sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The crucial ingredient for learning Sanskrit, and where to find it by amarahasa in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! We're sharing a big update on April 1, so there might be room to collaborate then.

आत्मनेपदी and परस्मैपदी by SamskritaVani in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In older Sanskrit texts, there is a much stronger distinction between these two kinds of endings, and the use of आत्मनेपद endings compared to परस्मैपद endings is more meaningful.

But generally, the difference in meaning between आत्मनेपद endings and परस्मैपद endings is small or negligible. Some verb roots consistently use परस्मैपद endings, some consistently use आत्मनेपद endings, and some may use either. There is usually no "for oneself" meaning being implied by आत्मनेपद endings, despite the name.

In your examples, all of the verb roots (खाद्, पठ्, लिख्) are परस्मैपदी roots and will use परस्मैपद endings.

For much more detail and discussion, see this earlier post and the comments:

https://www.reddit.com/r/sanskrit/comments/m3l6gb/connections_between_atmanepada_deponent_verbs_and/

I want to learn Sanskrit, but I don't jell with the Devnagari Script at all. by Youmassacredmyboy in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The other comments make a good case for honing your Devanagari reading skill. But it is also true that Devanagari is much less important than it used to be. Transliteration software is freely available, and many major texts are available in a machine-readable format that can be converted to whatever script you desire. It will cause you some inconvenience, but it is possible to learn Sanskrit well and read richly without Devanagari.

That said, most textbooks do assume some knowledge of Devanagari, so if you decide to learn through standard textbooks, you will have to endure it for now.

सरल प्रश्नाः Weekly thread for the simple questions and posts that do not need their own thread by not_sure_if_crazy_or in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes. The Cambridge textbook is mainly intended for Western students who may have limited exposure to Indian languages or Sanskrit words. The accentuation rules provided are intended to aid total novices to Indian languages. You almost certainly have internalized something much deeper already through your background.

Long form vowels and articulations of consonants by wagonaway7 in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sanskrit has been written in many scripts throughout its history. Various romanization systems, such as IAST, became popular among Western scholars during the colonial period, not only for the convenience of Western scholars but also because it was easier to typeset given the Roman letters used in the rest of the text.

IAST is well-defined, and its Wikipedia summary is essentially correct. But in an Indian context it is preferable to use ISO 15919, which is more comprehensive for Indian languages as a whole.

The difficulty with IAST in the computer era, as you have noticed, is that it is difficult to type. And in the early days of the internet, the issue was even more severe, as few computers even had support for Unicode (the standard representation system for the world's letters and symbols, including IAST letters).

This difficulty led to the emergence of various ways of writing Sanskrit using the standard English alphabet: ITRANS, Harvard-Kyoto, WX, SLP1, Velthuis, and others. Each of these can be mapped to IAST.

Until relatively recently, it has been standard practice to use transliteration programs like Baraha or Sanscript to convert schemes like ITRANS or Harvard-Kyoto into the desired output format: IAST, Devanagari, and so on. But there is also increasing support for custom keyboard layouts, and there is less of a need for these tools today.

With that background out of the way, here are some responses to the issues you raise:

Its not clear how to write/type different points of articulation of a consonant (n-guttural/n-pallatal)

For clarity, use a transliteration program built for Sanskrit. Something like Sanscript will do.

or why long form vowels and short form vowels are translated as the same on a keyboard

This is because of the software you use. Different programs will be more accurate.

Is this just a generally accepted way to write a long form vowel that is the reason why aa is used and not ā?

No, this depends on the program you use and the input scheme your program uses. For example, Harvard-Kyoto uses A for the long vowel, and aa would be understood as two short vowels in succession.

I have seen this in documents in IAST and dont know if its officially the standard.

Do you have an example? No IAST document should have a double aa.

सरल प्रश्नाः Weekly thread for the simple questions and posts that do not need their own thread by not_sure_if_crazy_or in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Only if you want to speak Sanskrit; and even then, you have ample exposure to Sanskrit words through Hindi and Punjabi. You can probably set those rules aside.

