Talk:Shloka

Another table

It will be much helpful for a learner reader to also see another table accompanying the metrics, with one of the typical examples. Thanks. ViswaPrabha വിശ്വപ്രഭ (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Pada

It would be helpful for an interested non-expert to see a brief definition of the term pada. The only sentence that mentions padas is "The metrical constraints on a hemistich in terms of its two constituent pādas are as follows:", which doesn't really explain what a pada is.CorinneSD (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

SHLOK

It is a IT Company. Located in India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.109.91 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Religious meaning?

This article Times of India: Muslims can take Allahs name in place of shlokas-Minister implies that Muslims can't chant shlokas. What's the religious significance of a shloka? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Everything here is wrong

The shloka is not a couplet. It was written as a couplet to use up the whole page, because they did not have the luxury of much paper that they had in europe. In reality the shloka is a stanza of four line or "pada"'s, the even padas (2 and 4) ending thus: short long short long/short. The last syllable is long/short because in singing even a short vowel becomes long to mark the end of the clause or line. *Poetry is meant to be sung, so having a 32 syllable line is utterly outrageous*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.144.205 (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Everything published on Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, meaning that readers can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. So even if you're sure that something is true you'll need to cite reliable, published sources rather than just SHOUTING. nagualdesign 11:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shloka. 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/20110722135736/http://www.buddhanet-de.net/ancient-buddhist-texts/Textual-Studies/Prosody-Articles/Macdonell-Sanskrit.pdf to http://www.buddhanet-de.net/ancient-buddhist-texts/Textual-Studies/Prosody-Articles/Macdonell-Sanskrit.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Metrical description

The metrical description given in the present version of the article is confusing. The table, for which no source is given (it is very like Macdonell's but not his), mentions only three vipulas (u u u x, – u u x, and –, – – x). But the second half of the paragraph mentions a fourth vipula (the ra-vipula: ,– u – x). For a beginner not used to Sanskrit scansion methods, the description in terms of "na-gana", "ra-ma-gana" and so on, is very puzzling. The whole thing can be explained more simply, as Michael Hahn does in his introduction to Sanskrit metre. The table needs to be removed or amended, as it doesn't cover all the forms that may be found in a commonly read text such as the Bhagavad Gita. For example, the ra-vipula (– u – x) occurs at BhG. 1.5 and 1.43, and at Bh.G. 1.9 and 1.25 the na-vipula (u u u x) is preceded by x – – x. Kanjuzi (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Incomprehensible use of mixed-case

Section § Difference between shloka and mantra irregularly capitalises some letters. I suspect, but am unsure, that this may be a form of ASCII shorthand for non-English letters found in Sanskrit and other Indic languages, as used for example in X-SAMPA. However, most readers will not understand why, for example, one should write "manTra" rather than the more commonly seen "mantra". Other sections of this article use appropriately-chosen "special characters"; this section should, too. yoyo (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest just changing all the capital letters to lower case. If any reader is fussed about the exact letters, let them add the diacritics. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's probably an attempt at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard-Kyoto transliteration, except it seems to be wrong in places. "manTra" should just be "mantra" regardless. Icuriangu (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Puzzling revision

The latest revision contains sentences such as "it refers to a specifc varṇavr̥tta with 8 syllables per pāda, making it an instance of the anuṣṭupchandas". This doesn't seem very satisfactory, since this merely describes the unknown in terms of something even less known. What is a varṇavr̥tta? Who is Vācaspatyam? What is or are anuṣṭupchandas?

Sanskrit terms such as श्लोके षष्ठं गुरुर्ज्ञेयं सर्वत्र लघु पञ्चमम्। द्विचतुष्पादयोर्ह्रस्वं सप्तमं दीर्घमन्ययोः॥ also don't mean anything unless they are transliterated and properly explained. There also doesn't seem to be any advantage in using symbols such as XXXX।ऽऽX XXXX।ऽ।X XXXX।ऽऽX XXXX।ऽ।X instead of the conventional symbols used by European scholars. In other words, in my view, the article, whose readers are presumably mainly English-speaking people wishing to learn about Indian poetry, should explain the subject in terms which they can easily understand without first having to familiarise themselves with the Indian system of metrical description.

Another puzzle is the explanation: "from the root श्लोकृँ, lit. 'assemblage, union, multitude' or the root श्रु, lit. 'to hear'". What do these two explanations, which seem to have little in common, have to do with each other? Are they alternatives, or is there some connection? And what do they have to do with the fact that a shloka is a sentence in four parts? The explanation from Monier-Williams's dictionary given in the previous version of the article seemed much more satisfactory.

Also spellings such as "vr̥tta-s" and "pāda-s", with a hyphen before the -s, are not standard English: it would be better to follow the conventional spelling in this. Either use the Sanskrit plural (pādāh) or simply add an s.

The new revision, although it adds certain things, such as Vācaspatyam's definition (but what is the published source for this?), also omits some interesting facts about the shloka, for no very good reason. For these reasons I am going to revert the article to the previous version. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)