--- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k@xxxx> wrote: > Dear Sri mahavishNu sharman: > > Namaste. There was a deviation from the main thread from yajur- vedic > legends to sanskrit grammatical syntax. Rest assured that I have no > intentions to re-write samskrta vyAkaraNam and I very well know the > differences between tenuis, tenuis aspirata, media, media aspirata > and nasalis forms of labial phonemes, despite the large gap (more > than a decade) between now and my formal sanskrit education. Namaste Please read my previous mail carefully alongwith what you have quoted below. Then you will understand how you are wrong. Kindly be magnanimous enough to admit your mistake and do not bring Max Mueller et al. into picture. Such a state of mind can be attained only when you consider yourself to be a "dAsa". upanishad(h) is also wrong and upanishat(h) is right unless there is a sandhi. As my brother pANardAsan has rightly said "samprAptE sannihita kAlE nahi nahi rakShati dukrunjkaraNE" -- Adi Sankara > "...Correct nominative singular form that you will find in any > dictionary or vedic text is triShTubh. You may find the form triSTup > only in sandhi as triSTupchandas- this is the form in the vedic > anukramaNikas. > You may encounter a variant sandhi in AV chandas tarpaNaM mantra eg: > triShTubgAyatryuShNikanuShtubjagati ... The last line is not fool-proof. It has to be triShTubgAyatryuShNiganuShtubjagati.... Regards Vishnu > > So your guy is wrong..." > > Best wishes & regards, > KK
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |