Syllable count in Sanskrit

[Shreyas P. Munshi]

Respected scholars of the group,
Accoeding to "spoken sanskrit.de" online dictionary, the word 'syllable' translates as 'varNa' in Sanskrit. And shri Abhyankarji, in his Geeta Sanskrit lessons describes
anusThupa chhanda as the one in which each line has eight 'varNa'. I have a doubt in the syllable count.

My question is: how many syllables are there in the word युयुत्सवः and how many in the word मामकाः ?
I find that if युयुत्सवः is pronounced as 'yuyutsavaha' there are five syllables and if
मामकाः is pronounced as 'maamakaahaa'there are four syllables because of which the syllable count becomes nine (instead of eight required by the anusThupa chhanda) in the relevant lines of the very first shloka of BhagvadGeeta.
The syllable count becomes four if युयुत्सवः is pronounced 'yuyutsavah'and three if मामकाः
is pronounced 'maamakaah' and then each line gives a syllable count of eight.

Which is the correct way of pronouncing?

This doubt has come up because in the text book which is used for our Sanskrit third level class, it is mentioned that रामः should be pronounced as 'raamaha' and
नदीः sould be pronounced as 'nadiihii' each with three syllable whereas in the school we were told these are two-syllable words.
Would you Kindly throw light and oblige.
...Shreyas



____________________________

Shreyas Munshi
shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197

Catch India as it happens with the Rediff News App. To download it for FREE, click here

[Arvind Kolhatkar]

Shreyasji,

<I find that if युयुत्सवः is pronounced as 'yuyutsavaha' there are five syllables and if मामकाः is pronounced as 'maamakaahaa' there are four syllables because of which the syllable count becomes nine (instead of eight required by the anusThupa chhanda) in the relevant lines of the very first shloka of BhagvadGeeta. The syllable count becomes four if युयुत्सवः is pronounced 'yuyutsavah'and three if मामकाः is pronounced 'maamakaah' >

The second alternative that you propose is the correct one.  युयुत्सवः is not pronounced as 'yuyutsavaha' but as 'yu-yut-sa-vah' and has four syllables, not five.  Similarly मामकाः is not 'maamakaahaa' but 'maa-ma-kaah' and has three syllable, not four.  Had 'maamakaahaa' been the correct pronunciation, पाण्डवाः would have been 'paaNDavaahaa' and, in that case, the संधि in the same line, पाण्डवाश्चैव, would not have been possible.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 09, 2013.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः]

नमस्ते श्रीमन् श्रेयस-महोदय !

1. विसर्गः is not a separate syllable. In a word as रामः the विसर्गः is part of the वर्णः मः For syllable-count also, मः is to be taken as one syllable count only. The विसर्गः increases मात्रा, not the number of वर्ण-s. मात्रा of म is 1, whereas that of मः is 2. Both म and मः are वर्ण-s having different मात्रा-count. Syllable(वर्ण)-count and मात्रा-count are again two different things.
1. In my analyses of meters I always mention वर्ण-count and मात्रा-count separately.
   
2. I have been listening to people pronouncing मः as मह. Frankly, I am very uncomfortable with such pronunciation. But I am left wondering what I can do about it. It is like wanting to correct pronunciation-habits of people who are wont to pronounce स्त्री as इस्त्री. Habits are hard to beat, right ?
   
3. Instead of blaming the people who pronounce मः as मह, the blame should rather be owned by the people who teach them so. Not only that they teach so, they insist that मः should be pronounced as मह only ! Such adamant insistence among teachers is worrisome. I don't think teaching people to pronounce मः as मः and not as मह is as challenging as wanting to correct pronunciation of people who are wont to pronounce स्त्री as इस्त्री.

