[INDOLOGY] Fwd: Question on Sanskrit Syntax
jpo at uts.cc.utexas.edu
Wed Dec 31 15:31:12 UTC 2014
Sorry, looks like my earlier message went only to George. Here it is for all.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Patrick Olivelle <jpo at uts.cc.utexas.edu>
> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Question on Sanskrit Syntax
> Date: December 31, 2014 9:16:38 AM CST
> To: George Cardona <cardonagj at verizon.net>
> In response to George, actually my critical edition (as also that of Jolly) have the reading of Medhātithi. The other reading is found in the later and northern manuscripts; the important southern transmission in Grantha, Telugu, and Malayalam script manuscripts have Medh's reading; and so do medieval authors such as Vijñāneśvara, Aparārka, and Devaṇṇabhaṭṭa. Here are the manuscripts recording sabhā vā na praveṣṭavyā in my note (the small letter in front of the sigla indicate the script):
> The reading adopted is supported by Me and Go. The alternate is given by Ku and Rn, but Ku acknowledges the correctness of Me's reading: medhātithinā tu sabhā vā na praveṣṭavyā iti r̥jv eva paṭhitam. This reading is found in: Bo Ho Hy Jo2 nKt4 Lo1 Lo3 gMd1 tMd3 gMd5 gMy sOx1 nPu1 Pu2 Pu4 Pu5 sPu6 Pu7 Pu8 Tj1 Tj2 Tr1 Tr2 mTr4 mTr5 mTr6 Wa [Jolly M G N R Nd] Vij Apa Dev Jha Jolly. Cf. NSm Mā 3.9
> On Dec 31, 2014, at 8:31 AM, George Cardona <cardonagj at verizon.net> wrote:
>> In this context, it may be noted that commentators on Manu 8.13 (sabhāṁ vā na praveṣṭavyaṁ …) also read sabhā vā na praveṣṭavyā. Thus Medhātithi, and Kullūka remarks medhātithinā tu sabhā vā na praveṣṭavyeti ṛjveva paṭhitam. Doubtless, the apparatus on this verse in Patrick Olivelle’s critical edition, to which I do not have access at the moment, can contribute here. George
>>> On 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,
>>> 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
>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the INDOLOGY