Re: Exception to gaNa vibhajana
Subbarao Varigonda (varigond@cems.umn.edu)
Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:10:42 -0600 (CST)
Hi!
Seems I am the only person holding a maverick notion!
Any way, what I am interested in is truth even if that conflicts with
my (or others') personal notions. I request the members not to take
anything in my mails personally.
First, could you make it clear what part in this rule is conceived
incorrect so that I can verify that portion or search for any poems
that used it?
As I see it, it does not prohibit any of the cases which Sri Ramakrishna
illustrated. It also includes the points mentioned by Mr. Ramana Juvvadi.
It just grants a little more freedom to the poet when the letters in
question belong to different words.
>That is, any letter preceding a dvitvAkshram(especially, with ra-vattu)can
>be taken as laghuvu or guruvu at will **IF** that dvitvAksharam starts
>a new word or dhatu in sandhi when partitioned.
> Sri Bachoti Rao wrote:
> I am surprised about the two opposite views expressed about the
> gaNavibhajana
> Sri Mahesh wrote:
> IMHO, there cannot be any rule
> that is more explicit than a phonetic rule. I can completley accept what
> Sri Mohana Rao garu and Ramakrishna garu say, but after all isn't all of
> grammar, just a formal statement of phoentic pronounciation?
I agree. Likewise, when a formal statement is available, isn't it easier
and more concrete to talk in terms of this rule than going back to the
first principles of phonetics. Of course, the origin lies in phonetics as
you said. But formalized rules make things easier.
For example,
To decide whether a letter is guruvu, phonetically we say 'it should be
pronounced in two mAtras of time'. But do we apply this rule for every letter
when judging? We use the formal rules that epitomize this base fact. We say
'dIrghAksharAlu' are guruvulu.
If I state this rule and say it's easier to apply, how am I disputing the
phonetic origin of that rule? All that I am doing is to make the decision
making simpler by a more concrete rule.
Another example (you may not like it :-) ):
If I want the derivative of a function, I don't always start from ab-initio
definition of the derivative. limit h->0 stuff. I look for rules that I can
apply more easily. If I don't find any, then I go to first principles.
Is the use of such a rule in conflict or 'opposite' to the ab-initio method?
If the rule I stated does not exist, it's a different story. But I fail to see
how it is "opposite" to or in conflict with the phonetic rule.
I will be grateful if you can write what part of the above rule you feel is
incorrect so I can try to verify that from sources in AP.
>Sri Ramakrishna wrote:
>We'll have to wait until definitive voices reconcile this problem.
>I would request Dr. Tirumala Desikachari to throw some light on this
>matter. Otherwise, we may have to wait for an opinion from some
>chandO-expert from AP, or wait till next year, when I am expecting
>the arrival of such a person; Dr. Kovela Sampatkumaracharya.
This will de extremely helpful.
*************************************************************************
An observation about vRttas:
This may be well known but the context seems right to say this.
If the first letter of each padam of an utpalamAla is changed as two letters
(laghuvus) preserving yati and praasa, the poem becomes champakamAla.
Similarly, changing the first guruvu in SArdUlam as two laghuvus, the poem
becomes mattEbham.
So, there is not much difference between SArdUlam and mattEbham from chandas
point of view. It is really surprising to know that there are not many
mattEbhAs in sanskrit!
--
***********************************************************************
Varigonda Subbarao Present Address
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----------------
varigond@cems.umn.edu 1209, 8thSt SE Box#144, 46 Amundson Hall
Minneapolis, MN 55414 University of Minnesota
USA Minneapolis, MN 55455
ph:(612) 617-9377 ph: (612) 625-3367
URL: http://www.cems.umn.edu/~varigond
***********************************************************************