ajit.krishnan at gmail.com
Sun Apr 3 10:11:45 CDT 2011
> . gain ,on the offensive.Is this a forum for discussing religious topics
> for interaction or a forum for assault?If some thing has to be said
> just for the heck of it,hold it there!
I'm trying to be neutral and even-handed in this response:
You've been at this thread for a while now, repeating your arguments
again and again. However, in my opinion, you have yet to convince
anyone. If you are well versed in vyAkaraNa, I would say that your
presentation and communication skills need serious work -- because I
(and others) are totally unable to understand your points. You might
be a vyAkaraNa shiromaNi, but your posts come across as being devoid
of basic vyAkaraNa knowledge.
Please keep this in mind before you respond -- writing another massive
missive in your current style will not help matters. You need to find
a different approach. The current one isn't working, and it is
frustrating to see the massive communication gap. If I were alone in
my predicament, I would remain quiet. However, every other participant
in this thread seems to be having the same problem.
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Srikanta Narayanaswami
<srikanta.narayanaswami at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Please hold it here!
> 1. 'Verbal sense' and 'verb-related' are quite different. It is the theory of
> some grammarians of Sanskrit that all nouns are derived from verbs or verbal
> roots (though others like Panini do not accept this fully, they do subscribe to
> the view that many or most of the nouns are derived from verbal roots or
> dhatus). So, are these two words verb-related? Quite possible; but do they
> convey, 'verbal sense'. No. As long as you accept that, I have no issues.
> 2. What is a 'dvandvasamAsa'? It consists of two or more nouns, which in the
> expanded form of the compound, are connected by the conjugation 'and'.
> Example: rAmaSca krishNaSca rAmakrishNau (rAma and krishNa make up
> rAma-krishNa). madhyamaam and madhyagaam cannot be resolved as dvandva compounds
> as there are not two complete words there.
> You might hold your own views on Buddhism or the importance of karmakANDa, and
> there would be variations in saampradaayika Slokas, but do desist from using
> technical words with clear definitions and well established usage like
> 'dvandvasamAsa' irresponsibly and without knowing or understanding them.
> Sanskrit grammar is quite settled: that is why we have the moon light of the
> settled form of Sanskrit grammar in the vaiyaakaraNa-siddhAnta-kaumudI of
> Bhattoji Dikshita.
> N. Siva Senani
> )Again ,on the offensive.Is this a forum for discussing religious topics for interaction or
> a forum for assault?If some thing has to be said just for the heck of it,hold it there!.if two words cannot form a 'dvandva'what else is it?Rama and krishna as two separate words make it Ramakrisnau,this is one example of two nouns.there are no hard and fast rules that this is the only example of "dvandva"samasa.I am basing my points on "astadhyayi"and Lagu siddhanta kaumudi.
> Do not use the words,"irresponsibly" and "without knowing or understanding",as it is too childish for our age.we are not fools to join this list.Have some temperance in your writing.
> 2)Your comments on my views on Buddhism and karmakanda are irrelevant to the topic under discussion and uncalled for.If you have some serious points on the topic air them,but impersonally.otherwise this will grow.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list