Talk:Sanskrit grammar

message: This section as it currently stands is in need of expansion. I'm not really one for well-worded compositions, but I have a few notes which could be incorperated into the finished text.
Of course, the rules below are only general guidelines, as there are no strict laws of syntax in Sanskrit.
-The noun-subject, if expressed, heads the sentence.
-The verb-predicate closes the sentence.
-The object is placed before the verb.
-Attributes and other accessories are placed before the noun they qualify.
-A noun-predicate is placed before the subject.
-Subordinate clauses are placed before the verb-predicate of the chief sentence.
-In passive sentences, the real agent (invariably instrumental) precedes the grammatical agent (invariably nominative).
-The vocative, if present, heads the sentence.
Feel free to correct or add to this short list. Varoon Arya 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Syntax 

message: If the discussion of amredita compounds were limited to Skt grammar I'd agree with the proposal to incorporate it into the Sanskrit grammar entry.  But amredita is listed as a kind of compound in the general linguistics compound entry.  Having a separate entry for amredita allows non-Sanskritist readers of the compound entry easier access to what has become (like karmadhāraya and bahuvrihi) a term of art for linguistics in general.  PEHook 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic: Amredita 

message: It looks like all of the information in the "grammar" section at the end (except for the bit on peculiar characteristics) has all been repeated and even expanded upon in the rest of the article. Can this entire section just be deleted? – 2macia22 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This was previously in the separate Sanskrit article but then got moved here. I agree we'll need to get rid of it. It would be nice nevertheless if we could check there isn't anything to keep. Uanfala (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate information? 

message: One of the tables gives: Unaspirated अल्पप्राण alpaprāṇa	c च [t͡ɕ] j ज [d͡ʑ], but with even a little understanding of linguistics it becomes obvious that [t͡ɕ] and [d͡ʑ] are heavily aspirated sounds (and not palatal, as also classified in that grid). This may be the pronunciation of "c" and "j" in modern Indian languages, especially Hindi, and the way English spoken people pronounce Sanskrt. In true Classical Sanskrt, "c" and "j" are exactly [c] and [ɟ], exactly unaspirated and palatal.
Also, can somebody provide some evidence for "a" being [ə] in Classical Sanskrt? In modern Indian languages this is obvious, but i know no evidence for "a"=[ə] in Classical Sanskrt, where even short "a" must have been an open vowel.
Then what evidence is there for व=[ʋ] in Classical Sanskrt? The old Indian term dantyosthya was NOT really meant as in modern linguistics; in traditional Indian terms, even vowels were described mainly by places of articulation. Its classification shows that व was originally (and in Classic Sanskrt) simply [w]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.186.20.166 (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: is precisely how Allen summarises Panini's last aphorism. Also, "it is evident from the ancient descriptions that [a and ā] differed considerably not only in length (kāla-bhinna) but also in their quality or 'degree of openness' (vivāra-bhinna)." (Allen 1953:58). On p. 57 there's a description of व as being [w] in the earlier language, and a statement that by the time of the phonetics treatises it had acquired at least in some dialects a labio-dental pronunciation. –  Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion with modern Indian languages in phonology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sanskrit grammar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010034042/http://vedicsociety.org/sanskrit/sandhi/ to http://vedicsociety.org/sanskrit/sandhi/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115171411/http://www.shastranethralaya.org/LectureOthers.html to http://shastranethralaya.org/LectureOthers.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is the phonology chart not represented like the usuale IPA chart? 79.40.72.8 (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing. The current presentation is an absolute mess (and not just in this section—it's weird this article has a B- rating). I may change it if no one objects. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion in phonology section