सस्नेहम्
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः ।
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"

--

[Shreyas P. Munshi]

Kolhatkar Sir,

Thank you for your enlightehing reply. I am taking the liberty of interpolating my comments in blue in the body of your text itself, for easy reference by you. Would you kindly scroll down and see them?...Shreyas

From: Arvind Kolhatkar <kolhat...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 07:39:03
To: "sams...@googlegroups.com" <sams...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Syllable count in Sanskrit

Shreyasji,

<I find that if युयुत्सवः is pronounced as 'yuyutsavaha' there are five syllables and if मामकाः is pronounced as 'maamakaahaa' there are four syllables because of which the syllable count becomes nine (instead of eight required by the anusThupa chhanda) in the relevant lines of the very first shloka of BhagvadGeeta. The syllable count becomes four if युयुत्सवः is pronounced 'yuyutsavah'and three if मामकाः is pronounced 'maamakaah' >

The second alternative that you propose is the correct one. I am so relieved. Our teachers in school, some sixty years ago, were very clear, as I find you are, that visarga should not increase the syllable count. युयुत्सवः is not pronounced as 'yuyutsavaha' but as 'yu-yut-sa-vah' and has four syllables, not five.  Similarly मामकाः is not 'maamakaahaa' but 'maa-ma-kaah' and has three syllable, not four.  Had 'maamakaahaa' been the correct pronunciation, पाण्डवाः would have been 'paaNDavaahaa' and, in that case, the संधि in the same line, पाण्डवाश्चैव, would not have been possible.This is a masterly convincing argument and example. If the visarga is to be replaced by a swaraant 'h' (h+a/aa/i/u etc), the whole visarga sandhi rule would become redundant! Thank you very much, Kolhatkar Sir.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 09, 2013.

[धनंजय वैद्य <deejayvaidya@yahoo.com>]

I agree with shri Kolhatkar, with the following addition. The visarga is aghoSha, which is how it differs from 'h' which is a ghoSha sound. If we use the symbol 'H' for the aghoSha variety, the pronunciations are "mAmakAH" etc.
Dhananjay

[धनंजय वैद्य <deejayvaidya@yahoo.com>]

A slight correction. Syllable is "akShara", an akShara can have multiple varNa components. The word pAN-Da-vAH has three akShara. The first akShara "pAN" has three varNa within it.

[Anand Ghurye]

Dear Shripadji ,

Will you please send the two pronunciations as mp3 files which will help us distinguish the right from the wrong ? Thanks in advance.

Regards ,

Anand Ghurye

--



Regards ,

Anand Ghúryé

*Training*Development*Synectics
Space Page : 9820489416

[Shreyas P. Munshi]

Respected Abhyankar-ji,

Thank you for your detailed explanation.My comments  are interpolated in highlighted yellow in the body of the  text of your mail itself..Will you kindlyscroll down...Shreyas


skri...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:05:38
To: "Shreyas P. Munshi" <shreya...@rediffmail.com>
Cc: sams...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Syllable count in Sanskrit

नमस्ते श्रीमन् श्रेयस-महोदय !

1. विसर्गः is not a separate syllable. Thank you, Sir, for affirming it!  In a word as रामः the विसर्गः is part of the वर्णः मः For syllable-count also, मः is to be taken as one syllable count only. The विसर्गः increases मात्रा, not the number of वर्ण-s. मात्रा of म is 1, whereas that of मः is 2. Both म and मः are वर्ण-s having different मात्रा-count. Syllable(वर्ण)-count and मात्रा-count are again two different things.
1. In my analyses of meters I always mention वर्ण-count and मात्रा-count separately. I have been seeing you doing that, Sir.
   

1. I have been listening to people pronouncing मः as मह. Frankly, I am very uncomfortable with such pronunciation. But I am left wondering what I can do about it. It is like wanting to correct pronunciation-habits of people who are wont to pronounce स्त्री as इस्त्री. Habits are hard to beat, right ?

1. 1.      I am reminded of the story of that simpleton who was carrying a small calf on his shoulders, and three thugs, one after the other, kept on calling him a fool for carrying a donkey. Finally he dumped the animal, brain-washed to believing that it really was a donkey that he was carrying! For almost 40 years now, I have been bombarded with 'aha', aahaa, ihi, uhu, for visarga preceded by one of these vowels. Thank God, my faith in my scholarly school teachers saved me from getting brain-washed and today with what you and Kolhatkar Sir (and now Dr Vaidya as well)  have explained, I  am स्थितोऽस्मि गतसन्देहः(in a way  स्मृतिर्लब्ध्वा!!! Thank you all.)

