# All IIR Language: Cheetra / Chitra



## mannoushka

Hello! I would like to ask anyone familiar with the meaning as well as the roots and associations of the word 'cheetra', which I believe is a girls' name in Indian languages, if this name/word is much used in their language, and how. We Iranians have it, too, and it sounds really nice as a girl's name in Persian. I've tried looking it up in Internet sources, but have ended up very confused. There seem to be so many different associations, all of them of equal weight, so to speak, I could not decide what this name represented to a modern Hindi (or is it Urdu) speaker. Could anyone help me out, please? I'd be grateful.


----------



## marrish

Hi, I would suggest that the name is pronounced and spelt in a different way in Indian languages. The name comes from Sanskrit and is spelt _chitraa. _The first consonant is a short one. 

Here some reference and meaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitra


----------



## mannoushka

Thanks, marrish. Just to be accurate, in Persian both pronunciations are in use. The accent can go on the first or the second syllable depending more or less on the whim of the speaker. Thank you very much.


----------



## Wolverine9

There is also the etymologically similar Old Iranian (Avestan) word _chiθra_ (Modern Persian: _chehr_) that may have contributed to the name's popularity in Iran.


----------



## Chhaatr

There is also chaitr (Hindi) and Chaitra (Kannada).  It is the first month of the Hindu New Year.

BTW, what is the meaning of _"cheetra"_ in Persian?


----------



## mannoushka

Wolverine9 said:


> There is also the etymologically similar Old Iranian (Avestan) word _chiθra_ (Modern Persian: _chehr_) that may have contributed to the name's popularity in Iran.



Woverine9, thanks for the information. The etymology is interesting.  The Persian word 'chehreh' ___ 'chehr' being the literary version of  the same word and not used much in conversation ___ means 'face',  'aspect'. What does 'chitra' mean, and in what language exactly? Please  consider me a complete ignoramus when it comes to the languages and the  cultures of the Indian subcontinent, which I am, and explain to me as  much as possible about this word! Is it the name of some Indian goddess  or god of the past? 

(By the way, I just remembered that there is  this Indian lady singer, Chitra Sing, whom I've heard and whose songs I  really liked listening to at one time. Just thought I'd drop the name!)


----------



## mannoushka

Chhaatr said:


> There is also chaitr (Hindi) and Chaitra (Kannada).  It is the first month of the Hindu New Year.
> 
> BTW, what is the meaning of _"cheetra"_ in Persian?



Chhaatr, perhaps you would tell me which month of the Christian calendar Chaitra/chaitr coincides with? 

In  Persian the word is just a girl's name and means nothing! I knew a girl  at school whose name was Chitra. I love this name and associate it in  my imagination with a lady who is bold and brazen, and who is also very  womanly and perhaps wise in an illogical or mysterious way which men  can't always fathom, a sort of a symbol for desire, desire that remains  just that, is not necessarily fulfilled.

But then again, that's  just me letting my imagination run wild! Just between us, I wrote a poem  and titled it 'Chitraee' (which, in Persian, means 'like a chitra', 'in  the manner of a chitra', or 'as Chitra would do it'). The inspiration  for the poem came from the word, oddly enough. Now I'd like to know my  mysterious lady a bit better. Perhaps she'll turn out to be nothing like  how I've envisaged her, but that's OK.


----------



## Chhaatr

^ Chaitr coincides with March/April.

Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitra


----------



## Wolverine9

mannoushka said:


> What does 'chitra' mean, and in what language exactly? Please  consider me a complete ignoramus when it comes to the languages and the  cultures of the Indian subcontinent, which I am, and explain to me as  much as possible about this word! Is it the name of some Indian goddess  or god of the past?



_chitra _or _chitraa _(masculine and feminine adjectives, respectively) is a Sanskrit word meaning "brilliant, shining, bright, clear, spotted, speckled."  _chitraa _(long aa, feminine noun) also refers to the name of a star.

It's not the name of a god or goddess.


----------



## mannoushka

marrish, Wolverine9, Chhatr, thank you all for divulging the information. I feel my knowledge has broadened all of a sudden! What has happened in reality is the extent of my ignorance of my own roots has hit me in the face; by that I mean my ignorance of the history of how Persian evolved till the time it was given to me and my contemporaries. Meanwhile, Sanskrit remains a language I wish I could read in.


----------



## greatbear

"Chitrai", the variant of "Chitra", is also a famous nakshatra (Spica) in Hindu astrology, and girls from Tamil Nadu born under this nakshatra are named Chitrai (Chitra).