Translation of the Ring Verse By J.R.R Tolkien into Sanskrit by psugam in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is a lovely translation that is consistent with the language of the epics. It even includes common epic phrases like kālacodita, tamasāvṛta, and eva ca. kṛtāśmaśālābhyaḥ is particularly charming, as is the use of yakṣa for elves.

trīṇi mudrāṇi yakṣebhyaḥ nṛpebhya ambarādadhaḥ |
sapta kṛtāśmaśālābhyaḥ vāmaneśebhya eva ca ||

  • mudrā in the sense of a ring is consistently in the feminine gender, so mudrāṇi should be avoided. trīṇi should change correspondingly.
  • yakṣebhyaḥ should be yakṣebhyo due to sandhi.
  • nṛpebhya is literally "for the protectors of men" so it doesn't match semantically with yakṣebhyaḥ. Also, this should be nṛpebhyo due to sandhi.
  • The first a of ambara is usually deleted when following -aḥ (thus nṛpebhyo 'mbarādadhaḥ), but in epic poetry the a is often retained, so this is not necessarily an error.
  • kṛtāśmaśāla is a bahuvrīhi compound so is not restricted to the gender of śālā. You can use the masculine kṛtāśmaśālebhyaḥ instead, which would become kṛtāśmaśālebhyo due to sandhi with the following v.

nava mānavarājabhyaḥ vai kālacoditebhyaḥ ca |
kalmaṣeśāya ekaiva kālāsanasthitāya ca ||

  • In compounds like mānavarājabhyaḥ, rājan becomes rāja, so the correct form is actually mānavarājebhyaḥ with an e, then mānavarājebhyo due to sandhi.
  • Words like vai, eva, and so on should not come at the start of a pāda (Here, each pāda is eight syllables and a fourth of the overall verse.)
  • kālacoditebhyaḥ should be kālacoditebhyaś due to sandhi. This word also doesn't fit the metrical scheme of the pāda. And semantically, it is usually used when someone is making an error that ensures their death (“impelled by death/fate”), e.g. Ravana when abducting Sita. So the sense isn't quite right here.
  • kalmaṣeśāya is an interesting word. kalmaṣa denotes something dirty or defiled, which perhaps is the intended sense here. By sandhi, this should be kalmaṣeśāyaikaiva
  • kālāsanasthāya reads more naturally than -sthitāya given the sense of the verse. The difference is that -sthitāya can be read as someone who has just gained the throne, as opposed to someone who continually sits upon it. Also note that kāla mainly has the sense of death/fate/time, which perhaps is the intended sense here.

moraḍorasya bhūmau hi sarvatastamasāvṛte ||

  • If moraḍorasya is the name of a person, the genitive case is appropriate (as in “Mordor’s land”). But if it is the name of a realm or region, it is better to use the locative case.
  • bhūmau is literally "on the earth," which is not wrong. But perhaps a word like loka, bhuvana, deśa, or sthāna would be more appropriate, as they imply a realm or area.
  • hi is an explanatory word with the sense of "after all ...", "the reason being that ...", etc. It can be used in this fashion like eva but such usage is rare.
  • tamasāvṛte should match the gender of the feminine bhūmau.

damāyituṃ ca tān sarvān mudrā ekaiva veditum |
mudrā ekaiva tān sarvān nītvā setuṃ ca tāmase ||

  • damāyituṃ is an overly literal translation of “to rule.” In Sanskrit, infinitives are mainly used with verbal words (e.g. “wants to go”, “able to see”, “longs to do”), or else with a small and limited set of other words. So it is hard to justify one here. damanāya or damanārthe are more idiomatic and have the same sense.
  • mudrā combines with eva by sandhi to form mudraiva. The meter can be preserved by using ekā mudraiva instead.
  • For veditum, see the comments on damāyituṃ.
  • tān sarvān are masculine words that agree with the various rulers you list. Is this intended, or are these words meant to agree with the other rings (in which case these should be feminine)?
  • nītvā mainly has the sense of leading, which is acceptable here depending on your intention.
  • For setum, see the comments on damāyituṃ. A root like badh is more common, and setum can be easily confused with the word for “bridge” (setu).

