Student's English-Sanskrit dictionary

484 Pages·1893·41.712 MB·English

by  Vaman Shivram Apte

J;»i{tfr.;,;:--,;;'.!
nir;:,:;;!::.::.:}'

THE
STUDENT'S
ENGLISH-SANSKRIT
DICTIONARY.
BY
VAIAN SHITRAM APTE, M. A.,
/t
Author ofthe " Practical " and " StitdenCs " Sanshrit-English
Dictionaries^ " Students Guide to Sanskrit
Composition " ^'c, ^'C,
LiTE PniNCIPAL AND pROFESSOK OF SaXSKRIT, FeRGUSSON CoLLEGE, PoOXA.
Reprint with corrections from the First Edition.
Published by
MRS. RADHABAI ATMAUAM SAGOON,
Bookseller & Publisher, Kalkadevi Road, BOMBAY.
1893.
All Rights Reserved,
( )
:
POONA
PuiNTED AT THE " Arya Bhiishana Press
PEE FACE.
/71^/aj
When I prepared " The Student's Hand-Book of Progressive Exercises, "
Part II. , I thought of adding to it a glossary of difficult words and expressions in the
Exercises. When this was done, an idea occurred that the Glossary should be made to
include all words of ordinary occurrence, such are as given in small School-Dictionaries.
When the revision of the sheets thus written out commenced, and when they were put
to a practicaltest, it was found that several words and expressions had stillbeen left out.
I, then, resolved to prepare an English-Sanskrit Dictionary as complete as possible, and
the following pages are the result. The Dictionary has thus passed through different
stages, and has assumed this form,far exceeding the limits which I had first assigned
to it.
Much need not, I think, be said with regard to the necessity of a work like this*
In these days of literaryactivity^ when the attentionof students is drawnmoreand more
to the study of Sanskrit, it is necessary that all appliances should be ready before them
to facilitate this study. There are one or two small Sanskrit-English Dictionaries,
though not quite adequate to meet the wants of advanced students of Sanskrit, but
there is no English-Sanskrit Dictionary such as will be within their easy reach. The
—
Dictionaries of this description that I know of, are two in number: one by Professor
Mouier Williams, and another by Mr. Anundoram Borooah of Calcutta. Both these
Dictionaries, though valuable in themselves, are not accessible to the student, the prices
being prohibitively high. But there are other considerationswhichmake these works not
quiteadopted to his wants. ProfessorMonierWilliams' Dictionary, havingbeencompiled
nearly 35 yearsago, chieflybyinverting thethen existing Sanskrit-English Dictionaries,
is naturally open to the fault of being often notjjractical. As he says in the Preface to
his Dictionary, he proceeded to translate Webster's Dictionary systematically into
Sanskrit, omitting words, phrases &c. of which no classical equivalent couldbe found or
suggested. The result has been that many of his synonyms appear more ascoined words
than classical expressions used by standard Sanskrit authors. With regard to words col-
lected in Lexicons,suchas Amarakosha,Medini, Sabdakalpadruma, thereis nodifficulty ;
but in the case of thosewords and expressions which can only be suggested by a careful
studyof theusageofthebestauthors, thework, inmy humble opinion, falls shortof one's
expectations. Mr. Anundoram Borooah's work is eminently practical : it abounds with
quotations from several standard authors the renderings are generally happy, and the
;
work has, at least, a classical appearance. The fondness for giving quotations has
induced the writer to give several quotations for illustrating such words as rrq;, ffrf, rT^,
q"? &c., of the meanings of which there is no doubt nor is any confirmation needed. But
one great defect of his otherwise very useful work is that it gives too few equivalents.
He has pursued the course of referring one word to another, but this is, in some cases,
carried to such an extent, that when a word, as directed, is referred to another, that
again is referred to some other word of a synonymous nature, which in its turn is
referred to another, till the reader returns to the original word, apparently without
having his labours rewarded. A study of Mr. Borooah's work is a good treat for an
advanced Sanskrit scholar, but will not, I believe, satisfy the student. Froni considera-
<2)
tions like these T thought I should be doiug some service to the Sanskrit reacting public
if I compiled au English-Sanskrit Dictionary adapted to the wants of the student. The
foregoing remarks are made not with the view of detractingfrom the high and acknow-
ledged merits of the two works, but solely to indicate the line I have followed, and the
object I liave had in compiling this work,
Some words are now necessary as to the plan and scope of the Dictionary. When
I resolved to make this Dictionary as complete as possible, consistently with its aim of
being useful for the student, I took the latest edition of Webster's Complete Dictionary,
and taking that as my basis, proceeded with tlie work of compilation. As I advanced,
I found that several words, phrases and expressions and several senses of single words,
could not be adequately represented in Sanskrit, so as to appear like Sanskrit, either be-
cause the words &c. were purely technical and referred to specific ideas in subjects, such
as Chemistry, Eotany, Medicine, Psychology, Law, Engineering &c., or were such as
had no corresponding ideas in Sanskrit and were peculiar to the English language.
Words of this nature are numerous in Webster's Dictionary, and I have omitted
them, including also obsolete and rare words or senses of words. Several words
of obvious signification, such as those formed by the prefixes, ' /«,' ' mis,' 'pre '
* ttn/ are also omitted, as they may be easily formed from their second -member.
But the general terms of all sciences have been included, and of technical terms
such as could be duly represented by Sanskrit equivalents actually existing in
the language or by short, wieldy new combinations of words have been inserted. Of
this description are words like Telegram, Democrat, Society, Literature, Address
( of a letter ) and several other words which have a peculiar sense in English and
have to be translated by inventing equivalents. English, like many other languages,
has so many expressions and idioms peculiar to itself, so many shades and nice distinc-
tions of meaning, and so many new formations of words, progressing with the progress
of the language, that it wouldbe impossible to embrace them allin an English-Sanskrit
Dictionary, even if it were the most comprehensive work ; much more so, in a work
designed principally for students. Take the works Line, Pass, Strong. Webster gives 21
senses under ' Line,' 13 under 'Pass ( v. i. ) ' and 20 under 'Strong.' Someof these are
technical, and some are not dij^erent senses as such, but shades of meaning orparticulari-
ties of use most of which may be translated by the words given for the general sense,
5
( see the words ), I have not thought it desirable, like Professor Monier Williams, to
insert words the English explanation of which has to be systematically translated, in
order to give some idea of their meaning. ' Indian-rubber ' is translated by
3TrFripT('?f?'TIT^f^%?I HKfT^^T^fa^Rq'w: ' Shuttle cock.' by s^JTr^^i^Ef: % R^I^T'^
;
^JTffTf ^^^l fff^'TiT" Hf^''-^?f ; and many others of this nature, which can be translated
by \^^^: * a kind of tree, flower, fruit ' ifcc. Such words may be retained by the student
in their English fonn, or their meaning may be translated if he desire to have them
in a Sanskrit garb, ^q^: ' Sponge,' ^i^t: ^ Duke,' q[«r^ ^ Soap,' ^\\z^ ' Latinity,' ( as
given by Mr. Borooah ) may, I think, be very safely omitted even in a comprehensive
Dictionary.
To turn now to the plan and arrangement of the work. The most striking
feature of the arrangement is that a word in its different parts of speech, compound
words derived from it, derivatives formed from it eitlier regularly, by means of ter-
minations ( €. (J. ed, ing, ly, ness &:c. ) or irregulaily, have been given together, the
derivatives being arranged in order under the root orprimitive word, by means of small
Ijilack dashes. The dashes are intended to at once strike the eye and to direct it to the