Sanskrit: तां चिन्तयन्तं मां सानचिन्तयति ।

MindBoggle

Senior Member
Danish. English from childhood
Hello everybody!

I can't figure this out:

तां चिन्तयन्तं मां सानचिन्तयति ।

I get:

She, thinking about her, doesn't think about me.

Maybe it's right, but I find the meaning somewhat unclear. Is the point that she is thinking only about herself and not about me? Or is my translation wrong? Or is there, maybe, an alternative translation which makes more sense?

Any ideas?

MindBoggle
 
  • MindBoggle

    Senior Member
    Danish. English from childhood
    Ahh! I think I figured it out!

    तां चिन्तयन्तं, of course, doesn't limit सा but मां! :eek:

    She doesn't think about the-thinking-about-her-me, i.e:

    She doesn't think about me, who is thinking about her.

    Now it means what I think it should, so this must be the correct translation.

    Right?

    MindBoggle
     

    Dib

    Senior Member
    Bengali (India)
    Ahh! I think I figured it out!

    तां चिन्तयन्तं, of course, doesn't limit सा but मां! :eek:

    She doesn't think about the-thinking-about-her-me, i.e:

    She doesn't think about me, who is thinking about her.

    Now it means what I think it should, so this must be the correct translation.

    Right?

    MindBoggle

    Yeah, perfect! In modern printing/orthographic convention with word separation, however, we'd prefer:
    तां चिन्तयन्तं मां सा न चिन्तयति ।

    And of course, this sentence works only if the speaker is male.
     

    MindBoggle

    Senior Member
    Danish. English from childhood
    Thanks Au and Dib.

    @Dib: I didn't know that word separation is standard today. That's good. :)

    @Au101: Yes, it's Deshpande.
     

    Dib

    Senior Member
    Bengali (India)
    @Dib: I didn't know that word separation is standard today. That's good. :)

    Well, I won't say it is "standard", because after sentence sandhi, words are still often written together. So, for example, "they (masc. plu.) went" can be:
    ते अगच्छन् -> without sandhi, written separate
    Or, with sandhi:
    तयगच्छन् (written together)
    त अगच्छन् (written separate)
    तेऽगच्छन्‌ (written together)

    It's still a bit messy, I suppose.
     

    MindBoggle

    Senior Member
    Danish. English from childhood
    Ok. :)
    On the topic of word separation:
    As I recall, my teacher said to definitely join words whenever we have to use virama if we don't (except at the end of a sentence). I think he also said to always join in case of sandhi.
    In general I got the impression that word spacing only properly occurs after anusvara, visarga, and danda.
     

    Dib

    Senior Member
    Bengali (India)
    In general I got the impression that word spacing only properly occurs after anusvara, visarga, and danda.

    I'd add to it two more conditions:
    1) when there is a hiatus, e.g. in my example "त अगच्छन्"|
    2) when there is no sandhi (or equivalently, post-sandhi form is same as the one without sandhi), except maybe when a word final consonant (or equivalently, viraama) is followed by an word initial vowel. That's why I suggested: "सा न चिन्तयति"|

    In any case, word spacing is more or less a matter of convention without much real linguistic ramification. I guess, it is a good thing to have acquaintance of variations there.
     
    Last edited:

    Au101

    Senior Member
    England, English (UK)
    Well, I won't say it is "standard", because after sentence sandhi, words are still often written together. So, for example, "they (masc. plu.) went" can be:
    ते अगच्छन् -> without sandhi, written separate
    Or, with sandhi:
    तयगच्छन् (written together)
    त अगच्छन् (written separate)
    तेऽगच्छन्‌ (written together)

    It's still a bit messy, I suppose.

    I think generally तेऽगच्छन् (or, in some styles: ते ऽगच्छन्) is by far the more common - if not only - option in the case of ए + अ. With other vowels, though, e.g. ते आगच्छन्, I think त आगच्छन् is the most common, but I'm pretty sure you can find तयागच्छन् and maybe even तआगच्छन्.

    As I understand it from Whitney §9B:

    "a. Native Hindu usage, in manuscripts and inscriptions, treats the whole material of a sentence alike, not separating its words from one another, any more than the syllables of the same word: a final consonant is combined into one written syllable with the initial vowel or consonant or consonants of the following word. It never occurred to the Hindus to space their words in any way, even where the mode of writing admitted such treatment; nor to begin a paragraph on a new line; nor to write one line of verse under another: everything, without exception, is written solid by them, filling the whole page.

    c. In Western practice, however, it is almost universally customary to divide paragraphs, to make the lines of verse follow one another, and also to separate the words so far as this can be done without changing the mode of writing them. See Appendix B, where the verse here given so treated."

