To Sarajitji, Dhai akshar prem ke- Last explanation

[Guest guest]

Dear Jyothi,

 

You can call me without " ji " . " Ma " actually ends with " a " kar (first

swara) however the duration of the svara is less, else it should be

written with a halant as in Ta " t " Sa " t " in Om Tat Sat. Halant is a

small diacritic mark below the akshara.

 

Regards

Sarajit

 

On Dec 3, 2007 4:04 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi wrote:

>

>

>

>

> Dear Sarajitji,

>

> Please tell me if my understanding is correct:

>

> As you said, an akshara is complete only when a swara is attached to

> it. In that way, I understood Re is complete. And P, fine, no swara

> attached to it. But how come Ma is complete? There is no akar or

> eekar with M in Prem. Right? Did I miss out anything?

>

> Regards,

> Jyothi

>

> , " Sarajit Poddar "

> <sarajit.poddar wrote:

> >

> > Dear Jyothi,

> >

> > I am afraid, the explanation is not correct. The word formation of

> > hindi is same as Sanskrit, where the akshara count is as following:

> >

> > Since there is no swara assigned to Pa, it is considered as half.

> Re

> > is full.. it is Ra with a " ae " kaar. Whenever we combine two

> akshatras,

> > it is invariably the first akshara which is half and the 2nd one is

> > full. Like in Ashvini, sh is half, va is full with 'ee'kaar

> and " na "

> > is full as well with a " ee " kaar. You can take any other examples to

> > verify. Whenever a half akshara is written without joinging with

> the

> > full akshara, then it is written with a halanta, which shows that

> the

> > akshara does not have a swara.

> >

> > Vyanjana akshara cannot stand on their own without a svara

> assigned to

> > them and hence considered half when written without a svara.

> >

> > Thus in Prem, Pa is half, Re is full and Ma is full, which makes it

> > 2.5 aksharas. Only because it is written in such a way that " re " is

> > below " pa " does not make " ra " as half.

> >

> > Hope I am clear.

> >

> > Regards

> > Sarajit

> >

> >

> >

> > On Dec 3, 2007 12:11 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi

> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Respected members,

> > >

> > > I would like to thank Shri Sanatkumar Jainji for personally

> mailing

> > > me and correcting the wrong explanation I gave for the 2 and half

> > > letters of Prem. Since it was a personal mail, and he doesnt

> wish to

> > > post it publicly, I am not forwarding it, instead I am copying

> his

> > > interpretation from the mail he sent to me:

> > >

> > > Here is it:

> > >

> > > " Actually 2.5 means P (1) for pre, M (1) for m, but when we speak

> > > Pre (in Prem) it has half R (re) which is written like a slaint

> line

> > > in p for pre. That,s why it is 2.5 akshar.

> > > "

> > >

> > > As I my mother tongue is not Hindi, I am trusting Shri Jainji's

> > > explanation to be correct. I actually expected pandits in Hindi

> to

> > > correct me, if my understanding was wrong. But no body came. So I

> > > thought it was correct. I am happy that Shri Jainji had the

> > > willingness to correct me and I really appreciate the politeness

> > > with which he corrected me. I thought I will share his comments

> > > before the members inculcate the wrong interpretation I gave, in

> > > their minds.

> > >

> > > I am really sorry for the interpretation. Hope you all will

> forgive

> > > me.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Jyothi

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > Best Wishes

> > Sarajit Poddar

> >

>

>

 

 

 

--

Best Wishes

Sarajit Poddar

[Guest guest]

Dear Sarajit,

 

Now pakka clear. But then our pronunciation is wrong, right? Since

it is not written with a halant, we must pronounce it as Prema

instead of Prem??? (By halant, you mean the small back slash kind of

mark put below the letter..am I right?)

