Re: [INDOLOGY] Patañjali's syntax

[Adriano Aprigliano]

Dear Andrew,

Yes, I think it works. I feel insecure about the causal nature of ha, though. 

Also by applying this value of vai as topic marker, wouldn't eṣaḥ –not apaśabdaḥ— be on the predicate spot, since [yad apaśabadaḥ] should be a predicate in apposition to an already given predicate?

I don't know If I could made made myself clear...

I keep thinking.
 
Best wishes
Adriano


Prof. Dr. Adriano Aprigliano
Área de Língua e Literatura Latina
 
Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas
Universidade de São Paulo
São Paulo, Brasil








Em 30/10/2013, às 16:53, Andrew Ollett escreveu:

> Dear Adriano,
> 
> I am by no means an expert, but I would agree with Dr. Hock about "invariable yat" (discussed by Gonda in Lingua 4:1ff.) for the following reasons:
> I take "ha" to be a causal particle (= yasmāt, hence yat != yasmāt);
> I take "vai" to mark the topic of the sentence (usually equivalent to the subject: in most nominal sentences, the subject comes AFTER the predicate, i.e., X Y should be translated as "Y is X," but X-vai Y should usually be translated as "X is Y");
> hence "for this mleccha (viz., 'mleccha' in the prohibition "na mlecchitavai") in fact means (yat) 'a bad word'"
> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Adriano Aprigliano <aprigliano at usp.br> wrote:
> Dear colleague,
> 
> Still on the order matter, in the commentary you quote, the commentator understands eṣaḥ as bound to apaśabdaḥ, forming the subject part of the sentence (eṣo'paśabdaḥ), and mlecchaḥ as the predicate —if I understood it right– ("this deviant word is [indeed] barbaric, known as barbaric"). But if that is so, how to account, syntactically, for yad being in between eṣaḥ and apaśabdaḥ in the original text? Would it be possible with eṣaḥ as an adjective pronoun? 
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Prof. Dr. Adriano Aprigliano
> Área de Língua e Literatura Latina
>  
> Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas
> Universidade de São Paulo
> São Paulo, Brasil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Em 30/10/2013, às 13:00, George Cardona escreveu:
> 
>> Dear colleague, If I understand you properly, you consider that the expected form should be yaḥ, construed with apaśabdaḥ, hence the syntactic problem.  On the other hand, yad can be adverbial, equivalent to yasmāt.  This is the syntax given in the Sūktiratnākara (ed. Vaman Shastri Bhagavat, p. 44.5-6): हवैशब्दौ प्रसिद्धिवाचकौ । यद् यस्मादेषोऽपशब्दो म्लेच्छो म्लेच्छतयातिप्रसिद्ध इत्यर्थः।
>> On Oct 30, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Adriano Aprigliano wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>> 
>>> I have been having doubts on how to translate this MBhāṣ sentence (Kielhorn, p.2, line 8):
>>> 
>>> te'surāḥ. te surā helayo helaya iti kurvantaḥ parābabhūvuḥ. tasmād brāhmaṇena na mlecchitavai nāpabhāṣitavai. mleccho ha vā eṣa yad apaśabdaḥ.
>>> 
>>> The problem is on the last sentence, what to make of that yad apaśabdaḥ. I start with ' for this one/he is indeed a mleccha...". 
>>> 
>>> Any suggestions?
>>> 
>>> best wishes
>>> 
>>> Prof. Dr. Adriano Aprigliano
>>> Área de Língua e Literatura Latina
>>>  
>>> Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas
>>> Universidade de São Paulo
>>> São Paulo, Brasil
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> http://listinfo.indology.info
> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20131030/329e3d8f/attachment.htm>