From: shivkhokra
Message: 67242
Date: 2011-03-16
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>
> I get the feeling Shivraj is one of those neo-Sanskrit speakers --there are a
> few hundred, usually children of priests, who learned neo-Sanskrit at home and
> thinks it's the same as the 2,000 year old real Mc Coy. I'm sure there are also
> Ivrit speakers in Israel who also think they speak the exact same language as
> Abraham. And maybe there are even priests in the Vatican who think they speak
> the exact same language as Julius Caesar. But in all cases, it just ain't so.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: shivkhokra shivkhokra@...
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 12:43:35 AM
> Subject: [tied] 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
> >
>