Re. Sanskrit syntax problem: Double bind constructions

Arlo Griffiths A.Griffiths at LET.LEIDENUNIV.NL
Mon Mar 15 19:35:01 UTC 2004

The dehalii-diipa- or came up in a recent
discussion between myself and Werner Knobl. He provided me with the
following references:

Laukika-nyaayaanjali.h . A Handful of Popular Maxims
Current in Sanskrit Literature. Parts I, II & III, Collected by Colonel G.
A. Jacob: I 18 for and I 30 for

Apte's Appendix E (pp. 52-76):  58b,
dehalii-diipa-  62b-63a.

A Vedic example seems to be the following Kuntaapa mantra, very corruptly
transmitted especially as regards accentuation:

AV ;Saunaka-Sa.mhitaa 20.135.12 (;Saa:nkh;SS 12.16.5, .RVKh 5.21.2)

tv;am indra kap;otaaya +chinnapak.s;aaya v;a;ncate |
+;sy;aamaaka.m pakv;a.m +p;iilu ca v;aar asmaa +ak.r.nor +bah;u ||

'You, o Indra, provided for the staggering pigeon whose wings were clipped
much ripe millet [cf. Bhaar;SS 6.18.1 ;] and
p;iilu-fruit, [and your provided] water for it.'

pakv;am here qualifies both the preceding and the following substantive

Arlo Griffiths

> From: Hartmut Buescher <buescher at HUM.KU.DK>
> Reply-To: Indology <INDOLOGY at>
> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:20:36 +0100
> Subject: Re. Sanskrit syntax problem: Double bind constructions
> Prof. Aklujkar has sent me an important addition to the present discussion
> off-list. With his permission, it is now being shared with the list (note,
> however, that he sent his mail early in the morning [i.e., before he saw the
> other sugestions of Skt. names referring to double bind constructions]; it
> was me who returned late).  HB
> Dear Mr. Buescher,
> In the following publication (a) to which Jan Houben refers in his footnote
> to which you refer and (b) to which you yourself later allude indirectly,
> you will notice that I have given the name "dehalii-diipa use of the
> genitive" to the grammatical phenomenon of double bind construction.
>> The Speijer centennial volume "Studies in Sanskrit Syntax", ed. by H. H.
> Hock. 
> My article "Syntactic Gleanings ..." p. 4. or section 2.4.<
> Recently, Prof. Albrecht Wezler observed in a seminar at Kyoto in which we
> both participate that one could speak of the phenomenon also as
> use.
> Subsequent to 1991, I have collected examples of cases other than the
> genitive similarly used.
> The sentence you have cited, however, will not do as a suitable example as
> others have pointed out. Nor should one confuse the phenomenon with the
> trope or figure of speech called diipaka.
> You may post this note on the Indology list if you wish. Unfortunately, I am
> unlikely to find the time needed to participate in further discussion.
> With best wishes.
> ashok aklujkar 
> Scholar-in-residence at Kyoto University until end of March 2004

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list