shivanair wrote:Why go through the process of identifying the 'it' etc when we can have them already washed up according to the sutras?
mpprabhu wrote:नमस्कार वरुणजी -
One of the dhatu example that you showed was ओँलस्जीँ. In the week 7 homework, it appears as ओँलसजीँ. Which one is correct?
Ammasbhavana wrote:Where can I find answers to lesson 7 homework and the assignment for
lesson 8 homework please?
Vasishta wrote:Hari Om,
I have a hypothetical question: suppose the one before the last letter is a nasalised vowel and the last one is a consonant (hal). So they both get it-samjna and during clean up they both drop out. Suppose there was only one more sound, an initial consonant. Does that mean that we will be left with just one consonant without any vowel? Will we have to substitute something else so the one consonant will become pronouncable?
Usha05 wrote:Dear Varunji,
I was looking for the answers for homework for week 7, no matter how we do it , but to commpare it with the right version , i would love to get the right answers for peace of my mind , that we are doing things right way and learning the language right.
Also the other thing I noticed, Discussion Forum has old and new dates mixed for particular week query, can it be in date order so what we have looked already, don't have to go and read again same thing for that week. New questions/answers should not be mixed into it again, by changing colour or font or any other way, and we don't have to go all over again to see what we already have read.
If someone missing something, related to that week's query, either it can go in steps, i.e., 1,2,3,4 etc., can be much easier, than going all over again reading all the posts for that week, I hope i have explained my point clearly.
Language is tough for many new people, it will make easier for all of us.
Special thanks and regards,
subodhkunte wrote:Hari Om Varun ji,
You said that 1.3.6-1.3.8 Sutras are only for pratyayas, but the sutras 1.3.2-1.3.7 apply to both dhatus and pratyayas. Do you mean that 1.3.6 and 1.3.7 apply to dhatus as well? Though it is stated that these apply for the beginning of pratyayas! Also likewise, the 1.3.4 should only apply to the end of pratyayas and not dhatus. And 1.3.8 does not apply to 'tad-dhit pratyaya'. what does it mean? probably I missed it earlier. Thank you for your help.
ianr wrote:Hi Varun
Well, surprisingly I got the general notion you conveyed. In fact, you have improved your presentation. The chants were audible without the chorus of people like me, groping to understand, tuning in but messing up the diction.
But I am wondering after eight weeks what I have learnt! I thought I was learning Sanskrit, rather than Sanskrit grammar, which is a meta-language and actually a different thing. It occurred to me that Panini is really speaking to people who ALREADY speak the language. So often you introduce high level terms that presuppose a basic knowledge of Sanskrit. It is almost the difference between analogue and digital representation: you'd present the latter, but people learn initially with the former - impressions that are repeated in a generalised fashion but initiate conversation/dialogue. Once you have some basic notions, you can streamline the process and then the digital/ generative process begins to produce savings, efficiency and heightened accuracy.
And so in the 'baby washing process' you introduce terms that haven't been covered such as endings relating to pronouns - I guess at what you are talking at because of the labels in English but haven't learnt these in Sanskrit. And so we are supposed to be able to detect these to exclude the 'it' marker. However, we have NOT defined them, so you are basically expecting us to do the impossible. (A friend of mine mentioned that this is typical of Indian education and why it is turned into an exercise of pacification rather than activation.) Logically, you must not introduce a structure that hasn't been predetermined/defined specifically. Think about the labels you use, which are very often composite terms. Admittedly, you have been breaking down terms more but there are still gaps (I remember in the second operation how the term for vowel is somehow hidden in the terms, only becoming appearing when you separate the construction.), that leave learners lost and desperately trying to grasp concepts that should be explained, building up from the fundamentals. In this way we become teacher dependent!!!
Let's look at another example of building dependence rather than independence. In the previous exercise, we were to mark 'it' in fifty terms (if I counted correctly) that you didn't identify. Surely, some indication of the meanings of the terms should have been included. People aren't computers. They like to work with meaningful concepts.
And so the most obvious point, are we supposed to walk around with Panini's works at hand to be able to decipher a term? Surely, Sanskrit speakers never imagined this as they stood for an oral tradition. Presumably, there must have been a more natural human-friendly approach.
A last point, I have been doing my best to understand all this at the expense of 'normal' life and activities. Where are the returns? Up until now, I haven't seen any and should this trend continue I will die of starvation. In terms of evolutionary theory, for example, every stage had to bring some sort of benefit. Where are the benefits of what we have learnt so far? Structuring sound is one of them, but washing babies - verbal processes that for us learners haven't been conceived of - is asking a lot. And the ones you have mentioned seem very obscure and unnatural - just saying. What about the verb 'be'! This has been alluded to but not properly introduced.
In sum, great (sophisticated) lessons in meta language without much real language. No wonder this has been a headache.
That said, thank you for working at this. The subject is interesting but needs further refining.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users