Sanksrit and Persian do share not only a common Avestan heritage, mannoushka, but also a common, interactive history through trade links: if you go along the Silk Route, it is fascinating how words like "saudagar" (merchant) remain almost the same from India till Uzbekistan and beyond. Just like your imagination runs wild with the word/name "chitra", mine does with just imagining the stories of the Silk Route: the caravans that must have passed through, how the cities of Samarkand and Bukhara must have been with traders from many worlds interacting there (and what language did they use?), and how once the goods from China and India must have landed in Persia for the Arab world and beyond, the markets must have been like. Every stone on the Silk Route, every caravanserai, seems alive with humanity and its stories; as if my life has been lived a hundred thousand times, and here I am living it again under a different disguise.

Well, well, that's called rambling ... Hope you've got your answers already!


----------



## Faylasoof

mannoushka said:


> Hello! I would like to ask anyone familiar with the meaning as well as the roots and associations of the word 'cheetra', which I believe is a girls' name in Indian languages, if this name/word is much used in their language, and how. We Iranians have it, too, and it sounds really nice as a girl's name in Persian. I've tried looking it up in Internet sources, but have ended up very confused. There seem to be so many different associations, all of them of equal weight, so to speak, I could not decide what this name represented to a modern Hindi (or is it Urdu) speaker. Could anyone help me out, please? I'd be grateful.


 Apart from some of the other suggestions above, here is how it it used in Urdu but interestingly I found somethings in relation to Persian / Iran as well:

_*Persian *_
*چیترا     *
چیترا در ایران باستان الهه مهتاب بوده است ، و هم وزن میترا است که الهه آفتاب بوده .
So it seems chiitraa in Ancient Iran was the moon goddess, in parallel to miitraa the Sun goddess. 

به همین علت « چیترا » دراردو، به ماه شب چهارده گفته میشود که به اصل سانسکریت بازمیگردد.در زبان سانسکریت، «سیترا» بوده که در زبان فارسی قدیم به «چیترا» تبدیل شده است.در سانسکریت چیترا به معنای آشکار و برجسته و نورانی و روشن و برانگیخته است .
چیترا و میترا نامهای دختران اردوان اشکانی نیز بوده اند .

According to this the original Sanskrit was siitraa and in Ancient Persian turned into chiitraa. 

In Avestan it means offspring, progeny, seed.

*چترا*
واژه اوستایی و به معنای "نسل" می‌باشد 

Also it appears was the name of king.
*چترا *
 دوازدهمین پادشاه سلسله ماد
_dawaazdahumiin paadshah-e-silsila-e-maad_ = The 12th King of the Median dynasty. 


_*Urdu
*_
_chitraa_ *چِتْرا* {چِت + را} (سنسکرت) 
ہیئت 
 ستاروں کی ایک منزل کا نام۔ = name of one of the constellation of stars.
The star spica virginis; a constellation, the fourteenth lunar mansion.

*چِتْرا *{چِت + را} (اردو) 
. داغ دار، دھبے والا۔  _daaGh-daar_, _dhabbe waalaa_ = Variegated


But چترا _ch*atu*raa_ = چالاک chaalaak, ہوشیار hosh-yaar, دانا daanaa, پھرتیلا phurtiilah, ماہر maahir;   3qlmand عقلمند.

and * chatraa' ii **چَتْرائی*
 {چَت + را + ای} (سنسکرت) 

1. تیزی، چالاکی، ہوشیاری، دانائی، ہنرمندی (طنزاً) عیاری و حیلہ سازی۔

"سب اس کی چترائی پر دنگ تھے۔"، [1]
[ترمیم] انگریزی ترجمہ

alertness; expertness, dexterity, smartness, cleverness, knowledge, wisdom, sagacity, skillfulness, ingenuity; astuteness, cunning, slyness, subtly, craftiness, deceit, roguery

Synonyms
سُبُک خیزی، چالاکی، ہوشِیاری، دانائی، دانِشْمَنْدی


----------



## mannoushka

greatbear said:


> "Chitrai", the variant of "Chitra", is also a famous nakshatra (Spica) in Hindu astrology, and girls from Tamil Nadu born under this nakshatra are named Chitrai (Chitra).
> 
> Sanksrit and Persian do share not only a common Avestan heritage, mannoushka, but also a common, interactive history through trade links: if you go along the Silk Route, it is fascinating how words like "saudagar" (merchant) remain almost the same from India till Uzbekistan and beyond. Just like your imagination runs wild with the word/name "chitra", mine does with just imagining the stories of the Silk Route: the caravans that must have passed through, how the cities of Samarkand and Bukhara must have been with traders from many worlds interacting there (and what language did they use?), and how once the goods from China and India must have landed in Persia for the Arab world and beyond, the markets must have been like. Every stone on the Silk Route, every caravanserai, seems alive with humanity and its stories; as if my life has been lived a hundred thousand times, and here I am living it again under a different disguise.
> 
> Well, well, that's called rambling ... Hope you've got your answers already!



