Anyone read Sanskrit?

[Jainarayan]

I'd like to know if this is correct.

It should be Krishnastu Bhagavan Svayam Sri Krishna Sharanam Mama

कृष्णस्तु भगवान् स्वयम् । श्रीकृष्णः शरणं मम ।

 

[kaisersose]

It is correct.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I'd like to know if this is correct.

It should be Krishnastu Bhagavan Svayam Sri Krishna Sharanam Mama

कृष्णस्तु भगवान् स्वयम् । श्रीकृष्णः शरणं मम ।

I think its mostly correct except the Sharanam part. instead of the dot above the "na", I think you ought to chuck in a म्

 

[Jainarayan]

It is correct.

I think its mostly correct except the Sharanam part. instead of the dot above the "na", I think you ought to chuck in a म्

Thanks. If I can save the money (other things have to be done first), I may, just may get it tattooed at the based of my neck above my collarbone like a band, as long as that's not tacky.

 

[Metempsychosis]

I'd like to know if this is correct.

It should be Krishnastu Bhagavan Svayam Sri Krishna Sharanam Mama

कृष्णस्तु भगवान् स्वयम् । श्रीकृष्णः शरणं मम ।

I think its mostly correct except the Sharanam part. instead of the dot above the "na", I think you ought to chuck in a म्

Correct translation IMO...there are rules when म् can be replaced by the dot above depending upon the word following it(here it is "mama").

 

[DreadFish]

I have experience reading Sanskrit, but I dont tend to understand it when I do.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Correct translation IMO...there are rules when म् can be replaced by the dot above depending upon the word following it(here it is "mama").

No, the rules are different. the dot above the "na" or indeed any letter indicates a different sound in Sanskrit.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Sanskrit alphabet, pronunciation and language

You have to put what is called a chandra-bindu to get the "am" sound. a normal dot is the "an" sound.

 

[Metempsychosis]

No, the rules are different. the dot above the "na" or indeed any letter indicates a different sound in Sanskrit.

While I was not sure but I guess I am right..

Rules for external Sandhi:

A Sanskrit grammar for beginners - Max Muller - Google Books

Anusuvara:
http://www.sanskritweb.net/sansdocs/anusvara.pdf


Also this:
संप्राप्ते सन्निहिते मरणे
नहि नहि रक्षति 'डुकृञ् करणे'॥

Bhaja Govindam

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

While I was not sure but I guess I am right..

Rules for external Sandhi:

A Sanskrit grammar for beginners - Max Muller - Google Books

Anusuvara:
http://www.sanskritweb.net/sansdocs/anusvara.pdf


Also this:
संप्राप्ते सन्निहिते मरणे
नहि नहि रक्षति 'डुकृञ् करणे'॥

Bhaja Govindam

right, but my point is that the dot indicates a different sound.

As you can see, the dot indicates the "an" sound . The dot with the crescent indicates the "am" sound.

FYI, there are not hard-and-fast rules.Chandra-Bindu and the म् are interchangeable, but as you pointed out, for clarity, it is best to use the Chandra Bindu if the following word starts with म.

 

[Metempsychosis]

right, but my point is that the dot indicates a different sound.

As you can see, the dot indicates the "an" sound . The dot with the crescent indicates the "am" sound.
FYI, there are not hard-and-fast rules.Chandra-Bindu and the म् are interchangeable, but as you pointed out, for clarity, it is best to use the Chandra Bindu if the following word starts with म.

I guess the same applies to anusvara(dot) and म् .Following is an interesting part..Sansktir Pronunciation -- Part 1

Anusvāra is written ṃ or ṁ. A simple rule is to pronounce it as m at the end of a word or before p ph b bh or an*
other m, and otherwise as n. Strictly speaking, anusvāra
stands for a nasal sound pronounced in one of three ways:
1. at the end of a word, as m;
2. before semivowels y r l v, sibilants ś ṣ s, and the
aspirate h, as a nasalized vowel (as in French bon);
3. before other consonants, as the nasal consonant of
the same group; thus ahaṅkāra (egoism) may be
written ahaṃkāra, and sannyāsin (renouncer) may
be written saṃnyāsin

 

[Jainarayan]

Maybe they are interchangeable at times; consider that either Om Gam Ganapathaye or Om Gan Ganapathaye is correct.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Maybe they are interchangeable at times; consider that either Om Gam Ganapathaye or Om Gan Ganapathaye is correct.

