anusvAra, anunAsika and chandrabindu,bindu and nasal mutes

[Harry Spier]

1) Whitney in his grammar section 73 a) talks about anusvAra, anunAsika
and the signs bindu and chandrabindu.  Is he saying (or more to the
point is it the case) that in some manuscripts the bindu is used for the
nasal that is assimilated to the following consonent (and does this mean
become the class nasal), and chandrabindu is used for what he calls the
independent  anusvAra or nasalized vowel (i.e. anusvAra that doesn't
change to a nasal mute)?  So that where in his grammar he uses (in his
transliteration scheme) n with a bindu  over it this stands for what in
some  manuscripts would be indicated with bindu, and when he uses m with
a bindu over it (in his transliteration scheme)this would stand for what
in those same manuscripts would be indicated by chandrabindu?  He says
that many European printed texts follow this use of bindu and
chandrabindu.  I've only seen chandrabindu used before semivowel "l".
Is it the modern practice to only use chandrabindu for nasalized
semi-vowels?

 To sum up can anyone clarify the relationship between anusvAra,
anunAsika, nasal mutes and the signs bindu and chandrabindu?

2) Is it just as correct to write the class nasal for "m" before mutes
or nasals as it is to use the anusvAra sign the bindu. Is this merely a
matter of presentation, equivalent and equally correct?

3)In verse 6.41 of Bhagavad Gita Belvalkar (1962) has for his main
reading  ...puNyakRtAM lokAnuSitvA... but in his notes he has the
reading  ...puNyakRtA(chandrabindu sign)llokAnuSitvA .  Van Buitenen
uses this second reading in his text.  Is the pronounciation of these
two readings identical?  Are they identical?

Harry Spier



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com