ranjini or ranjani

[P.K.Ramakrishnan]

A friend of mine has started a Trust called Bhaktaranjini Trust for printing and

selling a commentary on Narayaneeyam.

This is to inquire whether ranjini is correct or ranjani is correct or if both are

correct.

Thanks in advance. 

A doubt to be clarified.

A friend of mine has started a Trust called Bhaktaranjini Trust to propagate

commentary on Narayaneeyam.

I would request members to confirm whether ranjini is correct or ranjani is

correct or if both are correct.

Thanks in advance.

 

-----------------------------------
P.K.Ramakrishnan
http://peekayar.blogspot.com

[DEV RAJ]

ranjanii is correct

e.g - भञ्जनी, सञ्जीवनी


dev

[Subrahmanian R]

Sometimes, some popular persons change their names for Numerology or for any reason. The world follows them. eg Rajani is hardly used - in contemporary, popular use it has become rajini, thanks to the popular actor Rajinikant. Ranjani, ranjini could be one such. Further, as per MW ranjana and ranjini are listed. There is reference in these entries as cf: ranjani, cf: jana-ranjani, though I am unable to locate such listing.

R Subrahmanian

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

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Grammatically both are correct forms and if one is particular about their usage, here is the one for rañjinī -

Madanapālanighaṇṭu

• MPālNigh, Abhayādivarga, 120.2
  rañjinī kālikā melā tūṇī tutthā viśodhinī // 
  Context
• MPālNigh, Abhayādivarga, 228.1
  haridrā rajanī gaurī rañjinī varavarṇinī / 
  Context

Dhanvantarinighaṇṭu

• DhanvNigh, 1, 53.1
  haridrā pītikā piṅgā rajanī rañjinī niśā / 

and here is the other rañjanī

Rājanighaṇṭu

• RājNigh, Guḍ, 126.2
  rañjanī sūkṣmavallī ca bhramarī kṛṣṇavallikā // 
  Context
• RājNigh, Śat., 80.1
  kṛṣṇā vyañjanakeśī ca rañjanī ca mahāphalā / 
  Context

Amarakośa

• AKośa, 2, 143.2
  rañjanī śrīphalī tutthā droṇī dolā ca nīlinī // 
  Context

Bhāvaprakāśa

• BhPr, 6, Karpūrādivarga, 127.1
  parpaṭī rañjanī kṛṣṇā jatukā jananī janī / 
  Context

Dhanvantarinighaṇṭu

• DhanvNigh, 1, 228.2
  tutthā śrīphalikā mocā bhāravāhī ca rañjanī // 
  Context

Nighaṇṭuśeṣa

• NighŚeṣa, 1, 195.2
  niśākhyā rañjanī gaurī pītikā mehaghātinī // 
  Context

Anybody can check the link and find the context if needed.

For naming question, raised, both are equally coorect: either Bhakta-rañjanī or Bhakta-rañjinī and carry equal meaning: the one entertaining the bhakta-s. 

But rajanī is the proper word and there is no alternative Sanskrit word interchangeable with it as rajinī meaning night.

--
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

[Shreevatsa R]

Yes, see 

* Monier Williams:

http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/monier/indexcaller.php?key=raJjanI 

which has a lot of definitions including "pleasing, charming,...", versus

http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/monier/indexcaller.php?key=raJjinI

which has only the definition 

"N. of various plants (the indigo plant , Rubia Munjista &c ) L. (cf. रञ्जनी)"

* Apte:

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4:1:4913.apte

"रञ्जन a. (-नी f.)" has the meanings listed, there is also

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4:1:4914.apte

for रञ्जनी itself,

while रञ्जिनी is not present anywhere in the dictionary.

Good observation about रजिनि / रजिनी. These incorrect forms are nowhere in the dictionary; although the form रजनि sometimes occurs as a variant of the more common रजनी.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

4:1:4913.apte

"रञ्जन a. (-नी f.)" has the meanings listed, there is also

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4:1:4914.apte

for रञ्जनी itself,

while रञ्जिनी is not present anywhere in the dictionary.

Itself means both are grammatically correct forms and nothing else.

As for the names, both रसिकरञ्जनी or रसिकरञ्जिनी  (a combination of राग is known by that name) are correct and mean the same. It is the same with the title भकरञ्जनी or भक्तरञ्जिनी which can be explained grammatically:

भक्तान् रञ्जयतीति  - भक्तरञ्जनी or भक्तरञ्जिनी which also would not be found in any Dictinary. All the possible grammatical derivations need not be found in all the dictionaries, but only collected from the corpus they have compiled the dictionary.

 

[Shreevatsa R]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

4:1:4913.apte

"रञ्जन a. (-नी f.)" has the meanings listed, there is also

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4:1:4914.apte

for रञ्जनी itself,

while रञ्जिनी is not present anywhere in the dictionary.

Itself means both are grammatically correct forms and nothing else.

As for the names, both रसिकरञ्जनी or रसिकरञ्जिनी  (a combination of राग is known by that name) are correct and mean the same. It is the same with the title भकरञ्जनी or भक्तरञ्जिनी which can be explained grammatically:

भक्तान् रञ्जयतीति  - भक्तरञ्जनी or भक्तरञ्जिनी which also would not be found in any Dictinary. All the possible grammatical derivations need not be found in all the dictionaries, but only collected from the corpus they have compiled the dictionary.

Thank you for this informative observation, Dr. Bhat. I thought that (at least the stem forms of) all grammatical forms would be present (or at least indicated) in the good dictionaries. (E.g. रञ्जिनी is not in the dictionary => it's not a valid word.)

Now that I know that is not the case, I will also try to search a corpus in future.

Thanks and regards,

Shreevatsa