Another Translation Please

Could someone translate the following Sanskrit text. It belongs to a "vortex antenna" similar to the one I asked a translation for, some time ago.

On the face of it, it is meaningless.

Maybe its in ardhamaagadhii or paalii, both of which i don't know...

Is there some context to dilate upon the meaning?

Could you tell me how it is pronounced then - how it sounds?

It may be just a "sound".

the word seems to be un-pronouncable

its definately a rare word, provided that it is a correctly written word.
it can be pronounced as: (D- as u pronounce "the"- V - as u prononuce "we"- Y- as u pronounce ya- RIJ-RILIR)

ivan,

where did you find this? i guess person wanted to write "divyajala" and has written " Da vi ya ja aa la aa"

i dont think its "Divyajala" because the letter writen instead of hindi/Sanskrit "A" is different from whats written in that word. Its "Ri" of the words like "Rishi" in Hindi/ Sanskrit alphabets

The inscription is on a round plate an which one puts a water recipient in order to "energise" the water.

I asked the same question on the Thorn Tree, and it was suggested that it is Pali and sounds like "Dwiyajala".

Since "jala" is "water" in Pali (Dictionary), that could make sense, as it is supposed to do something to the water placed on it.

There remains the "dwiya" (or "dviya). Someone on TT suggested the "twice born" (brahmins).

So "twice born water" maybe... "double water"... "sacred water"... ?

If you are correct and its "divya" and not "Dwiya", could that then mean "divine water"?
(take into account that it may be Pali)

yes it would mean "divine water", if its "divyajala"

and it looks pure devanagari to me. i don't know pali

Oh yes!!! Now that Nomad has pointed it out, it IS a wrongly written form of divya jala. This happened to me also. When i used the itranslator 2003 software devanaagarii output to display on the WIN 98 OS, i got the same result... the short "ee" sound gets printed AFTER the intended consonant. In Sanskrit it then is a short "ee" sound belonging to the following letter.

It displays correctly on WIN XP. The older Itrans-99 displays correctly on both.

Here's the devanaagarii version. It means "divine water" which can be extrapolated to mean "divinely energized/charged water"

दिव्यजल

It could also be construed as "immortal water from heaven" something on the lines of "manna from heaven" As a matter of fact, RAIN also is divine water coming from "heaven".

So, if what you wrote is the devanaagarii version, what's the version on the "antenna"?

I mean, is the script on the image in my first post devanaagarii, or is it some Pali script, and what is the language, Pali or just badly wspelled Sanskrit?

Also, is what you wrote the Sanskrit version?

I'm asking, because I will mail the link to this thread to the guy who is (supposedly) making these "antennas", to see what he has to say.

It is devanaagarii.

Sanskrit, Hindi and MaraaThii are written in this script.

The first three letters are jumbled up due to software incompatibility [methinks]

The last three are all right, but the writer is joining the consonant sound with the vowel symbol and showing them separately.

In the first letter, 'd' the vowel 'i' should precede "d" but due the software display glitch, it succeeds "d". [in effect precedes "v" ]

The second letter "v" does not have a vowel sound, which is correct. [barring*]

The 3rd, 4th, 5th are written correctly with the vowel sound [barring*]

Only problem is the technique may be proper to teach someone the mechanics of the script & pronunciation... but it is not written this way.

[barring *] Even if the system of [consonant+vowel written separately]were accepted for a moment, the consonant would be written with a oblique stroke below its leg. This is something the writer may not know... [i assume]

Also, the writer is not fully aware of the way the language is actually written, coz it was never ever written this way [even a thousand yrs ago]. It is a teaching method [i assume] which has been unknowingly transferred to the hard copy.

Considering these factors, and not considering the software display problem, [there was an IM thread on this too... i can't search for it coz it wasn't my pet topic/s]... i guess the writer has written ""correctly""