[Advaita-l] Re: Questions on Isavasya

[Shyam Subramanian]

I did agree in my mail that it was nitpicking. It was also something that my
grammar reference (bhaimi vyakhya on laghu siddhAnta
kaumudI) mentioned (not the main question but about visarga being generated
only from etc etc). Add to it the half-baked enthusiasm of a
beginner in sanskrit in the presence of accomplished masters here.

While I agree that my mail was unnecesary, as for Sri Viswanathan's comment
about "discussions",  do see the following from the archives about bhaja
govindam:

http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2000-March/000337.html
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2002-February/002527.html
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/1999-January/010469.html

Regards,
Shyam


On 8/10/06, Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Duly noting that "dukri~n karaNe" (incidentally this is a part of the
> dhatu pATha meaning that the root kri is used in the sense of doing -
> karoti, kAryam, kartA etc. The head (du) and tail (~n), called 'it's, are
> traditionally attached to the roots) does not protect when the moment of
> reckoning occurs, here is my 2 cents.
>
>   The case endings for the nominal case (prathamA vibhakti) are su-au-jas.
> For the singular, when we take the prAtipadika veda and add the case
> termination, we get 'vedas' ( in 'su', s remains with 'u' the 'it' being
> dropped). As Sri Shyam Subrahmanian noted, when the singular of the nominal
> case, 'vedas' stands alone, the 's' is omitted and this omission - visarjana
> - is indicated by the 'visarga' aH. That is the technical flow.
>
>   While it is true that in practice, as Sri Aniruddhan indicated, 'vedas'
> and 'vedaH' are treated as interchangeable, in the specific context of the
> literalism of Sri Shyam Subrahmanian, such interchanging is out of place.
>
>   Having said that, it is interesting to note two more points - though the
> base symbol set of pANini does not include the visarga, a) there is an
> entire class of sandhis called visarga sandhis and taught as such, and b) am
> and aH are taught in almost all Indian languages (I am not sure about
> Punjabi which is sometimes taught beginning with aira, oora etc. and not a,
> aa, i, I...). It is so, because visarga is such an integral part of our
> language.
>
>   Such being the case, though Sri Shyam Subrahmanian may be technically
> correct, it represents extreme nitpicking.
>
>   Senani
>
>