Rama, Shiva, Krishna etc.

[Guest guest]

I have a question:

 

I thought only Western cultures added an extra "a" to certain god's name, why is this board doing so as well? What is the history of the "a" coming into place, because Rama's name is Ram, Shiva's name is Shiv, and Krishna's name is Krishen.

[happy102785 0]

In the transliteration that occurs in going from Sanskrit to English characters, the extra "a" is needed. I think the extra "a" used to be actually pronounced in ancient Sanskrit, but I'm not totally sure on that one. Regardless, in Hindi/Sanskrit/etc., when these words are written there is an understood "a" sound after every consonant standing alone. Any modification to that "a" sound makes it into "aa,i,e," etc. etc. to the other vowel sounds. So writing the "m" sound in Hindi/Sanskrit/etc. necessarily requires you to write a "ma" sound and then go ahead and write another marking to silence the terminal "a". And that last step (silencing the terminal "a") is not usually done in writing (again, this may be because that "a" was actually pronounced in ancient Sanskrit very gently). This results in a transliteration which includes the terminal "a," and that is the proper way to write these words.

 

(Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone...)

[maadhav 0]

when you write rama in devanagari

it actually is writen rAma,

and could be pronounced, strickly like raama (=rAma).

but traditionally we pronounce it like rAm (=raam).

 

The non-bhartiyas do not know this, and so they pronounce as it is written, but with distortion, and they pronounce rAmA (same as raamaa)

thus the right pronounciation is raam, shiv, etc.

 

[aqua3 0]

The origin of all this is in sanskrit language.

RAma, Shiva and Krishna are all wriiten as RAma:, Shiva: and Krishna: (pronounced as RAmaha, Shivaha and Krishnaha)

in their being masculine genders. They belong to the category of singular, masculine words ending with a or a-kaaraanatha pullingam.

 

This is in the first case (prathama vibhakthi). In the 8th case, which is for addressing a person, the names undergo this change.

Rama: is addressed as 'hE RAma'

Shiva: as 'hE Shiva'

Krishna: as 'hE Krishna'

 

Nowhere the singular masuline words ending with 'a' are pronounced as 'aa'.

 

In plural form (bahu vachanam), they are 'RamA: (for many persons having the name Rama)

ShivA: and KrsihnA:

and while addressing in plural form they are

hE RAmA:, hE ShivA: and hE KrishnA:

 

Only in 'pithru' shabdam and 'RAjan' shabdam, the singular masculine in the first case end with 'A', like pitA and RAjA. In the 8th case, they are 'hE pita:' and 'hE rAjan'.

 

In the first chapter in Gita, there are a plenty of places (like acharya, pithrah puthrAha)where you can apply these rules and know for yourself what those nouns stand for - singular or plural etc.

[Guest guest]

So what's the right pronunciation for Rama and Krishna?

[aqua3 0]

The pronunciation is not exactly as it is in Sanskrit. That is what is made out in my post. In reciting slokas in sanskrit we follow the exact pronunciation. Strictly speaking we must follow the exact pronunciation as it is in sanskrit only. But in regional languages, the pronunciation takes up the regional slang. For instance it is RAman in Tamil, RAm for the Hindi speaking people.

 

 

[aqua3 0]

The exact spelling is very important in sanskrit, which means that the exact pronunciation is a must. If some minor differences are there, then the number (singular, plural or pair (dwi vachan)) itself will be different.

 

For instance in Sundhara khanda in VAlmiki RAmayana, while talking to Hanuman about Lakshmana, Sita says something like, 'he who has left his riches and loving wives'. The number used in the sanskrit sloka is bahu vachan, plural. But nowhere we read in Ramayana that Lakshmana had more than one wife.

 

Then this becomes a point of debate and research for scholars, who would first ascertain whether this bahu vachan sychronises with the meter of the verse or is out of place in this verse. If found to be out of place then it is deduced that this would have happened due to incorrect prounuciation while reciting, since this has come down to us mostly by recitation. And proper correction will be made.

 

But if the word goes intact in the verse, then it really means that Lakshmana had more the two wives. Then the problem of how to justify or to look for clues arises.

 

Until about a 1000 years ago, matters such as these were of academic interest and hotly debated. That was the time when knoweldge of sanskrit was profound and people were keen on getting the facts right.

 

But now what matters most is that whatever we have bequeathed must reach the people at least in bits and pieces. That is why no one worries whether we write as RAma, or Ramaa or Ram etc., or pronounce the names correctly.

[Guest guest]

But what is the right pronunciation for Ram, Krishna etc., according to you? Are you saving all sanskrit words are pronounced wrongly?

[aqua3 0]

There is no question of what is the right pronunciation 'according' to me. What I have given given is as per sanskrit.

 

Any discourse or write-up done in sanskrit will follow these rules. Similar attempts done in other languages will follow the primary rules of those languages.

Like how we have differences in English spoken by people of diifernt languages, since it is spoken as the primary / mother tongue of the speaker. That is why we have many regional variations in English spoken within India itself.

 

But people having some awareness or knowledge about how the sanskrit words are spoken or spelt, will have trouble in writing them in English. For instance in one of my posts (mother barren) I was struggling how to write satputhras, since this word is not in English, that too in its plural form. I thought it best to write it as satputhrA: as it is pronounced in sanskrit.

 

Sanskrit is such a unique language that not many of its words can be translated, exactly implying their 4-fold meaning, nor can they be adopted exactly in other languages. That is why it is insisted that we go to the root / core texts when we want to get a better understanding of what is being said.

 

As for your question on RAm or Krishna, as per basic grammar, proper nouns can be pronounced in any way

[Guest guest]

This fact is exposed in inflection:

 

as v. "is": -asam, -as-is, -as-it

kartRi n. "doer": kart-a®, kart-aram

vada v. "say": vadeyam, vades, vadet

go n. "cow": gaus, g-am

nau n. "boat": naus, n-avam

marut n. "wind": marut, marutam

 

But "`em" was not noticed like "Ri" or "Li" bcos transposition doesn't occur & "am" or "an" is weakened in 2 methods:

 

an(tara) "in, down" -> `en -> ni (cf. Eng. in, under, nether, neath, nest (Skt. ni+sad "sit down"))

gam "come" -> ga(ta)