Ref. check verse 6.41 Bhagavad Gita

Charles Wikner WIKNER at NACDH4.NAC.AC.ZA
Mon Mar 8 06:35:08 UTC 1999

On Fri, 05 Mar 1999, John Smith <jds10 at CUS.CAM.AC.UK> wrote:

> It's not so much a question of authority as of usage. (I am here going to
> use "pure" Harvard-Kyoto ASCII: "M" means anusvara, "&" means
> candrabindu.)  Whitney, for instance, notes that the normal MS usages are
> "trIMlokAn" or "trI&llokAn", and suggests that a "better" usage would be
> "trI&l lokAn". (Grammar, 206a.) He also states that, "according to the
> Hindu grammarians", final *m* before l- becomes a nasalised "l", in
> exactly the same way as happens to final -n (71, 206, 213d) -- so that the
> use of anusvara for -n is "just as reasonabl[e]" as for -m.

Thanks very much for the explanation and references.

While accepting the _fact_ of anusvAra usage for -n in MS,
I question Whitney's comment that it is "just as reasonabl[e]".
For the tradition that makes the anusvAra substitution before
a semivowel there would be no difference in pronunciation, but
for those that do not make the substitution (as M-W dictionary)
such anusvAra usage would be incorrect according to Panini
(-n --> &l necessarily by torli, but -m --> &l optionally by
vA padAntasya).  Of course, which is more "correct" depends
whether MS usage or Panini is taken as more authoritative.
(And I'm not getting into that argument!)

> > I see no objection to taking puNyakRtAn as accusative plural
> > of bahuvrIhi puNyakRta: worlds prepared for the meritorious/
> > created by merit (as dvaita/advaita interpretations).
> I presume you mean tatpuruSa, not bahuvrIhi.

Oops! Thanks for the correction.

In the light of Whitney's observation, and Madhav Deshpande's
expansion on the topic (thanks for that!), puNyakRtAn seems
more likely than puNyakRtAm.

Regards, Charles.

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list