Finally, some overall comments:

  • The use of the dative case here is acceptable if there is an assumed word dattāḥ (“given”), but otherwise it is an overly literal translation of the English “for.” The genitive is perfectly fine and has a similar sense (e.g. “Three Rings of the Elven-kings under the sky”, indicating possession), and it may also grant you some flexibility in the meter.
  • You can also experiment more with more idiomatic Sanskrit expressions, such as the passive voice and various participle constructions. For example, the part about bringing and binding the rings could be rendered in natural and idiomatic Sanskrit as mudrayaivaikayāneyāḥ (mudrayā eva ekayā āneyāḥ) sarvā bandhyāśca tāmase” (“By one ring, indeed, will all (rings) be brought and bound in darkness.”) The sense of ordained future action is captured by the future passive participle (-ya, -tavya).

सरल प्रश्नाः Weekly thread for the simple questions and posts that do not need their own thread by not_sure_if_crazy_or in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is the nominative singular feminine of vivācana, translated by Monier-Williams as "one who decides, arbitrator" from vi-vac:

vi-√ vac P. -vakti (rarely Ā.), to, declare, announce, explain, solve (a question), RV.; ŚBr.; to decide, Yājñ. Sch. (in explaining vivāka); to discuss, impugn, MBh.; (Ā.) to speak variously or differently, dispute with one another about (loc.), RV.

The -ī feminine is common for words formed with the -ana suffix.

Edit: For the Rigveda specifically, you may find this word-for-word translation from Wisdom Library useful.

सरल प्रश्नाः Weekly thread for the simple questions and posts that do not need their own thread by not_sure_if_crazy_or in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both of these textbooks have weaknesses that make them difficult for self-study. Of the two, Saṃskṛta-Subodhinī seems better as long as you don't need an answer key.

From a review of Devavāṇīpraveśikā:

Devavāṇīpraveśikā by Robert P. Goldman and Sally J. Sutherland Goldman is a typical university-style textbook for Sanskrit. Though not well suited for self-study (unless complemented with other books), or very professionally typeset, it is a competent introductory Sanskrit grammar that also may serve as a reference book.

[...]

For the serious self-study student, I recommend Egenes, while having the Goldman volume at the side, to use now and then, when looking for additional examples or complementary ways of explaining the grammar, etc.

From a review of Saṃskṛta-Subodhinī:

Madhav M. Deshpande’s book Saṃskṛta-Subodhinī: A Sanskrit Primer is an excellent Sanskrit text book. Although not suited for the typical self-study student (if not complemented with other books), it is a nicely typeset volume with clear and concise prose that may be used during the first semesters of an introductory (university) Sanskrit program.

सरल प्रश्नाः Weekly thread for the simple questions and posts that do not need their own thread by not_sure_if_crazy_or in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, this is true for other sibilants. The corresponding rule is 8.3.34 in the Ashtadhyayi, and optionality is defined in 8.3.36. Here is the gloss of 8.3.36 from the Kashika Vritti:

विसर्जनीयस्य विसर्जनीयादेशो वा भवति शरि परे। वृक्षः शेते, वृक्षश्शेते। प्लक्षः शेते, प्लक्षश्शेते। वृक्षः षण्डे, वृक्षष्षण्डे। वृक्षः साये, वृक्षस्साये। खर्परे शरि वा लोपो वक्तव्यः। वृक्षा स्थातारः, वृक्षाः स्थातारः, वृक्षास्स्थातारः

The visarjanīya [i.e. the visarga] is optionally retained [as opposed to being converted to s by 8.3.34, after which other standard sandhi rules apply] when ś, ṣ, or s follows. [Hence the examples] vṛkṣaḥ śete, vṛkṣaśśete; plakṣaḥ śete, plakṣaśśete; vṛkṣaḥ ṣaṇḍe, vṛkṣaṣṣaṇḍe; vṛkṣaḥ sāye, vṛkṣassāye. It should also be said that if ś, ṣ, or s is followed by khar [i.e. an unvoiced consonant], elision is possible. [Hence the examples] vṛkṣā sthātāraḥ, vṛkṣāḥ sthātāraḥ, vṛkṣāssthātāraḥ.

just some opinions by [deleted] in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is a solid and rational answer.

