पृष्ठम्:Jyautisha Vedangam.pdf/6

3

Sloka 10. Though nothing particular, however, nowhere does the word धातृ signify अर्यमा. For this see the reading corrected by me.
Sloka 11. V.'s explanation of this has neither any significance nor does it convey any real meaning (Vide H. R., September, pp. 266-267). For this look at my demonstrated explanation.
Sloka I2. Here Weber's दुहेयं and दुर्हेयं of V., both do not give the real import. Hence, men of letters may think over my reading.
Sloka 13. Here V.’s explanation is good, but from his calculation the पर्वराशि is found to be a fraction and not an integer (Vide H. R., July, p. 59). Consequently look at my demonstrated explanation.
Sloka 14. The reading त्रिपाद्याया of V. is not correct (Vide H. R., September, p. 261), Vide my explanation.
Sloka 15. V.'s explanation is incorrect, (Vide H. R., August, 157-158). For this look at my explanation.
Sloka 16. Dr. Thibaut's explanation is right here. V.'s demonstration is also right, but it does not appear how by the Hindu method नक्षत्र has been deduced from भांश. For this my demonstration may be read with consideration.
Sloka 17. V.'s explanation is not clear (Vide H. R., 'September, pp. 265-266). Vide my commentary.
Sloka 18. V.'s explanation is incorrect (Vide H. R., August, p. 163). Vide my commentary.
Sloka 19. V.'s explanation and calculation are both very incorrect ( Vide H. R., August, pp. 166-167) Vide my demonstrated explanation.
Sloka 20. Here V. spoilt his explanation by assigning a different meaning to तिथि. (Vide H. R., August p. 167). My explanation and proof may be seen.