Absolutely beautiful, rambling though you may call it! Yes, there is a legacy there alright along that forgotten path that was once open to our forefathers and which can be considered our common root/route. What truly angers me is the way my and my contemporaries' opportunity to learn about this heritage and appreciate history was destroyed through so many accounts of what this or that ruler did, which was mostly do battle and drink wine in the company of their wives! It was banal and utterly dull what I was taught at school about those mist-covered days. Going back to Chitra, I don't really understand nakshatra. Could you elaborate? And, a million thanks!


----------



## mannoushka

Oh, I just did understand nakshatra, reading the post kindly contributed by Faylasoof! It is obviously the sign and the name for one of the constellations.

Faylasoof, thank you indeed for sharing the knowledge and for letting me know that Chitra is as much Irani as it is Indian, not that it matters where it originated or who might use it now. All it is, it brings our cultures just that tiny bit closer together, a very welcome development as far as I am concerned.


----------



## greatbear

mannoushka said:


> Going back to Chitra, I don't really understand nakshatra. Could you elaborate? And, a million thanks!



Nakshatras are constellations, mannoushka, but one must also take care to distinguish between them and signs like Virgo (Kanya in Hindi), etc.: the latter are called "rashi" (zodiac sign) in Hindu astrology. The path of the Moon through a zodiac sign (through a constellation) is subdivided into segments called "nakshatras" (thus, roughly one may call them as sub-constellations?). You may read about them more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakshatra 

More pertinent to the topic is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakshatra#Hindu_given_names on the same page (how children are often given names among Hindus based on the nakshatra they are born under); speaking of "Chitra", the same page goes on to say:
*
Sweet/Delicate & Friendly (Mridu & Maitri) constellations*
Mrigashīrsha, _Chitra_, Anuradha and Revati.

 Starting & learning singing of songs, clothes & jewellery  making & wearing, Manglik works, matter related to friends, female  company, enjoyments, sexual passions.




mannoushka said:


> It was banal and utterly dull what I was taught at school about those mist-covered days.



It is indeed true that all over the world, history is taught in a completely banal fashion, with all emphasis on who attacked whom, which battle was fought where and when, and at the most from this and that pottery we can deduce this and that influence. We miss the rich strands of human stories in the process: those hundreds of soldiers, from where did they come and what stories did they carry (did someone become a deserter, and thus introduced his own tales and blood in a new, foreign land? how did he manage? how did the woman whom he married find him?); those villages and towns who lay in the path of the conquests we read of, and how their lives changed; and the storehouses of knowledge from India to Persia to Arabia, where did these men and women go, whom did they leave their knowledge to, and what consisted of their knowledge. It is a pity we have been, and chosen to be, blind to such beautiful stories.


----------



## asanga

One meaning of _citra _that hasn't been mentioned yet is "many colored", i.e. a painting or drawing. This is the specific sense with which the word was borrowed into Indonesian, and the Indonesian girl's name Citra is understood to mean "beautifully colored," "as pretty as a picture".


----------



## greatbear

^ As far as Hindi and Sanskrit are concerned, asanga, that is a different word: in Hindi, the word you are confusing it with is pronounced "chitr" (i.e. the ending "a" is a schwa), whereas the word under question in this thread is pronounced as "chitraa".

I do wonder if it's just a common belief in Indonesia that the name Citra means "beautifully colored" or actually true/verified.


----------



## asanga

greatbear said:


> ^ As far as Hindi and Sanskrit are concerned, asanga, that is a different word: in Hindi, the word you are confusing it with is pronounced "chitr" (i.e. the ending "a" is a schwa), whereas the word under question in this thread is pronounced as "chitraa".
> 
> I do wonder if it's just a common belief in Indonesia that the name Citra means "beautifully colored" or actually true/verified.



This gets into the philosophy of language, & the _vaiyaakaraNas _differ on the relationship between _artha _"meaning", _shabda _"meaningful sound/morpheme", and _pada _(a word with -s_up_ or -_ting_ affixes).  Although _chitraH_/_chitraa_/_chitram_ are different _pada_-s, they are also _vivakShaa_-s of the same _praatipadika_, so they share the same _niyatopasthitikaH praatipadikaarthaH_ "meaning of the stem form which is fixed in all [the particular iterations]".

Indonesian doesn't have grammatical gender and doesn't make phonemic distinctions between long and short vowels, so the difference between Sanskrit words ending in -a and -aa are ignored. Many popular Indonesian girl's names, such as Ratna, Kusuma, Kartika, etc. are originally masc. or neuter.

