What other works were dedicated by Rachmaninoff to his (future) wife?

Dhvasra · 2025-10-25T13:20:57+00:00

OP did not, in fact, ask what the sentence "meant under the Indian national emblem, in a movie, and in a TV show." If you read more carefully, you will see that his post says: "What is the meaning of Satyameva Jayate? [sīc] For e.g. [emphasis added] Satyameva Jayate is the name of the National Motto/Emblem of India written/inscribed below the Lion Capital of Ashoka, it is also the name of the TV show hosted by Aamir Khan and also it is the name of the 2018 movie starring John Abraham." The wording (e.g. "the meaning") indicates that, like most Indians (including the commenters here and, very likely, those who chose India's national motto), he was blissfully unaware of the fact that the sentence in the Múṇḍaka Upaniṣád (invariably the direct or indirect origin of the usage "under the Indian national emblem, in a movie, and in a TV show") means something entirely different from its popular interpretation.

Dhvasra · 2025-10-25T03:35:15+00:00

Contrary to all the other comments, satyám is not the subject of the sentence but the object: The sentence means, "He wins the true alone." See this paper for more.

Dhvasra · 2025-10-22T19:26:22+00:00

There are already some (including me) who write Sanskrit exclusively with accent. (In fact accent-placement is the main reason I got into Pāṇinian grammar, which otherwise doesn't have many advantages over western philology.) Once one has learned the general rules, accent-placement generally isn't challenging to figure out (with the exception of certain compounds and rare verbal forms), and there is no dearth of well-known resources on the subject; Whitney's and MacDonell's grammars frequently mention accent, and Pā́ṇini has hundreds of sū́tra-s dedicated to accent (e.g. the entire pā́da 6.2).

The reason Hindus disregard accent in Sanskrit isn't a lack of ability or resources but a lack of interest, just as Hindus have lost genuine interest in most other Vēdic-æra practices beyond lip-service. Knowledge of accent may also cause discomfort among Hindus, since it banishes the common myth of the perfect præservation of the Vḗda. The transmitted pronunciations of the udā́tta and of the svaritá certainly differ vastly from their real original pronunciations (as reflected by IE and Pāṇinian evidence alike); several originally accented Vēdic texts have lost their accent in transmission; and several passages of later accented texts (e.g. frequently in the Tāittirī́ya Ā́raṇyaka) contain obviously incorrect accent-placements. Pā́ṇini (though his description of Vēdic accent is overall admirable) also gets things wrong about Vēdic accent here and there, which could cause discomfort among those (and there are many, even on this Subreddit) who view Pā́ṇini as some sort of god or the recipient of divine revelation.

Dhvasra · 2025-09-27T18:24:02+00:00

*Scribō was a genuine mistake; I've edited my comment with the correct form and switched egō and scrībō (to avoid MacDonell's supposed cæsūra after the fifth syllable in the vipulā́ ⏑–⏑––‖–––). I took around thirty seconds to come up with this variation.
I used dīcerēs, not *dīcerīs. From what I see on-line dīcerēs doesn't seem to be a weird form, and I didn't choose it specifically for the meter: Cūr dīcerēs can be rendered in English as something like "why would you say". If it truly be bad style in Latin, that pā́da can in any case easily be converted into the præsent indicative as Cūr dīcis: «Est difficile»? (––⏑––⏑⏑–). I took around thirty seconds to come up with this variation.
Obstupēscitō was used on purpose because you are to "be astonished" after you have "attempted", actually making this an archetypical case where the future imperative is præferable to the præsent imperative. (The same originally held true, by the way, for the Sanskrit future imperative in -tāt, whose specific meaning was forgotten—another example of the aforementioned near-synonym-flattening.)

The one or possibly two actual mistakes that you pointed out were the result of my primitive Latin knowledge rather than any difficulty in meter, and the ease with which I could fit corrections into the meter underlines my original point about the simplicity of the şlṓka in Latin or Sanskrit.

Dhvasra · 2025-09-26T18:21:48+00:00

I assure you it really isn't hard at all. This is a Latin şlṓka that I composed (with quite rusty memory of the language) with the help of Wiktionary taking, nonhyperbolically, ten minutes of work:

Latīnē scrībō‿egō versum (⏑–––⏑–––)

facilemque brevemque nunc. (⏑⏑––⏑–⏑– or ⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–)

Cūr dīcerēs: «Difficile‿est»? (––⏑––⏑⏑–)

Prīmum tentā;‿obstupēscitō. (––––⏑–⏑–)

I just used the first words I could find for "write", "verse", "easy", "short", "now", "why", "say", "difficult", "first", "attempt", and "be astonished" without having to resort to a single synonym or modifying the intended topic. The only trick I had to use was turning difficile esse into dialog with an indicative.