    What this means, as far as I can work out, is that in most (certainly early, originial) Sanskrit manuscripts, there are no spaces at all (or, at least, they are very infrequent). Modern texts do not follow this practice as it's obviously a little less easy. However, as you will know, Sandhi often forces words to be written together, e.g. राम + अत्र = रामात्र. Aditionally, it is common practice - as you know - to merge words together. So, if a word that begins with a vowel follows a word that ends with a consonant, you write them together, e.g.: रूपवान् अश्वकोविदः is perfectly possible, but it's almost universally written रूपवानश्वकोविदः. Also, if a word that begins with a consonant follows a word that ends with a consonant, you write them together (plus sandhi), e.g.: आसीद् राजा is perfectly possible, but it's almost universally written आसीद्राजा. So, the point is, while Western texts could separate the words like that (which is what we do in transliteration: āsīd rājā) it becomes messy when we have something like रामात्र. Of course, we could just leave रामात्र, which is what we do in transliteration (rāmātra (although some people prefer rāmā 'tra)), or we could follow the example of Vedic padapāṭha and maybe have रामा ऽत्र, but still it's difficult. More importantly, though, something like आसीद् राजा looks very different to आसीद्राजा and when we prepare texts, we don't want to make them look too unlike the original, we don't want to fundamentally alter the style or appearance of the original. So, for this reason, wherever words merge in the Sanskrit, we merge them today. However, if you have two words which can easily be separated by spaces and it isn't necessary to write them together, then we use a space for clarity, e.g. नलो नाम.
     

    Dib

    Senior Member
    Bengali (India)
    Thanks, Au101, for your detailed post, and my own knowledge and experience are also aligned to it, except one point: I didn't know that verse lines were not separated in Indian manuscript traditions.* Anyways, my original comment about word separation stemmed from MindBoggle's writing of "सानचिन्तयति", to which I suggested: "In modern printing/orthographic convention with word separation, however, we'd prefer:
    तां चिन्तयन्तं मां सा न चिन्तयति"
    I guess you'll agree to that. This "modern" method is based on Western conventions, as you mentioned, but it is widely (universally?) used in modern publications in India too, including classroom Sanskrit teaching materials used in Indian schools.


    * EDIT: I think I originally misunderstood you here. I thought, Whitney was saying the lines were not marked at all. But probably, he is just saying that they were marked (e.g. by daNDa/double daNDa), but there was no "carriage return/line feed" (so to say) after a line. That is consistent with my prior knowledge.
     
    Last edited:

    Au101

    Senior Member
    England, English (UK)
    You are absolutely right on both counts :) Sorry, Dib, only the first line was really about your original - I just meant to point out which is the most common. The rest was to support what you'd originally said and give a bit of background :) And yes, actually I believe the use of daṇḍas can be haphazard in the original and it's often not systematic. Frequently editors interpolate their own daṇḍas, but I think you're right, in general I imagine he was talking about a lack of white space in general, with everything more commonly - at least in the old days, but you're right about modern Indian editions as well - written as one continuous text.
     

    Dib

    Senior Member
    Bengali (India)
    I just meant to point out which is the most common. The rest was to support what you'd originally said and give a bit of background

    About the relative frequency of various sandhi forms (तेऽगच्छन्, etc.), I (almost) agree with what you have written: तेऽगच्छन् is certainly overwhelmingly the most common, and तयगच्छन् is certainly rare (nonexistent?) in real texts, though valid according to what I have learnt. I just am not sure that "त अगच्छन्" is rare enough to be ignored. But, I may well be wrong - I am just talking from impression. I was just looking for a dramatic example with multiple sandhi options with some written together and some separate. I wasn't really thinking about their frequencies. :D

    Anyways, thanks for your detailed explanations and backgrounds!


    And yes, actually I believe the use of daṇḍas can be haphazard in the original and it's often not systematic. Frequently editors interpolate their own daṇḍas...

    ahah! I didn't know that.
     

    Au101

    Senior Member
    England, English (UK)
    No I think it was a good example :) And perhaps I was wrong, I had never heard of forms like त अगच्छन् but maybe that simply explains some of the difficulty I have! :p

    Re: The daṇḍas. Well that's what I'm told. Then again, I haven't had the good fortune of having much experience with manuscripts or getting to do palaeography, which is a shame, as I think it could probably be a useful addition to any Sanskrit course.
     
    Top