But I have only heard it chanted as Gan. Even by different sects from different parts of India. I tend to stay out of gammer or pronunciation arguments in sanskrit. It is very complex. To the western ear some times it is very hard to discern the different sounds of different letters. My son has an easy time of it due to he has been in Hindu religious plays from a very young age. When he chanted Sanskrit the proper pronunciation was expected. So he has an ear for it.

Even the word Dharma is not correctly pronounced much of the time by western devotees.

 

[Vinayaka]

But I have only heard it chanted as Gan.

And I've never heard it anything but gam ... so there you go.. experience based ... but I'm with you with the ear bit.. I don't have a good ear for English, let alone Sanskrt.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

And I've never heard it anything but gam ... so there you go.. experience based ... but I'm with you with the ear bit.. I don't have a good ear for English, let alone Sanskrt.

But I :bow: to your mind.

 

[Vinayaka]

But I :bow: to your mind.

I did interview a Sanskritologist once upon a time. Very humble man. I learned from him there are still a few people who claim Sanskrt as their mother tongue, and can run casual conversations in it. Most people think its a pure ritualistic language.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yep, Jai Uttal has Om Gam Ganapathaye Namaha in his Ganesha Sharanam recording. Sanskrit, I am learning, is not the easiest language because of the sounds. The grammar is no different than Latin, Greek, Russian or any other highly inflected language; they all work the same way. But Sanskrit has more phonemes than any other Indoeuropean language I can think of. Just consider the number of vowels... what, 11 or 12? And consonants... fuggedaboudit!

I did come up with this though, which I think is correct... the inflection for Govindam Adi Purusham Tam Aham Bhajaami.

Govindam = Govinda [accusative]
Adi Purusham = First (Primeval) Lord; [acc. of Purusha]
Tam = that [acc.]
Aham = I
Bhajaami = worship, 1st person singular of bhaja

"I worship that [understood as "the"?] Primeval Lord Govinda".

Because of the free word order due to inflection (all accusative case in this phrase) I suppose it could have been "Aham Bhajaami Govindam Tam Adi Purusham or anything else, but I think it would lose the poetic value of Govindam Adi Purusham Tam Aham Bhajaami.

Do feel free to trash my attempt.

 

[Jainarayan]

I did interview a Sanskritologist once upon a time. Very humble man. I learned from him there are still a few people who claim Sanskrt as their mother tongue, and can run casual conversations in it. Most people think its a pure ritualistic language.

Don't a few states in India have it as an official language, with attempts to revive it as a spoken language elsewhere in India?

My guess (OK, so I read it somewhere) is that Vedic Sanskrit was a very musical language, though not quite fully tonal like Chinese. That musicality of it made it easier to orally transmit and memorize scriptures. Think about how a melody gets stuck in your head and you memorize the words to the song (those darn earworms!). Well, bless those little earworms' hearts, because they preserved the Vedas before the advent of writing.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't have a good ear for English, let alone Sanskrt.

I've picked up some Greek and Russian from people I know. They all said my accent is almost perfect and fluent. One Russian I worked with said my accent was Muscovite, but I've never been to Russia. When I first learned he said I sounded like an "edooketted Littooenian" but later on I sounded Muscvich (Muscovite).

He asked me if I am musically inclined. I said yes; he said "ah ha!" If you are musically inclined, you can hear the nuances in speech and pick up the proper accents. Now if only my Sanskrit pronunciation didn't suck as bad as it does. But I have to admit it's getting better with slow practice.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I did interview a Sanskritologist once upon a time. Very humble man. I learned from him there are still a few people who claim Sanskrt as their mother tongue, and can run casual conversations in it. Most people think its a pure ritualistic language.

I was told that by an Sanskritologist that the average person with a master in the language could not give a lecture in it, do to its complex nature. I have also heard of people who can use it in daily conversation but I think that many were raised doing it. I spent some time when I was younger trying to learn it. Now I only chant the passages I want to learn. A recording of someone who is an expert at chanting is a help.