Re: Diggy Raja is bewakoof, badtameez, and a rakshasaputra: Baba Ramdev

by chameli Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:46 pm

deleted

by chameli Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:47 pm

dick head ,

shall I say an apt name ? lol

I saw nothing stupid about seven's comment .Perhaps you were searching for a more apt word

Just like a Smita is spelt Smitha or Anita as Anitha in another language doesn't qualify those saying it as stupid

tell me would you address an American Anita as Anitha or is it just the Indian Anitas you have it in for ?

The name Thomas need not worry Rolling Eyes

by Guest Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:34 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
seven wrote:well like it or not, in Hindi, it's Yog and not yoga just like it's Aditya and not adityaa, Soorya not suryAA and yes, Kannad not kannadaa
Shaven, there's nothing to like here. All three words you list are non-Hindi words. So Hindi-speakers, like anybody else, have to pronounce the words the way the originators of those words intended. There is no excuse for swallowing the vowel at the end. If you are so hungry, go grab a sandwich.

the like it or not was in response to kinnera's 'it's very annoying...'

i was telling her that is how the word is pronounced it in hindi (regardless of if u like it or not). as for the rest of ur post, hufeza has replied correctly.

by Guest Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:40 pm

Richard Hed wrote:
chameli wrote:
Richard Hed wrote:
seven wrote:
well like it or not, in Hindi, it's Yog and not yoga just like it's Aditya and not adityaa, Soorya not suryAA and yes, Kannad not kannadaa

Shaven - Effin idiot! Dumb, I can get but, please don't be intellectually lazy.

see this is how u people think you have won a discussion.... by calling others' names...and having them back off ...cower possibly ?

shame on you all

I spell it as kannada but say it as kannad with emphasis on d which makes it a d(a)

see my point ?

And Rashmun hopefully will agree with me lol

Cham Cham,

A post that smacks of stupidity should be called out. And nothing wrong with that.

It's KANNADA. Just 'cos you call it whatever else in your language doesn't make it right! KANNADA.
Don't go "correcting" it when it doesn't need correcting, ok cham cham

why are u getting so hyper? nobody said IT IS KANNAD and kannad only. I said it is how the word is written and pronounced in Hindi. If you go back and read my post again, the sentence begins with (in red) In hindi...abc words are (pronounced as) yog, kannad, adity(a) etc.

We don't mind when SI's spell their name as SRI and pronounce it shree or spell their name as prashanTH and pronounce it prashant. wats the big deal about pronouncing and speling it as yog.

take a chill pill Razz

PS: you idiot

by Guest Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:08 pm

chameli wrote:dick head ,

shall I say an apt name ? lol

I saw nothing stupid about seven's comment .Perhaps you were searching for a more apt word

Just like a Smita is spelt Smitha or Anita as Anitha in another language doesn't qualify those saying it as stupid

tell me would you address an American Anita as Anitha or is it just the Indian Anitas you have it in for ?

The name Thomas need not worry

reponses:

1. I know - I gave the CHandle myself, cham cham

2. You saw nothing stupid because, well stupid is as stupid reads

3. Dumb. How do you pronounce say, a word like - Jalapeno? Calling Kannada anything but, is egregious.

4. Irrelevant.

by Guest Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:11 pm

seven wrote:
Richard Hed wrote:
chameli wrote:
Richard Hed wrote:
seven wrote:
well like it or not, in Hindi, it's Yog and not yoga just like it's Aditya and not adityaa, Soorya not suryAA and yes, Kannad not kannadaa

Shaven - Effin idiot! Dumb, I can get but, please don't be intellectually lazy.

see this is how u people think you have won a discussion.... by calling others' names...and having them back off ...cower possibly ?

shame on you all

I spell it as kannada but say it as kannad with emphasis on d which makes it a d(a)

see my point ?

And Rashmun hopefully will agree with me lol

Cham Cham,

A post that smacks of stupidity should be called out. And nothing wrong with that.

