Talk:Ramcharitmanas

Quality rating
I have worked on this article for a while and would like to know how the quality rating can be improved. Please could you let me know the procedure for review so I can follow up?

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijayharsiyani (talk • contribs) 13:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Worked on this page for a long time. I believe it is better than the start class it was given earlier. How can I get a reclassification of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijayharsiyani (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The articles need a lot more cleanup and work, IAST mistakes, grammatical and orthographic mistakes are rampant. Restructuring is needed, sections with 2-3 lines make no sense. Also it reads more like a poetic article than a Wikipedia article. Nmisra (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect title spelling (Schwa issues)
Due to schwa syncope in Hindi and allied languages (of which Awadhi is one), the correct transliteration of रामचरितमानस is Ramcharitmanas, and not Ramacharitamanasa, as it would be if it were Sanskrit. Ramacharitamanas is incorrect (it's like writing Uttara Pradesha for उत्तर प्रदेश). Sanskrit-familiarity plus Hindi-unfamiliarity often creates this problem. I am correcting this in the text of the article, and may it altogether to the new title at some point. Please see the schwa article for more details, and we can obviously discuss it here as well. Thanks. --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether the IAST version is used or the Hindi transliteration, all possible transliterations must be mentioned in the header and only one should be used in the article throughout. Nmisra (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Formal proposal for move to Ramcharitmanas
As discussed above, the correct Hindi/Avadhi pronunciation of रामचरितमानस is Ramcharitmanas, due to schwa deletion in the languages of the Hindi family. A simple Google search yields 48k hits for Ramacharitamanasa and 26k hits for Ramacharitamanas. There are an order of magnitude more hits for Ramcharitmanas at 405k.

To answer some simple questions in advance: Hindi languages and Sanskrit differ in their use of Devanagari on this score. This is sometimes confusing for Sanskrit-adept but Hindi-non-adept people/experts. The schwa-treatment also means that Hindi is partially non-phonetic in its use of Nagri. For example, the same letter sequence can be pronounced two different ways in Hindi-Nagri depending on context, e.g. in दिल धड़कने लगा (the heart started beating) vs दिल की धड़कनें (beats of the heart), the identical (pre-nasalization) letter sequence धड़कने is pronounced dharakne in the first and dharkane in the second. This is not an obscure academic point because it leads to effects ranging from systematic mispronunciation (and consequent non-fluency of non-native speakers who otherwise are able to speak Hindi) and challenges in building text-to-speech software for Hindi. There are references galore on this (here are a couple to start with bit.ly/d7eKgA and bit.ly/aRNOal). When Sanskrit schwa rules are applied to Hindi sometimes really bizarre things happen, e.g. when English is transliterated into Hindi using Hindi-Nagri rules but then transliterated back into English using Sanskrit Nagri rules. England becomes Inglanda (e.g. bit.ly/csbMxE) or Ingalanda, though native Hindi-speakers all say Ingland. Similarly, Uttara Pradesha (bit.ly/auYBSK), or a really hilarious Eka aura Hindustana for Ek aur Hindustan (bit.ly/b99CoS). --Hunnjazal (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess this wasn't really controversial to start with. Moving it to the correct name now. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Structure
I have made some changes, but still lots need to be done on this article. First of all use of IAST or Latin should be consistent, using Ram, Rama, Rām, and Rāma in the same article is confusing - same holds true for all character and Kand names. Use of italics should be consistent as well. More photos would serve the article better. More references are needed, currently most references are from 2 or 3 sources only. IMHO, this is how the structure should look like Please provide your comments and thoughts on the above proposed structure which in my opinion is more comprehensive and coherent. If there are no objections, I will start working on this on the weekend. Nmisra (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Composition and Structure - move composition details here from the header -  invocations can be summarized with full translation either in footnotes or in a separate article
 * 2) Main Narrative - this section looks okay now
 * 3) Proosody - this can include details of different metres used in the Ramcharitmanas
 * 4) Differences from Valmiki's version - This could be a new section or a subsection in Main Narrative. Topics may include the episodes of Parashurama's meeting, Maya Sita, Hanuman-Vibhishan meeting, Uttar Kand et ceetra. Current content under Abrupt Ending can be moved here.
