141–150 of 176 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt philology exists specifically because Hindi and Sanskrit diverged. Anyhow, have the meanings of extant words common to both languages significantly diverged? Do you have a source?
He didn't mean that philology exists because of the divergence. He means philology exists to better understand these kind of language differences.
Is it certain that he ever existed? Or is it like Jesus?
If you read the linked article, I think you'll find that the answer that the Buddha would have suggested for your question is silence ;-) However, I am not well learned in the ways of Buddhism, so I shall attempt to answer your question with words. What do you mean by your question? Do you mean: Was there a person exactly as these stories describe that did exactly what the stories describe and said exactly what the s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt philology exists specifically because Hindi and Sanskrit diverged. Anyhow, have the meanings of extant words common to both languages significantly diverged? Do you have a source?
He didn't mean that philology exists because of the divergence. He means philology exists to better understand these kind of language differences.
For the first time in his life he contrived a new perspective on `what is life` on his own & went on his own way. He was stubborn, righteous & what not.
This thread is as irrelevant as my post. Humans always have/will blow things out of proportions when they praise/critic someone they like/dislike.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt philology exists specifically because Hindi and Sanskrit diverged. Anyhow, have the meanings of extant words common to both languages significantly diverged? Do you have a source?
He didn't mean that philology exists because of the divergence. He means philology exists to better understand these kind of language differences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlike English, the Sanskrit words do not change over time. Because in Sanskrit what you speak is what you write and what you write is what you speak.
> Sanskrit words do not change over time. That is amazing. I've only used english and a touch of spanish, and those words are so slippery. Even latin has a drift over time. i've poked at Aramaic, but never more than a week or two of half hearted effort. I'm really interested in Sanskrit now. Perhaps 5 years of concentrated effort to access thousands of years of writing sounds amazing. I have a hard time with Twain, m…
> That is amazing.
GP is simply incorrect here. Sanskrit dictionaries list multiple meanings per word sometimes with the period during which a meaning was prevalent.
Puns and double entendres are particularly common in classical Sanskrit literature.
http://murthygss.tripod.com/some_characteristics_of_sanskrit...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. Reminds me of a similar example with Jesus, commonly thought to be a carpenter, but who was really a tektōn (At least according to the Gospel of Mark) which could be translated as carpenter or stonemason. Most houses in Israel at the time would appear to have been made of stone, and therefore stonemason seems like it’d be a more appropriate translation.
Fascinating! That could explain why he gave Simon the name "Peter" (Stone), and references like "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone" (Matthew 21:42, quoting Psalm 118:22.)
Interesting. I grew up in a Theravada Buddhist family in SE Asia. What I read from the texts available to me was that the father of Buddha was at a ceremony that celebrates the start of the season of growing rice, so as a king, he joined in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To, not really, help counter that the shop is often called a "fish and chippery"!
Depends where your are, chipper is common to some, others say 'fish shop', some 'chippy'. Other people say they're "getting chips", or "having carry-out" and leave the place to be entirely implicit. That said, I've never seen it called the "fish and chippery", but it wouldn't surprise me to see that used.
He may not have been a literal historical prince, but to make the distinction may be to miss the point a bit. For example if you compare the Mesopotamian creation myth, the Enuma Elish to the book of genesis you will find many correspondences at the formal level. What I mean by that is that the overall structure of the Enuma Elish is preserved in Genesis, but with some changes. In the Mesopotamian myth, there were se…