Here are somethings I have learned from going through index a.
This link is verse 1.20. It does not say Arjuna spoke the following words to Krishna in the verse. So what I have learned is in a single line in 1.21 Arjuna does speak to Sri Krishna and there is a dialogue. Nonetheless I do see each verse can be a stand alone sentence and if the verse applies to Bhagavan speaking or about Arjuna it reveals itself.
2.33 says Krishna encourages Arjuna of the righteous war in chapter 1. Krishna does not encourage righteous war but rather to do own duty (the own duty could be not giving up on the battle field). However, no where in the entire work of Index A I got that impression he was encouraging war at all, he was only guiding Arjuna towards spiritual life.
There are words in verse 1.42 in actual Gita (not my own work) that words patanti is translated to fall down or 16.20 apanna to mean shall stop from falling into. So I have taken liberties this way with 3.39 analena and 4.29 (apane) and 4.4 (aparam) and 4.30 (apare), and words like atha, ami, avani, smadiyair, tan, matah and few other words in verses to mean Telugu (though it is not exactly the way people understand Telugu also). It does however make sense in the way language is understood reading from left to right, memorized and understood. The Sanskrit words do not have to be jumbled up (as with actual Gita’s out there) to draw meaning in English if they are given the correct meaning and sure the end result of drawing this meaning is not English in the way English is spoken but at the least it does justice for the Sanskrit language and meaning for people who have affinity for it’s melody. The Sanskrit language all of it is not intact, Hindi at times sounds like urdu ( or it is close to urdu) and Telugu is not exactly Sanskrit though it is close relative as with other Indian languages. What I want to say is Sanskrit no longer exists, it cannot be authentic in it’s form in the way we would only associate with certain people or region. Since the first time I opened Gita I felt like I was reading a form of Telugu Sanskrit that I did not quite understand and it has become my karma to do this work, and I am on my own on this journey. I have even created my own shabda table also.
I would like to mention this about na (not) na (my) (with a line on a) and nah. I have used it in all these contexts.
Na – to mean not.
Na (with a line on a) to mean my.
Nah — to mean belonging to whatever is being discussed.
https://wordpress.com/post/iksvakave.wordpress.com/12970
A picture of the shabdha table I created.
https://iksvakave.wordpress.com/category/iksvakave-entries-am-i-a-hindu/the-shabda-table/
I am not sure how people study Sanskrit or if this is relevant, but this is how the words made sense to me in English.
A picture of my dictionary I am keeping along with my work, if you have not seen it already.
Anyway, these are some notes into my work with index a. Thanks for taking a look!