 * 5) Rama in Ramcharitmanas - this section can cover the current two sections of divinity and incarnation of Ram in RCM, his identification with Vishnu at certain places and his identification as the source of Vishnu in some other places (e.g. sambhu biranchi bishnu bhagavana, upajahin jaasu ansha te nana). The Avatar reasons should either be summarized and the details can be moved to another article. The Ahalya liberation can be renamed "Liberation of Ahalya, Marica, Jatayu, et cetera" to be more comprehensive and coherent
 * 6) Sub-narratives - this section can include the parallel narratives of Shiva-Parvati, Kakabhushundi from BK and UK
 * 7) Translations, Commentaries and Editions - This can include translations, commentaries, editions, et cetera
 * 8) Heritage/In Popular Culture - This can include Ramlilas, Music CDs, movies,
 * Please do NOT use IAST as it is worse than useless for Hindi languages/dialects. Stick to Hunterian transliteration - that's the national system and works well for Hindi. IAST is okay for Sanskrit, of course. Also, please observe Schwa deletion in Hindi properly. So "Parshuram" is correct and "Parashurama" is wrong. Thanks! --Hunnjazal (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all the epic is not in Hindi, but in Awadhi and Sanskrit. 16th century Awadhi did not have Schwa deletion phenomenon. I said the use of IAST/Latin should be consistent, and by implication it means use of IAST/Latin/Hunterian should be consistent. Your edit mixes up IAST and Hunterian which is even worse than what you allege is worse than uselss — IAST Bālakāṇḍa in Hunterian is either Balkand or Bālkand but not Bālkāṇḍ as Hunterian does not have diacritics for retroflexes - see here. Personally I would support IAST for Sanskrit words in the article for two reasons - one as I said Ramcharitmanas is in 16th century Awadhi where the terminal vowel was not omitted and two because the names of the Kandas are Sanskrit and not Awadhi/Hindi. Anyway I am fine - but please be consistent throughout the article. Nmisra (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have references for lack of schwa deletion for Awadhi? Clearly modern Awadhi totally has it. Are you saying that in the last 400 years the sound of Awadhi has completely transformed? Even Bengali has terminal schwa deletion and Maithili does too, so this would mean that Awadhi was surrounded by schwa-deleting languages and was an island in the middle that somehow didn't delete it. Also, MS Hindi deletes medial and terminal vowels and developed in significant part in Lucknow. So there are too many inconsistencies in the idea that Awadhi wouldn't be schwa deleting. Also, there are Arabic/Persian words that were absorbed into medieval Awadhi which are written without halants, which indicate schwa deletion (e.g. गरीब, which appears in the Hanuman Chalisa). I agree with you on Classical Sanskrit, of course. Anyway, we can keep debating this, but I agree with you 100% on standardization. Let's do this correctly for Hindi using Hunterian. IAST is unworkable for Hindi - it is completely clueless on things like false anusvar and produces wildly varying lettering for a single word which can legitimately appear in multiple forms in Hindi - one Ramcharitmanas book will title the section लंकाकाण्ड and another will equally validly call it लन्काकाण्ड - infact, the same book will mix them. IAST becomes unstable in these situations because it is confused by Hindi lettering. This is not IAST's fault - it works for Sanskrit transliteration, not Hindi. Stuff like this is why it is basically DOA for usage in India. The folks who are formulating the ISO standard were themselves officially lamenting that it is dead. I will help you here - let's do it all properly with Hunterian. I am happy to use the add-on diacritics (referenced in the article) or not, which do you want? I strongly prefer non-diacritics myself because these are completely lost on the average English-speaking layreader and Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal: "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible." Still, I am flexible when Hunterian is used because, when the diacritics are ignored (which they are by 99% of readers, I am sure) it simply reduces to standard, everyday transliteration. --Hunnjazal (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Braja and Awadhi poetic works of medieval India were composed in accordance with prosody rules in Prakrit. With Schwa deletion, no verse of Ramcharitmanas could conform to the rules of syllables and instants, or could be sung in the traditional Ragas of music. Even to date, when Ramcharitmanas is sung by traditional and classical musicians, the Schwa deletion is absent. BTW no edition should have लन्काकाण्ड, it is either the correct Sanskrit लङ्काकाण्ड with the nasal consonants or the phonetically imperfect but common Hindi लंकाकांड with the Anusvaar. Anyway there is no point debating further, as we have agreed on use of diacritics. Can you please comment on the proposed structure? Nmisra (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, some facts for you - not for the sake of arguing though. गरीब does not occur in the Hanuman Chalisa. It does occur in the RCM (गयी बहोर गरीब निवाजू, नाम गरीब अनेक नेवाजे, गनी गरीब ग्रामनर नागर, et cetera), but in the RCM, it is pronounced, read and sung by exponents and classical singers as गरीब (Garība) and not गरीब् (Garīb). Otherwise the three ardhalis would have 15 instants and not 16 (This usage itself is an indication that Schwa deletion - an