Grammar. Philosophy and Epistemology

[george thompson]

Dear List,

George Hart's comments about the connection between the connotations of 
Sanskrit words and semantically related terms in other Indic languages 
are well taken, but as far as I can see this issue hinges rather simply 
on Harsha Dehejia's ability to offer concrete textual evidence that 
there is in fact a real semantic split between the roots dRS- and paz-.  
To many of us it is clear that the relationship between these two verbs 
is merely suppletive.  Anyone who would challenge this obvious objection 
is obliged, I would think, to offer some sort of evidence.

I haven't seen any evidence.

George Thompson

George Hart wrote:

> The issue of connotation in Sanskrit is an extremely complex one.  I  
> would suggest the following:
>
> 1. In the classical period, Sanskrit cannot be considered a language,  
> but rather is a style.  It is the same language as the various  
> Prakrits (which are dialects of each other and of Sanskrit).  A  
> similar situation (diglossia) exists in Tamil and older Telugu.   
> Formal Tamil is every bit as different from the various kinds of  
> spoken Tamil as Sanskrit is from the Prakrits.  In the Sanskrit  
> plays, characters who speak Prakrit have no difficulty understanding  
> those who speak Sanskrit, just as even illiterate Tamilians can  
> easily understand formal Tamil, even though it is very different from  
> the language they speak.
>
> 2. The connotations words have in Sanskrit are influenced, and  
> perhaps even determined, by the use of tadbhavas and tatsamas in  
> Prakrits and other languages (including, of course, Dravidian).
>
> 3. Because of this, Sanskrit words change their meanings -- or at  
> least their connotations -- over time.  Styles of Sanskrit also change.
>
> 4. Everyone who writes in Sanskrit from classical times to the  
> present is deeply and profoundly influenced by his/her native  
> language or Prakrit.  In this regard, Sanskrit cannot be separated  
> from the other Indian languages.
>
> Of course, Sanskrit writers are also influenced by earlier Sanskrit  
> texts also.  A good example is the Bhagavatam.  Its writer concocts  
> pseudo-Vedic forms while using many elements from the Tamil spoken by  
> Srivaisnavas in Tamil Nadu.
>
> In sum, it does seem to me that to properly understand Sanskrit  
> usage, it is essential to look at the Prakrits and other Indian forms  
> of speech and languages.  One should be aware that the meaning (or at  
> least connotation) of words in Sanskrit is a moving target.  And one  
> should know another Indian language well.  I rather doubt that paz  
> and dRz have different meanings, but a glance at Prakrit usage would  
> surely help out in this regard.  Similarly, to understand Ramanuja,  
> it is (I would argue) essential that one know Nammazvar and be  
> acquainted with the extraordinary range and richness of his Tamil  
> lexicon (e.g. the use of nalam in the first Paacuram of the  
> Tiruvaaymozi).
>
> This brings to mind one more issue regarding Sanskrit.  Ingalls, as I  
> remember it, claimed that Sanskrit has perfect synonyms, and that in  
> this regard, it differs from ordinary languages.  For example nRpa,  
> raajaa, and bhuumipa all mean exactly the same, while in English  
> "king" and "monarch" have different connotations (the same for the  
> many words for "king" in Tamil).  It seems to me that the  
> connotations of these words are mediated by their usage in other  
> languages.  A Tamil would understand all three Sanskrit words, but  
> each would have slightly different weight or degree of formality.   
> Surely, this is transferred into Sanskrit when that Tamil speaker  
> writes in that language.
>
> George Hart
>
> On Oct 12, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Dominik Wujastyk wrote:
>
>> What Madhav is saying is that the pazya- and dRz- don't have any  
>> semantically significant distinction.  Their distribution in  
>> language usage is governed by the *formal* requirements of  
>> grammatical suppletion, not by semantic significance.  Madhav  
>> certainly isn't dismissing a connection between grammar and  
>> philosophy!  The pazya- / dRz forms are mutually-exclusive formal  
>> alternates, whose occurrence depends on formal grammatical  
>> conditions, not on semantic context.
>>
>> The Paninian rule that bears on this is 7.3.78, which rules that  
>> "pazya" replaces "dRzi" when followed by a suffix with the marker  
>> "z".  There is no suggestion here of any semantic trigger to the  
>> rule: the trigger is purely formal.
>>
>> In strictly Paninian terms (and vaiyakaranas, please correct me if  
>> I'm wrong) there is no dhatu "paz" meaning "see", but only "dRz".
>>
>> So, it would be wrong to say that pazyati means "he sees" in  
>> contrast to, say, tasya darzanam vartate, "he has [profound] vision  
>> or insight".  The statements are semantically identical.  Both  
>> phonetic forms can signify a range of "see" acts, determined by the  
>> sentences they occur in. Historical lexicographical study on these  
>> terms as embodied in the standard dictionaries also does not  support 
>> a difference.
>>
>> There's a reasonable summary on grammatical suppletion at
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppletion
>> (I'm constantly surprised by Wikipedia.)
>>
>> Best,
>> Dominik
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Harsha Dehejia wrote:
>>
>>> Freinds:
>>>
>>> While I respectfully agree with Madhav Despande's grammatical  
>>> exposition of Sanskrit terms pazya and dRz I am not totally  
>>> convinced that one can totally dismiss the connection between  
>>> grammar and philosophy.
>>>
>>> Pazya means to see and drz is vision or insight. Seeing does not  
>>> automatically lead to vision, it requires contemplation.
>>>
>>> Sanskrit grammar is naunced with many implications.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> Harsha
>>> Harsha V. Dehejia
>>> Professor of Indian Studies, Carleton University
>>> Ottawa, ON. Canada.
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: "Deshpande, Madhav" <mmdesh at UMICH.EDU>
>>>> Reply-To: Indology <INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk>
>>>> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>>> Subject: Re: Indian epistemic terms
>>>> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:36:05 -0400
>>>> Dear Harsha,
>>>>
>>>>      'pazya' and 'dRz' have a suppletive relationship in Sanskrit  
>>>> like'go' and 'went' in English.  Both 'pazya' and 'dRz' taken  
>>>> separately have incomplete paradigms, but in the actual usage of  
>>>> the language, these two roots complement each other.  So the  
>>>> passive form corresponding to pazyati is dRzyate, and so on.  The  
>>>> Rgvedic passage uta tvaH pazyan na dadarza vAcam uta tvaH zRNvan  
>>>> na zRNoty enAm exhibits this suppletive behavior.
>>>> Madhav M. Deshpande
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Indology on behalf of Harsha Dehejia
>>>> Sent: Wed 10/11/2006 5:08 PM
>>>> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>>> Subject: Re: Indian epistemic terms
>>>> Friends:
>>>> An important concept that is overlooked by epistemologists is  that of
>>>> DRISHTI or visual knowledge.
>>>> While PASHYATI is a verb there is no verb like DRASHYATI. This  is  
>>>> the
>>>> beginning of an inquiry into visual knowledge.
>>>> I am trying to develop this concept further.
>>>> Regareds.
>>>> Harsha
>>>> Harsha V. Dehejia
>>>> Professor of Indian Studies, College of Humanities
>>>> Carleton University, Ottawa, ON. Canada.
>>>
>>>
>
>