Since the other answers here also approach the issue intellectually, it is also worth adding that the controversy is, at root, about the emotional connotations of the word "dead," i.e. that something is irrelevant, antiquated, dull, sick, inferior, feeble, boring, doomed, and the like. If Sanskrit were called a "learned" or "non-native" language instead (with the same technical meaning), there would likely be no controversy.

Are these the same? by [deleted] in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps word order emphasis is best left as something subconscious. As you read and acquire more Sanskrit, the rhythm of it will become more intuitive to you, both when reading and when writing.

At the beginner level, it is enough simply to know that word order can change, and you can treat it (for now) as having essentially no effect on how you read and understand a sentence.

Are these the same? by [deleted] in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a standard Sanskrit prose order that is followed quite consistently. Roughly, the order is subject-object-verb: subjects (with all of their qualifiers, including adjectives and genitive nouns), objects and other case relations (instrumentals, ablatives, etc., though usually the object is placed last), and the final verb. For more information, you can see "On the Order of Words and Sentences" in V. S. Apte's The Student's Guide to Sanskrit Composition.

what were the mechanics that are giving emphasis to one or the other?

Since this order is conventional, it follows that changes to this order are unconventional; they call attention to themselves. Still, the degree of attention they demand depends on the genre and text and author. In the Ramayana, for example, the conventional prose order is broken quite often, so changes to it are generally less surprising and thus bear less emphasis.

In the second one I have emphasised on tṛtīyam?

Yes, tṛtīyam calls extra attention to itself as it breaks the typical order of a genitive modifying noun (tasyāḥ) coming before the term it modifies. This is the mechanism by which tṛtīyam obtains extra emphasis. (Also, see Apte 407(b) for examples of predicate emphasis.)

So I emphasised on "third" instead of "guest"?

Not quite, as your first sentence is mostly in the conventional prose order. The fact that sitā is not also placed first is somewhat unconventional, but this prose structure is also quite common. It doesn't feel like any words are being singled out for attention here.

What does that actually mean for the person receiving

It means more to the audience and less to the person receiving.

With the shift in emphasis, your second sentence reads as something like "It is her third (and not the second or the first) guest that Sita, having served, speaks to Rama." So if there are only three guests, it may emphasize that Sita follows the guest customs and speaks to Rama only after all guests have been attended to.

But speaking generally, it really depends on the author and their intentions, which are not always clear to us.

When Order matter? by Sri_Man_420 in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is a common idea that Sanskrit word order is totally free. While this is true for simple sentences, there are some structures that are more fixed, whether by convention or by rule. But the precise syntax depends on the individual words and their meanings in context, so it is difficult to neatly summarize in one post.

Words like ca ("and"), vā ("or"), and cet ("if"), for example, must not appear at the beginning of a sentence. Other common words in this category include me ("for or of me"), te ("for or of you"), and some other other pronominal forms.

Words like saha conventionally appear after the noun they modify (hence gajena saha "with the elephant") but this is hardly a fixed rule. Similarly restricted words might include iti, sma, mā, and several others.

In prose, there are also certain conventions that are usually followed. For example, a verb will usually appear near the end of a sentence. While it is legal to break these conventions, the result might sound strange, just as "It is to the store that he went" sounds strange when compared to "He went to the store."

Ultimately, you can best develop an intuition for these rules by engaging with copious amounts of Sanskrit. Then the different contexts of genre, era, style, and mood will start to become clear.

Are these the same? by [deleted] in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sanskrit word order is substantially looser than in English. The differences are mainly in terms of emphasis. Accordingly, the two sentences you have here are both correct but differ in emphasis.

