suppose these problems are much the same as those encountered
when dealing with Sanskrit Bakthi poetry.
--Krishna
K. N. Raghavan
[With reference to the phrase "venkaTEsha-nayanam" in dIkShitar's
navagraha kRti on candra.]
>dhEkShethar could have meant `candra, who leads/rules
>venkataeSa', probably a reference to the graha of Lord VenkataeSa
>in his mortal incarnation. My gut feeling is that, given
>dhEkShethar's deep knowledge of astrology, mythology and the
>occult, he would have meant the phrases to be interpreted in this
>sense. He may have also chosen this `alternative' (which has a
>different simplistic interpretation) from among different ones as
>a poetic device---a riddle perhaps.
Let us look at the sAhitya of the relevant part of the song:
shankara-mouLi-vibhUShaNam, shIta-kiraNam,
caturbhujam, madana-chatram, kShapA-karam,
venkaTEsha-nayanam, virAN-manO-jananam,
vidum, kumuda-mitram, vidhi-guruguha-vaktram
Notice that dIkShitar is describing candra in relation to the various
deities: the head-ornament of shiva, the face of guruguha, born off
the mind of the virATpuruSha (a reference to "candramA manasO jAta:"
of the puruSha-sUkta), etc. So I think dIkShitar means to say that
candra is the eye of venkaTEsha. Now, kRShNa, let your grammatical
expertise go to work and let me know (unless, of course, you still
do not agree with the meaning I have ascribed to the phrase).
>There certainly does not seem to be a metre (guru/laGu) reason
>for preferring `venkataeSa' to `venkataeSasya', if `eye of ...'
>was indeed meant.
There does not seem to be enough room for "venkaTEshasya".
____________________________________________________________
[With reference to such phrases as "nata-bhUsura" and "apahata-
kamsAsura" in dIkShitar's "bAla-gOpAla" (bhairavi rAga, Adi tALa)]
...
> I can only
>think of rhyme as a reason (no pun intended) for this usage---so
>that this meshes with the endings of almost all the other phrases
>in the song.
...
>I don't see a problem with `apahatha', so my guess is that this
>kind of word order reversal is simply the exercise of poetic
>license by dhEkShethar.
I agree. Now the question is this: did dIkShitar have a precedent
for such usage?
__________________________________________________________________
[With reference to the phrase "natEndrAdyakhila-dEvatayA" in
"sarasvatyA bhagavatyA" (raga chAyA-gouLa, mishra cApu (triputa?)
tALa) of dIkShitar.]
Let me correct an error in my previous posting: the phrase in
question was incorrectly quoted as "natEndrAdi-lOkapAlakayA".
The reason for the error is not hard to guess: interference
from the similar phrase from "cEtashshrI bAlakRShNam".
>I have generally been frustrated time and again trying to
>grammatize krithis in any sensible manner. Almost all words are
>in the vocative/nominative case (hail <xxx> who is <yyy> and the
>like, where <xxx> is vocative and <yyy> is nominative adjective).
Would you care to share some of your favourite examples?
---Raghavan
Thyagarajan Mohan
>
>[With reference to the phrase "venkaTEsha-nayanam" in dIkShitar's
>navagraha kRti on candra.]
>
>shankara-mouLi-vibhUShaNam, shIta-kiraNam,
>caturbhujam, madana-chatram, kShapA-karam,
>venkaTEsha-nayanam, virAN-manO-jananam,
>vidum, kumuda-mitram, vidhi-guruguha-vaktram
>
>Notice that dIkShitar is describing candra in relation to the various
>deities: the head-ornament of shiva, the face of guruguha, born off
>the mind of the virATpuruSha (a reference to "candramA manasO jAta:"
>of the puruSha-sUkta), etc. So I think dIkShitar means to say that
>candra is the eye of venkaTEsha. Now, kRShNa, let your grammatical
>expertise go to work and let me know (unless, of course, you still
>do not agree with the meaning I have ascribed to the phrase).
Though I'm not competent enough to quote refs. from skt.lit.,
from a a tamil literature,I can quote this kind of difference in prepositions
(vERRumai urbu).The famous eg. is the tevAram `ponnAr mEniyanE!pulittOlai
araikku asaitu';it has to be `araiyil asaitu'.This is called as `urubu mayakam
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
in Tamil.The grammatical structures of both these languages are similar in
many ways.