It's KANNADA. Just 'cos you call it whatever else in your language doesn't make it right! KANNADA.
Don't go "correcting" it when it doesn't need correcting, ok cham cham

why are u getting so hyper? nobody said IT IS KANNAD and kannad only. I said it is how the word is written and pronounced in Hindi. If you go back and read my post again, the sentence begins with (in red) In hindi...abc words are (pronounced as) yog, kannad, adity(a) etc.

We don't mind when SI's spell their name as SRI and pronounce it shree or spell their name as prashanTH and pronounce it prashant. wats the big deal about pronouncing and speling it as yog.

take a chill pill

PS: you idiot

When you say "we" -- are you quoting all Stupid peepals of ShavenLand? Very Happy

Give a flying fuck about how you pronounce etc. my issue is with your "pronunciation" of KANNADA

by Guest Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:19 pm

Dickhead

When you say "we" -- are you quoting all Stupid peepals of ShavenLand?

Give a flying fuck about how you pronounce etc. my issue is with your "pronunciation" of KANNADA-

now didn't i ask u to take a chill pill? do it now or... well you can choose to continue being an idiot with a one track mind.

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:25 am

chameli wrote:huz,

no one has named u as judge

true. just having fun.

dont call people deranged for no reason

right.

there was no offence meant -- was being facetious.

I am saying to u that it is yog in sanskrit not yoga ...written and pronounced

you are saying this. it seems to be right. frankly i don't know sanskrit and i am hearing this for the first time. did you study sanskrit or are you relying on just the first result of a google search?

now why are u complicating things ?

i'm not. i want to know what is right now (rama or ram in sanskrit). my curiosity has risen. caveat: all this applicable to sanskrit written and read in devanagri. though, of course, sanskrit written in any other script should not sound different.

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:28 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
dont call people deranged for no reason

right. there was no offence meant -- was being facetious.

and yes, of course, kinns too seems to be wrong (insofar as sp. and pron. of yoga is concerned, in sanskrit). i gave her points for acknowledging that baba ramdev is right plus i was being generally mischievous.

maybe indo or merlot can clarify on this yog and yoga (and ram and rama) issue.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:14 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:to further clarify (in devanagri):

sanskrit: राम
hindi: राम

pronunciation: rAm in both languages.

People, Sanskrit and all Indian languages are phonetic. You are supposed to pronounce a letter exactly the way you say it when you recite the alphabet. Now tell me, when you recite the consonants of the Devanagari alphabet (even in Hindi), do you similarly swallow the vowel at the end of each letter?? If not, then kindly desist from doing so merely because the consonant is appearing at the end of a word.

Just to elaborate, in Sanskrit, if you want to write Ram (i.e. after truncating the vowel), you have to put a little tail at the base of the म. In the absence of the little tail, you are supposed to pronounce it as "rAma". Wokay?

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:39 am

then is this glossary wrong?

http://www.selfdiscoveryportal.com/cmSanskrit.htm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Just to elaborate, in Sanskrit, if you want to write Ram (i.e. after
truncating the vowel), you have to put a little tail at the base of the
म. In the absence of the little tail, you are supposed to pronounce it
as "rAma". Wokay?

oh please nigga. in sanskrit (written in devanagri) that little tail (halant/virama) means something different. it means a repetition of the last consonant. so rAm with a halant under "m" is pronounced ramam.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:46 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:then is this glossary wrong?

http://www.selfdiscoveryportal.com/cmSanskrit.htm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Just to elaborate, in Sanskrit, if you want to write Ram (i.e. after
truncating the vowel), you have to put a little tail at the base of the
म. In the absence of the little tail, you are supposed to pronounce it
as "rAma". Wokay?

oh please nigga. in sanskrit (written in devanagri) that little tail (halant/virama) means something different. it means a repetition of the last consonant. so rAm with a halant under "m" is pronounced ramam.

