Re: SANSKRIT BE NATIONAL LANGUAGE AND ENGLISH OFFICIAL

In article <47fbbb53$0$4041$bbae4d71@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 
 "harmony" <aka@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> posted: 
> 
> 
> http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) posted: 
> 
> > In article 
> > <e83707f6-cbfb-4819-9611-8503c3d737de@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > tripurantaka@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 posted:
> >>
> >> On Apr 8, 12:51 pm, Nikolaj <nikolaj.kor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> > tripurant...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 pravi:
> >>
> >> > > Kindly explain why it is not correct. He wrote in Roman letters.
His
> >> > > scheme of transliteration may be different from yours. Any way, 
> >> > > please
> >> > > explain how you are so definite he is wrong. Thanks. Looking
forward
> >> > > to your comments with eagerness
> >> >
> >> > Yes 'ahum' is problematic and he should have marked the long 'a' 
> >> > somehow
> >> > in 'brahmasmi'. Simply saying that the short and long vowels are
> >> > transliterated with the same letter 'a' isn't an option regardless
of
> >> > the script.
> >
> >> Then how can the word "apart" be okay in English! Same "a" with short
> >> and long!
> >> I think he could have he did not understand. But not it is not
correct
> >> sanskrit. Harmony did not write in devanagari!
> >
> > harmony ji wrote the word correctly because that is how
> > it is pronounced -- with the u in ahum as the u in the Munglish
> > word mum, and the a as the first a in America.
> >
> > I learned Sanskrit, Hindi and Bharatiya-British English simultaneously
> > as a child growing up in Uttar Pradesh.

> jai maharaj ji, this is the level of "sanskrit teaching" that takes
place in 
> most american universities where missionaries teach with an ulterior
intent: 
> artificial discussion for an artificial problems. devabhasha must be
learned 
> using devanangari.

Yes indeed. The Roman script can't even depict all the sounds of Munglish 
with correctness and uniformity.

Jai Maharaj 
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83

http://www.mantra.com/jai

http://www.mantra.com/jyotish

Om Shanti