Re: 'dyeus' chronology

Dr Brighenti,
We are talking past each other. For the benefit of the group please let us know how each of the word under discussion would be pronounced, syllabically.

Because I am convinced you have no idea how these anusvar sounds are pronounced. Writing Harvard Kyoto transliterations *does not* convey how these words are pronounced.

Regards,
Shivraj

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@> wrote:
>
> > Pronunciation of anusvar sound in Sanskrit word "sundhi" (meaning
> > junction)... 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 other words the anusvar ("the dot character in devnagari")
> > corresponds with the letter "n" in the syllabic spellings given
> > above.
>
> No. I am a little tired of this unproductive discussion, but yet I have to repeat here for your benefit, for the nth time, that the Devanagri diacritic mark called anusvara stands for a nasal sound pronounced in one of three ways:
>
> 1. at the end of a word, as m;
>
> 2. before the semivowels y, r, l, v, the sibilants s' s., s, and the aspirate h, as a nasalized vowel, a "pure nasal" (as in French bon);
>
> 3. before other consonants, as the nasal consonant of the same group (that is, as a velar, palatal, retroflex, dental, or bilabial nasal according to the consonant group the consonant following it belongs in).
>
> See Monier-Williams' discussion at
>
> http://tinyurl.com/646hulw
>
> Consequently, the pronunciation of the anusvAra sound in the word "saMdhi" cannot be identical -- as you falsely claim -- to that in the word "saMhAra". Guess why? Because in the former case the anusvAra, being followed by a dental consonant, represents a dental nasal, while in the latter one it, being followed by an aspirate, represents a "pure nasal" (which *approximates* as much an n-sound as an m-one, but is "identical" with neither of these!).
>
> Let me also note, in passing, that your unscholarly transliteration of the Sanskrit term saMhAra 'destruction' as "sunghar or singhar" once more stresses what I and other listmembers had remarked some days ago during this discussion, namely, that you tend to pronounce Sanskrit words as if they were Hindi ones. Listen here how the Hindi word sa~nhAr 'destruction' (a New-Indo Aryan derivative of Old Indo-Aryan saMhAra) is pronounced:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6alc4vx
>
> Nearly identical to your "singhar", no? Yet this is not a Sansktit, but a Hindi pronunciation!
>
> Similarly, modern Italians pronounce Latin "Caesar" as (more or less, using your pseudo-English spelling) <chesar>, whereas the true Latin pronunciation was <kaesar>...
>
> However, this discussion is leading nowhere. Therefore, bye-bye for now!
>
> Francesco
>