Sanskrit

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Apr 29 2008, 05:52 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 29 2008, 05:52 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Like I said, this is all according to my ear. I went by what the Vadyars coming to do Homams at home in India always did. And how they spoke Samskritam to each other or to my grandparents. (And how my dad and grandparents pronounce this.) The same is true of a Samskritam teacher who majored in the language at that Adi Shankaracharya Samskritam uni in Kerala (long before the communists' recent attack on it by occupying it).

But perhaps both pronunciations of H hold, as it also seems in: Shantih, Shantih Shantihi
I mean the first two seem like you say: not quite reflected. But I know the last one ends on "hi" - whenever I've heard it, at least.
[right][snapback]81022[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have also heard the "aha" ending with vowel "a", "ihi" ending with vowel "i", "uhu" with "u" etc. Other most common usage is "ah", "ih", "uh". But since both of these use the consonant 'ha", both are not the visarga, which is supposed to be just a modifier for the preceding vowel without introducing any consonants.

Either way, the visarga seems to be one of the most widely abused things in sanskrit.

Other is "j~na" as in "j~nAna". North Indians typically say "gyAna", maharAshTrians use "jnAna". But occasionally I have heard the correct version.

A third one is the mUrdhanya Sha (related to Ta-varga). In north India pronounciation varies from "sa" to "sha" to "kha". Very few people actually curl the tongue backwards (similar to as required for all Ta-varga consonants) while pronouncing this "Sha".

<!--QuoteBegin-bodhi+-->QUOTE(bodhi)<!--QuoteEBegin-->is -shrI suffix (like mAtA-shrI) commonly seen in classical literature?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I am not aware of widespread usage. Therefore I don't know whether this identification of "ji" with "shrI" is valid or not. Just that I have seen some people claim so.