[INDOLOGY] Fwd: Patañjali's syntax

[Dominik Wujastyk]

George Cardona sent me the following clarifications in the *karmaṇi
ghañ*issue, that I reproduce with his kind permission:​

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: George Cardona
Date: 31 October 2013 21:24
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Patañjali's syntax
To: Dominik Wujastyk


Dear Dominik, Not just Kaiyaṭa but also other commentators take *mleccha *of
*mleccho ha vā eṣa yad apaśabdaḥ* to be a derivate with *ghañ* signifying a
karman.  And clearly they mean to derive the term from *mlech* with *ghañ* in
accordance with *akartari ca kārake sañjñāyām*.  They also derive *mleccha* of
*mlecchā mā bhūma* from the same base, but with agentive *ac*
(*nandigrahipacādibhyo
lyuṇinyacaḥ*).  Thus, *mleccha* refers first to a term (*śabda*) that is
indistinctly/incorrectly uttered, then to the speakers who utter such
indistinct terms.  Patañjali explains that *apaśabda *refers to what is
commonly known as a mleccha.  That is, emphasis here is on incorrect speech
(*apaśabda*) in the phonic aspect, identified with the indistinct speech of
the Mleccha ('barbarian' if you will), as is clear from the
Śatapathabrāhmaṇa passage comparable to the present Bhāṣya passage. I think
The Sūktiratnākara and others got this right.  The contested issue of the
syntax is, to my mind. not so clear as some have made it.
​[...]
I don't know whether this is an improvement, but it my two cents for the
moment.  Yours, George


On Oct 31, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Dominik Wujastyk wrote:

I'm still nagging at what Kaiyaṭa means by "karmaṇi ghañ".  My present best
idea is that he's invoking P.3.3.19 *akartari ca kārake saṃjñāyām*.  This
implies an origin from *mlich*, which is odd, but can be ignored, I think.
So "*mleccha*" is the recipient of the action.  This may explain the future
pass. part. that Nāgeśa uses, *nindyā* "to *be* blamed" (passive).  *Mleccha
* = "despicable", i.e., it is the *recipient* of criticism.  And P.3.3.19
makes "*mleccha*" a *saṃjñā*, which is right too. (I don't believe that P.
meant *ca* to negate *saṃjñāyām*, even if this *ghañ* is desired in non-*
saṃjñā* cases.)

I hope someone can improve on this :-)

Dominik


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20131101/f6d31dbd/attachment.htm>