A quick search of some e-texts gives many examples of _citra_- used as an adjective meaning "colored/painted". _citradhvajapataakaabhiH _"[decorated] with colorful flags and banners" is repeated in several verses of the _shriimad bhaagavatam_, for example. Although strictly speaking these would be classified as _madhyapadalopasamaasa_-s for _citra*varNa*dhvaja _"a flag of variegated colors".


----------



## greatbear

asanga said:


> Indonesian doesn't have grammatical gender and doesn't make phonemic distinctions between long and short vowels, so the difference between Sanskrit words ending in -a and -aa are ignored.



Maybe; but this ignorance is not present in either of Sanskrit, Hindi or Urdu, and it is the latter two languages, asanga, this thread is concerned about (and not Indonesian), if you read the OP once again. To put it in another way, a girl called "Chitra" (pron. "chitraa") never recalls to the mind of an Urdu or Hindi speaker "image, painting, etc." (pron. "chitr").

It is interesting otherwise all that you have remarked: a girl being called "Kartika" as the most interesting of the remarks for me.


----------



## asanga

Yes, but my other point was about the sense in which Sanskrit _chitraH/chitraa/chitram _are the same or different words. Are the words _chitraH/chitraa/chitram_ the same or different in _chitraH paTaH, chitraa paTii_, and _chitraM vastram_ (all meaning "variegated=multi-colored cloth")? 

On the one hand they're different, because they have different genders. On the other hand, there's a sense that they all refer to the same _chitratvam _"variegation". Is there a single _chitratvam_ to which they all refer, or only 3 separate instances of particular variegated objects? 

This became one of the fundamental questions of Indian philosophy. When we say a word, what are we really referring to: 1) the _jaati _of a universal "variegation", 2) the _vyakti _of a particular "real" variegated object, 3) both, or 4) neither? The different _darshanas_, the Grammarians, the Buddhists, and the Jains all give different answers, and often disagree amongst themselves. But since this is a language forum, the opinion of the Sanskrit grammarians is the most relevant.

The Western grammatical tradition would analyse _chitram _in _chitraM vastram_ as an adjective, with no inherent gender of its own, agreeing with a neuter noun _vastram_, while _chitram _"a painting" would be seen as a substantive with an inherent neuter gender. Similarly, _chitraa _in _chitraa paTii_ is an adjective, while _chitraa _"Spica Virginis" is a substantive with an inherent feminine gender. 

Panini however, doesn't distinguish adjectives and nouns: they are both classified as _subanta_-s. He does occasionally speak of _visheShaNa_-s and _visheShya_-s (e.g. A. 1.2.52, 2.1.57), but this refers to a logical relationship between words, not lexical categories. AFAIK no traditional Sanskrit grammarian accepts _visheShaNa _as a distinct part of speech; instead any word can potentially function as a specification (_visheShaNa_) of another.

For Panini, _chitraa _in _chitraa paTii _and _Chitraa _"Spica Virginis" are not different in lexical terms. From Patanjali's _MahaabhaaShyam _(on A. 1.2.64-10):

न ह्याकृतिपदार्थिकस्य द्रव्यं न पदार्थः द्रव्यपदार्थिकस्य वाकृतिः न पदार्थः . उभयोः उभयं पदार्थः . 
कस्य चित्तु किंचित्प्रधानभूतं किंचिद्गुणभूतम् . आकृतिपदार्थिकस्याकृतिः प्रधानभूता द्रव्यं गुणभूतम् . 
द्रव्यपदार्थिकस्य द्रव्यं प्रधानभूतमाकृतिर्गुणभूता .

In Patanjali's vocabulary, _dravya _= _vyakti_, _aakRiti _= _jaati_. A word can function as both _dravyaM pradhaanabhuutam_ (the specific asterism _Chitraa_) or as _aakRitiH pradhaanabhuutaa_ (_chitraa_ as a _visheShaNa _of _paTii_). But whether _chitraa _functions as _dravyapadaarthika _or _aakRitipadaarthika_, one does not exclude the other.

All of this to say that, to a modern Hindi/Urdu speaker educated in Sanskrit _vyaakaraNa_, the proper noun _Chitraa _can call up all the associations of the _dhaatu _"_citra_" (_dhaatupaaTha _10.459), including "variegated" in the sense of "multi-colored" or "bright/conspicious" in the sense "brightly colored".


----------



## greatbear

^ Very interesting post, asanga, and a lot of food for thought.

"no traditional Sanskrit grammarian accepts _visheShaNa _as a distinct part of speech; instead any word can potentially function as a specification (_visheShaNa_) of another." - I think this is something happening more and more in English as well.