Sir, I'm surprised you're holding forth at length on this topic without a basic wikipedia check. If you took any Sanskrit lessons, pls ask for your money back.

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:53 am

yes, i'm now miffed at my wife and my kid's hindi teacher (who has knowledge of sanskrit). i'll be arguing with them later. but how come that glossary lists a table of pronunciations as if there is a halant at the end of 90% of the sanskrit words listed in there? is the glossary suspect? i agree with your ram and rama explanation btw.

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:22 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:to further clarify (in devanagri):

sanskrit: राम
hindi: राम

pronunciation: rAm in both languages.

People, Sanskrit and all Indian languages are phonetic. You are supposed to pronounce a letter exactly the way you say it when you recite the alphabet. Now tell me, when you recite the consonants of the Devanagari alphabet (even in Hindi), do you similarly swallow the vowel at the end of each letter?? If not, then kindly desist from doing so merely because the consonant is appearing at the end of a word.

Just to elaborate, in Sanskrit, if you want to write Ram (i.e. after truncating the vowel), you have to put a little tail at the base of the म. In the absence of the little tail, you are supposed to pronounce it as "rAma". Wokay?

This is exactly what I have been wanting to type out every since this discussion started. I endorse this post.

EOD.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:51 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:yes, i'm now miffed at my wife and my kid's hindi teacher (who has knowledge of sanskrit). i'll be arguing with them later. but how come that glossary lists a table of pronunciations as if there is a halant at the end of 90% of the sanskrit words listed in there? is the glossary suspect? i agree with your ram and rama explanation btw.

The problem is with the manner in which Sanskrit is taught and learned in the North. Since both languages share the same script, the Hindi influence tends to be very pronounced (haha!). I've winced listening to highly respected Sanskrit scholars from the North truncate their consonants. Since logically, there is no reason to swallow the vowel by default, I can only conclude that it's a cultural thingie - just like Sanskit scholars from Bengal will insist on pronouncing "a" as "au"!

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:57 am

yes, you are absolutely right. this is a hindi influence and from my experience (with my wife and the hindi teacher), it is actually very prevalent in the hindi belt -- to treat sanskrit as hindi; at least in this respect. the glossary cham's references is not reliable.

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:08 am

Here's a website that seven has given in this thread. I discussed this in chat with her. http://www.yash.info/indianLanguageConverter/hindi.html

Pls type yog in it and notice the little tail line (halant) at the ga.

Type yoga and notice the missing of the halant. it is just yo and ga.

type yogaa and notice the extra line (matra?)beside ga.

Do the same for Kamal (with the halant)

Kamala (without the halant, just ka, ma, la)

Kamalaa (with an extra line beside la).

Seven's argument is that with or without the halant, Yoga and Kamala are pronounced as yog and kamal. That doesn't make sense. Then what's the purpose of a halant? Why do they gobble up the end vowel without the halant?

If that is how they do it in the north with Hindi, no problems. Their language, their wish. But don't bring in those rules to Sanskrit and butcher that language pls. Thanks.

Looks like halant is called a Virama (no, not viram) in Sanskrit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virama

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:31 am

[quote="kinnera"]Here's a website that seven has given in this thread. I discussed this in chat with her. http://www.yash.info/indianLanguageConverter/hindi.html

Another interesting thing.

Type

Jyothi and Jyoti

Kavitha and Kavita

Sangeetha and Sangeeta

Lalitha and Lalita...ete

This should put an EOD to any future discussion on the south indian way of putting the 'h'. Smile

.

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:13 am

kinnera wrote: That doesn't make sense. Then what's the purpose of a halant?

it is a diacritical mark and only an aid for pronounciation. if some foreign words are being used in hindi, halants help us understand their pronunciation.

