Re: 'dyeus' chronology

Dear Dr Brighenti,
    Pronunciation of anusvar sound in sanskrit word "Sundhi"  (meaning junction) (it is *not* pronounced rhyming with english word "sand" as one might believe reading the english spelling) and the sanskrit words  "sunghar or singhar" (meaning destruction) and "sunhrutra or sinhrutra"  (meaning destroyer) is *identical* and the sound one would hear is an "n" sound. In otherwords the anusvar ("the dot character in devnagari") corresponds with the letter "n" in the syllabic spellings given above.

   In contrast the anusvar in RV 1.1.1  is pronounced differently and the words "Purohitam" and "Hotaram" (just look for the two words with "." above them in the first sukta) are spelt syllabically with m sound as I have written.

   Hope this helps.

Shivraj
 

   

   You have just proved my assertion of anusvar understanding given in the previous post.

Regards,
Shivraj
 

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" shivkhokra@ wrote:
>
> > Dear Dr Brighenti,
> >
> > I am now sure that you have no idea how anusvaras in Sanskrit work.
> > Probably because you have not heard a "native" sanskrit speaker
> > phonetically. Ever. Reading Harvard-Kyoto transliterations is not
> > enough.
> >
> > Let us take two simple examples of anusvar:
> >
> > [(a) in the Sanskrit word saMdhi- 'juncion'
> >
> > (b) in the Sanskrit word sUktaM (nominative singular of the neuter
> > noun sUkta- 'hymn']
> >
> > In both a) and b) the anusvar (the "." character) has different
> > phonetic values, n and m respectively, and yet it is transliterated
> > identically in HK as an "m with a dot under it".
>
> Neither example match the case under discussion, i.e. that of the word saMhartR- 'destroyer'.
>
> In your example (a) the anusvAra ("M") has to be pronounced as the nasal corresponding to the following consonant, which in this case is a dental; hence the anusvAra in "saMdhi" stands for a dental (or alveolar) n.
>
> Your example (b) has the anusvAra in word-final position. This is a way of representing the final m (without inherent vowel) in the Devanagri writing. The same word you point us to (sUktaM) can be written with final m muted by a virAma (an oblique stroke added below a consonant letter).
>
> On the contrary, in the case under discussion (the word saMhartR), the anusvAra is, as I have already said, a "pure nasal" because it is followed by an aspirate (the same pronunciation applies when the anusvAra is followed by a sibilant). In Sanskrit, h and the sibilants have no class nasals of their own.
>
> > Lastly sandhi is *not" pronounced rhyming with english word "sand"
> > rather it would phonetically sound as "sundhi".
>
> ???
>
> > Similarly the destroyer in Sanskrit is either "sunhrutra"
> > or "sinhrutra" based on the dialect.
>
> What dialect?
>
> > So Minoan scribe could use either form based on what he spoke.
>
> Who spoke what language/dialect?
>
> > And I am sure you know that some syllable final sounds such as "n"
> > were not written down in minoan syllabic script.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
>
> No, it just makes me laugh. (And you haven't even remotely given a reply to my remarks at
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67218 )
>
> Francesco
>