----------



## mannoushka

asanga, I only barely comprehend your post, just about making some sense of those sentences in which there are no words other than English words! For a start, what are jaati and vyakti, and what concept are we touching upon when we speak of _aakRitiH pradhaanabhuutaa_ (_chitraa_ as a _visheShaNa _of _paTii_)? English being the medium and the common ground here, could you please put me out of misery by explaining what it is that you and greatbear are discussing? I really would like to know, especially as you mentioned philosophy, which is very intriguing.


----------



## mannoushka

asanga said:


> Yes, but my other point was about the sense in which Sanskrit _chitraH/chitraa/chitram _are the same or different words. Are the words _chitraH/chitraa/chitram_ the same or different in _chitraH paTaH, chitraa paTii_, and _chitraM vastram_ (all meaning "variegated=multi-colored cloth")?



Well, what's your view, asanga?


----------



## asanga

I'm sorry for the incomprehensible post: it was already quite long, and I didn't want to make it any longer by translating all the Sanskrit technical terminology, or explaining the basic process of Sanskrit word formation. But I will try & give a complete beginner's explanation now. Unavoidably, it's is going to be a long read!

Greatbear said that _Chitraa_, a feminine noun, cannot have the same meaning as _chitram_, a Sanskrit neuter noun (masc. _chitr_ in Hindi/Urdu), because they are clearly different words. In Sanskrit, Hindi, & Urdu---unlike in Indonesian---it's impossible to pronounce them the same. I replied that it's not so simple.

According to traditional Sanskrit grammar, all Sanskrit words are derived from verbal roots. Panini gave the official list of 2235 roots. He also gave a set of 3,959 rules (_suutra_-s) to derive literally every possible word in the language from these roots. 

In the case of _chitraa_, the verbal root is _chitr_, entry 10.549 in the List of Roots:  "_chitr_, in the sense of 'making variegated', and sometimes 'seeing/observing'."

To this we add the primary-noun-forming suffix -_ac _by rule 3.1.134: _chitr+ac_. 

This suffix has an agentive sense by 3.1.133.

The "c" in this suffix is merely a technical notation (1.3.3), so it's dropped by 1.3.9: _chitra_. 

By 1.2.46, this is the stem form (_praatipadika_) of the word.

To this we add the feminine suffix -_Taap _(4.1.4): _chitra+Taap_.

Again "T" & "p" are technical notations (1.3.3, 1.3.7), so they're also dropped by 1.3.9: _chitra+aa_. 

We then get vowel fusion by 6.1.101: _chitraa_.

To this we add the nominative singular suffix -_sú _(4.1.2): _chitraa+sú_

By applying 1.3.2, 1.3.9, and 6.1.68, we finally get the feminine nominative singular: _chitraa_.

Taking the stem form _chitra_, and applying 4.1.2, 7.1.24, 1.3.4, and 6.1.107, we can also get the neuter nominative singular: _chitram_.

----

We can see that etymologically _chitraa _means "the female variegated thing" and _chitram _"the neuter variegated thing". Note that these are *not *adjectives, but refer to specific, gendered things which are variegated. Gender is so closely associated with individuation in Sanskrit grammar that the word for "particular object" (_vyakti_) is used as a synomym for "gender" (_linga_).

What makes _chitra_- especially confusing is its wide semantic range. It doesn't just mean variegated. A variegated thing (the classic Indian example is the peacock's tailfeather) is also many-colored, bright, conspicious, fascinating, wondrous, etc. So keep in mind that _chitraa _and _chitram _can potentially mean any of those things.

Now, in addition to this basic etymological meaning, _chitraa _and _chitram _have specialized meanings: _chitraa _means "the Bright One", the asterism Spica Virginis, and _chitram _means "the multi-colored thing", a painting. These meanings are purely conventional; there's no logical reason why their meaning is restricted in this way. Words with both an "etymological" and conventional meaning are called _yaugikaruddha_. These specialized meanings have fixed genders: you cannot say _chitraa _to mean a painting, or _chitram _to mean the asterism. Greatbear was correct about this.

Because these words have restricted conventional meanings, we only use the general etymological meaning in situations of _saamaanaadhikaraNya _"the state of [two or more words] having the same referent". For example, _chitraa paTii_ "the multi-colored thing, the cloth". "The multi-colored thing" and "the cloth" refer to the same thing; both words have the same referent. Based on the Western grammatical tradition, we would analyse _chitraa _as an adjective agreeing with the feminine noun _paTii_. According to Sanskrit grammar, however, _chitraa _by itself refers to a real object in the world (in Western terms, a "noun"). It merely highlights (_visheShaNa_) the object's quality of "multi-coloredness", while _paTii _indicates the object is "something which wraps" (verbal root _paT _"to wrap").