2. Instead of blaming the people who pronounce मः as मह, the blame should rather be owned by the people who teach them so. Not only that they teach so, they insist that मः should be pronounced as मह only ! Such adamant insistence  teachers is worrisome.And teachers don’t like if this is pointed out to them. But my teacher is nice, she listens to logical arguments; and before discussing with her I wanted to be sure and that is why I referred this query to the scholars in the group. I think if I can convince at least one teacher, I would have taken the step in the right direction among  I don't think teaching people to pronounce मः as मः and not as मह is as challenging as wanting to correct pronunciation of people who are wont to pronounce स्त्री as इस्त्री.Ya! Like a post –graduate in English roaring “i-stop, i-stand i-straight and i-state your i-story!

[Shreyas P. Munshi]

DeeJayVaidya Sir,

A slight correction. Syllable is "akShara",

Oh, so now I understand why in BhagvadGeeta,  Bhagwan describes the monosyllabic sound 'OM' as 'ekaaksharI'!

Thank you Dr Vaidya Sir.

So can we say that the ekaaksharI 'OM' has one and a half varNa and two and a half 'maatraa's? The learning now becomes very interesting!

...Shreyas

 calls  From: <deejay...@yahoo.com> <deejay...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:04:35
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Samskrita] Syllable count in Sanskrit

A slight correction. Syllable is "akShara", an akShara can have multiple varNa components. The word pAN-Da-vAH has three akShara. The first akShara "pAN" has three varNa within it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Shreyas P. Munshi]

Respected Dr Dhananjay Vaidya Sir,

The visarga is aghoSha

 

Does aghoSha mean voiceless ?

In Linguistics they taught us that

'ka' is (un-aspirated) voiceless velar plosive.

'kha' is aspirated voiceless velar plosive.

'ga' is (un-aspirated) voiced velar plosive.

''gha' is aspirated voiced velar plosive.

 

The 'h' sound heard in visarga seems to be glottal, not velar. Is it un-aspirated voiceless stop? or un-aspirated voiced stop? or aspirated unvoiced stop? or aspirated voiced stop?

At one place (elsewhere) a sound's description included the term 'mahaapraaNa'. What does it mean?

...Shreyas

yas Munshi
shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[विश्वनाथ: बण्डारु]

Dear Abhyankar Mahodaya,

I have been listening to people pronouncing मः as मह. Frankly, I am very uncomfortable with such pronunciation. But I am left wondering what I can do about it. It is like wanting to correct pronunciation-habits of people who are wont to pronounce स्त्री as इस्त्री. Habits are hard to beat, right ?

I am now suspecting my pronunciation may be incorrect. Here is what I have been taugt by my guru (for vedic texts) -

1.  The visaraga, as much as possible gets combined into other letters via the visaga sandhi.

2.  Where the following letters (following the visarga) are either of pa or ka, the visarga sandhi can't be applied, and the visarga needs to be pronounced in half measure.

3.  When the following letter is a ksha, then the visarga needs to be pronounced fully. In my view, this is almost like a a ha.

My understanding is that this pronunciation is probably the same in normal usage. Is this any different ? Would it be possible for you to share some audio where the difference can be easily understood ?

Thanks

Vissu

[धनंजय वैद्य <deejayvaidya@yahoo.com>]

The visarjanIya is described in the taittirIya prAtishAkhya as UShman. So it is not plosive or stop. It is a fricative (with not much friction, though), that must be close enough to a sibilant sound that some authorities heard it that way. Slightly different, perhaps, so that not all authorities heard it that way: that is why I think the friction may be not too much.

The sthAna is mostly given as kaNThya, though the minority opinion that it was articulated at the same place as the preceding vowel - i.e., a voiceless maybe-fricative articulated at the the velum after a/A, lips after u/U etc.

mahAprANa is what is called "aspiration" in English textbooks of phonetics. There is probably no controversy (all authorities were in agreement) that the visarga is mahAprANa.

Dhananjay

[Shreyas P. Munshi]

Dr Dhananjay Sir,

mahAprANa is what is called "aspiration" in English textbooks of phonetics. There is probably no controversy (all authorities were in agreement) that the visarga is mahAprANa.

