[INDOLOGY] satya

[Howard Resnick]

Thanks for this information.
Howard

> On Oct 4, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:hr at ivs.edu>> wrote:
> Thank you.
> Howard
> 
>> On Oct 2, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmisra at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
>> indology-owner at list.indology.info <mailto:indology-owner at list.indology.info> (messages to the list's managing committee)
>> http://listinfo.indology.info <http://listinfo.indology.info/> (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Nityānanda Miśra
>> http://nmisra.googlepages.com <http://nmisra.googlepages.com/>
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nityānanda Miśra
> http://nmisra.googlepages.com <http://nmisra.googlepages.com/>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info <mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
> indology-owner at list.indology.info <mailto:indology-owner at list.indology.info> (messages to the list's managing committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info <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/20161005/9d93c516/attachment.htm>