"Multi-colordness" is of course not a physical object; it's an abstract concept that applies to all multi-colored things. In Western philosophy, this is called a universal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics)

Sanskrit philosophy has many names for it, but in the grammatical tradition, the most important are _jaati _"a class" and _aakRiti_ "a form". The universal of anything is indicated by adding the neuter abstract suffic -_tvam_, so for example, _gotvam _is the "cowness" of all cows (_go_), and _chitratvam _is the "_chitra_-ness" of all _chitras_.

This is contrasted with the particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particular

In Sanskrit grammar, this is called a _vyakti _"a visible manifestation, individual appearance" or _dravya _"a substance, thing".

So, in the phrase _chitraa paTii_, the word _chitraa _is used to highlight the object's "multi-coloredness". Therefore it has _aakRitiH pradhaanabhuutaa "_a universal as its main referent". Patanjali calls this kind of word _aakRitipadaartika__. __paTii_, on the other hand, is used to indicate that we are talking about a particular piece of cloth. Therefore it has _dravyaM pradhaanabhuutam_ "a particular as its main referent". Patanjali calls this kind of word _dravyapadaarthika_. The word _Chitraa _"the asterism Spica Virginis" is also _dravyapadaarthika_, as it refers to a particular constellation. 

Now we are finally in a position to translate the quote from Patanjali:


> For it is not the case that an _aakRitipadaartika _doesn't also have a particular as its referent, nor that a _dravyapadaarthika_ doesn't also have a universal as its referent. Rather, both are referents of each other. That is to say, any word has both a main referent and a quality. An _aakRitipadaartika _has a universal as its main referent, and a particular as its quality. A _dravyapadaarthika _has a particular as its main referent, and a universal as its quality.



What this means is that _"Chitraa" _has as its main referent a particular asterism, but it also refers to the universal quality of _chitratvam _that it instantiates. The particular does not exclude the universal: in fact according to Sanskrit grammar every word includes both. So the name of the particular asterism includes in it all the meanings we can give to universal _chitratvam_, including "brightness", "conspicuousness", and also "multi-coloredness".



> Well, what's your view, asanga?



I follow Patanjali, & would say that _chitraH/chitraa/chitram_ are both different and the same. They're different because they have different particular referents, but they're the same because they have the same universal referent. Of course, this is purely from a grammatical perspective. In terms of metaphysics, I don't believe universals actually exist. In Western philosophy, this is called nominalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism

The Buddhist version, formulated by Dignaga and elaborated by Dharmakirti, is not quite like any Western form of nominalism, but that would take us very far off topic.


----------



## gagun

in telugu we have similar words which are derived from sanskrit word chitra
chitra-चित्र: a star,falsity.
if it is ended with "am" like 
chitram- photo,marvel 
_chitra-nētramu-_A kind of fine cloth.
etc.


----------



## mannoushka

asanga, your post of epic proportions is most appreciated. I'm moved, not least because it's such a feat to try to squeeze a lot of knowledge into a compact introduction, masterfully accomplished here by you. Also, I always suspected Sanskrit was a sophisticated language, a 'many-coloured' ancient tribute to human intellect. Now I feel I've been proven right. Mind you, it must be excruciatingly painful for a total non-initiate to begin the journey of learning it; how many rules, did you say?! It must be harder than Latin! Anyway, thank you very much! 

Just a couple of notes: (1) When you mentioned the stuck-up peacock's tail, it suddenly struck me: we Persian speakers use the word 'chatr' (= umbrella, parasol, parachute, canopy ...) to refer to the perked up tail of the male peacock. Isn't this funny! It must be a variation of the exact same word in classical Indian! (2) The same goes for the word for 'cow'. We have changed it slightlly to 'gaav'. Of course, our oldest mythology refers to cows, or to one particular cow, the mother of the whole Nature, in a reverential manner. So maybe this very old mythology dates back to the time when Persians and Indians made up but one tribe of people.


----------



## asanga

It's not at all necessary to learn Panini's rules to speak/read Sanskrit, but learning lots of declensions and conjugations is unavoidable.

The word _chhattra _"parasol" is derived from the verbal root _chhad _"to cover", not _chitr _"to make variegated". This is where Panini's rules are useful - they tell us how words are formed from verbal roots. The sound change _go _> _gav _is also explained by Panini's rules, for example _pancagavyam_ "the five products of a cow".


----------



## greatbear

mannoushka said:


> the word 'chatr' (= umbrella, parasol, parachute, canopy ...)



And in Hindi, the word "chhatrii" = umbrella, canopy, ...


