04-29-2008, 05:52 PM (This post was last modified: 04-29-2008, 05:53 PM by Husky.)
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.
04-29-2008, 06:20 PM (This post was last modified: 04-29-2008, 06:34 PM by Bodhi.)
pANini spent a good number of sUtra-s explaining the complexity and the proper treatment of visarga, especiallly how it must behave in a sandhi when it comes at the join of two words.
Also visarga and its relatives may define the gender of the root shabda.
<b>generally</b>, in the singular form of prathama vibhakti:
a noun ends with H (visarga) for musculine (e.g. rAmaH, kR^SNaH, shivaH, guruH, bAlakaH, hanumateyaH etc)
a noun ends with dIrgha vowel, like A, for femenine (sItA, bAlikA, rAdhA, devI etc)
a noun ends with M for napuMsaka gender (e.g. pustakaM, kandukaM, jalaM, etc)
However, in all prAkR^ts (I think) and modern daughters of skt, as Ashok Ji said, the visarga is the first casuality - owing probably to the complexity?
===
Ashok Ji,
is -shrI suffix (like mAtA-shrI) commonly seen in classical literature?
<!--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.
( In all the posts I use the ITRANS scheme of translieration for writing sanskrit using roman script. )
Re: anusvAra (the dot above the letters)
If a nasal sound precedes a regular consonant from any of the 5-vargas (ka-varga, cha-varga, Ta-varga, ta-varga, pa-varga), then anusVara is not supposed to be used. Instead of anusvAra one is rather supposed to use the actual nasal sound (5th anunAsika) of the corresponding varga.
e.g. in the word "kampana" the actual anunAsika "m" from pa-varga is used, not the anusvAra as in "kaMpana".
Similarly instead of "raMga" use "ra~Nga", instead of "kaMchana" use "ka~nchana", instead of "daMDa" use "daNDa". If you pay close attention to how the nasal sounds in above cases, you will notice that the anunAsika rule very accurately describes the actual sound. And one anusvAra "M" should not be used to descibe these different sounds.
Only if the following consonant is not from the 5 main vargas, e.g. ya, ra, la, va, sha, Sha, sa, ha, only then anusvAra as a dot is supposed to be used. Since these consonants don't fall sharply within any varga.
But in normal Hindi, the anusvAra is used as replacement for any anunAsika.
One common misuse of the anusvAra is in speaking the word "saMskR^itam". Here the anusvAra must be used since the following consonant is "sa", which doesn't fall sharply within the 5-vargas. But the consonant "sa" is still called "dantya" just like the "ta-varga". So instead of "m" sound as many people tend to use which will be pa-varga, a ta-varga "n" sound is more justifiable. So when spoken, the version "sanskritam" is more accurate than "samskritam".
04-30-2008, 03:23 PM (This post was last modified: 04-30-2008, 04:47 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Apr 30 2008, 12:58 AM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Apr 30 2008, 12:58 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->So when spoken, the version "sanskritam" is more accurate than "samskritam".[right][snapback]81047[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Playing broken record again, but as I've heard it, this M in Samskritam has more of a nasal sound. Still, when I've had occasion to hear it, this nasal M always sounded closer to an 'm' than an 'n' to me.
<b>Edited:</b> Maybe I hear this because us Tamizhs pronounce the final syllable of Mahabharatam and Ramayanam nasally as well? (That's very much a Tamizh thing I think.) Or maybe I only hear what I want to hear... <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Never mind.
04-30-2008, 06:02 PM (This post was last modified: 04-30-2008, 06:10 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
In spoken & written Telugu we say samskrutam (Telugu doesn't have that "ri", thats why mrigam becomes mrugam and so on). But all the Telugu people I know say KrishNa, but write it as KrushNa.
But use Kanchana when spoken, and Kamchana when written.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Apr 30 2008, 06:02 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Apr 30 2008, 06:02 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->In spoken & written Telugu we say samskrutam (Telugu doesn't have that "ri", thats why mrigam becomes mrugam and so on). But all the Telugu people I know say KrishNa, but write it as KrushNa.
[right][snapback]81075[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yes, "R^i" as in "R^iShi" or in "kR^iShNa" is another case where pronunciation is often wrong.
Lets recall that R^i (and L^i) are classified under vowels. They shouldn't have any mixture of consonants. Most people either speak it as "ri" or "ru", both of which involve the consonant "r" and an additional vowel i or u.
