[INDOLOGY] Question on Sanskrit Syntax

Wed Dec 31 05:07:39 UTC 2014

<it is well advisable that we accept prapyate as a passive form of
causative prapayati> It is not a case of mere word formation according to
rules. A causative will be odd with three non-causatives in the verse -- 2
लभतेs and 1 प्राप्यते
Best
DB

On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 6:33 AM, girish jha <jhakgirish at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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. Jha
> Professor,
> Dept of Sanskrit
> Patna University
> Patna 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:
>
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a444f40a/attachment.htm>