----------



## greatbear

asanga, thank you very much for your magnificent post; it is highly insightful, tries to explain such complex concepts so simply, and is in fact a veritable treasure for the layman or learned man alike. However, asanga, wouldn't you say that words in any language are from a few etymological stems (which in themselves have a meaning, and that is how the words are formed)? In other words, the Latin _capere_ will lead to a wide variety of words, including "accept", "reception", "capture", "perception", "interception", "capacity", etc. - there is certainly a sense of "to take, to seize" involved in all of these, and that is why all of these words were derived from "capere" - however, certainly "capture" is different from "receive"? I wonder if we are justified in going to the common root of "chitram" and "chitraa" (even in Sanskrit) - certainly our minds might perceive, sometimes unwittingly, a commonness among "chitram" and "chitraa", as among "capture" and "reception" - but are we really meaning anything else than the specific, individuated instance?

I know that my example isn't that great in the sense that I am talking of English derivations from Latin; yet, I hope that you get my point. (After all, the same derivations are there in Latin from _capio_.)


----------



## mannoushka

greatbear said:


> I wonder if we are justified in going to the common root of "chitram" and "chitraa" (even in Sanskrit) - certainly our minds might perceive, sometimes unwittingly, a commonness among "chitram" and "chitraa", as among "capture" and "reception" - but are we really meaning anything else than the specific, individuated instance?



greatbear, I can't be a judge of this insofar as Indian languages __ if I may lump them all together in this way in order to give them their Sanskrit parentage __ are concerned. 

But I'd ask you in a general sense: isn't fidelity to etymological roots actually essential in establishing thoughts as they once were? Never mind going along with changes in meaning. Words themselves have that capacity to the full. The least we can do is keep a record of how a word __ a culture __ has developed, what layers of meaning __ what I term 'accents' __ are there, to be suddenly unearthed and throw you back. How can one think about the possibilities a word presents if the root, whether common with that of another word or not, has been denied it?


----------



## greatbear

^ I completely agree with you, mannoushka; I myself am always fascinated tracing etymological roots and the cousins (cognates) of those roots, and it is wonderful to imagine the history of even a word - the many influences from different spheres, the back and forth between different cultures, and sometimes brutal modifications by some event (a new invader, American culture spreading, etc.).

What I simply wanted to say is that if a person is named Mr. Perceive, then can we go back to _capere_ and assign all the meanings that we can get from _capere_ to the name of that person? Maybe we can, but ought we? I am not so sure about this point.


----------



## mannoushka

greatbear said:


> What I simply wanted to say is that if a person is named Mr. Perceive, then can we go back to _capere_ and assign all the meanings that we can get from _capere_ to the name of that person? Maybe we can, but ought we? I am not so sure about this point.



Of course! No doubt about it whatsoever! Having assured you on this point for all eternity, I must concede that context (such as posts on learning language forums where people may be consumed with the wish to learn about a word/proper name as much as possible), intentions (i.e. immediate objectives), and intervening constraints (one of which could be social proprieties) do play a big part in making a mention of the common root appropriate or inappropriate. The point about words is, in any case and in an uncanny way, they assume the place of proper nouns every now and again. Put a different way, we tend to use them well out of their usual context so that they suddenly assume new meanings, become new entries in their own right. (Am I being a nominalist?) The only question, then, is whether or not older meanings also should be given the right and the opportunity to crop up as new in the way I just mentioned. I'd say yes, let the old meanings, even if contrary, have a right to pass again into the language. For my part, I don't mind at all that the various meanings of _Chitraa_ are intermingled because of the common root of all the completely differentiated words in use today. Indeed I welcome this state of affairs. It's just that before, whenever I looked up the word I was confused by the possibilities of meaning out there, having no grasp of the reason for its being so. Then again, what I, as a non-Indian person, surely lack, is the day to day context that native speakers like yourself have access to.


----------



## asanga

greatbear said:
			
		

> I wonder if we are justified in going to the common root of "chitram" and "chitraa" (even in Sanskrit) - certainly our minds might perceive, sometimes unwittingly, a commonness among "chitram" and "chitraa", as among "capture" and "reception" - but are we really meaning anything else than the specific, individuated instance?



This is one of the great questions of Indian, Western, and Medieval Islamic philosophy. Grammarians and philosophers have been debating it for about 2,500 years, so we're unlikely to reach a definitive answer here!

If you want to do some further reading, the basic issues in Indian philosophy of language are summarized here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-india/

and an interesting discussion of the history of the problem in Western philosophy can be found here:

http://www.friesian.com/universl.htm

In India, the position that only particulars are real, and universals merely names (Nominalism) was most developed by the Buddhist Idealists (_vijnaanavaadins_). Mainstream Brahmanical logicians _(miimaaMsakas, nyaayikas, vaisheShikas_), grammarians (_vaiyaakaraNas_) and etymologists (_nairuktas_) all accepted universals as real (Realism). Therefore mainstream Sankrit writing about language and grammar accepts universals as real, and even philosophers who don't share this view often temporarily adopt the Realist position out of convenience when discussing a point of Sanskrit grammar.



			
				greatbear said:
			
		

> What I simply wanted to say is that if a person is named Mr. Perceive, then can we go back to capere and assign all the meanings that we can get from _capere _to the name of that person? Maybe we can, but ought we? I am not so sure about this point.



