[INDOLOGY] Question on Sanskrit Syntax

Wed Dec 31 01:03:20 UTC 2014

Dear  Indologists,According to Panini's Grammar it is well advisable that we accept prapyate as a passive form of causative prapayati .Then it is construed with the accusative form svargam.It has also been suggested by Prof Cardona.Girish K. JhaProfessor,Dept of SanskritPatna UniversityPatna 800 005 
      From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dipak.d2004 at gmail.com>
 To: Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu> 
Cc: "indology at list.indology.info" <indology at list.indology.info> 
 Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 10:41 PM
 Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Question on Sanskrit Syntax

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:

<sabhāmvā na praveṣṭavyam (Manu 8.13)>30 12 14Dear Colleagues,Perhaps the Pāṇinian assessment of the case is notexactly what has been observed here. According to the Pāṇinian system the kṛtya-categorysuffixes may mean the action or the object (3.4.70). When action is meant by thesuffix in praveṣṭavyam it does not affect the object of the active voicewhich shall retain its second (dvitīyā) case-ending by 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. Thisexplains sabhām. But when it means the object it becomes an adjective itmust have the number, gender etc of the object. The above means that in the Pāṇinian system theproblem of Mādhav which occurs with a finite verb and not with a kṛtya-suffixis not solved by the example from Manu. In the sentence cited by Madhav, whichhas a passive-voice, the object is understood as abhihita (by 3.4.69) andnormally its case-ending should be the first one by 2.3.46. I just put the Pāṇinian point of view without anyclaim to its theoretical correctness. The basic problems of the Pāṇinianstandpoint have been dealt with by me in a recent publication on Pāṇini withstatement of its opponents' standpoints. But I have not yet got a copy of thebook. The problem of accord between the kṛtya-endingword and its corresponding noun has often to be faced in Sanskrit. Cf., śakyamañjalibhiḥ pātuṃ vātāḥ ketakagandhinaḥ Rām., Kiṣkindhā 28.8. Here too śakyamis taken to mean the action.My best wishes for all for a happy 2015DB
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

_______________________________________________
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/20141231/e9a42224/attachment.htm>