Aambhik....!!! & some bloopers!! ONLY BLOOPERS !! - Page 6

Originally posted by: vik rocks

well, maybe coz the show comes only two days a week😕 or maybe things are being sorted out & soon this forum will get a DT. all we can do is hope for the best😍😍

Originally posted by: rinku4u

why so many bloopers?😲 dhananand saying "janamdin" it should be "janam tithi".. & why "wajah se"..? it should be "kaarann".or "hetu". 😲... it was not derived in vedic age was it?😆

why "saamne" it should be "sammukh".. & "muquabla"..? .. 😲 chunauti is the right word....

ooof😡

Originally posted by: _Vrish_

I agree w/ Rinku above. While some of the words, like janamdin and saamne, would be okay on the grounds that others have mentioned - making it something for the average viewer, some of the other words are downright anachronistic, as they crept into Hindi and other Indian languages only after Muslim invasions. I mean, if anybody used the term 'Badshah' to describe Nanda, or 'haj' to describe a pilgrimage, would that sound right to you? Certainly not, since those entities didn't exist at the time, and weren't relevant to the cultures. There is something to be said for being culturally accurate. So words that didn't exist then shouldn't be used. I'd even avoid using 'hazar' for thousand.

In Chetan Desai's cartoon adaptation of 'Ramayan, the epic', the language used there was very much the same as one heard in the Sagar serials, even though the targetted audience was kids. I thought it was a bit much, but one gets the point. The convention I'd use is that if a word is descended from Sanskrit words, like janamdin and saamne, I'd be okay w/ it being used here. But if it's imported from languages that weren't there in India during the period in question i.e. Urdu, Arabic, Turkic, Farsi, English, et al, one should strive for the originals. Therefore, words like 'wajah se' and 'muqabla' and 'waqt' definitely don't belong here.

Originally posted by: _Vrish_

Okay, I've pulled this back from pg 24 😆

Previously, when they showed Ambhik, I thought it was different from Ambhi, the ruler of Gandhara who allied w/ Alexander. For everyone who knows the story of Paurava/Porus, Ambhi was enemies w/ him, not Chandragupta. In order to be one-up on Paurava, Ambhi offered to ally w/ Alexander, and it worked: Alexander was only too happy to accept an ally. Last night, they showed Alexander as being completely distrustful of Ambhik, but if the 2 Ambhiks being discussed are the same, that event was long past.

Ambhi made an alliance w/ Alexander, who then moved against Paurava, and defeated and captured him in battle. He was pleased w/ his response, which was to be treated like a king, and so released him & restored him his kingdom. (Surprised that none of the Persian rulers thought of the same.)

Anyway, all that happened long b4 Chandragupta became a force to reckon w/ in Magadha. While Chanakya did have those lofty goals, by the time Chandragupta became the ruler, Alexander was gone from India, and Selukus remained.

I understand that they are dramatizing this story, but this meeting of Ambhik w/ Alexander at this point looks like a blooper. The reason Chanakya was interested in an Akhand Bharat was that Alexander was already in Gandhara, and causing trouble. He didn't approach Dhananand the first time in a vacuum.