 

Regards,

Jyothi

 

, " Sarajit Poddar "

<sarajit.poddar wrote:

>

> Dear Jyothi,

>

> You can call me without " ji " . " Ma " actually ends with " a " kar (first

> swara) however the duration of the svara is less, else it should be

> written with a halant as in Ta " t " Sa " t " in Om Tat Sat. Halant is a

> small diacritic mark below the akshara.

>

> Regards

> Sarajit

>

> On Dec 3, 2007 4:04 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi

wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Sarajitji,

> >

> > Please tell me if my understanding is correct:

> >

> > As you said, an akshara is complete only when a swara is

attached to

> > it. In that way, I understood Re is complete. And P, fine, no

swara

> > attached to it. But how come Ma is complete? There is no akar or

> > eekar with M in Prem. Right? Did I miss out anything?

> >

> > Regards,

> > Jyothi

> >

> > , " Sarajit Poddar "

> > <sarajit.poddar@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Jyothi,

> > >

> > > I am afraid, the explanation is not correct. The word

formation of

> > > hindi is same as Sanskrit, where the akshara count is as

following:

> > >

> > > Since there is no swara assigned to Pa, it is considered as

half.

> > Re

> > > is full.. it is Ra with a " ae " kaar. Whenever we combine two

> > akshatras,

> > > it is invariably the first akshara which is half and the 2nd

one is

> > > full. Like in Ashvini, sh is half, va is full with 'ee'kaar

> > and " na "

> > > is full as well with a " ee " kaar. You can take any other

examples to

> > > verify. Whenever a half akshara is written without joinging

with

> > the

> > > full akshara, then it is written with a halanta, which shows

that

> > the

> > > akshara does not have a swara.

> > >

> > > Vyanjana akshara cannot stand on their own without a svara

> > assigned to

> > > them and hence considered half when written without a svara.

> > >

> > > Thus in Prem, Pa is half, Re is full and Ma is full, which

makes it

> > > 2.5 aksharas. Only because it is written in such a way

that " re " is

> > > below " pa " does not make " ra " as half.

> > >

> > > Hope I am clear.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > Sarajit

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > On Dec 3, 2007 12:11 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi@>

> > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Respected members,

> > > >

> > > > I would like to thank Shri Sanatkumar Jainji for personally

> > mailing

> > > > me and correcting the wrong explanation I gave for the 2 and

half

> > > > letters of Prem. Since it was a personal mail, and he doesnt

> > wish to

> > > > post it publicly, I am not forwarding it, instead I am

copying

> > his

> > > > interpretation from the mail he sent to me:

> > > >

> > > > Here is it:

> > > >

> > > > " Actually 2.5 means P (1) for pre, M (1) for m, but when we

speak

> > > > Pre (in Prem) it has half R (re) which is written like a

slaint

> > line

> > > > in p for pre. That,s why it is 2.5 akshar.

> > > > "

> > > >

> > > > As I my mother tongue is not Hindi, I am trusting Shri

Jainji's

> > > > explanation to be correct. I actually expected pandits in

Hindi

> > to

> > > > correct me, if my understanding was wrong. But no body came.

So I

> > > > thought it was correct. I am happy that Shri Jainji had the

> > > > willingness to correct me and I really appreciate the

politeness

> > > > with which he corrected me. I thought I will share his

comments

> > > > before the members inculcate the wrong interpretation I

gave, in

> > > > their minds.

> > > >

> > > > I am really sorry for the interpretation. Hope you all will

> > forgive

> > > > me.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Jyothi

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --

> > > Best Wishes

> > > Sarajit Poddar

> > >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> --

> Best Wishes

> Sarajit Poddar

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Jyothi,

 

Yes. absolutely.

 

Regards

Sarajit

 

On Dec 3, 2007 6:22 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi wrote:

>

>

>

>

> Dear Sarajit,

>

> Now pakka clear. But then our pronunciation is wrong, right? Since

> it is not written with a halant, we must pronounce it as Prema

> instead of Prem??? (By halant, you mean the small back slash kind of

> mark put below the letter..am I right?)