A vowel is sounded when the shape of the vocal cavity is kept fixed and vocal cords are sounded continuously without any movement of tongue or other parts of the mouth. Any movements of parts of the mouth must happen before the vowel is started and the shape of the vocal cavity should be kept fixed till the vowel is sounded.
Thats why "a" and "aa" are different vowels, since shape of the mouth is different during their pronunciation. Some people think that "a" and "aa" differ only in the time taken to pronounce which is wrong. Vowels don't have any time limit associated with them. They can be sounded for any number of time mAtrA-s.
Vowels are also not changed when you change pitch, since during a pitch change only modification happens in the vocal cord, but the shape of the vocal cavity remains fixed. An interesting implication of this is that a vowel remains the same vowel even when the pich is changed in the middle. An extreme case is seen in sAmavedic gAna-s where the same single vowel (svara) can have several varying pitches assigned to it.
R^i is a vowel. That means no contacts are to be made by the tongue or no motion must happen of the tongue during its pronunciation. To pronounce it correctly find the place where the tongue touches the top part of mouth when you speak the consonant "r". Then keep the tongue fixed in that location but not touching the top of the mouth. Then sound the vocal cords. That is the correct sound of "R^i".
You will notice that the tongue is held in a fixed upward position without touching the palate. Rest of the mouth is in the same shape as pronouncing the vowel "a". This creates a partial restriction in the vocal cavity for the air to flow. This gives the characteristic sound of the vowel "R^i" different from the vowel "a".
This sound of R^i is neither ri nor ru, but something different (in fact closer to the sound of ra than ri or ru), and is a vowel. This becomes clearer when we look at cases of sandhi. e.g.
deva + R^iShi = devarShi
Here the R^i vowel gets transformed to consonant r after the sandhi, not to ru or to ri.
Similarly to pronounce L^i, find the place where the tongue touches when you speak the consonant "la". Keep the tongue in same position, but not touching the top of the mouth, and sound the vocal cords.
In this same vein let me comment on pronunciation of vowels "ai" and "au".
Many people pronounce them as two separate vowels in sequence, viz. "a" then "i", or "a" then "u".
Which is wrong.
Recall that "ai" and "au" are listed independently under vowels and are not two separate vowels put together. If they were two separate vowels there was no need for them having separate symbols. For a single vowel, the shape of the vocal cavity should not change during their pronunciation.
Vowel "ai" is pronounced when the mouth is kept in the configuration when saying the vowel "a" in the english word "bat". This configuration of the mouth is different from "a" or "i", and qualifies to be called a separate vowel. And is different when you say "a" followed by "i".
For the vowel "au", the mouth is kept in the same configuration as when saying "o" in the english word "cot". Which is a distinct configuration of the vocal cavity, and is not same as "a" followed by "u".
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Apr 30 2008, 03:23 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 30 2008, 03:23 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Apr 30 2008, 12:58 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Apr 30 2008, 12:58 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->So when spoken, the version "sanskritam" is more accurate than "samskritam".[right][snapback]81047[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Playing broken record again, but as I've heard it, this M in Samskritam has more of a nasal sound. Still, when I've had occasion to hear it, this nasal M always sounded closer to an 'm' than an 'n' to me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please look at the following two words:
sandhi
saMsAra
Even though the second word uses the anusVara, this anusvAra should sound quite close to the "n" in the first word, since the following consonants in both the words are dental (dantya), viz, dha and sa. Although the sounds can be slightly different, since "sa" even though being dental, is not in the main dental ta-varga, but not as different as to start sounding like a labial "ma" of pa-varga.
Although I have heard people say the second word as "samsAra" too, which replaces the anusvAra by a labial (pa-varga) "ma" sound, even though the following consonant "sa" is dental.
Regarding why such errors have become prevalent:
All I can say is that ancient writers of shikShA and vyAkaraNa texts were linguistic scientists and used experimentation to come with their rules and classifications. Later people were followers and took their results as given by tradition. But if somewhere in the tradition tree, a slight deviation in a certain pronunciation was introduced, that deviation propagated down the tree, and was kept alive by the weight of tradition.
But fortunately, the ancient shikShA and vyAkaraNa writers left enough material to pry through their thought processes and methodologies, so it is possible to go back and use their original ideas to correct any deviations that we see in practice today.
