101: still working on these

about sva-mmmmmmmmm ^ C- 1726

The pronoun sva- appears glossed as "one's own" in most dictionaries. However, most of the time, translating it with the English word "own" is a mistake, because it almost always means "belonging to the doer of the sentence". Correct English expresses that idea with "his", "your", "mine", "our" etc, not with "own" --

tataH prahRSTAM svAM senAm abhivIkSyAtha pANDavAH

"then the pANDavas saw that their army was in high spirits"

tataH prahRSTAM svAM senAm abhivIkSyAham Ahave

"then I saw that my army was in high spirits in the battlefield"

It is almost impossible to keep students from translating the above as "their own army", "my own army". Those are wrong translations.

The nounbases Atman- and nija- have the same meaning as this sva-.

Atman- is always masculine and singular even if the doer is not --

Atmanas senAm "his army, her army, my army, their army..."

Atmano hayAn "his horses, her horses, my horses, their horses..."

but nija- is an ordinary adjective and takes the gender and number of what it describes --

nijAm senAm "his army, her army, my army, their army..."

nijAn hayAn "his horses, her horses, my horses, their horses..."

half sandhimmmmmmmmm ^ C- 1728

Sometimes, in a caesura, sandhi does not work, or works halfway.

Example of not working ---

06034008c nivasiSyasi mayy eva: ata UrdhvaM na saMzayaH

According to good grammar, here there must be a pause, no matter how short, between eva and ata. Because if there is no pause, we must apply akassa, and then the metre breaks.

I tell my students to chant that as eva + short pause + aham if they are using the sixteen-vowel style . I might be wrong.

Example of working halfway ---

03097004c viSAdo vo na kartavyo: ahaM bhokSye mah`Asuram

Here according to good grammar, we may either make a pause between kartavyas and aham, or not. So if we don't want to make a pause because we are chanting in the sixteen-vowel style , good grammar would force us to say kartavyoham, which screws up the metre. The spelling o_a clearly shows that in old times this was chanted as kartavyo_aham, which sux, but sounds good. Breaking the grammar is bad, but breaking the meter is worse.

I tell my students to chant that as kartavyahA + pause + aham, even if they are using the sixteen-vowel style . I might be wrong.

Another example of working halfway ---

06033054a bhaktyA tv ananyayA zakya: aham evaMvidho 'rjuna

Here too we cannot keep both the metre and the grammar, if chanting in sixteen-vowel style .

I tell my students to chant that as zakyahA + pause + aham, if they are using the sixteen-vowel style . I might be wrong.

About nonhuman races.mmmmmmmmm ^ 1729

Some mythological beings --

devas (also known as "gods", suras and amaras). These are like humans but better (stronger, smarter, more long-lived), and they live in a place called svarga or "heaven", that is somewhere above our sky. Even though they are called amara, they are not inmortal. They just live 360 times longer than we do, and they can be killed. There is a special covenant between them and humans: we burn ghee in the holy fire to feed them, and in exchange they make it rain to feed us.

asuras (also called dAnavas and daityas). These are the descendants of diti. They are mostly the same thing as the sura, but are always making the war to them, or waiting to make war. Sometimes asura is translated as "demon".

gandharvas, rAkSasas, yakSas, kinMnaras. These are races stronger than humankind, but weaker than the sura and asura. They live "in the sky", meaning, above earth but below svarga. The females of the gandharvas are called apsarases, sometimes "nymphs". Most rAkSasas are cruel and some are antropophages. rAkSasa- is translated as "demon".

nAgas. These are strong big snakes and most live in the levels below Earth surface. Usually depicted as upper half human lower half snake, but they can look fully human or fully snakey whenver they want.

bhUtas. These are a mixed bunch encompassing ghosts, goblins, vampires and the like.

cAraNas and siddhas. These are supposedly nearly-enlightened beings, but all they seem do in the epics is watching the battles on Earth from the sky.

