Growth of the online community, standards of moderation, feedback on both the content and the technicalities of the site, related announcements.
Translation, please? - Why sometimes there is Sanskrit only
sadhaka108 - Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:51:16 +0530
Radhe, Radhe, Radheeeeeee
translation pleaaaaaaaaaaaaase!
sadhaka108 - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 05:58:11 +0530
hey, why didnīt you post the translation in your posts? did you want prive us from the nectar?
Madhava - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:05:17 +0530
Sometimes we come across verses that are sweet and we'd like to share them with others, but we don't have the time, the energy or the resources to post in a carefully worded translation.
Those of you who can't make heads or tails out of them will unfortunately just have to live with that. It is better that they be posted without a translation than not at all. Take it as an encouragement to learn the language...
Advaitadas - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:17:30 +0530
Some of the more learned devotees could contribute a post by making their own translation of them. I am willing to volunteer; I know Jagad's translations are very cute too.
Madhava - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:21:03 +0530
Cool. Feel free to post in translations whenever you see an orphan Sanskrit text, whoever so desires.
anuraag - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:45:51 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Jun 16 2004, 01:35 PM)
Sometimes we come across verses that are sweet and we'd like to share them with others, but we don't have the time, the energy or the resources to post in a carefully worded translation.
Those of you who can't make heads or tails out of them will unfortunately just have to live with that. It is better that they be posted without a translation than not at all. Take it as an encouragement to learn the language...
Thanks, Madhava ji, for understandng!
Hari Saran - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:09:43 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 11:08 AM)
I have only Visvanatha's tika here - arcAyAm pratimAyAm haraye harim prInayitum na tad bhaktesvapi anyesu ca sutarAm na karoti. prAkrtah prakrti prArambhah adhunaiva prArabdha bhaktih shanair uttamA bhavisyatItyartha iti srI svAmi caranAh. tad evam tribhir yad dharmo yAdrsha iti prashnayor uttaram uktam
Not much more in the tika than in the verse itself. The tikas to the others, 45 and 46 are longer, especially 45 is huge. Too lazy for that....
Advaitadas-ji,
I have been observing that Madhavananda refers to verses, but many times do not give the translations to communicate with those who does not know sanskrit or bengali (which I believe is the majority). Now, even you Advaitadas?
This is a public website and many people from different backgrounds come to clarify doubts. As so, I think it is proper to present texts or verses from the original followed by a translation. I believe that is common sense and will help the public to access scriptural knowledge. If it is not too Christian for you, dont you guys believe in compassion?
sadhaka108 - Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:12:07 +0530
I agree with Hari Saran Dasji,
There a lot of quotes in the discussions without translation, so there are a lot of people who canīt understand what is going on.
I understand what you say Madhavaji, but I think you understand my atittude too.
Madhava - Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:55:53 +0530
Yes, I understand. But sometimes when time doesn't permit, which would you have, just the Sanskrit or nothing at all?
Openmind - Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:17:49 +0530
| QUOTE |
How exactly did the Gopis sing?
gAyanti caina manurakta dhiyozru kaNThyo
dhanyA vraja striya urukrama citta yAnAH
|
Dear Anuraag,
This is not the first time you post Sanskrt or Bengali verses without providing the translation for those who do not understand Sanskrt and Bengali. I bow down 108 times before the Sanskrt and Bengali experts of the forum, but please be compassionate unto the ignorant souls, like my humble self, and bless us with translations, too.
Thank you very much.
Madhava - Sat, 04 Sep 2004 08:55:52 +0530
There has been some discussion in regards to indicating the translator of the verse / passage / poem quoted. That would certainly be desirable. However, as many of us are fond of producing our own translators, and as it would be cumbersome to constantly refer to ourselves as the translator, I would suggest that we always indicate the translator when it is someone else. In case of translators whose translations are frequently referred to, we could use abbreviations if the full name would seem excessive in the context.
I believe this would be a reasonable policy. In addition to giving the translators due credit, we could easily get a general idea of the possible accuracy or lack thereof. Do others agree?