05-01-2008, 12:09 PM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2008, 01:23 PM by Bodhi.)
great explanation Ashok Ji. To your point, see what a couple of such scientists of our past (Bharata and Abhinavagupta) say upon the topic of vibhraShTa (corrupted) pronunciations. And they are not criticising but only differenciating such pronunciations from the pure and classical saMskR^ita:
such words in which the <b>combined vowels or consonants change or cease to exist are called vibhras.t.a (corrupted)</b>. In Prakrit there do not exist ai after e and au after o and the visarga h after the anusva_ra am. Also there do not exist sâ and s. in between va and sa as also ng n~ na the nasals which occur respectively at the ends of ka ca ta varga-s. [In other words <b>the eight syllables ai, au, h, sâa, s.a, ng, n~ and na do not occur in Prakrit. Abhinavagupta adds four additional syllables which do not in Prakrit: r.r., l and l.</b>] (18.8)
The subsequent verses are similar explanations of letters which occur in Prakrit such as ka, ga, ta, da, ya and va which are slightly audible; examples of cakra becoming cakka, occurrence of ha in place of five letters: kha, gha, tha, dha and bha as in: mukha = muha, megha = meha; katha_ = kaha_; the change of letter s.a into ccha as in s.at.pada (cchappao); the change of dha into d.ha (vardhana = vad.d.han.a). The elucidation and examples provided in 18.9 to18.27 are remarkable and impressive list of evidences of changes in word forms in Prakrit compared to Sanskrit.
Abhinavagupta adds a comment that Bharata has only given an indication. Those who want a detailed account should consult books like Prakritadipika. (The identity of this work has yet to be established).
Thanks for posting that excerpt about bharata and abhinavagupta. I am a great admirer of Acharya abhinavagupta as a philosopher, although it is a pity that not all his major works have been translated from sanskrit. The discovery of his commentary on bharata's nATya-ShAstra helped people understand it, which had been presumed to be corrupted beyond repair. Acharya brihaspti, for the first time explained bharata's sAraNA method for explaining the 22 shrutis based on his reading of abhinavagupta's commentary. Abhinavagupta's tantrAloka is an encyclopedic work on tantra in general and kashmir-shaivism in particular, although only translation I have seen so far is in hindi.
This excerpt seems to be related to abhinavagupta's commentary on bharata's nATya-shAstra. I had read part of his commentary, mainly related to chapters on music. I haven't yet found a full tranlation of his commentary. And his philosophically dense style makes this commentary a somewhat difficult although rewarding read.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pandyan+May 1 2008, 11:58 PM-->QUOTE(Pandyan @ May 1 2008, 11:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have another request -
Anyone know what the name "Vrushasena" means?
[right][snapback]81155[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
vR^iSha = bull, powerful or virile man
sena = body or army
vR^iSha-sena =
1. one with a body like a bull,
2. one with a army of powerful men
3. karNa (in mahAbhArata)
4. name of son of 10th Manu
5. name of great grandson of ashoka
Thank you Ashok Kumar. Did you learn Sanskrit in school or elsewhere? I'm thinking about dedicating a few months of my summer holidays a year from now to learn the basics.
I learnt sanskrit in school from grade 4 till grade 11. But just as it is possible to learn english in, say a hindi medium school, but without a constant exposure it is not easy to become fluent in reading comprehension or writing. Same is with sanskrit. Most people just take it because it is one of the required subjects or perhaps even a high scoring one. But exposure is not that much as one gets with english. The usual sanskrit taught in schools, is barely enough to give a background. But to get comfortable with it, one has to keep a continuous contact with sanskrit texts.
So after getting the basic background, (which one has to slog through, since it involves memorizing many tables), the best way is to keep reading sanskrit texts at every opportunity.
05-02-2008, 07:31 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2008, 01:03 PM by Bodhi.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So after getting the basic background, (which one has to slog through, since it involves memorizing many tables), the best way is to keep reading sanskrit texts at every opportunity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
subscribe for children magazine chandamama in Sanskrit if in India. And Sanskrit-English bilingual edition if in USA.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+May 5 2008, 10:21 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ May 5 2008, 10:21 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Does anyone know if "Avantisundarikatha" by Dandin is available in full or lost?
I have tried to google it but couldn't find anything valuable.
[right][snapback]81260[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For books it is better to search worldcat ( http://www.worldcat.org )
A search for avantisundari on worldcat gave several hits
I found a nice way to illustrate the sanskrit visarga as sudden cutting off the sound of a vowel.
Use your TV's remote control's mute button during a news cast. You will notice that when the mute button is activated in the middle of the word, the sudden cutting off of the sound, is the true "visarga" sound.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Never mind.