Thnx. I have interpolated my comments in blue in the very text of your message. Would you kindly scroll down and see?...Shreyas

From: <deejay...@yahoo.com> <deejay...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 20:55:06
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Syllable count in Sanskrit

The visarjanIya is described in the taittirIya prAtishAkhya as UShman. So it is not plosive or stop.That's a good point. And so the visarga surely cannot be represented as full-fledged ह, हा हि etc unlike what some seem to be doing. It is a fricative (with not much friction, though), that must be close enough to a sibilant sound that some authorities heard it that way. Slightly different, perhaps, so that not all authorities heard it that way: that is why I think the friction may be not too much.

The sthAna is mostly given as kaNThya, though the minority opinion that it was articulated at the same place as the preceding vowel - i.e., a voiceless maybe-fricative articulated at the the velum after a/A, lips after u/U etc.Maybe like [v]ʰ where the superscript ʰ represents the fricative-like aspiration after the vowel. No?

mahAprANa is what is called "aspiration" in English textbooks of phonetics. There is probably no controversy (all authorities were in agreement) that the visarga is mahAprANa.

If 'aspiration'=mahAprANa.=visarga, the difference betwen the aspiration used in English and Sanskrit would seem be that in English, the aspiration comes after the word-initial or syllable-initial unvoiced consonats (like pin, tin,  p of IPA pronounced as /pʰin/, /tʰin/ /aipʰiei/), whereas the visarga aspiration in Sanskrit seems to come after vowels as in  /rAmaʰ/, /rAmayoʰ/, /rAmaiʰ/(using examples in sing, dual and plu number). But one thing is certain: it is not the full-fledgedह, हा हि etc.

Regards...Shreyas

[murthy]

Is there any difference in poronunciation between मः and मह्?

Thanks and regards

Murthy

[Subrahmanian R]

Respected Scholars,

It poses a problem to understand the proper pronounciation of various sounds through another language - say the vowels and consonants. It is true that the sounds have been clearly defined. But still problems arise to beginners like me.

It was enlightening to learn one of the scholastic members that while the consonant 'h' is voiced [ghosha] the visarga is unvoiced. Other common languages [to the limited extent I know] do not have voiced 'h' and unvoiced 'h' [ghosha and aghosha]. That is one of my difficulty.

In the English language, I learnt that 'aspirate' means breathing upon a following vowel. [There was a good demonstration in the movie 'My Fair Lady' - a Sanskrit professor teaching proper English !]. Of the four ऊष्माण - श, ष, स, ह - English does not have the equivalent of श - perhaps it is so in many languages. English has voiced and unvoiced variations for S, F, Sh - Z, V and Zh. English treats 'th' also in this category [continuant] and the voiced version is 'dh' as in they or them.

For me, not being a native speaker, F and V do not resemble, but I am unable to distinguish between V and W - Vest and West are same to me, because of my inability to distinguish.

Similarly, except for those properly initiated, it would be difficult to understand or produce voiced and unvoiced varieties of 'h'. I am in no disputing or raising doubts on the mature explanations given. I am only lamenting over my position - though one can understand the definition, difficult to produce or distinguish in hearing.

Pranams

R Subrahmanian

[Naresh Cuntoor]

If the very first varNa "a" can have several regional variations (Punjabi 'a' vs. Benarasi 'a' vs. Bengali 'a' vs. Malayali 'a' and so on), then it is hardly surprising that are variations in 'aH'. I think the best we can do is listen to pronunciation of say, pandits in Varanasi or Sringeri or elsewhere and follow pronunciations that are naturally closer to one's own.

At least as long as don't make रामः रामहा, I think we are reasonably ok!

(Note to beginners - रामहा = रामहन्तकः  ;  Indra is वृत्रहा and not वृत्रः)

-Naresh

[Shreyas P. Munshi]

Respected Naresh Cuntoor-ji,

At least as long as don't make रामः रामहा, I think we are reasonably ok!

That seems to be a very good way of summarizing the discussion. With your above comment added, I think I have got the answer to my query, and my doubt is cleared.

Thank you, Abhyankar-ji, Kolhatkar-ji,Dhananjay-ji  and all,

...Regards...Shreyas


____________________________

Shreyas Munshi

shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197

From: Naresh Cuntoor <nare...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:50:26
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Syllable count in Sanskrit

[murthy]

I guess that pundits from Varanasi pronounce रामः,गिरिः,गुरुः somewhat near रामह्,गिरिह्,गुरुह् while pundits from Srungeri do so somewhat akin to रामह,गिरिहि,गुरुहु.

