Re: [INDOLOGY] Antw: Re: Antw: Noun praṇat

[Harry Spier]

Thank you to everyone who replied on-list and off-list.
Harry Spier

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:00 PM Harry Spier <vasishtha.spier at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear list members,
> I have received these two offlist replies that address what Raik Strunz
> wrote:
> Raik Stunz wrote:
> unfortunately I have not come across the word *praṇat*- yet, but it (*
> *praṇát*-) might be formed depending on pāda c’s *bhūbhr̥t*- from the
> prefixed root-noun *pra-nm̥-t*-, similar to nasal-root compounds e.g. in °
> *gat*. Question is indeed, if this nasal derivative is productive.
> ------------------------------------
>
> Offlist reply:
>
> I think Raik Strunz’s analysis is exactly right. Additional evidence that
> he is correct is that Patañjali mentions a form su-na-t- from √nam (cited
> in Altindische Grammatik II, 2 p. 42). Such forms are rare, but they occur.
> If pra-ṇa-t- is a one-off, which is probably is, again Strunz is surely
> right that it is based on bhū-bhṛ-t- in c.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:40 PM Raik Strunz via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
>> Dear Nagaraj,
>>
>> regarding
>>
>> *kalyāṇyai praṇatāṃ vr̥ddhyai siddhyai kurmo namo namaḥ* ।
>> *nairr̥tyai bhūbhr̥tāṃ lakṣmyai śarvāṇyai te namo namaḥ* ॥
>>
>> considering this to be the case,
>> what would be the meaning of it,
>> resp. what would *praṇatām* then refer to,
>> interpreted as a f.acc.sg. participle / verbal adjective in °*ta*?
>>
>> Best,
>> Raik Strunz
>>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Other Offlist reply:
> I think praṇatāṁ makes sense as a feminine accusative sg form in the
> sense of "she who is worshipped for vr̥ddhi and siddhi."  I cannot think of
> a way to explain this as a genitive plural.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Also Walter Slaje suggested an emendation:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Since however in Mark-Purāṇa 85.7cd we read:
>
> *namaḥ prakṛtyai bhadrāyai niyatāḥ praṇatāḥ sma tām*,
>
>
>
> I suggest a simple emendation *praṇatāḥ* (plural agreeing with plural
> *kurmo*), which would result in:
>
>
> *kalyāṇyai praṇatā vṛddhyai siddhyai kurmo namo namaḥ*
>
>
>
> In one word: remove the *anusvāra*-dot. And done.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>  A manuscript of the durgasaptasati from the Lalchand Research library has
> a different version of this verse (two different words in the phrase with
> praṇatāṁ ) but it also has praṇatāṁ not praṇatā (from praṇatāḥ). It has:
>
>
> Kalyāṇyai praṇatāmṛddhyai siddhyai kūrmyai namo namaḥ/
> nairṛtyai bhūbhṛtāṁ lakṣmyai śarvāṇyai te namo namaḥ//11//
>
> Does this not suggest  praṇatām is correct?
>
> Harry Spier
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20191210/8053fc16/attachment.htm>