effect of Urdu and Persian - was not present in Awadhi of 16th century). Also note that the ए in नेवाजे is the Prakritic single instant ए. There was a good 19th century book in English by a Western author on Prosody in RCM which I read on Google Books sometime back - I will post the reference when I find it. Nmisra (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad we agree on what to do. Let me review and get back to you on the proposed structure. Thank you for taking the initiative here. However, I do want to respond to the other points because we may end-up engaging on this on other occasions too. The verse I had in mind in in Sankat Mochan (you are right - not the main body of HC, though it usually is associated with the HC, as you know, because it is dedicated to Hanuman) - "कौन सो संकट मोर गरीब को जो तुमसों नहिं जात है टारो". Schwa deletion is absolutely not a borrowing from Persian because in fact Persian doesn't have it and Persian words are subjected to it in Hindi-Urdu. In Hindi, काग़ज़ is kaghaz and its plural काग़ज़ात is kagh.zat because the schwa for ग़ is immediately deleted by VCøCV rules. In Persian, it stays intact as kaghazat. Persian and Sanskrit purists both hate the schwa deletion phenomenon in Hindi-Urdu because to them it feels like HU distorts the sounds of words familiar to them. Linguists for over a century have noticed how elite Muslims in IndoAryan areas insist on schwa retention when everyone around them is deleting them and while they themselves delete them merrily for Sanskrit-origin words - "Narang and Becker (1971) point out that a group of words of derived nouns and adjectives of Perso-Arabic origin show an exception to the schwa deletion rule as they represent it in its final form ... the difference may be associated with the linguistic, social and educational background of the speakers" (Michael G. Clyne). Schwa deletion very much is a native phenomenon of IA languages and absent from languages around them. I don't agree on the meter point - there is no difference in instants between गरीब and गरीब् as far as I know - please show me a reference that says that a consonant with a halant is different from one without it. Could you count the instants in each of these three "words" - रतन रत्न रन - thanks! Of course, singing is a different matter, people insert schwas everywhere and also geminate (e.g. "mera kurta" becomes "merra kurata"). --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly there is no main body and no subordinate body of HC. Hanumashtak is a different composition and is not associated with HC. HC is 40 Caupai verses, and Hanumanashtak is 8 Mattagajendra verses. Secondly it is very clear you are unfamiliar with basics of Sanskrit and Prakrit prosody. Any book on Sanskrit or Prakrit prosody will help - Refer the appendix in Apte's dictionary or any edition of Pingala's Chhandahshastra or for Prakrit, Chadnonushasana of Hemchandra or Vrittakaumudi of Matirama. Or refer my article on Prosody in RCM at . गरीब has four instants (1 of ग, 2 of री and 1 of ब) and गरीब् has three (1 of ग and 2 of रीब्) - only vowels contribute to instants - syllables with short vowels have one instant, those with long have two, and syllables before conjuncts|visarga|anusvara|halant also have two, while the vowel-less visarga|anusvara|halant has no instant. An example - जां (जाम्) in the Bhujangaprayata meter न जानामि योगं जपं नैव पूजां(जाम्) has two instants, while जाम in the chaupai जबहिं जाम जुग जामिनि बीती has three. Read the article and count them both to be convinced. Nmisra (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Sankat Mochan is a different work, but that has zero relevance to what we're discussing here (unless your goal is to nitpick to score points, which I'm assuming it isn't). It's an Awadhi work from the same author dedicated to the same deity almost always printed together in the same booklet as HC - this is a simple mistake, let it go. I think there are differences between Hindi and Sanskrit prosody because the languages are pretty different. Your contention (correct me if I am wrong) is that - रतन has 3 instants, रत्न has 2 instants and रन also has 2 instants. I need a reference for this for *Hindi* that isn't written by you. It's irrelevant for you to quote Sanskrit sources as that is not the language we are discussing here. This (from kavita.hindyugm.com/2009/03/doha-dil-mein-le-basa-path-9-doha-kee.html) feels more accurate - "शब्द के अंत में हलंत हो तो उससे पूर्व का लघु अक्षर दीर्घ मानकर २ मात्राएँ गिनी जाती हैं. उदाहरण: स्वागतम् में त, राजन् में ज. सरित में रि, भगवन् में न्, धनुष में नु आदि." Why? Because - "उक्त शब्दों में लिखते समय पहला अक्षर लघु है किन्तु बोलते समय पहले अक्षर के साथ उसके बाद का आधा अक्षर जोड़कर संयुक्त बिला जाता है तथा संयुक्त अक्षर के उच्चारण में एक एकल अक्षर के उच्चारण में लगे समय से अधिक लगता है. इस कारण पहला अक्षर लघु होते हुए भी बाद के आधे अक्षर को जोड़कर २ मात्राएँ गिनी जाती हैं." In fact, रतन has 3 instants, रत्न also has 3 instants and रन has 2 instants - in Hindi. You should recognize that schwa management (deletion/retention) is an unconscious thing for Hindi speakers. This is why they often do not specify it in their use of Nagari. This is not at all the case for Sanskrit. This is a massive prosodic change between Sanskrit and Hindi and we can't simply wish it away. You're doing it unintentionally, but your argument is basically Synthesis-based: "Said rule applies to Sanskrit, Hindi has roots in Sanskrit. Synthesis: Said rule applies to Hindi." That's a fallacy. I say all this with deep humility