Re: Exception to gaNa vibhajana
Subbarao Varigonda (varigond@cems.umn.edu)
Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:16:20 -0600 (CST)
Hi!
> I am surprised about the two opposite views expressed about the
> gaNavibhajana
> in the above line. I agree with Pillalamarri Ramakrishna and J.K.
> Mohana Rao.
I agree that the explanation based on phonetics is convincing. But
all that I am saying is, I did come across a rule that tells us when to
use this freedom. I merely stated the rule I learnt from my teachers.
In these matters, I feel we can not act according to our personal
preferences and hence, I requested for an authentic source that talks
about this (whether this particular case with dvitvAksharAs is rule based
or phonetics based).
> gu in the above line cannot be a guruvu for reasons already explained
> by them.
I am denying it not because I don't like it but because, I remember
reading some poems where such a letter is taken as guru also. Whether
those poets are converts or not may be determined after the names are
known!
On my part, I am trying to check with a standard reference or to see if
I can find a poem where such letter is taken as guru.
> It is not an exception. It is not a poetic liberty. If Subba Rao garu
> is looking for converts,
> I wish him best of luck.
> Bachoti Sridhara Rao
Please let me make it clear what I said.
I said there is a "rule" that explains the gaNa vibhajana.
(a rule more explicit than a phonetic rule) I didn't say
poets can take total liberty in such cases. So what I have to look for
is whether such a rule exists or not. I need not bother about converts.
regards,
subbarao
--
***********************************************************************
Varigonda Subbarao Present Address
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----------------
varigond@cems.umn.edu 1209, 8thSt SE Box#144, 46 Amundson Hall
Minneapolis, MN 55414 University of Minnesota
USA Minneapolis, MN 55455
ph:(612) 617-9377 ph: (612) 625-3367
URL: http://www.cems.umn.edu/~varigond
***********************************************************************