[INDOLOGY] Pali question

Sat Aug 9 20:41:24 UTC 2014

Dear Chris,

Your elucidation is of course legitimate, although I should like to note
that K.R. Norman in his revision of W. Geiger's grammar (PTS, Oxford, 2005)
has not supplied any additional notes on that matter. He merely states that
"hitvā" is a correct form, see §§ 209-210. The early PTS editors didn't
have many MSS. at their disposal, and MSS. do contain typos, mistakes and
erroneous readings. Newer editions, though not "fully academic", are often
more trustworthy. According to the CST 4.0, there are 603 matches for
"hitvā" in 111 Pāli "books", while there are no matches for "hitva" at all.
But the problem of readings is delicate, so, probably, it's a good idea to
wait for the "Dhammakaya edition" academic paleographers' take on this
issue. The issue is also discussed in the T. Oberlies' "Pāli" (2001,
Berlin, p. 126, § 25), where it is suggested, in short, that "hitva" is a
rare, occasional form (which occasionally, not as a rule, happens if a
sandhi consonant "m" is inserted: "hitvamaññaṃ"). The point I should I like
to stress is that "-tvā" and  "-tva" are not equally legitimate and correct
forms. And in my opinion the best answer to the original question "Is hitvā
(long a) a legitimate variant..?" would be: "hitvā" is perfectly standard,
correct and legitimate, while "hitva" is rare and problematic".

With kindest wishes,
Gleb Sharygin
Insitute of Oriental Studies, Moscow
Ph.D. Candidate.

2014-08-09 20:00 GMT+04:00 <indology-request at list.indology.info>:

> Send INDOLOGY mailing list submissions to
>         indology at list.indology.info
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology_list.indology.info
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         indology-request at list.indology.info
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         indology-owner at list.indology.info
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of INDOLOGY digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Pali question (Gleb Sharygin)
>    2. Puloman (Howard Resnick)
>    3. Re: Pali question (Chris Clark)
>    4. Calukya/Caulukya, etc. (Martin Gansten)
>
>
> ---------- Пересылаемое сообщение ----------
> From: Gleb Sharygin <gleb.sharygin at gmail.com>
> To: indology at list.indology.info
> Cc:
> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2014 00:42:16 +0400
> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Pali question
> Dear Dr. Walser,
>
> "-tvā" is perfectly grammatical and standard, while "-tva" isn't (must be
> a typo. Most PTS editions were made on a basis of only a few MSS.) See
> Geiger's "A Pāli grammar", §§ 209-210.
>
> With best regards,
> Gleb Sharygin
>
> > I was using the CSCD Pali canon and noticed that in the Sutta Nipata, the
>> > fourth verse of the Upasivamanavapuccha has the line: Ākiñcaññaṃ nissito
>> > hitvā maññaṃ. The PTS has, Ākiñcaññaṃ nissito hitva maññaṃ;
>> >
>> > Is  hitvā (long a) a legitimate variant that appears in the Burmese
>> > version or the Thai version, or is it a typo?
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > -j
>> >
>> > Joseph Walser
>> > Associate Professor
>> > Department of Religion
>> > Tufts University
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> http://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology_list.indology.info
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------- Пересылаемое сообщение ----------
> From: Howard Resnick <hr at ivs.edu>
> To: Indology List <indology at list.indology.info>
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 19:17:00 -0400
> Subject: [INDOLOGY] Puloman
> It is said that Indra killed his father-in-law Puloman. Could anyone
> kindly explain the circumstances of that slaying? Thanks!
>
> Howard
>
>
>
> ---------- Пересылаемое сообщение ----------
> From: Chris Clark <chris.clark at inbox.com>
> To: indology at list.indology.info
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 15:56:04 -0800
> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Pali question
> Dear Gleb,
>
> While hitvā is standard Pāli, in this verse hitva is m.c. for hitvā, as
> pointed out by Norman (2006: 391) in his translation and study of Sn (“The
> Group of Discourses”). Based on the critical apparatus of the PTS edition,
> it appears that hitva was the reading found in the editors' Sinhala script
> manuscript witnesses, while hitvā was the reading found in their Burmese
> script manuscript witnesses. Neither reading is erroneous.
>
> Regards,
> Chris Clark
> PhD candidate
> University of Sydney
>
> ---
>
> Dear Dr. Walser,
>
> "-tvā" is perfectly grammatical and standard, while "-tva" isn't (must be
> a typo. Most PTS editions were made on a basis of only a few MSS.) See
> Geiger's "A Pāli grammar", §§ 209-210.
>
> With best regards,
> Gleb Sharygin
>
> > I was using the CSCD Pali canon and noticed that in the Sutta Nipata, the
> > fourth verse of the Upasivamanavapuccha has the line: Ākiñcaññaṃ nissito
> > hitvā maññaṃ. The PTS has, Ākiñcaññaṃ nissito hitva maññaṃ;
> >
> > Is  hitvā (long a) a legitimate variant that appears in the Burmese
> > version or the Thai version, or is it a typo?
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -j
> >
> > Joseph Walser
> > Associate Professor
> > Department of Religion
> > Tufts University
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Пересылаемое сообщение ----------
> From: Martin Gansten <martin.gansten at pbhome.se>
> To: Indology <indology at list.indology.info>
> Cc:
> Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 15:22:16 +0200
> Subject: [INDOLOGY] Calukya/Caulukya, etc.
> I’d be grateful for some elucidation on the following from list members
> knowledgeable about royal dynasties in medieval India, particularly the
> northwest:
>
> In his Daivajñālaṃkṛti (1336 CE), the author Tejaḥsiṃha, apparently of
> Gujarat and belonging to a family of (former?) royal ministers (mantrin),
> extols the Prāgvāṭa dynasty (vaṃśa) in general and speaks particularly of a
> certain Vikrama, apparently standing in some sort of feudatory relationship
> to ‘the glorious King Śāraṅgadeva, whose fame had become the head-ornament
> of the kings born in the illustrious Cālukya dynasty’
> (sphūrjac-cālukya-vaṃśodbhava-nṛpati-śirobhūṣaṇī-bhūta-kīrteḥ
> śrīmac-chāraṅgadevāhvaya-puruṣapateḥ…). My questions are:
>
> 1. I had understood the Cālukyas and Caulukyas to be two different
> dynasties, the Cālukyas being earlier and primarily ruling in the South,
> whereas the Caulukyas ruled in the northwest. Is there any way that
> ‘Cālukya’ could be anything other than a scribal error here? (I have access
> only to a single MS of the text, but Pingree’s CESS [A3 89], based on a
> different MS, gives the same reading, without comment.)
>
> 2. Tejaḥsiṃha doesn’t quite call Śāraṅgadeva a Cālukya/Caulukya, but
> almost. I’m assuming that this is the Vaghela king Śāraṅgadeva, which would
> fit the time frame. Are the Vaghelas typically (or at least sometimes)
> considered Cālukyas/Caulukyas?
>
> 3. Is the Vikrama associated with Śāraṅgadeva known from any other sources?
>
> As always, many thanks in advance for any help!
>
> Martin Gansten
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> http://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology_list.indology.info
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20140810/a40f82f2/attachment.htm>