btw, your obvious learning and dedication inspires nothing but respect. In this one case, however, I think you may be off. I will change my mind if you will help me change it with solid sources. I understand instant counting only imperfectly and do not claim expertise. --Hunnjazal (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay let's clarify some of your doubts. I have five points to make. Firstly, please talk about Prakrit and not Hindi - the RCM is a work in Prakrit (strictly speaking, a Prakrit which is Awadhi) with some verses in Sanskrit. Reference - Tulasidasa himself refers to his language as Prakrita and Bhasha (which also means Prakrit ) at multiple places in RCM (7th shloka of BK, 1.9.4, 1.14.5, 1.15, 1.31.2, following Lutgendorf numbering style). Consequently, Tulasidasa follows Prakrit prosody rules in the RCM (with the exception of Sanskrit prosody for the 47 Sanskrit verses). Secondly, please read my post above carefully. In addition to my article, I gave you two references for Prakrit prosody already - the Chando'nushasana (1145 CE) by Acharya Hemachandra  and the Vrittakaumudi (1701 CE) of Matirama. Please refer them. Thirdly, I never said the prosody rules for Sanskrit and Prakrit are totally same - they are almost completely same with some minor changes which I know of - I even mentioned one above when I said Also note that the ए in नेवाजे is the Prakritic single instant ए. Fourthly, I never talked about or implied the prosodic difference in रतन and रत्न - both have three instants as you say but note carefully that in रत्न the vowel before त् is short. I talked about गरीब and गरीब्, and जां and जाम, and note, carefully again, that here the vowel before the halant is long which makes गरीब as 4 instants, गरीब् as 3, जां as 2 and जाम as 3. Lastly, having (hopefully) given references and clarified your doubts, lets jump to the example (Prakrit Prosody is simple Math with de Bruijn sequence, Fibonacci sequence and Pascal's triangle - examples are enough to understand). Lets count with गरीब and गरीब् in गनी गरीब ग्रामनर नागर. If pronounced as गरीब्, one gets ग(1)नी(2) ग(1)री(2)ब्(0) ग्रा(2)म(1)न(1)र(1) ना(2)ग(1)र(1) = 1+2+1+2+0+2+1+1+1+2+1+1 = 15 instants (incomplete metre). The only way to make it 16 is to assign 3 instants to री but it is not allowed - you would know that rules do not allow any syllable to have three instants in Prakrit or Hindi prosody (in Sanskrit the Pluta vowel has three instants but is not used in prosody rules, though not relevant here). If pronounced as गरीब, one gets the full 16 instants as ग(1)नी(2) ग(1)री(2)ब(1) ग्रा(2)म(1)न(1)र(1) ना(2)ग(1)र(1) = 1+2+1+2+0+2+1+1+1+2+1+1 = 16, which completes the metre. Try it to convince yourself. And before you say it, even though the ब is followed by the samyukta ग्रा, ब will not be treated as 2 instants (for then there would be 17 intants - one too much) - this exception is allowed when the second consonant of conjunct is र् (Refer Apte  and Hemchandra). The example mathamatically proves that Tulasidasa pronounced गरीब with the terminal vowel and without the Schwa deletion even though current day Hindi does not, which indicates with some degree of confidence that 16th century Avadhi (of RCM) and Braja (of HC and Hanuman Ashtaka) - both Prakrits did not have Schwa syncope. Nmisra (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a tonne of issues with this -
 * Bhasha just means language ("that which is spoken") and may refer to whatever vernacular prevails at that time. Prakrit is generically used for all non-Sanskrit and even today priests and such will often refer to Modern Hindi as a Prakrit. It is a huge leap of synthesis to claim that Awadhi is somehow a Prakrit language in the sense of being intimately connected with Sanskrit. It's not. There are well over a thousand (two thousand?) years of evolution between the two. Just to benchmark here, Tulsidas was alive and kicking when the first British embassy was established in India by Sir Thomas Roe. You're off by a thousand years in trying to make this Sanskrit-Awadhi connection. The immediate precursor to Modern Standard Hindi dialect was already around, formed between Awadh and Delhi - Mirza Muhammad Rafi Sauda lived right there in Awadh and wrote poetry within about a hundred years of Tulsi's death that is dialectically indistinguishable from modern Hindi (though it's hard to tell about schwas in his or any other work). I don't buy it for a second that somehow Awadhi in Tulsi's time didn't have schwa deletion. It simply doesn't jive with the periods involved. You're suggesting that Awadhi had a massive linguistic transformation within 100 years (actually even less - Sauda was merely the poet I found in about 60 seconds of looking). That's a very radical claim. Where is the evidence for this? No matter how much I want to agree with you, it just isn't possible knowing how human languages evolve. The only way Tulsi was intending schwa retention in his work was if he deliberately set out to emulate the Sanskrit way and deviated from the universal pronunciation that surrounded him. That's possible, especially because he himself admitted that he was seeking to copy the Sanskrit style. However, if you're familiar with how Hindi-speakers read Sanskrit, they delete schwas unconsciously. Either way, I think your spelling of Tulsidas' name is wrong. It's one thing to suggest that he contrived to follow Sanskrit schwa retention and another to suggest that he somehow altered his name from common practice in the region and for hundreds of miles around!