Yet this is exactly what traditional Sanskrit commentators do, often at great length. It's one of the primary purposes of Sanskrit commentaries. Etymological explanations of the title _Bhagavan _can go on for pages!

Derivations from different prefixes (_incipio, concipio, intercipio, excipio, decipio,_ etc.) are also a different matter than different senses derived from a single root. A better comparison would be Latin masc. noun _captus _"a prisoner" vs the general past participle "captured, seized". A Sanskrit commentator might point out that in Latin a prisoner is called _captus _in order to indicate that he instantiates the universal of "being captured/seized", while he is called _reus _to indicate that he instantiates the universal of "being found guilty in a court case (_res_)".



			
				mannoushka said:
			
		

> The only question, then, is whether or not older meanings also should be given the right and the opportunity to crop up as new in the way I just mentioned.



For traditional Sanskrit grammarians like Panini and Patanjali, the question about old and new meanings doesn't come up at all: to them, Sanskrit is perfect, eternal and unchanging. Any word form or word usage that cannot be explained by Panini's rules is considered _deshii _"of the countryside" (this corresponds to Vulgar "of the masses" in Latin) or simply mistaken. The only exception is if the form or usage can also be found in a very prestigious text, in which case non-standard language is grudgingly accepted as _aarSha _"of the Rishis". _Chitraa _will always mean what Panini's rules say it can mean, and nothing else. Modern linguistics assumes the complete opposite: language is constantly evolving, and the study of language is limited to objective description,  not prescription.


----------



## mannoushka

I should imagine by now the great grammarians find Sanskrit is heavily cluttered with _deshii_! Let me, asanga, just try to make sure I've got this right: Chitraa, a word of many meanings and even more derivatives according to the rules of Sanskrit, has no meaning that dominates the others in the mind of a scholar, and that is forever the case. Furthermore, the meanings follow the derivatives around and cling to them, again if judged by the standards set by the great lawmakers. Am I roughly getting it? Please help!


----------



## asanga

mannoushka said:
			
		

> I should imagine by now the great grammarians find Sanskrit is heavily cluttered with _deshii_!


Actually, because of the completeness and conservatism of Panini's rules, Sanskrit spoken and written today is substantially the same as in his time (roughly 5th ct. BCE). There are many neologisms for modern inventions, such as _kaaryaalaya _"office", _duuradarshana _"television", _gaNatantra _"republic", etc., but these neologisms follow Panini's rules, so he would not have considered them _deshii _words.

Even in Panini's time, ordinary spoken language was already quite different from the language he was codifying. It was called Prakrit "natural [language]", in contrast with Sanskrit "cultivated [language]". Panini's rules were never meant to apply to Prakrit (much less Hindi!), so there's no problem if words in those languages don't follow his rules.


			
				mannoushka said:
			
		

> Let me, asanga, just try to make sure I've got this right: Chitraa, a word of many meanings and even more derivatives according to the rules of Sanskrit, has no meaning that dominates the others in the mind of a scholar, and that is forever the case. Furthermore, the meanings follow the derivatives around and cling to them, again if judged by the standards set by the great lawmakers. Am I roughly getting it? Please help!



Yes, that's right. Although strictly speaking _chitraa _doesn't "have" derivatives itself; rather it along with many others are all derivatives of the same verbal root _chitr_.


----------



## Faylasoof

asanga said:


> One meaning of _citra _that hasn't been  mentioned yet is "many colored", i.e. a painting or drawing. This is the  specific sense with which the word was borrowed into Indonesian, and  the Indonesian girl's name Citra is understood to mean "beautifully  colored," "as pretty as a picture".


 Yes, this is another meaning and I only mentioned its use as _variegated_ :



Faylasoof said:


> ....
> 
> _*Urdu
> *_
> _chitraa_ *چِتْرا* {چِت + را} (سنسکرت)
> ہیئت
> 
> *چِتْرا *{چِت + را} (اردو)
> . داغ دار، دھبے والا۔  _daaGh-daar_, _dhabbe waalaa_ = Variegated
> 
> .....


For "many coloured" specifically, we use other words instead, such as رنگارنگ and بوقلمون (and their derivatives رنگارنگی and بوقلمونی).
These were discussed  *here*.


----------

