[INDOLOGY] satya

[Madhav Deshpande]

Just for additional information, perhaps the oldest etymology for the word
satya was offered by a grammarian named Śākaṭāyana.  This is referred to by
Yāska in his Nirukta [1.13, 1.14], where we are told that Śākaṭāyana
derived parts of a word from other words [padebhyaḥ padetarārdhān
saṃcaskāra śākaṭāyanaḥ].  Śākaṭāyana derives the "ya" of satya from the
causative of the root "i" [eteḥ kāritaṃ ca yakārādiṃ ca antakaraṇam], while
he derives the "sat" of satya from the root "as" [asteḥ śuddhaṃ sakārādiṃ
ca].  It is not entirely clear what meaning Śākaṭāyana saw in this
etymology.  Nirukta [1.14] seems to suggest that there was no meaning
connection between these elements thus derived, and it seems to fault
Śākaṭāyana [atho etat padebhyaḥ padetarārdhān saṃcaskāra iti / yaḥ ananvite
saṃcaskāra, sa tena garhyaḥ] for proposing an etymology with constituents
that do not meaningfully relate to each other.  Śākaṭāyana probably
believed that all constituent elements proposed in an etymology need to be
derived from a verb-root.

Madhav Deshpande
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmisra at gmail.com> wrote:

> A member asked offline why there is no ‘jaśtva’ (‘t’ to ‘d’ change) by
> ‘jhalāṃ jaśo’nte’ (A. 8.2.39) in sat + ya = satya, unlike in cases like
> sat + yukti = sadyukti
> sat + yoga = sadyoga
>
> I am copying the answer here too. The reason is that due to ‘yaci bham’ (A
> 1.4.18), ‘sat’ in ‘sat + ya’ is not a ‘pada’ but a ‘bha’. This is why
> ‘jhalāṃ jaśo’nte’ is not applicable. ‘yaci bham’ does not apply in
> ‘sadyukti’, ‘sadyoga’, etc.
>
>
> On 3 October 2016 at 22:20, Howard Resnick <hr at ivs.edu> wrote:
>
>> Thank you.
>> Howard
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmisra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The derivations I am aware of are
>>
>> sati sādhu satyam
>> sat + yat (*tatra sādhuḥ*, A 4.4.98) = satya
>>
>> or
>>
>> sate/sadbhyo hitaṃ satyam
>> sat + yat (*tasmai hitam*, A 5.1.5) = satya
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 October 2016 at 20:53, Howard Resnick <hr at ivs.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Scholars,
>>>
>>>         Does the derivation of satya, truth, from ‘sat’ follow any
>>> particular set of rules for derivative nouns?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Howard
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Nityānanda Miśra
> http://nmisra.googlepages.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20161004/71470d17/attachment.htm>