 * You're missing one huge point, which is that instant counting is off in terms of timing no matter what you do. This is evident when you (correctly) say रतन and रत्न are the same (3) instants. Similarly, it is totally possible to follow prosodic counting (even) in the Sanskrit tradition and yet still pronounce everything with Hindi schwa deletion and have it rhyme just fine. Millions of Hindi-speakers do this every single day with RCM. There is no reason to believe afaik that Tulsi didn't intend it exactly like that. Take *any* verse and try this. Every verse is balanced with modern-day Hindi schwa deletion. Again, I'd like to emphasize that in the Hindi zone, priests read Sanskrit with Hindi schwa deletion rules (just as you often hear South Indian priests say s instead of sh (ś/ṣ). Even modern day Hindi laghu-guru counting is taught on this basis. गनी गरीब ग्रामनर नागर works just fine with schwa deletion. What seems to be the problem? 1+2+ 1+2+1 +2+1+1+1 +2+1+1 = 16. BTW you have to be careful with nasalized vowels, they are not counted the same way as halant letters (actually they are read differently too). This is the catch for false anusvaras in Hindi.
 * The purpose of "Vrittakaumudi" was to illustrate *Sanskrit* prosodic principles and Acharya Hemachandra was hundreds of miles from Awadh in a non-Hindi zone (Gujarat) - so where are we going with that? I am not sure that even modern Gujarati has the same schwa deletion practices as Hindi, so it's just totally invalid to connect these things. Again, we're talking about languages like Portuguese (think Gujarati) and Italian (think Hindi) in connection with Latin (think Sanskrit). The timescales in that analogy are pretty similar.
 * The schwa is missing in a wide swathe of land - all the way from Bengal (terminal) to Hindi zone (medial and terminal) to Punjabi (even in some initial positions). How is this possible if only 300 years ago it was *completely* present in Braj (which smack next to Delhi btw - Mathura the heart of Braj is 91 miles from Delhi, seriously - there are dialect transitions but you're talking about a truly "deep" linguistic feature). It was definitely absent by the time the British linguists descended in the 1800s. So, what mysterious process eliminated it within a space of two centuries in a land area spread over a hundreds/thousands of miles? It just doesn't make sense.
