A picture with Devanagari text may clarify

[Guest guest]

Pranaam Sanjaya,

 

If my latest mail did not convince you that Phyl is one akshara (syllable)

in Sanskrita, the jpeg I attached may help in driving the point home.

 

Please open the attached picture (only 17 kB). It contains some Sanskrita

text in modern Devanagari script. Keep it with you as you read the

following.

 

(1) Read line 1 in the jpeg. Yes, it contains two aksharas/syllables. You

may be tempted to read it as " Phyl " . That's not correct. It is actually

" Phila " . Because modern Hindi does not distinguish between " Phila " and

" Phil " , they write Phil that way. But, in Sanskrita, the first line of the

picture reads as " Phila " and only as phila. That's not Phyl's name.

 

(2) Now, read line 2. IT is " phil " . The slanted line under the second letter

(la) shows that it is " l " and not " la " . THIS is how you write Phyl's name in

Sanskrita.

 

Now, I am arguing that the second letter of line 2 is not a separate akshara

and works just an extension of the first akshara. If you don't agree, go to

the next line, where I will drive the point home.

 

(3) Read lines 3, 4, 5 and 6, which contain Sanskrit verses from Vishnu's

1000 names. These are written in Anushtup meter and each line should contain

8 aksharas as per the meter rules. If you count in your way (treating the

vowel-less consonants at the end of words as aksharas), lines 3, 4, 5 and 6

have 9, 9, 10 and 8 aksharas respectively (count and verify). Clearly,

that's not right! These lines written by Vyasa should have 8 aksharas each.

 

Now you can see that the consonants with a slanted line under them are not

separate aksharas. In the picture, I joined all such letters to previous

letters. If you count that way, you will see that each of the four lines has

exactly 8 aksharas.

 

(4) Now relate this to line 2. It MUST be EXTREMELY CLEAR that line 2 has

just one akshara/syllable. If " phil " was a valid Sanskrit word and Vyasa

used it in a Sanskrita sloka, he would consider it to be one akshara. I REST

MY CASE.

 

(5) See lines 7 and 8. They contain " philisa " and " philis " . The latter is

the correct pronunciation of the Phyllis. Again, relate to the observation

in point (3) above and you see that line 8 has 2 aksharas/syllables and not

3.

 

(6) Lines 9 and 10 contain " Brendana " and " Brendan " . Same point.

 

(7) Lines 11 and 12 contain " Sanjaya " and " Sanjay " . Same point.

 

Summary: As you said, pronunciation is the key. But sounds like " k " , " s " are

sounds that are " kshara " in nature. They cannot be considered as aksharas.

They need an vowel (prana/life) to become aksharas. The sound " k " , when

alone, can't even be pronounced (try!).

 

If you have patraka, you can pronounce patra and take a slight break and

pronounce ka then. The sound " ka " can be pronounced on its own. That's why

it's an akshara. On the other hand, if you have patrak, you can NOT

pronounce patra, take a small break and then pronounce k. It is not possible

to pronounce the sound k when it is alone. If you try, you will end up

pronouncing it as " ku " or " kku or something. But you can NOT pronounce k

when it is alone. The only way to pronounce it in patrak is to pronounce it

following tra without a break. That is why k is not a separate akshara and

merely a part of the previous akshara (trak or actually rak).

 

The sound " k " , when alone, is " kshara " in nature. Add an vowel and you get

an akshara. The combination " ka " (short a) is an akshara/syllable that is

short (laghu). The combinations " kaa " (long aa), " kai " , " kau " , " kap " , " kaps "

etc also form one akshara each, but they are all long (guru).

 

The definitions of sound units, syllables/aksharas as done in Sanskrita

chhandas is not only very logical, but supported by modern linguistics too.

 

Sanjaya, now I have really done my very best to drive the point home. There

is nothing more I can do. I sincerely hope you get it now. If you still

don't see my point, I guess I am not destined to impart the correct

knowledge to people at this time....

 

Your sishya,

Narasimha

 

PS: My aim when saying this is not to be arrogant or to bully you, but, I am

quite comfortable and knowledgable in this area and know what I am talking

about. When it comes to learning, my forte is not software or mathematics or

Jyotish. My forte - the subject I am best at - is Sanskrita grammar,

especially related to Sabda sastra and chhandas (science of sound -

phonology and meters). I don't know what factor in my chart shows this, but

this subject came extremely easily to me and I am a natural in it.