However,as Krishna indicated,the word`nayanam' can take meanings like
`taking near/leading to'as in the case of `upanayanam'.`tiruppati' is the
sacred place for the planet moon(candra) according to classicss.
MOHAN
Krishna Kunchithapadam
: tmo...@iastate.edu (Thyagarajan Mohan) writes:
:In article <1lrt26$s...@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Here is some more information that I was able to get about word
compounds in sa~kRth.
Almost all compounds (or `samAsa's) in sa~skRth can be classified
into 2 categories (these are the main classes of compounds, other
types of compounds are rare).
They are: `karmaDhAraya samAsa' and `thathpuruSha samAsa'.
In the case of karmaDhAraya samAsa, the two words that are being
compounded are of the same case. The earlier word functions as an
adjective to the later one. Example,
+----------------------------------------+
|samAsa | vegraha |
|========================================|
|narase~haH | naraH se~haH |
| | (or even) naraH eva se~haH |
+----------------------------------------+
and would mean a lion which is "like" a man. Hence, `nara' serves
as an adjective to `se~ha'.
In the case of thathpuruSha samAsa, the case of the two words
being compounded is most emphatically different, but the
difference is not explicitly presented in the samAsa. The first
word of the compound is usually in the genitive or the
instrumental case (locative is also common) and provides the
syntactic link with the second word of the compound. Examples,
+-------------------------------------------------+
|samAsa | vegraha | case |
|=================================================|
|dhaevaputhraH | dhaevasya puthraH | genitive |
|suranutha | suraeNa nutha | instrumental |
|vanavAsa | vanae vAsa | locative |
|maraNaBayam | maraNAth Bayam | ablative |
|pAdhauShadham | pAdhAya auShadham | dative |
+-------------------------------------------------+
Each of these two types of samAsa can undergo transformations
under bahuvrEhe and take on declentions like any other word---in
fact most of the common words that we use in sa~kRth and hendhe
are the result of samAsa on much more primitive stems.
Given the fact that the result of karmaDhAraya and thathpuruSha
samAsa looks the same, there are some simple rules that can be
used to distinguish between the two. One of the most widely
usable rules is the existence of the `past passive participle
(ppp)' in the compound. If the ppp is the first member of the
compound, the samAsa is most likely karmaDhAraya. If the ppp is
the second member of the compound, the samAsa is most likely
thathpuruSha. Example,
`hatharAma' = `the slain Rama' (karmaDhAraya), while
`rAmahatha' = `slain by Rama' (thathpuruSha/instrumental).
In the example rAGavan quoted, `vae~kataeShanayanam',
karmaDhAraya samAsa vegraha leads to `vae~kataeSha nayanam'---
having an eye like vae~kataeSha, or even having a vae~kataeSha-
eye. thathpuruSha samAsa vegraha (with the genitive case
assumption for the first word) leads to `vae~kataeShasya
nayanam'--- eye of vae~kataeSha. With the interpretation of
`nayanam' as leading/guiding, we have `vae~kataeShAya nayanam
(candhram)'
The karmaDhAraya interpretation is unlikely in this context.
Either of the thathpuruSha interpretations are possible. I would
tend to agree with rAGavan---the phrase means `eye of
vaenkataeSha', mainly from the surrounding context of the
sentence. However, the "verb"al connotation to `nayanam' allows
the second interpretation.
In conclusion, the apparent word order reversal in compound words
is not unusual. It is a well documented and widely used samAsa
technique (but makes life difficult for people trying to
understand the compositions).
--kRShNaH
K. N. Raghavan
[Comments on rules on forming compounds in Sanskrit deleted.]
Thanks for the informative article.
In article <C2LuE...@news.iastate.edu> tmo...@iastate.edu (Thya-
garajan Mohan) writes:
> `tiruppati' is the
>:sacred place for the planet moon(candra) according to classicss.
Could you please list the places associated with each planet, and
perhaps also mention the classic(s) you are referring to? Thanks.
---Raghavan