 * I'll await your answer. --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hats off to you!! If you cannot understand the math and refuse to look up references, I cannot convince you and will not try to. This is my last post on this issue. Every word has multiple meanings and context is important. Did you even bother to look up the verses in RCM I cited where I said "Bhasha" means a vernacular or Prakrit? Google and you will find there are 2 Vrittakuamudis - one by Ramacharana on Sanskrit prosody, one by Matirama is on Prakrit prosody - and Prakrit and Sanskrit prosody are MOSTLY the same. If somebody cannot see connection between Awadhi of RCM and Sanskrit, I would conclude they don't know any of these two languages well enough for arguments to be taken seriously. Please understand basics Sanskrit/Avadhi/Hindi prosody before making illogical claims like Hemchandra being in Gujarat has nothing to do with prosody of RCM. And how does गरीब count as 1+2+1=4 instants with Schwa deletion at end? When the vowel is not pronounced how can it count as one instant - this is basic arithmetic and so simple to understand!!! Your post would have still been credible and your logic worthy of reading had you understood the math in the examples and not made this obvious blooper. Anyway I don't want a flame war and will not reply anymore. Peace. Om Shantih. Nmisra (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Going silent is your choice, so I have nothing to say on that score. "And how does गरीब count as 1+2+1=4 instants with Schwa deletion at end? When the vowel is not pronounced how can it count as one instant - this is basic arithmetic and so simple to understand!!!" This is simply not right! All modern Hindi prosody counts with this! And what's so wrong about it? If रत्न can count for 3, then why can't गरीब count for 4? How many vowels in रत्न? 2 in Sanskrit and only 1 in Modern Hindi! Yet it has 3 instants. This is funny math no matter how you slice it. I may be imperfect in this, but am also realizing you're pretty set in your Sanskritized mold and just don't know what you don't know. Forget Awadhi, even in Standard Hindi prosody, a schwa-deleted consonant in the end is always counted for 1. I did look-up your references. "As regards the works on prosody, eg Chandohar- adayaprakasha (Murlidhara, 1666), Vrittavichara (Sukhadeva Misra, 1671) and Chandasarasamgraha (v. Vrittakaumudi, Matira, 1701) they are invariably inspired by the Vrittaratnakara (Bhattakedara). The aim of medieval Hindi poetician poets was to communicate to the Hindi reader the principles of the theory and art of the poetry available in Sanskrit" (From [The Encyclopaedia Of Indian Literature (Volume Two) http://books.google.com/books?id=zB4n3MVozbUC&pg=PA1698]). So there. And how can a proto-Gujarati commentator on the Prakrit there 500 years before Tulsi apply to the Awadhi of Tulsi's time? How is this illogical? This is like a taking the commentary on proto-Portuguese of someone from Portugal from 1100AD and applying it to the spoken Italian of 1600AD. Makes no sense. You've completely dodged my other questions on how this magical Hindi-belt wide disappearance of the schwa happened in 200 years. Feel free to disengage if you have no responses. I have no desire to engage in a flame war either. I told you I am approaching this with an open mind and I absolutely am. But you're asking for lots of leaps of faith. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Before I forget and we break off communication (if that is what you want) - I am fine with the structure you proposed. We can collaborate on this even if silently :-) Seriously though, we should arrive at some consensus so we don't end-up clashing in other articles. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Been some time here, but I can try answering some of your questions. रत्न is mostly pronounced without schwa deletion (the rule is conjunct consonant at end is pronounced with schwa). Hence the spelling used is Bharat Ratna and not Bharat Ratn. If you manage to pronounce it as Ratn (रत्न्), its difficult though, without the schwa then it would be two instants by prosodic rules instead of three - simple rule:no instant without a vowel. Reading Encyclopedic entries gives one nothing, reading the texts does. Its like me arguing on the BLUE properties of OLS regression estimates by not reading texts on Statistics like Hamilton and Gujarati, but by reading the entry of regression in the Enclyopedia Britannica. Regarding Sanskritic mold, Prakrit and Avadhi prosody (Avadhi is a 'Prakrit' remember) derives from Sanskrit prosody, so without understanding the latter, one cannot understand the former, hence being set in the Sanskrit mold is an added advantage to understanding Prakrit prosody. Proto-Gujarati? Hemchandra's work is on Prakrits, and there were several Prakrits spread all over the country. I can affirm in the correct way of reading, reciting and singing the Manasa, schwas are very clearly pronounced. Refer renditions by Pandit Channulal Mishra in his albums or attend any public recitation from Gujarat to UP to Bengal to South. And before anything, I would suggest reading more on Prakrit and Sanskrit prosody and learning to count instants before concluding blindly that the schwa deletion that is present in today's Hindi was present in the Avadhi of Tulasidasa. Nmisra (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also गनी गरीब ग्रामनर नागर does not work fine with schwa deletion. Without schwa deletion, there are 16 instants (4 in गरीब - ग is 1, री is 2 and ब is 1). With schwa deltion, there are 15 which makes the Chaupai metre incomplete (3 in गरीब् - ग is 1 and रीब् is 2). 1 + 2 + 1 =4 and 1 + 2 = 3. Hope this makes things clear. If you still have difficulty understanding this, read texts on Sanskrit, Prakrit or even Hindi prosody and they will help. Nmisra (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Misra sahab, but again we will disagree. See the thing is that it *is* possible to stretch/shrink consonants to make timing work. All languages do it. You can do it indefinitely with "nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn" or "mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm" - no vowels needed. You can't do it with plosives, obviously. What matters is convention. Hindi-speakers do infact pronounce रत्न as ratn or (more colloquially and much more commonly) ratan. Eastern Hindi / bengali / marathi speakers pronounce it as ratna (which is frequently ratnā rather than ratnə). See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0rVUnPPQz8 - this is typical, i.e. ratna. Western Hindi speakers know how Sanskrit is transliterated so will write "ratna", but actually will also sometimes write "ratn". The "The Oxford Hindi-English dictionary" gives ratn as the pronunciation, which is accurate. You didn't clarify how many instants "रत्न" is to you and how? According to you it would be two instants, correct? र = 1 त्न = 1 (with schwa). Yes?
