Sanskrit

[Dominique.Thillaud]

>Let us now look at the Sanskrit examples Sandra van der Geer
>provided (in a message Re: Sanskrit Fri, 3 Jul 1998 09:37:14 +0200)
>
>1) rAmo nalAya pustaka.m dadAti
>2) rAme.na nalAya pustaka.m dIyate
>3) nalo rAme.na pustaka.m dApyate
>
>1) means "R. gives N. a book"/"A book is given to N. by R."/"N. is given a
>book by R.".
>2) means "R. gives N. a book"/"A book is given to N. by R."/"N. is given a
>book by R.".
>3) does not mean the same thing as 1) and 2). I believe it should be
>paraphrased as "raamo nalaM pustakaM daapayati", and mean "R. makes N. give
>a book"/"N. is made by R. to give a book" (N.B., if Apte explains an
>utterance like this, I missed it. So be cautioned that the source of this
>interpretation (Elliot) is a lesser, and fallible, authority!)*
>
>If Sandra meant that 3) is semantically equivalent to 1) and 2), I too
>would like to know how that can be so.
>
>Elliot

        Perhaps just a problem with 'semantically'.
        At low-level we can consider passive and causative being reciprocal
functions:
1) le chat mange la souris
2) * le chat fait être mangee la souris (= le chat fait que la souris est
mangee [par le chat])
3) * le chat est fait manger la souris (= que le chat mange la souris est
fait [par le chat])
        Evidently, 1) = 2) = 3) is just a low-level equivalence, not a
fully semantical equivalence. The same occurs with the double negation: not
just an assertion but a strong assertion.
        Regards,
Dominique

Dominique THILLAUD
Universite' de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France