Talk:ॐ

Romanization displaying incorrectly
Romanization under "Noun" showing up as "au.m" (with dot between U and M). Can this be fixed to display properly using Arial Unicode MS or whatever normal fonts most users have? 24.29.228.33 04:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a font/technical issue. I have reverted the entry back to how Dijan had set it up, including the transliteration.  I am somewhat at a loss as to what the best transliteration should be for this, and so have left it as he had it.  I have tagged it with attention for Sanskrit, and could also tag it for Hindi attention, if you feel the transliteration is incorrect.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I have never seen a transliteration having a dot (period) between letters rather than under one of the letters. 24.29.228.33 07:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the intent there is to emphasize that this is a digraph of "au" and "m". -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
The etymology currently states: ओ (long o) and ँ (nasal m) That would explain the sound but not quite the appearance. ओ + ँ = ओं in normal modern devanagari characters, but ऊ (long u) + ँ = ऊँ, which looks a lot closer to the om/aum symbol.

Any ideas? &mdash; hippietrail 11:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * अ + उ = ओ in Hindi/Sanskrit. Lightbluerain (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Declension
How is this declined (or is it)? Benwing2 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My suspicion is (I am checking) that the alternative spelling with a virama is used, with inflected forms dropping it when "m" has a following vowel. I can see some Google hits for forms  or . AryamanA might know better. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Anatoli is right, this is a special symbol that is never declined. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 02:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Etymology disputes?
I saw you added the text in Etymology: A Parpola proposes borrowing from Proto-Dravidian *ām (“let it be so, it is so, yes”), a contraction of *ākum, cognate with Tamil ஆம் (ām, “yes”). M. Blumfield proposes derivation from Proto-Indo-European *au (“introductory particle”) via ō>ōṃ>ōm, cognate with Ancient Greek αὖ (aû). The Upaniṣads propose multiple Sanskrit etymologies, including: from Sanskrit आम् (ām, “yes”); from Sanskrit एवम् (evam, “that, thus, yes”); and from Sanskrit आप् (āp, “to attain”) or Sanskrit अव् (av, “to urge”). I don't think there is any dispute in the etymology. It is written in Vedas as such, and Shiv Purana says the word was chanted by Sadashiva first from where it came in Vedas and other scriptures. Upnishads are not as authentic as Vedas. Lightbluerain (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not delete this? Lightbluerain ❄ (Talk | contribs)  03:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)