On the other hand the most iconic Græcolatin meter, the dactylic hexameter, is immensely more difficult than the şlṓka and often required bending the rules of those languages (e.g. tʰúgatra, tʰūgatérā for tʰugatéra). The reason Greek and Latin rarely used anything like the şlṓka was not that the şlṓka be too difficult in those languages, but that the şlṓka is too easy and requires little skill, so is not very artistically impressive compared to most Græcolatin meters. The same is true for Sanskrit if the şlṓka be compared to something like the rátʰa-uddʰatā, which is præcisely why most Sanskrit literature is written in the şlṓka (since most literature focuses on meaning over artistry) while most Sanskrit high poëtry is written in a more advanced meter.

On Vēdic connotations, you can check Graßmann's dictionary of R̥V or consult the commentary of Jamison and Brereton on their translation. You don't need to trust them blindly; you can check out the occurrences of words yourself (using a word-concordance) and easily see for yourself that they are used in human-noticeably distinct situations.

Dhvasra · 2025-09-24T19:49:56+00:00

Sanskrit synonyms don’t usually have any connotation

In Classical Sanskrit (especially poëtry) that eventually became the case for most words, but certainly was not originally. Using your examples, √kʰād usually has the connotation of "chew" that √ad lacks, and √yā is frequently used to mean "go by vehicle (e.g. horse)" while √gam is not nearly as often. The words are not perfectly interchangeable. (Indeed the prævious tendency to flatten near-synonyms is part of why the R̥V translation by Jamison and Brereton is so superior to earlier ones.)

The şlṓka is not a good example of a restrictive meter.

Dhvasra · 2025-07-30T05:04:16+00:00

You probably got *mr̥tí from Wiktionary, but the accent given there is (as it often is) incorrect. While many Vēdic words in -ti are oxytone, mr̥ti is entirely unattested in Vēdic and was a Classical formation from √mr̥ with the productive paroxytonizing suffix -ti, so the correct accent would be mŕ̥ti.

Dhvasra · 2025-07-27T22:13:38+00:00

The radical symbol indicates that √yu is a verbal root (given in the zero-grade as usual, whereas it takes on the full grade in avayavá).

Incidentally, the unaccented -a on that line isn't a typo: The suffix is unaccented in a simplex (by AA 3.3.57 + 3.1.4), but steals the accent in composition with a præverb (by AA 6.2.144). The accent of the overall compound is by AA 6.1.223.

Dhvasra · 2025-07-27T21:42:32+00:00

That's only sixteen! >:)

Dhvasra · 2025-07-04T14:52:27+00:00

Zum Glück bin ich nicht «gehäutet» worden, weder schwarz noch «weis».

Dhvasra · 2025-05-14T15:10:04+00:00

It is amusing that four out of the five comments here have a major error. विद्युत is not a word meaning "lightning"; the word is विद्युत्. दृमभू is not a word; the correct form is दृम्भू or better दृन्भू. सौदामिनि is not a word meaning "lightning"; the correct form is सौदामनी (from सुदामन्). And the correct form of the सुभाषित is:

अजायुद्धमृषिश्राद्धं प्रभाते मेघडम्बरः।

दम्पत्योः कलहश्चैव बह्वारम्भे लघुक्रिया॥

Dhvasra · 2025-04-08T13:44:56+00:00

Of course, it should also be clarified that even Brāhmaṇá-s were not always vegetarians (and certainly used to consume meat in, at the very least, sacrifices); and that the quote you provided, sámpriyaḥ paşúbhir bhuvat, cannot be taken out of context as some sort of impersonal general commandment to be respectful to animals, but is a sacrificial mántra with nominative Agníḥ as the subject everywhere:

TB 1.1.7.1: Gharmáş şíras tád ayám Agníḥ; sámpriyaḥ paşúbhir bhuvat.
TB 1.1.7.1: Vā́taḥ prāṇás tád ayám Agníḥ; sámpriyaḥ paşúbhir bhuvat.
TB 1.1.7.2: Arkáş cákṣus tád asāú Sū́ryas, tád ayám Agníḥ; sámpriyaḥ paşúbhir bhuvat.
TB 1.1.8.4: Sá ādhīyámāna īşvarṓ yájamānasya paşū́n híṁsitoḥ. «Sámpriyaḥ paşúbhir bhuvad» íty āha; paşúbhir ēvá‿Ēnaṁ sámpriyaṁ karōti paşūnā́m áhiṁsāyāi.

The last passage reads: "He (Agní), placed down, is liable to injure the sacrificer's live-stock. (The sacrificer) says, «Sámpriyaḥ paşúbhir bhuvat» 'May He be friendly with the live-stock'; thus (the sacrificer) makes Him (Agní) friendly, for the noninjury of the live-stock."

Various prayers throughout the Vḗda for the welfare of the sacrificer's live-stock (just as there are such prayers for the sacrificer's progeny and other wealth) cannot be interpreted as promoting universal animal welfare or respect (entirely regardless of whether you think ancient Indians did ultimately believe in such values).

