Names in Samskritha - are they really nouns?

Post Reply
ajaysimha
Posts: 778
Joined: 19 Apr 2018, 18:16
x 6
x 4

#1 Names in Samskritha - are they really nouns?

Post by ajaysimha »

Hi rasikas,

I heard someone telling Names in Samskritha are not nouns instead they are adjectives.

For example -

Krishna - the dark one.
Shanmukha - six faced.
Varada - giver of boons.

Etc, etc.

Do educate my on this...

Regards,
Ajay Simha

Sachi_R
Posts: 1918
Joined: 31 Jan 2017, 20:20
x 59
x 26

#2 Re: Names in Samskritha - are they really nouns?

Post by Sachi_R »

Dear Ajay,
There is a concept अन्वर्थनाम
It means a name which is based on meaning.

Ajaya Simha means an unconquered lion.

The vast majority of Indian names are such. Except names with place names like Semmangudi.

In Sanskrit we have विशेषण and विशेष्य

Adjective that qualifies and that which is qualified.

So take a name like Ajaya Simha =Unconquered lion.

It is a compound word =समासः
Its meaning is given as
अजयः सिंहः So here both are what are called Subantas (roughly translatable as nouns) but the first qualifies the second.

I can also have a word like

जितकामः One who has conquered desire. This is called a बहुव्रीहिसमासः
जितः कामः एन सः (the one by whom desire was conquered).

Hope you now understand.

Names with meaning does not mean adjectives.

In English we have Miller. It means a man whose profession was milling grain. Same here.

Sachi_R
Posts: 1918
Joined: 31 Jan 2017, 20:20
x 59
x 26

#3 Re: Names in Samskritha - are they really nouns?

Post by Sachi_R »

😁 Even Lalgudi is an anvarthanama.
It means a village with a red temple.

ajaysimha
Posts: 778
Joined: 19 Apr 2018, 18:16
x 6
x 4

#4 Re: Names in Samskritha - are they really nouns?

Post by ajaysimha »

Thanks sachi, for inputs.

So
- all meaning full names fall under the category of anvartha nama
- compound words form samasa
- also there is another section of apatyartaka pratyayaha i.e. kartikeya, Parvathi, gangeya, droupadi, maithili, janhavi and etc.

What other variations in nouns wrt nouns?

With language like Samskritha every word will have meaning and every noun is a meaningful word right?

Nick H
Posts: 9199
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 02:03
x 1006
x 36

#5 Re: Names in Samskritha - are they really nouns?

Post by Nick H »

I barely remember my schooling in English grammar now! :oops: But I think...

A name is a "Proper Noun," regardless of what part of speech it would be if it were not being used as a name. So, eg, silly is an adjective, but if my name is Mr. Silly, then, in that context it is now a noun.

Similarly, my name might be Mr Sillyface: it is a proper noun, and that part of it is an adjective doesn't change that.

Won't similar rules apply in other languages, both ancient and modern?

Sachi_R
Posts: 1918
Joined: 31 Jan 2017, 20:20
x 59
x 26

#6 Re: Names in Samskritha - are they really nouns?

Post by Sachi_R »

Ajay,
taddhitas (apatyaarthaka) are also anvarthanaamas.

Yes most words in Sanskrit can be interpreted with meaning if we know the context. In fact the theory is the millions of possible words in Sanskrit (yes it has an unlimited vocabulary) can all be traced at least 90% to the 2000 verbs that Panini himself has listed.

The world's greatest grammarian. And he simply said, "I got all this from Lord Shiva".

Post Reply