Talk:Sanskrit prosody

Why Vedic material is excluded

See Talk:Vedic meter for a reverted move (i.e. Vedic meter was at some point renamed to "Sanskrit metre"; this has now been undone; and a proper article on "Sanskrit metre" has been started in order to ward off similar miscues in the future.)

Also, in case the point really needs making, it's useful to check out the wonderful online Sanskrit metre recognizer service at Uni-Heidelberg.de. It has a page with a complete listing of the meters it recognizes. 1352 of them. One thousand three hundred fifty two. Anyone who thinks Vedic meters and Sanskrit meters belong in the same single article, is invited to investigate the following before making any proposals.

In that listing of 1352 Sanskrit meters can how many of the following Vedic meters be found?

1. gayatrI
2. uSNiH
3. bRhatI
4. anuSTubh
5. panktI
6. triSTubh
7. jagatI

rudra (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

RTL or LTR

Currently the article says:

Pingala's order of the gaṇas, viz. m-y-r-s-t-j-bh-n, corresponds to a standard enumeration in binary, when each sequence is read right-to-left with H=0 and L=1.

Related edits:

• For instance ya-gaṇa (y) could be read binary 100 = decimal 1, iff read from left to right (change RTL to LTR)
• binary 100 ≠ decimal 1 (it is 4); but binary 001 = decimal 1. (revert back to RTL)

This comes down to how one reasons. I now see how this sentence is supposed to be read. It might just be me knowing English as second language, but I would prefer someone to make this sentence less ambigous.

How I reason:

• Ya-gaṇa: laghu guru guru = L H H = ⏑ – – = 100 (as given in the same order as writing, LTR)
• Though, binary is usually given from RTL
• Thus we need to say that either (1) the sequence of syllables in the gaṇa or (2) the binary sequence needs to be reversed
• What the sentence now says is (1), what I changed into was (2)
• As far as I understand the English language both work grammatically, hence why I feel the need to disambiguate the sentence

(As for which way to express this, I think changing (1) gives a slight focus to math while changing (2) gives a slight focus to the text. And since the subject here is about the text I’d say it would be more appropriate to change (2), but this is needless language philosophy. And either way is totally okay with me. I just wished to raise the point.)

No offence meant with this overly detailed comment, I just hope we can make it clear to people like me whom does not grasp all levels of English grammar. kess (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty inconsequential either way (and English is my second language too), but let's see what we have here. (H=0, L=1.) The natural interpretation, to me, is that you take each sequence, like LHH, and read it backwards (HHL) before interpreting it as binary (giving you 001, which is 1). Your other interpretation, of taking each binary number and interpreting it backwards, does not occur to me, since there is no "the" binary sequence yet to speak of — we are starting with the gaṇas. Besides, it is unclear what it means to reverse a binary number: should the number 1 ( = 01 = 001 = …) be reversed as 1, or 10, or 100, or…? In any case, even if this alternative interpretation is likely to arise, I don't see why the sentence needs changing: whether you interpret "the sequence" in the sentence to mean the gaṇa or the binary sequence, you still have to read it right-to-left. :-) (Think of it this way: saying "each sequence is read left-to-right" would be redundant to specify, since that is how any sequence is normally read. And if you drop those redundant words, it is clear that the correspondence does not hold.) Even though the sentence has two interpretations as you point out, they are both correct, and I genuinely do not see what the scope for confusion is. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Title Shoude Be "Sanskrit Metrics" Not Prosody.

The same goes for the latin and greek "prosody" articles. It's "metrics" not prosody. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.144.205 (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Over-complex introduction

It seems to me that sentences such as this "each had its own rhythm, movements and aesthetics wherein a non-linear structure (aperiodicity) was mapped into a four verse polymorphic linear sequence" are too complex for an introduction. Personally for me this is just so much gobbledegook. An introduction should be simple, so that everyone can understand it. Moreover, since Vedic meter has now been split off as a separate article, the introduction, which is largely about Vedic metres, is now mostly irrelevant. Whatever is meant by "linear" and "non-linear" systems is not explained clearly either in the introduction or elsewhere in the article. The section headed "The seven birds: major Sanskrit metres" is also about Vedic metres, not Sanskrit ones. All that should be transferred to the article on Vedic metre. It is irrelevant here. Either the two articles should be joined together again, or all the Vedic-related material should be deleted here. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(Sorry for short reply...) I agree, particularly about the latter part of the sentence (starting with "wherein a non-linear..."). Also, thanks for moving the material on Vedic metre. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Seven birds?

The long section on the "Seven Birds" or "seven mouths of Brihaspati" (apart from being about Vedic metres, rather than Sanskrit proper) does not seem to be standard terminology. A search for these phrases on the Internet does not yield anything about metre, and the article Bṛhaspati also says nothing about it. An introductory article of this kind should stick to standard doctrines which are mentioned in every book on the subject rather than taking one idea and promoting it as if it were the one thing that every beginner should know. So this section needs revising. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

An extract from Wilke and Moebus's book cited by the editor who added the part about the Seven Birds is available here. However, the reader will find that there is no reference there that will support the usage. The book, interesting though it may be, is certainly not an introductory text on Sanskrit prosody and is over-represented here, I believe. The page discussing linear and non-linear metres is unfortunately missing from the Internet version. Kanjuzi (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Light and heavy syllables

In this section one sentence says the final syllable of a pada may be considered light or heavy according to the requirements of the metre, whatever its natural length, but another sentence says that a light syllable may be considered heavy when final, but a heavy syllable may not be considered light. So there is a contradiction, which someone acquainted with the sources should correct. Kanjuzi (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Most metres that require something of the final syllable require the final syllable to be heavy anyway, so in most cases the two descriptions overlap. But my understanding is that the latter is correct (light syllables can be considered heavy, not the other way around). Shreevatsa (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

That is what I understand too, from the little I have read. It seems to me that when there is a pause at the end of a line, a short syllable counts as long; but when there is no pause it can count as short. But I have not come across any examples of a long counting as short. Perhaps that second statement can safely be deleted – but if any reader knows differently, let them say so. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)