To Sarajitji, Dhai akshar prem ke- Last explanation

[Guest guest]

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

>