[INDOLOGY] A grammar question

[Nityanand Misra]

The Paṇinian form is indeed *dveṣāvahai* as attested in the
*Siddhāntakaumudī* under *luṅi ca* (SK 2434, A 2.4.43). I do not recall any
special rule for *vi + dviṣ*, so the Paṇinian form would be *vidveṣāvahai*,
and the form *vidviṣāvahai *would be a *chāndasa* usage where the lack of
*guṇa* can either be explained by extending one of the *bahulam *rules to
cover this case or as an *ātmanepada *usage from the *nāmadhātu
**vidviṣa *formed
from the word *vidviṣa* (=*vi + dviṣ + ka *by *igupadhajñāprīkiraḥ kaḥ*, A
3.1.135) meaning enemy by *sarvaprātipatikebhya ācāre kvibvā vaktavyaḥ* (V
3.1.11).

MacDonnel/Whitney may have missed this form.


On 15 August 2016 at 03:17, Harry Spier <hspier.muktabodha at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear list members,
>
> Apologies if this is an elementary question.
>
> In the Shanti mantra taken from the Taittiriya Upanishad
>
> saha nāvavatu saha nau bhunaktu saha vīryaṁ karavāvahai tejasvi nāvadhītam
> astu mā vidviṣāvahai
> Why is it  vidviṣāvahai and not  vidveṣāvahai similar to the form   dveṣāvahai
> ?
> I couldn't see it listed as an irregular form in MacDonnels grammar for
> students or his Vedic grammar for students or Whitney.
>
> Thanks,
> Harry Spier
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
>



-- 
Nityānanda Miśra
http://nmisra.googlepages.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20160815/fd7153bd/attachment.htm>