Why do they gobble up the end vowel without the halant?

this is a local preference, possibly prakrit (though i am not sure). but sometimes we see that the sanskrit rule is followed. in bengali, sometimes, the ending vowel is pronounced and halants are never used to differentiate these words from the ones in which the ending consonant ends with a halant. my padma is not working so i can't write it in bengali but dukho is a bengali word in which the last "o" or as MD says "au" is pronounced after the consonant kh.

If that is how they do it in the north with Hindi, no problems. Their language, their wish. But don't bring in those rules to Sanskrit and butcher that language pls. Thanks.

request denied. since independence, hindi has been butchered by sanskrit and a plethora of nonsensical, foreign words have been added to hindi. we need a meeting ground. yes, this is a hindi problem and not a south indian problem.

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:47 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote: dukho is a bengali word in which the last "o" or as MD says "au" is pronounced after the consonant kh.

one more -- surjo meaning sun, after the bengali consonant "j."

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:22 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:yes, you are absolutely right. this is a hindi influence and from my experience (with my wife and the hindi teacher), it is actually very prevalent in the hindi belt -- to treat sanskrit as hindi; at least in this respect. the glossary cham's references is not reliable.

spoke to the teacher and my wife. sanskrit is taught as she is in the hindi belt. there had been some misunderstanding yesterday on my part (euphemism for both retracted there assertions). apparently my wife was pronouncing the sanskrit राम as ramah and i was not hearing the ah. i will go for an ear exam tomorrow.

cham's link (the glossary) is wrong insofar as it's pronounciations are concerned.

by chameli Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:36 am

huz,

wow now we have a Narad Muni in our midst .. you

I can't believe an entire glossary consisting of thousand or more words is wrong and you and Mr. Daruwalla are right

I will maintain.... it is "yog " written and spoken ..both in Hindi and Sanskrit

hang the halants and tails Sad

Rashmun where are you ? lol

Narayana Narayana !

by chameli Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:44 am

Kinns,

Don't thell me when tho end a discussion sweethie

Thelevision and thruth thell me oterwise .te websithe is theeming with theams tat don'th know anyting

tere te case is closed Smile

)

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:03 pm

chams, what is the level of your proficiency in sanskrit? can you speak/write sanskrit or are you simply relying on a google search? i asked you this question before and i'm sorry i am having to ask you again. i can inundate this thread with a thousand web links that show yog is pronounced as yoga but that is no way to win an argument (let alone convince someone). finally, naradmuni is nice. i like the title. thanks.

by chameli Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:08 pm

You don't have to convince me ...I already know by now

nor will my life change in any way knowing

see u around narad !

by artood2 Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:26 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:to further clarify (in devanagri):

sanskrit: राम
hindi: राम

pronunciation: rAm in both languages.

People, Sanskrit and all Indian languages are phonetic. You are supposed to pronounce a letter exactly the way you say it when you recite the alphabet. Now tell me, when you recite the consonants of the Devanagari alphabet (even in Hindi), do you similarly swallow the vowel at the end of each letter?? If not, then kindly desist from doing so merely because the consonant is appearing at the end of a word.

Just to elaborate, in Sanskrit, if you want to write Ram (i.e. after truncating the vowel), you have to put a little tail at the base of the म. In the absence of the little tail, you are supposed to pronounce it as "rAma". Wokay?

I assume you are saying this to mean that you should pronounce Ram in the same way as aam (mango),kaam (wor) or daam(price). They all have a vowel in the end. It is the "a" and not "aa". The vowel truncation pronunciation is like the "m" in tumhara (yours).

by artood2 Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:42 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:here is chapter 6 from the gItA recited in its entirety by someone from the ramakrishna mission with several occurrences of the word yoga and other words with vowel endings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8jwEP_0pRY

i have to say dropping the vowel from sanskritic sounds just sounds uneducated and coarse to me.

Did you listen to that link you posted? The "yoga" pronunciation happens for verse 4 which is supposed to be pronounced as "yoga" based on how it is written in devanagari.