How to say "with"mmmmmmmmm ^ C+ 1730

These are four ways of saying "the priest and his son go" --

(1) bare third meaning company

vipraH putreNa gacchati "priest with son goes"

(2) saha and sArdham "with"

vipraH putreNa saha gacchati "priest with son goes"

viprasH saha putreNa gacchati "priest with son goes"

vipraH putreNa sArdhaGM gacchati "priest with son goes"

sArdhaM vipraH putreNa gacchati "priest with son goes"

(3) prefixed sa- and saha-

viprasH sa-putro gacchati "priest with son (or sons) goes"

viprasH saha-putro gacchati "priest with son (or sons) goes"

(4) use anything that means "and" --

vipraH putraz ca gacchataH "priest and son go"

Option (1) is not used often. I tell my students to avoid it if possible, as it can be somewhat confusing at times.

bare third meaning companymmmmmmmmm ^ C- 1731

The third ending according to the grammar may express the tool ("with" in English) --

tAn ahan gadayA "he killed them with a mace"

the doer ("by" in English) --

hato rAmeNa "he was killed by rAma"

and the accompanier (again "with" in English) --

Aste rAma lakSmaNena "rAma is sitting with lakSmaNa"

However, using a third in this way to mean the company is uncommon, because when they mean company, they almost always add saha or sArdham --

Aste rAma lakSmaNena saha "rAma is sitting with lakSmaNa"

Aste rAma lakSmaNena sArdham "rAma is sitting with lakSmaNa"

or use the sa- saha- construction (see examples at sa-).

Back to how to say "with" .

saha and sArdham "with"mmmmmmmmm ^ C+ 1732

The unchanging words saha, sArdham may be used to mean "together", as in the vedic verse --

saha nAv avatu "may he protect the two of us together"

However, mosty often they are used as postpositions, meaning "together with" or "with". Whatever comes after the "with" in English, will get third in Sanskrit, as in --

putreNa saha "with son"

putrAbhyAM saha "with two sons"

putraisH saha "with sons"

putraisH sArdham "with sons"

About word order. In prose, it is most natural (but not compulsory!) to place these words right after their third word, as in the above examples. But in verse you will find them before or after that word, fifty-fifty chance --

duryodhanas tAbhyAm sArdham "duryodhana with the two of them"

duryodhanas sArdhanM tAbhyAm "duryodhana with the two of them"

And also, metri causa, these two may even flutter all around the stanza --

tAbhyAnM duryodhanasH sArdham "the two of them duryodhana with"

In this last example we can tell that this means "duryodhana with the two of them", and not "the two of them with duryodhana", because tAbhyAm has a third. But this sort of disordered sArdham sentence is uncommon enough that we can call it a poet's trick, even though it's fully grammatical. Kids, don't do this at home.

You must be warned that in Sanskrit there is zero change of meaning between "he came with his wife" and "he and his wife came", so you should expect to find "and" in teh Sanskrit when "with" would sound more natural in English, and vice versa.

Back to how to say "with" .

prefixed sa- and saha-mmmmmmmmm ^ C+ 1733

saha- is a nounbase only used as a former. The compound "saha + whatever" is used as an adjectie, and means "accompanied with whatever" or "and whatever".

Instead of saha-, we may use sa-, same meaning (rule vopa says so).

Example --

putreNa saha means "with a son"

joining saha- and putreNa we get saputra-, an adjective meaning "with a son".

joining saha- and putrAbhyAm we get saputra-, an adjective meaning "with two sons".

joining saha- and putrais we get saputra-, an adjective meaning "with sons".

Therefore the nounbase saputra- may have three meanings: "with a son", "with two sons", or "with sons". Words such as saputras, saputrau and saputrAs can also have any of the three meanings.

Example sentences --

AgatasH saputro vipraH "the priest came with son(s)"

Agatau saputrau viprau "the two priests came with son(s)"

viprA AgatAsH saputrAH "the priests came with son(s)"

Notice that the word is saputras, saputrau or saputrAs according to how many priests are there. This happens because saputra- is an adjective, and it must have the same number as the word it attaches to. None of the words saputras, saputrau and saputrAs show how many sons are there.

Students always make the same mistake at first: they assume that viprau saputrau must mean two priests with two sons, because putrau alone, without the sa-, would mean two sons. But actually saputrau can mean with one son, with two or with many.

Another example --

AgatavAn devas sabRhaspatiH "a god came with bRhaspati"

Agatavantau devau sabRhaspatI "two gods came with bRhaspati"

Agatavanto devAs sabRhaspatayaH "the gods came with bRhaspati"

The last word shows a singular, dual or plural affix because it describes one, two or many gods, but does not tell us how many bRhaspati are there. Common sense however tells us that there is only one bRhaspati.

These componds are longhorns because rule tenasahetitulyayoge says so. Being longhorn, rules such as nadyRta work on them --

Agato rAjA sa-rAjJIkaH "the king came with the queen"

Agato rAjA sa-kSattRkaH "the king came with his charioteer"

chunk 101: still working on these