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
****************************************