>

>

> Regards,

> Jyothi

>

> , " Sarajit Poddar "

> <sarajit.poddar wrote:

> >

> > Dear Jyothi,

> >

> > You can call me without " ji " . " Ma " actually ends with " a " kar (first

> > swara) however the duration of the svara is less, else it should be

> > written with a halant as in Ta " t " Sa " t " in Om Tat Sat. Halant is a

> > small diacritic mark below the akshara.

> >

> > Regards

> > Sarajit

> >

> > On Dec 3, 2007 4:04 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi

>

>

> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Sarajitji,

> > >

> > > Please tell me if my understanding is correct:

> > >

> > > As you said, an akshara is complete only when a swara is

> attached to

> > > it. In that way, I understood Re is complete. And P, fine, no

> swara

> > > attached to it. But how come Ma is complete? There is no akar or

> > > eekar with M in Prem. Right? Did I miss out anything?

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Jyothi

> > >

> > > , " Sarajit Poddar "

> > > <sarajit.poddar@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Jyothi,

> > > >

> > > > I am afraid, the explanation is not correct. The word

> formation of

> > > > hindi is same as Sanskrit, where the akshara count is as

> following:

> > > >

> > > > Since there is no swara assigned to Pa, it is considered as

> half.

> > > Re

> > > > is full.. it is Ra with a " ae " kaar. Whenever we combine two

> > > akshatras,

> > > > it is invariably the first akshara which is half and the 2nd

> one is

> > > > full. Like in Ashvini, sh is half, va is full with 'ee'kaar

> > > and " na "

> > > > is full as well with a " ee " kaar. You can take any other

> examples to

> > > > verify. Whenever a half akshara is written without joinging

> with

> > > the

> > > > full akshara, then it is written with a halanta, which shows

> that

> > > the

> > > > akshara does not have a swara.

> > > >

> > > > Vyanjana akshara cannot stand on their own without a svara

> > > assigned to

> > > > them and hence considered half when written without a svara.

> > > >

> > > > Thus in Prem, Pa is half, Re is full and Ma is full, which

> makes it

> > > > 2.5 aksharas. Only because it is written in such a way

> that " re " is

> > > > below " pa " does not make " ra " as half.

> > > >

> > > > Hope I am clear.

> > > >

> > > > Regards

> > > > Sarajit

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On Dec 3, 2007 12:11 PM, jyothi_b_lakshmi <jyothi_b_lakshmi@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Respected members,

> > > > >

> > > > > I would like to thank Shri Sanatkumar Jainji for personally

> > > mailing

> > > > > me and correcting the wrong explanation I gave for the 2 and

> half

> > > > > letters of Prem. Since it was a personal mail, and he doesnt

> > > wish to

> > > > > post it publicly, I am not forwarding it, instead I am

> copying

> > > his

> > > > > interpretation from the mail he sent to me:

> > > > >

> > > > > Here is it:

> > > > >

> > > > > " Actually 2.5 means P (1) for pre, M (1) for m, but when we

> speak

> > > > > Pre (in Prem) it has half R (re) which is written like a

> slaint

> > > line

> > > > > in p for pre. That,s why it is 2.5 akshar.

> > > > > "

> > > > >

> > > > > As I my mother tongue is not Hindi, I am trusting Shri

> Jainji's

> > > > > explanation to be correct. I actually expected pandits in

> Hindi

> > > to

> > > > > correct me, if my understanding was wrong. But no body came.

> So I

> > > > > thought it was correct. I am happy that Shri Jainji had the

> > > > > willingness to correct me and I really appreciate the

> politeness

> > > > > with which he corrected me. I thought I will share his

> comments

> > > > > before the members inculcate the wrong interpretation I

> gave, in

> > > > > their minds.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am really sorry for the interpretation. Hope you all will

> > > forgive

> > > > > me.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Jyothi

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --

> > > > Best Wishes

> > > > Sarajit Poddar

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > Best Wishes

> > Sarajit Poddar

> >

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

Best Wishes

Sarajit Poddar