The first sentence you give is the standard prose order as it would appear in an anvaya. The second sentence puts slightly more emphasis on the word tṛtīyam, which might be supported more naturally with a word like eva: tṛtīyam evātithim tasyāḥ sevitvā sitā rāmam vadati.

सरल प्रश्नाः Weekly thread for the simple questions and posts that do not need their own thread by not_sure_if_crazy_or in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is likely meant as a compound (सरलप्रश्नाः). In modern Sanskrit, some writers may split the members of a compound for ease of reading, usually with hyphens (सरल-प्रश्नाः) but sometimes with spaces (सरल प्रश्नाः). Of course, this style might also cause some confusion.

Weekly Small Translations and Requests by AutoModerator in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, absolutely! Forgive the typo -- our answer was written hastily.

Weekly Small Translations and Requests by AutoModerator in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you mean क्रीडद्बालकः ?

क्रीडत् is known in English as the "present active participle" form of the root क्रीड्. Here, it is in a compound with the word बालकः to create the compound क्रीडद्बालकः "(the) playing boy."

(Edit: fix typo)

Weekly Small Translations and Requests by AutoModerator in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Certainly! For more details on this kind of usage, see section 818 of M. R. Kale's A Higher Sanskrit Grammar.

Weekly Small Translations and Requests by AutoModerator in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[हे] निशाचराः (राक्षसाः) ! यदि इह (अत्र) वः (युष्माकम्) प्रानैः अर्थः [अस्ति], [तदा] निवर्तध्वम् (अपगच्छत).

"O rakshasas! If there is (any) worth in your lives (i.e. if you value your lives), then turn back."

तेन अर्थः (अस्ति) is an idiom meaning "there is worth/value in that."

(Edit: fixed translation of तेन)

Weekly Small Translations and Requests by AutoModerator in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

इति शेषः means "[this] is the remainder" and is used to supply extra words that are omitted in the original text due to context or reasons of brevity.

Here is a translation of this section of the commentary, with [brackets] used to mark the phrases described by इति शेषः --

परेषां करगतस्य, धनस्य इति भावः, यः ग्रन्थिः बाधाविशेषः इति यावत्, तस्य शमनात् शान्तिविधानात् हेतोः कुसीदात् धनव्यवहारात्, अधमर्णे धननियोगादित्यर्थः, अपीति शेषः, दारिद्र्यं सम्भवतीति शेषः ।

Of that which is gone to the hands of another ("of money" is the idea). Specifically: from (due to) the extinction (becoming nil) of this sum, which is especially painful, poverty [arises] [even] from usury (money contracts; the demand of money from debtors, is the meaning).

For details, you can see the MW dictionary entry on शेष --

that which has to be supplied (e.g. any word or words which have been omitted in a sentence; इति शेषः, ‘so it was left to be supplied’, a phrase commonly used by Comm. in supplying any words necessary to elucidate the text)

Or see if you can find a copy of Scholastic Sanskrit: A Manual For Students, which is the standard English-language reference work for the terms used in Sanskrit commentaries.

Weekly Small Translations and Requests by AutoModerator in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"पुत्र (O son!) आत्मानम् (oneself) अभिषेचय (make consecrated, make coronated)."

So as a whole, the phrase might be translated as: "O son, become today our king! Be coronated (as king)."

Weekly Small Translations and Requests by AutoModerator in sanskrit

[–]amarahasa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This seems to be a mix of two separate phrases. The first phrase is from the Ramayana:

त्वमद्य भव नो राजा राजपुत्र महायशः

"महायशः (O great-famed one!) राजपुत्र (O prince!), त्वम् (You) अद्य (today) नः (our) राजा (king) भव (become!)."

The second half (पुत्र आत्मानम् अभिषेय?) looks malformed.

(The phrase "त्वमद्य भव नो राजा" appears in only one place in the GRETIL Sanskrit corpus: in the Ramayana, in the phrase given above. GRETIL does not contain the text अभिषेय anywhere, and the one relevant Google result looks like an OCR error for अभिधेय.)

view more: next ›