 * Also, since this came up before, I wanted to reinforce that IA schwa deletion is purely an indigenous Indo-Aryan phenomenon. This has *nothing* to do with meter but I think you have some misconception that there is some influence from "elsewhere" causing this, when that "elsewhere" is actually more like Sanskrit. It is absolutely not from Persian. In fact, this results in differing pronunciations between Persian speakers and Hindi-Urdu speakers of common words:
 * Persian: Aadami, Hindi-Urdu: Aad.mi
 * P: Gharazi, HU: Ghar.zi
 * P: Sekanjabin, HU: Sikanj.bin
 * Avestan/P: AhurəMazdə, HU/Guj: AhurMazd
 * P: Zindagi, HU: Zind.gi

Perso-Arabic purists hate this in Urdu speech, just as Sanskrit purists hate it in Hindi speech. əCCə is not a favored terminal construct in HU (except in some cases, eg when that last consonant is a glide), but əCəC is just fine. Religious people who are Sanskrit oriented may be an exception to this, of course - just as Islamic scholars who speak Urdu will often say "Arabi" (for "Arabic") when most HU speakers will say "Arbi". There are many words like ratn in HU: khatm, jashn, janm. Note that colloquially HU speakers will say khatam, jashan, janam and contract out that medial schwa when trying to be correct. Say, मरण goes to मर्ण. Liaisoning is common: khatm ho jayega often becomes khatm'o ja'ega. Punjabi is extremely different than this btw. It doesn't like endings like this at all, so either sticks the schwa in and/or overgeminates: janam or jamm or jannam, khatam or khattam, jashan or jashshan. Basically, the word is broken into two: jan.nam, khat.tam, jash.shan. Neither ratn nor ratnə work for it. --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can say 'nnnnnnnnnn' and 'mmmmmmmmm' but can you say 'bbbbbbbb' without vowel? Not quite. Let's talk in context of Avadhi in Manas. Do we stretch consonants in Manas? Do we say "Raammmmm" for राम in Manas? Not quite. राम is pronounced as either rɑːmə (the correct Sanskrit pronunciation with three instants, and IMHO the correct Avadhi pronunciation as in the Manas) or as rɑːm (Hindi pronunciation with two instants). I have not heard it being pronounced as "rɑːmm" or "rɑːmmmm" or "rɑːmmmmm" by Avadhi speakers or in recitation of Manas. Now take the first line of the doha राम राम कहि राम कहि राम राम कहि राम = 24 instants if each राम is pronounced as rɑːmə with three instants, and only 18 instants if each राम is pronounced as rɑːm with two instants. There are examples everywhere where instants will nto add up with schwa deletion. As for रत्न, with schwa it is three instants र = 2 (short syllable before a conjunct counts as 2 and not 1 - this is why understanding prosody is important) and त्न = 1. Without schwa it would be only two रत्न् = 2 (short syllable before a vowel-less consonant). I see no problem with your examples but they are in Hindi, Urdu, Bengali and Punjabi - not in Braja (language of HC) or Avadhi (language of RCM), so they are not relevant here. Khari Boli Hindi and Awadhi/Braja are quite different from one another. As for whether schwa deletion resulted from impact of Persian or something else - I am not sure but long back I read somewhere it might have been an impact of Persian - though cannot recall the reference now. But anyway, that is again irrelevant to the point being discussed which is whether schwa deletion exists in the Avadhi of Ramcharitmanas. Nmisra (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you re-read what I had written, I had already said - "You can't do it with plosives, obviously" - b is a plosive. The bottomline is that instants measure timing and timing is flexible even without using vowels. Also, note that it is entirely possible to sing with schwas and speak without them. Hindi newscasters will often say Kri-sha-na for emphasis for कृष्ण. In fact, if you Google for Krishana, you will get millions of hits - often because Hindi-speakers writing in English stick schwas in routinely as an anglicization procedure. They will write Dharmendra but say "Dharmendr" or "Dharmendar". In emphatic speech (eg newscasting), they might even say "Dha-ra-men-dra" which sticks a schwa between r and m (completely incorrect for Sanskrit). As for Persian, it is pretty common for Sanskrit-oriented people to claim differences between Hindi-Urdu and Sanskrit come from Persian and Arabic/Persian-oriented people to push differences between them and Hindi-Urdu onto Sanskrit. However, schwa deletion is found only in Indo-Aryan. It is a distinct phenomenon from Sanskrit and Persian, which are more alike to each other and Hindi-Urdu is different from them both. It is also sometimes claimed to be from Punjabi, yet Punjabi's schwa deletion is quite different from that in Hindi-Urdu. Colloquial Punjabi deletes leading schwas, which Hindi-Urdu does not (asmanjas -> 'smanjas), it deletes medial schwas in CəCvC which HU does not (Nawaz -> N'waz), and it retains/inserts schwas that Hindi deletes (maran/मरण stays as maran or becomes ma(r)nn, i.e. overgemination with only the barest of faint r's). This is all important