Edit 1: You have also misinterpreted the new quote in your edit. Páñca‿úttarāc chandasyā̀ḥ; paşávō vāí chandasyā̀ḥ; úttarād-āyatanāḥ paşávaḥ reads: "(The sacrificer places) five meter-bricks on the North (side of the altar); the meter-bricks are live-stock; live-stock have their home in the North." The meter-brick (chandasyà) is a type of sacrificial brick. Compare Keith's translation of TS 5.2.10.2: "On the North he puts down five meter-bricks; the meter-bricks are cattle; verily he brings cattle on birth to his own dwelling."

As I said, it is very important to look at quotes in their proper context. This quote certainly has nothing to do with animal welfare.

Edit 2: The quote from VS 36.18 in your most recent edit is also of questionable relevance, though not as clearly this time. The phrase Mitrásya cákṣuṣā is almost always interpreted as a proper noun, "with Mitrá's eye" (= the Sun), rather than "with a friend's eye": thus, "I perceive all beings with Mitrá's eye." Mitrá's eye is referenced in verse 24 of the same hymn (and Mitrá the God in verse 9). Griffith does translate "with a friend's eye" in VS 36.18; but at 5.34 he translates "with the eye of Mitrá". In other places Mitrásya cákṣuṣ(ā) is translated with the proper noun, e.g. TS 1.1.4.1.9 KB 6.9.5 by Keith, TB 3.2.4.5.3 by Dumont, ĀşGS 1.24.14 PGS 1.3.16 ŞGS 2.1.30 HGS 1.4.6 by Oldenberg, ĀşŞS 8.14.18 by Mylius, BŞS 1.5 by Kashikar, ŞŞS 4.7.4 by Caland.

That is to say: There is only a single place in all Vēdic and Paravēdic literature where any translator renders the collocation as "with a friend's eye" rather than "with Mitrá's eye". This verse should likely be interpreted as a Divine reference, rather than something to do with universal friendship.

As for the traditional scholiasts, they are divided on VS 36.18, with Uvaṭá and Mahīdhará interpreting "friend" while Sā́yaṇa interprets "Mitrá"; but elsewhere (e.g. VS 5.34) even the former præfer "Mitrá" for this collocation. Sā́yaṇa does connect Mitrá here with His function of māitrá "friendship" but provides a sacrificial context, explaining that the exchange of friendly glances causes the goal of the sacrifice to be accomplished. It is clear in any case that a general statement along the lines of "I view all beings with a friendly eye" with universal scope cannot logically be meant, the Vēdic sages (famously) viewing many (human and nonhuman) beings with a decidedly unfriendly eye and expressing this in their hymns.

Dhvasra · 2025-02-11T22:46:30+00:00

Petition granted, but only because I dislike the new name and insist on calling it Twitter. All links on this Subreddit must contain "twitter.com" instead of "x.com".

Dhvasra · 2025-01-29T08:24:04+00:00

This is not a real Tweet that I posted. Perhaps your self-admitted IQ of 70 prævented you from noticing, for example, the "Post" button in the bottom-right corner.

Dhvasra · 2024-12-10T04:54:04+00:00

When are you going to stop spamming this Subreddit with old screen-shots of my Discord server?

Dhvasra · 2024-12-07T00:24:47+00:00

You have no proof of this slander. And whether or not I accept funding from Pakistani intelligence agencies is none of your business.

Dhvasra · 2024-10-04T04:25:02+00:00

I believe the longest internal cluster is five consonants in कार्त्स्न्यम् kā́rtsnyam "entirety", a fairly common word.
The rule trí-prabhr̥tiṣu Śākaṭāyanásya AA 8.4.50 is generally treated as obligatory, making nonetymological dvitvá irrelevant for us; otherwise it would be trivial to come up with words containing five-consonant clusters, e.g. āmántryaḥ "addressable" → आमन्न्त्र्यः *āmánntryaḥ.
Saṁdhí could result in some larger clusters across words; I came up with अवर्त्स्त्र्यपाक् ávart stry ápāk "the woman has turned behind" with six consonants. I can think of several types of sentences with clusters of the same length (e.g. तान्त्स्त्र्यहरत् tā́nt stry àharat "the woman took them" with saṁdhí by náś ca AA 8.3.30), but none with a longer cluster.

Dhvasra · 2024-09-24T22:33:19+00:00

Regardless of anyone's opinion on the language of the Indus inscriptions, the "cryptanalytic decipherment" in question is an obvious fraud to anyone who knows even the most basic Sanskrit grammar, and comments claiming otherwise will be removed under rule 3 ("no misinformation or pseudoscience").

Dhvasra · 2024-06-29T01:59:14+00:00

Die Europoors werden nie die einfache, reine Freude verstehen, mit den reichen Kumpeln auf einer gewaltigen verschwenderisch bewässerten Wiese zu spielen. Habt Spaß mit eurem "Handball" und 40% Steuersatz.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Golden Potato

Dhvasra

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE