(redirected from Sanskritists)
Also found in: Dictionary, Encyclopedia.
Graphic Thesaurus  🔍
Display ON
Animation ON
  • noun

Synonyms for Sanskrit

References in periodicals archive ?
Like in Nepal Mandala, Slusser has taken the Nepali publications of her stellar collaborators (rising epigraphists or Sanskritists they may be then, but in the 1960s they weren't any art historians) as infallible words of authority in her analysis and interpretation of Nepali sculpture.
The medical historian and Sanskritist Reinhold Friedrich Gustav Muller (1882-1966) wrote prolifically on various aspects of South Asian medicine.
Proceedings of the First Symposium of Nepali and German Sanskritists,
Sanskritists, though, will notice infelicities such as Manjugosa for Manjughosa, Tathagatasamgatisutra (de bzhin gshegs pa 'gro ba'i mdo) instead of Tathagatasangitisutra (de bzhin gshegs pa bgro ba'i mdo), and Brahmavisosacintapariprcchasutra for Brahmavisesa .
These two volumes provide the best available presentations of these texts to date--they will be the scholarly standard for these texts for Sanskritists and non-Sanskritists both for many years to come.
I wondered about this turn of events, because, like most European Sanskritists of his time--and of several later generations--Julius Jolly learned Sanskrit not for the sake of its literature, but as a language that played a major role in the study of Indo-European linguistics.
Since most of the essays are of a technical nature, this volume is most definitely for specialists only, but it should be read by Sanskritists, too: there is much in it for any Indologist interested in commentaries, their fascinating histories, and the evolution of technical prose genres.
bar] seems to be an inexhaustible subfield of study, whose hold on readership has not diminished since the earliest translations by Western Sanskritists (Wilkins' 1785 translation being the earliest).
Sanskritists everywhere will be happy to see these articles of the learned scholar made more available in this beautifully produced volume.
Finally, Mallinson's presentation of the English translation of the Khecarividya would be much more useful, at least to Sanskritists, who after all are the prime audience for this work, if he had either had the Sanskrit and English on facing pages throughout or, at least, had numbered the lines of the English rendering to match the numbering of the Sanskrit verses.
To successfully employ a metrical stanza that imitates the anustubh form requires a poetic skillfulness, or art, that, frankly, few Sanskritists possess.
Smith speaks primarily from one side of a divide as a Sanskritist and textualist to other Indologists (Sanskritists, historians of religions), among whom possession has been little noticed, infrequently studied, and never theorized across the breadth of Sanskrit literature.
As I have noted, a number of contributions are of interest also to general audiences, beyond Sanskritists, Indologists, and South Asian specialists.
Perhaps Sanskritists as well as Pali scholars have already more than enough to do in spelling out for us the intricacies of morphological paradigms and morphophonemic rules.
Sanskritists have disparaged Saddaniti because it uses a Sanskrit grammatical model rather than approaching Pali autonomously.