Send sanskrit mailing list submissions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sanskrit digest..." Today's Topics: 1. The term aorist etc (Vidhyanath Rao) 2. Re: On sudhaapaayam & nirjaraavaasam (Vidhyanath Rao) 3. "Na" or "na" in vibhaktis? (Vis Tekumalla) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:35:35 -0400 From: "Vidhyanath Rao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Sanskrit] The term aorist etc To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Interestingly, aorist etymologically means 'indefinite', 'without limitation'. The really bad term is "imperfect". [There are examples of professional linguists who have been misled by this term, protests to the contrary not withstanding.] As the exact sphere of the use of la^N, liT, lu^N: I find this a fascinating topic, and the discussions in mahaabhaaSya on this seem to have an unavoidable inconsistency. When I have more time, I might try to expand on this. Nath Rao Nath Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] 740-366-9341/5-9341 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:29:04 -0400 From: "Vidhyanath Rao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Sanskrit] On sudhaapaayam & nirjaraavaasam To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > ARSji: > Could you kindly give references to the Panini Sutras relating to your > discussion? If I may jump in here: I presume the reference is to 3.4.35 > The 'Namulanta' (aM affix) as I understand is > equivalent to the 'tvA' affix which is a gerund > (adverbial indeclinable participle). Not quite: As a genral rule, ktvaa is for actions that precede the action specified by the main verb. Namul was originally for accompanying action, and expanded into description of manner (which are pragmatically difficult to distinguish). For example: (from aitreya braahmaNa) yad vigraham anubruuyaat, "if one were to say (the Rks) piecemeal" is not quite the same as yad vigRhyaanubruuyaat, "if one were to separate (the Rks) and then say (them)". Panini's rules restrict the usage of Namul to specified situations compared to the freer use in braahmana prose and show indications of the expanding range of ktvaa, but this difference is still there (taking priipsaa, 'hurry', as a metaphorical extension of simultanity). > W.D. Whitney (Sanskri Grammar) commenting on > its rarity of use states " in the epics it > is extremely infrequent; later,also, it occurs > very sparingly" (p 360). Perhaps this is why this was called "intricate rule of grammar": It is not intricate as much as obscure. <getting on the soapbox> It is hard for many Indians to accept the dates of the current texts of Mahabharata and Ramayana, especially vis-a-vis Panini. This is worsened by the fact that the prejudices of Whitney still exert an influence (even if not overt) leading us to put too much weight on the Epics to understand the "syntax of Sanskrit". That can only be understood as evolving, affected by the changes in the everyday language, and not as unchanging: There is an interesting exchange in one of the dramas of chaturbhaaNi (dhuurtaviitasaMvaada?). One of the characters, proud of his grammatical learning, insists on using lu^N, san (desiderative), etc. he is chided (quoting from memory) 'vyavahaarikayaa bhaaSayaa vada' (which means not Prakrit, but the use of Sanskrit words in a Prakritic syntax, as other characters do). On the other hand, applying current understanding of evolution of syntax and comparative syntax to Vedic prose, Pali Canon, Prakrit, in that sequence, and the acceptance of the fact that the current text of the Epics show Prakritic influence in syntax, will lead to proper appreciation of Panini's syntactic rules, especially those felt to be strange, intricate or artificial. Thank you and now I will get off the soapbox. Nath Rao ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:37:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Vis Tekumalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Sanskrit] "Na" or "na" in vibhaktis? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" namaste: I recall three rules from a long ago lesson regarding the usage of "Na" and "na" when declining subantas. 1. For subantas that have a "ra" or "Sha" letter anywhere inside of them, when declined, a "Na" should be used in declined word. Examples: raameNa, raamaaNaam, hariNA, puShpaaNi (for the words raama, hari, and puShpa) 2. If however, "ra" and "Sha" are absent in the word, "na" should be employed instead. Examples: devena, devaanaam, kavinA, phalaani (for the words deva, kavi, and phala) 3. Also, regardless whether the word contains "ra" or "Sha," if the word itself contains a "na" or "Na," the declined word should also use a "na." Examples: naaradena, guNinA, vanaani (for naarada, guNi, and vana) Are the rules I stated above accurate? Are there other rules (and exceptions) that govern the usage of "Na" and "na" in vibhaktis? Thank you. ...Vis Tekumalla [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/private/sanskrit/attachments/20040907/eaaed1d4/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ sanskrit mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/sanskrit End of sanskrit Digest, Vol 18, Issue 12 ****************************************