Regards

Murthy 

----- Original Message -----

From: Naresh Cuntoor

To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:50 AM

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Syllable count in Sanskrit

[Aniruddha Joshi]

Respected scholars,

I have been hearing the pronunciation of गायत्रीमंत्र as follows:

ॐ भूर्भुवस्स्वह | तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यं भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि ।

धियो यो नः प्रचोदयात ।

Please note the letters in bold. 

स्वः, I have heard, is almost always pronounced as स्वह. Similarly, the ultimate हलंत consonant त् in प्रचोदयात् is pronounced somewhat like a full त. Is this a peculiarity of Vedic pronunciation? Or is it simply an incorrect pronunciation?

Thanks and Regards,

Aniruddha

[Shreyas P. Munshi]

Respected Anuradha Madam,
Re your queri:

ॐ भूर्भुवस्स्वह | तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यं भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि ।
धियो यो नः प्रचोदयात ।
Please note the letters in bold.
स्वः, I have heard, is almost always pronounced as स्वह. Similarly, the ultimate हलंत consonant त् in प्रचोदयात् is pronounced somewhat like a full त. Is this a peculiarity of Vedic pronunciation? Or is it simply an incorrect pronunciation?

I find it very annoying and funny. Hindus delete the word-final 'a' in akaaraant words (Ananda as Anand, Sachina as Sachin, Rama as Ram etc) and for the halant words they add 'a' as in 'prachodayAta' na karmaNArambhAta(!) (BG 3). etc.!

But scholars can throw more light on this.
...Shreyas

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:44:12 +0530 wrote

>Respected scholars,
I have been hearing the pronunciation of गायत्रीमंत्र as follows:
ॐ भूर्भुवस्स्वह | तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यं भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि ।
धियो यो नः प्रचोदयात ।
Please note the letters in bold. 
स्वः, I have heard, is almost always pronounced as स्वह. Similarly, the ultimate हलंत consonant त् in प्रचोदयात् is pronounced somewhat like a full त. Is this a peculiarity of Vedic pronunciation? Or is it simply an incorrect pronunciation?

Thanks and Regards,Aniruddha

____________________________

Shreyas Munshi
shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197

Get your own FREE website and domain with business email solutions, click here

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Gayatri Mantra is Vedic mantra and is normally recited with  accents. Your guru or your family in which you have learnt is the best guide
Vedic pronunciations are fixed as per the Samhita or Shakha one follows.

The important point is, I recite the way my father or Guru recites and he recited the way his guru or father did. This is how the Vedic mantras are learnt, recited and transmitted from thousands of years.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Ramakrishnan D]

 भो महाशयाः ! 

सर्वेभ्यः नमस्काराः । गायत्रीं वयं गायामः प्रतिदिनम् । प्रायः त्रिवारम् । उच्चारणे यथा पाठितं पित्रा वा गुरुणा त‍था 

कुर्मः एव । परन्तु मन्त्रस्य अर्थः कः , कथं वा जपेदिति , जपकाले अस्माकं भावना का भूयादिति कृपया वदन्तु

पण्डिताः परमदयालवः येन किञ्चित् प्रयोजनं भवेत् सर्वेभ्यः ।   धन्यवादः ।

भवदीयः

रामकृष्णः ।

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

All vedic mantras are learnt traditionally from Gurus or by hearing if you have an dispute with traditional methods of learning it is a different issue. Is it not simpler to listen and learn how a person recites and  instead of making theoretical speculations on what should be the correct form of pronunciation. It holds good for any language and more so for Vedic mantras which have accents.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

2013/3/23 विश्वासो वासुकेयः <vishvas...@gmail.com>

अत्र पुस्तकमीक्षताम्।

तत्र "वरेण्यम्" शब्दस्य "वरेणियम्" इत्युच्चारणम् उपदिष्टम् - गायत्रीछन्दसः स्पष्टोच्चारणाय। मम गुरुस्तु तत् सर्वम् किमपि नोक्तवान्। न हि सर्वः‌ सर्वम् जानाति।

[Ajit Krishnan]

namaste,

 

Two different collections of commentaries on the gayatri mantra are available from http://www.aupasana.com/ahnika.

