[INDOLOGY] Question on Sanskrit Syntax

Tue Dec 30 17:11:14 UTC 2014

Thanks! But my intention was not one of clarifying the usage but of drawing
attention to the elusive character of the solutions offered. I never got a
satisfactory answer to the problems associated with abhidhaana, with due
respect, even from Pata;njali.
Best
DB

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu> wrote:

> Dear Dipak,
>
>      Thanks for these clarifying comments.  The syntax of constructions
> with passive forms of śak is very complicated.  Patañjali's usage of
> "śakyam (neuter nom) cānena śvamāṃsādibhir api kṣut (fem nom) pratihantum"
> in the Mahābhāṣya has generated long debates in the commentaries.  With
> best wishes,
>
> Madhav
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Dipak Bhattacharya <
> dipak.d2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <sabhām vā na praveṣṭavyam (Manu 8.13)>
>>
>> 30 12 14
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> Perhaps the Pāṇinian assessment of the case is not exactly what has been
>> observed here. According to the Pāṇinian system the kṛtya-category suffixes
>> may mean the action or the object (3.4.70). When action is meant by the
>> suffix in *praveṣṭavyam* it does not affect the object of the active
>> voice which shall retain its second (dvitīyā) case-ending by 2.3.1 and
>> 2.3.2. This explains *sabhām*. But when it means the object it becomes
>> an adjective it must have the number, gender etc of the object.
>>
>> The above means that in the Pāṇinian system the problem of Mādhav which
>> occurs with a finite verb and not with a kṛtya-suffix is not solved by the
>> example from Manu. In the sentence cited by Madhav, which has a
>> passive-voice, the object is understood as *abhihita *(by 3.4.69) and
>> normally its case-ending should be the first one by 2.3.46.
>>
>> I just put the Pāṇinian point of view without any claim to its
>> theoretical correctness. The basic problems of the Pāṇinian standpoint have
>> been dealt with by me in a recent publication on Pāṇini with statement of
>> its opponents' standpoints. But I have not yet got a copy of the book.
>>
>> The problem of accord between the *kṛtya-*ending word and its
>> corresponding noun has often to be faced in Sanskrit. Cf., *śakyam
>> añjalibhiḥ pātuṃ vātāḥ ketakagandhinaḥ* Rām., Kiṣkindhā 28.8. Here too
>> *śakyam* is taken to mean the action.
>>
>> My best wishes for all for a happy 2015
>>
>> DB
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Of all the explanations I have received, this one seems most convincing,
>>> and especially the example from Manu seems like a good parallel.  Thanks,
>>> Hans.
>>>
>>> Madhav
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Hock, Hans Henrich <
>>> hhhock at illinois.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Hi, Madhav.
>>>>
>>>>  If *prāpyate* is construed as a verb of motion (in the sense
>>>> ‘reach’), the structure has precedents; compare the structure below, which
>>>> shows that with verbs of motion the goal is not always construed as object
>>>> in post-Vedic. Of course, the parallel with *labhate* might suggest an
>>>> interpretation ‘obtain’. In that case (i.e., if it is not to be taken as a
>>>> motion verb), there may be a parallel in late Sanskrit (one of the versions
>>>> of the Vetālapañcaviṁśati, perhaps the one edited by Uhle); unfortunately I
>>>> can’t find the exact reference.
>>>>
>>>>  sabhām vā na praveṣṭavyam (Manu 8.13)
>>>>
>>>>  All the best for the New Year,
>>>>
>>>>  Hans
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On 28-Dec-2014, at 7:52, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  n a Sanskrit work titled Nityācāradarpaṇa by Brahmānanda, on p. 2, I
>>>> see a quotation from Dakṣasmṛti:
>>>>
>>>> आचाराल्लभते पूजामाचाराल्लभते प्रजा: ।
>>>> आचारात्प्राप्यते स्वर्गमाचारात्प्राप्यते सुखम् ।।
>>>>
>>>> Here, ācārāt prāpyate svargam is an irregular usage, unless one assumes
>>>> that the word svarga is somehow used in neuter gender.  With the normal
>>>> masculine gender of the word svarga, svargam would be an accusative case
>>>> form, and this does not fit well with the passive verb.  In Marathi, such
>>>> passive constructions are possible: रामाने (instrumental) रावणाला
>>>> (accusative) मारिले (passive verb).  This usage alternates with a more
>>>> Sanskrit like passive: रामाने रावण (nom) मारिला/मारला (nom).  I am
>>>> wondering if anyone has come across Sanskrit passive (bhāve) constructions
>>>> where the object shows up in the accusative case.  Any information or
>>>> suggestions are appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Madhav M. Deshpande
>>>> Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
>>>> Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
>>>> 202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
>>>> The University of Michigan
>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Madhav M. Deshpande
>>> Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
>>> Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
>>> 202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
>>> The University of Michigan
>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Madhav M. Deshpande
> Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
> Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
> 202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
> The University of Michigan
> Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20141230/2e835db6/attachment.htm>