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-06-04.html

When you reach verse 12 here

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-06-11.html

and verse 19 at

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-06-17.html

or verse 20 and 23 at

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-06-18.html

see the pronunciation. It is "yog" with the soft vowel.

by artood2 Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:52 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
now personally i think the chopping off of the 'a' sound makes for a more precise language. for instance, one can differentiate between the words 'Ram' (which is the name for a god and also a common male name) and 'Rama' (pronounced 'Ramaa' ) which is a not so common female name.

you are confused about the confusion. the confusion arises only when you write the names in roman alphabet. in indian languages there is no confusion.

the male name (rAmA) written in tamil is: ராமா
the female name (ramA): ரமா

in devnagiri:

rAmA: रामा
ramA: रमा

even in the roman alphabet, by adopting the kind of capitalization scheme i employ, it is possible to minimize the mixup.
also, the cutting off of the vowel is not only unaesthetic, but as kinnerA points out, distorts the original sanskritic intent.

Can you point where Valmiki Ramayana uses रामा?

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:10 pm

this is getting interesting and is beginning to make a bit of sense (to me). soft vowel VS full vowel. ramah vs ramA.

by artood2 Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:20 pm

here

artood2 wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
now personally i think the chopping off of the 'a' sound makes for a more precise language. for instance, one can differentiate between the words 'Ram' (which is the name for a god and also a common male name) and 'Rama' (pronounced 'Ramaa' ) which is a not so common female name.

you are confused about the confusion. the confusion arises only when you write the names in roman alphabet. in indian languages there is no confusion.

the male name (rAmA) written in tamil is: ராமா
the female name (ramA): ரமா

in devnagiri:

rAmA: रामा
ramA: रमा

even in the roman alphabet, by adopting the kind of capitalization scheme i employ, it is possible to minimize the mixup.
also, the cutting off of the vowel is not only unaesthetic, but as kinnerA points out, distorts the original sanskritic intent.

Can you point where Valmiki Ramayana uses रामा?

The shlokas at http://sanskritdocuments.org/mirrors/ramayana/valmiki.htm seem to be using राम instead of रामा but I have not gone through a whole lot there so feel free to correct me.

by artood2 Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:20 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i contend that neglecting the vowel is possibly a persian/urdu influence on northindian hindus.

Is there a basis to the assertion?

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:34 pm

[quote="artood2"]here

artood2 wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
now personally i think the chopping off of the 'a' sound makes for a more precise language. for instance, one can differentiate between the words 'Ram' (which is the name for a god and also a common male name) and 'Rama' (pronounced 'Ramaa' ) which is a not so common female name.

Can you point where Valmiki Ramayana uses रामा?

The shlokas at http://sanskritdocuments.org/mirrors/ramayana/valmiki.htm seem to be using राम instead of रामा but I have not gone through a whole lot there so feel free to correct me.

Raama, it is, not Raam or Raamaa

by artood2 Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:40 pm

[quote="kinnera"]

artood2 wrote:here
artood2 wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
now personally i think the chopping off of the 'a' sound makes for a more precise language. for instance, one can differentiate between the words 'Ram' (which is the name for a god and also a common male name) and 'Rama' (pronounced 'Ramaa' ) which is a not so common female name.

Can you point where Valmiki Ramayana uses रामा?

The shlokas at http://sanskritdocuments.org/mirrors/ramayana/valmiki.htm seem to be using राम instead of रामा but I have not gone through a whole lot there so feel free to correct me.

Raama, it is, not Raam or Raamaa

I edited this post. Its just a question of whether the soft vowel is there at the end or not. It is just how much you extend the vowel. In devnagari it is a soft one. You can write it any way you like it in Roman.

by Guest Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:57 am

artood2 wrote: Its just a question of whether the soft vowel is there at the end or not. It is just how much you extend the vowel. In devnagari it is a soft one. You can write it any way you like it in Roman.

i agree with you. the stress on the vowel is a script to script preference. (though by no means is the vowel fully truncated.)

by Sponsored content