 

The commentary by Painganadu Ganapati Shastri (in the gayatri shishartha mala document) talks about both variations. According to him, the "Ni" prayoga is used in homa, while the other prayoga is used for nitya japa.

 

I have seen this distinction observed in practice .... usually in the vaTu's first yajur upakarma (talai avani avittam) which is the only time that many astikas actually perform the gayatri homa (even though the yearly prAyashcitta-gayatrI-japa is actually the gauNa-karma, and gayatri-homa is the pradhAna-karma).

 

sasneham,

 

   ajit

 

 

2013/3/23 विश्वासो वासुकेयः <vishvas...@gmail.com>

अत्र पुस्तकमीक्षताम्।

तत्र "वरेण्यम्" शब्दस्य "वरेणियम्" इत्युच्चारणम् उपदिष्टम् - गायत्रीछन्दसः स्पष्टोच्चारणाय। मम गुरुस्तु तत् सर्वम् किमपि नोक्तवान्। न हि सर्वः‌ सर्वम् जानाति।

On Sunday, March 17, 2013 12:23:19 PM UTC-7, Ramakrishnan D wrote:

[kenp]

Is there on line syllable counter for Sanskrit ?

[devmadhav]

Found the site and counter is part of it.

https://sanskrit.iitk.ac.in/jnanasangraha/chanda/text

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:13 AM kenp <drk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Is there on line syllable counter for Sanskrit ?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/8cb8c79d-dbd2-43b3-8bae-fc901f76465an%40googlegroups.com.

[kenp]

Based on this counter 

https://sanskrit.iitk.ac.in/jnanasangraha/chanda/text

Akṣarāṇi
यु   यु  त्स  वः  मा  म  काः
Laghu-Guru
लगलगगलग
Gaṇa
जतग
Counts
7 अक्षराणि, 11 मात्राः

Is this correct based on discussion here ?

[devmadhav]

Yes. Any particular doubt. Please let us know.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/2a1466fd-4437-4711-814b-97f6da1ede1bn%40googlegroups.com.

[KN.Ramesh]

@gstm...

rAma - 2+1=3 mAtra as per the s/w - Agreed and clear.

rAmaH = 4 mAtra as per the s/w ...Not clear

namAmsi  = 1+2+1 = 4 mAtra as per the s/w - not clear

Kindly give the logic behind the mAtrA  calculations...

namaskarams

[P R Iyer]

Laghu syllables have one matra and guru syllables have two matras.

[P R Iyer]

How is नमः pronounced?. The question is incomplete.  If नमः is at the end of a sentence, it is pronounced as नमह where the ह is produced from throat only without involving the abdomen. Such a pronounciation is not of a syllable ह .  Full syllable ह is pronounced by pulling the abdomen  inside. If one is unable to pronounce the visarga ह differently from the full syllable ह, he or she can pronounce it as full ह but should not argue that one syllable has increased. The alternative for correct pronunciation of end नमः is not नम or नमा or नमं । In short, a chanter should learn two pronounciations. One for end visarga. Second for full syllable ह.

Next, if नमः is inside a sentence, the sandhi rules should be studied and applied for pronounciation. नमः ते becomes नमस्ते etc as per sandhi rules.

Guru P.R.IYER

13.3.2023

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 6:26:00 PM UTC+5:30 KN.Ramesh wrote:

[P R Iyer]

In BG 1.1.2, the sloka is समवेता युयुत्सवः। It is not समवेताः ।

[P R Iyer]

The video is quoting from authentic sources. The visarga at the end of a SENTENCE is pronounced with कण्ठोविवृतश्श्वास(फ्)पराश्रयः। Therefore at the end of a sentence visarga sounds of रामः/ रामयोः/हरेः/लताभिः should be respectively matching with अ,ओ,ए,इ sounds behind the visarga symbol.   The visarga sounds are  not independent  ह् anywhere. That is the पराश्रय rule. 

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:42:20 AM UTC+5:30 P R Iyer wrote:

[Shreyas Munshi]

  I think:

राम: = राम्+अ: = रामह्  (not मह)

रामयो: = राम् + अय् + ओ:= रामयोह् (not योहो)

हरे: = हर् + ए:= हरेह्।  (Not रेहे)

लताभि: = लताभ् + इ: = लताभिह् (not भिहि)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/41d33d49-11ce-4c57-b570-d8be9d8bf280n%40googlegroups.com.

