soft consonants

[Terrence Brannon]

I thought I asked this question, but apparently not. Anyway, on p.25
of our text, Tyberg lists the soft consonants in footnote 1....
However:

* ~na is listed twice
* da and dha are listed twice
* there is something called 'dha na' that I have never seen before

[Adolf VishNu Shaastrii]

Ah, another typo in the text! The first set of consonants (the cerebrals)
should have a dot under the transliterated forms. Earlier versions of this
text had it printed correctly.

Thanks. I need to note that in the syllabus.

[Terrence Brannon]

Well, there were some other issues I raised:

* ~na is listed twice

* there is something called 'dha na' that I have never seen before

But let me try to list them all and you tell me if something is
missing:

gutturals - ga, gha
palatals - ja, jha, ~na
cerebrals - .dha, .dha, .n
labials - ba, bha, ma
semivowels - ya, ra, la, va
aspirant - ha

My suspicion is that guttural n is also in this group, but I'm not
sure. That list in the book is a complete and confusing mess.


On Sep 23, 6:04 pm, "Adolf VishNu Shaastrii" <wolfga...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

[Adolf VishNu Shaastrii]

O.K., I see why you are confused. As I stated in the syllabus memorize the
order of the alphabet as listed on page 1 of the text. You should then see
that (other than the missing dot typo) 'na' is not listed twice and
following the alphabet listing there is no such thing as a 'dha na'. -
rather they are two separate alphabetical letters in order as shown in the
text.

[Terrence Brannon]

On Sep 29, 7:22 pm, "Adolf VishNu Shaastrii" <wolfga...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

> O.K., I see why you are confused. As I stated in the syllabus memorize the
> order of the alphabet as listed on page 1 of the text.

I did memorize it.

>You should then see
> that (other than the missing dot typo) 'na' is not listed twice

I didn't say it was. I said '~na' was listed twice. And it is.

> and
> following the alphabet listing there is no such thing as a 'dha na'. -

yes, I knew that. I was just pointing out the fact that it was there
and I found it peculiar/absurd/errant.

> rather they are two separate alphabetical letters in order as shown in the
> text.

I think I made a mistake when I tried to list them all. i did not list
guttural n, which is written as "n in Velthuis encoding and G in
Harvard-Kyoto. I keep flip-flopping back and forth between the two
when writing. H-K is more widely used, shorter to type. Also most
online tools use H-K. Velthuis is a pretty close ascii approximation
to Tyberg's own romanization. But Velthus is not widely support in
software outside of TeX/LaTeX. I really should standardize on one and
stick with it. If I had to choose, I suppose I would go with H-K for
practical reasons, although I think Velthuis is the better-looking
option.

So, to be clear on the soft consonants, I will list below and ask for
confirmation:

gutturals - ga, gha, "na

palatals - ja, jha, ~na

cerebrals - .dha, .dha, .na

[Adolf VishNu Shaastrii]

So, to be clear on the soft consonants, I will list below and ask for
confirmation:

उत्तमम् ।

[Terrence Brannon]

I cannot find 'uttamam' in the Sanskrit dictionary -
http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/cgi-bin/dictionary/search.cgi?word=uttamam&exact=yes


On Sep 30, 6:00 pm, "Adolf VishNu Shaastrii" <wolfga...@bellsouth.net>

[Adolf VishNu Shaastrii]

Terrence, you answer this for me! Take the word उत्तमम्; drop the final 'm' and the first 't'; replace it with the letter 'l'. What word do you get? Does this 'sync' with what you may guess?
Dites-moi!
What is an à propos English word???