because it points at the fact that schwa deletion has occurred at a massive scale inside the Hindi zone and has caused it to deviate from Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic - and also become different from Punjabi, Bengali, Nepali and Marathi in its deletion pattern. So the idea that Avadhi has schwas in 1550 during Tulsi's time, but is gone in a century or so magically doesn't quite work. How could this possibly have happened? Historical and linguistic evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise. This is not irrelevant. Okay, on to instant counting. You've basically claimed that रतन has 3 instants and so does रत्न. This proves my point regardless of whether the final schwa exists or not. राम with deletion is *still* 3 instants in Hindi poetry. Seems like we are arguing about terminal schwas because medial schwa deletion always results in a संयुक्त अक्षर, which you agree is 2 instants. Basically the net effect is you saying: "a schwaless consonant in the middle of a word can count for 1 instant when it is added but when it is at the end of a word it counts for zero." How about this, let's find a doha that has a word that ends in a halant. We may have trouble with this because Hindi-speakers/writers automatically assume that ending consonants have their schwa deleted. --Hunnjazal (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Straight to examples. Your point is not proved by my examples! Please re-read my posts above. संयुक्त अक्षर is *not* 2 instants - that is wrong - the short syllable before संयुक्त अक्षर is 2 counted as tow instants. रतन pronounced as rət̪ən̪ə is 3 instants (1+1+1), rət̪ən̪ is still three (1+2 - just like last syllable of जय राम रमा रमनं शमनं is two - syllable before consonant which is not followed by a vowel). रत्न pronounced as rət̪nə is three (2+1) but as rət̪n is two only (2+0=2). राम with schwa deletion is 2 instants (2+0)=2 - this is what I wrote above!! Your argument is like - black is a color, red is a color, so a shade of red is a shade of black (works with रतन => works with राम). That is what I posted above. You are confusing between (1) conjunct and syllable preceding conjunct (2) short and long syllables before a consonant after which schwa is deleted. Once again, refer texts on prosody to understand better, but this is not too difficult. Nmisra (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As for your overwhelming historical and linguistic evidence, one need to cite sources which deal with schwa deletion in Awadhi and Braja, not Hindi or Punjabi. But that's beside the point. First get the examples sorted. Nmisra (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Protection?
The page is being repeatedly vandalized. Can it be protected? Nmisra (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What does Ram Charit Manas mean?
To many persons understanding Ram Charit Manas means The mental repetition of character of Lord Rama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.187.242 (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Links
Currently there is a sea of blue in this article as many many words are linked multiple times during the course of it. I have removed them once, but they have been replaced. Unless there is a particular reason for them to be there which outweighs the Guideline i shall try removing them again; i would, however, welcome any discussion on the matter. Cheers, LindsayHello 06:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice article
Any active editor for improvements? --AmritasyaPutra T 17:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Reason for revert
you just reverted my edits on this page. Will you please cite the content or reinstate my edit. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  04:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The changes were reverted because they were made without any justification. The story of Ahalya as well as the story of Sati are integral parts of the narrative. Regarding Brahmanical opposition, I have mentioned justification for revert along with the changes.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ramcharitmanas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100504170154/http://charm.cs.uiuc.edu/~bhatele/ramayan.htm to http://charm.cs.uiuc.edu/~bhatele/ramayan.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612222141/http://gitapress.org/BOOKS/1318/1318_Sri%20Ramchritmanas_Roman.pdf to http://gitapress.org/BOOKS/1318/1318_Sri%20Ramchritmanas_Roman.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Five reasons
There are 5 reason but u only give 4 Shivanshmishra9068 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Please provide the original manuscript
I think you are telling lies if really a manuscript of Tulsi is present then show here why showing 19 century manuscript please provide A manuscript of the Ramcharitatmanas dated to 1648 CE is kept at a Hanuman temple in Tulsi Ghat, Varanasi. Otherwise this is all lie Mohit atulkar (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)