[P R Iyer]

 When a vowel is pronounced for visarga by throwing the air out of the open throat ह् gets into it. That is not the consonant हकार.  The  consonant ह is pronounced  from constricted throat with the air coming out with a grinding sound.  Also to note that the end visarga sound is always the sound of the vowel behind it and not a basic consonant like ह् etc.   In Sanskrit varnamala अtoअः are sampoorna akshara and also sounds to be added to consonants. We had several mails on the same points. It was a pleasure discussing with you. All the best. Thank you.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAE46dFQ_wt1onBnH4QV4JsZuzRQ2c3BieS7xKkXuBBZxuk8cjw%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

विसर्गोच्चारणे https://vishvasa.github.io/sanskrit/shixA/visargaH/ इत्यत्र प्रतिपादितः स्वविचारः -

• विसर्गो नाम प्राक्तन-स्वरस्योच्चारणे यो वायुस् तस्यान्तिमभागस्य विसर्जनम्, तेन प्राक्तनस्वरस्य कर्तनम् इव। एवं विसृष्टो वायुभागः प्राक्तनस्वरस्य छायामिवेषद् अनुवहति।
• तेनासौ शब्दः शुद्धहकाराद् भिन्नो भवति। नाम “हरिः”, “हरः” इत्यत्र वाऽन्तिमः शब्दः “हरिह्” इति वा “हरह्” इति वोच्चारिते श्रूयमाणात् प्राक्तन-स्वर-च्छाया-रहित-शुद्ध-हकाराद् भिन्नो भवति।
• यः स्वर-सहित-हकार-सदृशः शब्दश् श्रूयेत क्वचित्, स पूर्ण-स्वर-युक्त-हकाराद् भिन्नो भवति - तस्याव्यक्ततरत्वात्, निम्न-ध्वनित्वाद् अल्प-तर-मात्रात्वाच् च। नाम “हरिहि” इत्युच्चारिते यो ऽन्यवर्ण-सदृशं व्यक्तः हि-कारश् श्रूयते ऽन्ते, तद्-अपेक्षया “हरिः” इत्य्-उक्तय् इकाराद् उत्तरो ऽन्तिमवर्णो ऽबुद्धि-पूर्वको ऽव्यक्ततरो निम्न-ध्वनिश् च भवति। यावान् अत्रोच्चारणे व्यक्तता ऽन्तिम-वर्णस्य, तावान् ह्यत्र दोषः।
• किञ्चाऽन्तिमशब्दस्य +अव्यक्ततायाम् अभावे वा प्रयत्नातिशये कृतेऽपि दोषः।

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/samskrita/mMWGGw_cB8w/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CACxg%3DPk%2BKBH9eMEZw4u5jt5fP3RxdFx8JUYbULCnbGVR_qxTog%40mail.gmail.com.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[P R Iyer]

Visarga appears in print with a swarakshara first and then the symbol. When it is at the end of a sentence it is pronounced as VOWEL FIRST IN THROAT AND  THEN THROWING AIR FULLY OUT OF THE MOUTH. 

FOR ह, हा  etc we start with ह् and end with vowel. Both are opposite to each other. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAFY6qgGkn3ohQzAEMOstEWPXzdjV2bYM2%3DGtx%2Brs-2rRT3_Twg%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 at 12:31, P R Iyer <iyer...@gmail.com> wrote:

Visarga appears in print with a swarakshara first and then the symbol. When it is at the end of a sentence it is pronounced as VOWEL FIRST IN THROAT AND  THEN THROWING AIR FULLY OUT OF THE MOUTH. 

पूर्णता-प्रयत्न-पूर्वकं वायु-निष्कासनं न - अपि तु कर्तनमात्र-जन्यं वायुविसर्जनम् इति मे मतम्।  तथा कृते ऽपि प्राक्तनस्वरस्यानुस्वरणम् इव किञ्चिद् भवत्येव।

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CACxg%3DP%3D1K1MSqLTUeGf1ftKqv6NOb9K4a_dtxyWjehwsPGcEZw%40mail.gmail.com.