Intra-word spaces when writing (Summary of controversy)

[Guest guest]

Dear Sarbani,

 

> Some thoughts:

> The question that arose in my mind was that since almost all

written

> documentation irrespective of the publisher, the text or the year

of

> publication, seem to write 'namo' separately, and if we go by as

you are

> saying that its a Kali yuga distortion, then it would be

interesting to know

 

I want to be careful about what is being attributed to me here.

 

No Sanskrit classic has any rules regarding how things should be

written. Writing has gone through many changes. I don't even know

what kind of punctuation was used in Sanskrit writing 5000 years

back (or 2000 years back). For all I know, they may have written

things without any spaces at all (even at legal word boundaries). I

really don't know. So I will not comment on writing.

 

My only point is and was that a few words, when joined by sandhi or

samasa, become technically one word (as per Sanskrita grammar

rules). If somewbody writes words with intraword spaces, like "namo

narayanaya" or "ma indrascha" (as in Chamakam. me + indrascha

becomes ma indrascha - one word after sandhi) or "sura guru

brihaspataye", it doesn't really matter to me. As long as they are

acknowledged to be single words (after sandhi/samaasa), I am happy

with however they are written. For being a single word, there are

clear guidelines in classics. OTOH, there are no rules in classics

regarding writing and punctuation.

 

Take a sloka from Sankara's Nrisimha Karavalamba stotram:

 

saMsaara saagara viSaala karaaLa kaala

nakra graha grasita nigraha vigrahasya

vygrasya raaga nichayormi nipeeditasya

lakshmi nrisimha mama dehi karavalambam

 

In this sloka, the THE FIRST TWO LINES ARE TECHNICALLY ONE WORD,

formed with a complex compounding! The third line has 2 words and

the 4th line has 4 words. So the sloka has just 7 words.

 

If I write words without any intraword spaces, it will become

difficult to read. Unlike English, Sanskrita can have very big

words. So we typically put as many spaces as possible in modern

Sanskrita writing (like I did above in the 7-word stanza). I don't

know when this habit started.

 

That should not confuse one when the words are counted. The classics

are clear on what a word is. If one learns Sanskrita, one can figure

out the sandhis and samasas etc and clearly identify the words.

 

> precisely when this distortion took place. Usually language

distortions

> first take place in the oral tradition (through pronunciation

glitches) and

> only much later in the written tradition. Of course once

introduced, texts

> 'alter' over generations in the hands of translators, editors and

> publishers. In fact 'reading' texts itself is a major field in

linguistic

> philosophy as championed by Jacques Derrida among others. So

linguists hold

> that there is nothing called a 'real' or 'original' text anymore.

Each text

> has layers of sub-texts and the task of unravelling the original

text itself

> is a separate discipline by itself. In the case of Hinduism,

written texts

> are complemented by the living tradition of Hinduism making the

whole issue

> more complicated. So which is the authentic source? Yajur Veda

(including

> the Taittiriya and the Mahnarayana Upanishads which is full of

fabulous

> Rudra mantras) or the regional texts? What came first? Which

influenced

> which? Maybe both are right...these issues are highly debatable

and open to

 

We are diverting and totally sidetracking now. The corruptions in

text are a totally different thing. Whether two or three words

joined by sandhi or samaasam technically become one word or not is a

basic issue, where ideally there should be no controversy.

 

Yes, there are many corruptions in texts. You no longer know which

is the correct text. This applies to religious texts, astrological

texts and everything.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha,

 

I was not attributing anything to you at all, in fact the mail was not really

referring to the discussions we had on sandhi and samas. It led me to muse over

some matters in social philosophy, which I simply thought out aloud. I think

Satya caught the drift of my thoughts. One can't help it, thats all I did for

the last 15 years of my professional life! It spills over in my jyotish life.

 

Best regards,

 

Sarbani

 

 

pvr108 <pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net>

[pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net]Thursday, January 09, 2003 4:06 AMTo:

vedic astrologySubject: [vedic astrology] Intra-word spaces

when writing (Summary of controversy)Dear Sarbani,> Some thoughts:> The

question that arose in my mind was that since almost all written> documentation

irrespective of the publisher, the text or the year of> publication, seem to

write 'namo' separately, and if we go by as you are> saying that its a Kali

yuga distortion, then it would be interesting to knowI want to be careful about

what is being attributed to me here.No Sanskrit classic has any rules regarding

how things should be written. Writing has gone through many changes. I don't

even know what kind of punctuation was used in Sanskrit writing 5000 years back

(or 2000 years back). For all I know, they may have written things without any

spaces at all (even at legal word boundaries). I really don't know. So I will

not comment on writing.My only point is and was that a few words, when joined

by sandhi or samasa, become technically one word (as per Sanskrita grammar

rules). If somewbody writes words with intraword spaces, like "namo narayanaya"

or "ma indrascha" (as in Chamakam. me + indrascha becomes ma indrascha - one

word after sandhi) or "sura guru brihaspataye", it doesn't really matter to me.

As long as they are acknowledged to be single words (after sandhi/samaasa), I am

happy with however they are written. For being a single word, there are clear

guidelines in classics. OTOH, there are no rules in classics regarding writing

and punctuation.Take a sloka from Sankara's Nrisimha Karavalamba

stotram:saMsaara saagara viSaala karaaLa kaalanakra graha grasita nigraha

vigrahasyavygrasya raaga nichayormi nipeeditasyalakshmi nrisimha mama dehi

karavalambamIn this sloka, the THE FIRST TWO LINES ARE TECHNICALLY ONE WORD,

formed with a complex compounding! The third line has 2 words and the 4th line

has 4 words. So the sloka has just 7 words.If I write words without any

intraword spaces, it will become difficult to read. Unlike English, Sanskrita

can have very big words. So we typically put as many spaces as possible in

modern Sanskrita writing (like I did above in the 7-word stanza). I don't know

when this habit started.That should not confuse one when the words are counted.

The classics are clear on what a word is. If one learns Sanskrita, one can

figure out the sandhis and samasas etc and clearly identify the words.>

precisely when this distortion took place. Usually language distortions> first

take place in the oral tradition (through pronunciation glitches) and> only

much later in the written tradition. Of course once introduced, texts> 'alter'

over generations in the hands of translators, editors and> publishers. In fact

'reading' texts itself is a major field in linguistic> philosophy as championed

by Jacques Derrida among others. So linguists hold> that there is nothing called

a 'real' or 'original' text anymore. Each text> has layers of sub-texts and the

task of unravelling the original text itself> is a separate discipline by

itself. In the case of Hinduism, written texts> are complemented by the living

tradition of Hinduism making the whole issue> more complicated. So which is the

authentic source? Yajur Veda (including> the Taittiriya and the Mahnarayana

Upanishads which is full of fabulous> Rudra mantras) or the regional texts?

What came first? Which influenced> which? Maybe both are right...these issues

are highly debatable and open toWe are diverting and totally sidetracking now.

The corruptions in text are a totally different thing. Whether two or three

words joined by sandhi or samaasam technically become one word or not is a

basic issue, where ideally there should be no controversy.Yes, there are many

corruptions in texts. You no longer know which is the correct text. This

applies to religious texts, astrological texts and everything.May Jupiter's

light shine on us,NarasimhaArchives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......