[INDOLOGY] Non-standard sandhi

[Jan E.M. Houben]

Dear Martin,
Thanks for the instructive clarification.
Clearly, I had imagined your author as a better author than he actually
was.
There is, then, perhaps only the very exceptional sandhi such as the one in
RV 8.72,5 paada c to "save" him (and that for either -e or -o + a- > -a +
a- according to MacDonell's comment on it) and his Taajika- (Persian?) text
on astrology.
Well, best of luck with the interpretation...
Jan

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 21:55, Martin Gansten <martingansten at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Jan,
>
> the domain in which you are specializing is fascinating and some
> rudimentary knowledge of it is useful, even indispensable, for art
> historians and for other Sanskritic śāstras including kāvya -- should hence
> evoke a more than lukewarm interest of Indologists and readers of this
> list...
>
>
> Encouraged by this positive evaluation, I am sharing my reply with the
> list.
>
> It is indeed "the nub" of my argument to take "*sahita asya* to represent *sahitaḥ
> asya* rather than *sahite asya*" because the latter option, as we have
> seen, leads nowhere except for turning an author elsewhere eager to
> communicate meaning accessible to 99 percent of his contemporaneous public,
> into an obscurantist who can only be fathomed by 1 percent
>
>
> With respect, though, we haven't actually seen that. You claimed it, and I
> said that even if it were so, etc. In fact, I would still like to know on
> what you base that claim, as I cannot see it at all.
>
> -- plus a whole tribe of philologists centuries later who are ready to
> accept suddenly, ad hoc, a Vedic sandhi, etc., in what otherwise seems to
> be a śāstric text in impeccable classical Sanskrit.
>
>
> The sandhi problem is the same in either case, as far as I can see.
> Sahitaḥ + asya ought by standard practice to have resulted in sahito 'sya.
>
> Next, trying to think in line with your argument and in the wider context
> of your interpretation, what could be the syntax of the verse?
>
> Apparently there are two options separated by vā. The expression yadgṛhe
> asks for a corresponding term, in the first option tatra, in the second
> option, I would suggest, tena (gṛhena, rather than, in your interpretation,
> janmalagnapatinā).
>
>
> But what would that mean? *In that house which is aspected by that
> [house]* does not make any sense. And conventionally it is the planets
> that are invested with 'sight' or aspect.
>
> Both options lead to the same result: asya ... labdhis. If tatra and tena
> go with yadgṛhe, asya probably does *not* refer to yadgṛhe -- here I
> would modify my previous suggestion: could it go with janmalagnapatir?
> Could the janmalagnapatir, the lord of the first house, have something to
> do with the own body and hence with aṅgasukham?
>
>
> The body is considered the portfolio of the first house, and, by
> extension, of the ruler of the house. So the latter is a special case of
> the former: the ruler of the first house would affect the body, but so
> would planets occupying or aspecting the first house itself.
>
> Then, if both options lead to the same result, what could be the precise
> *difference* between them? In the first, the janmalagnapati is said to be
> uttamavīrya, and the house where he resides is (positively) aspected
>
>
> But the 'positively' is not in the text. The fact of the house being
> aspected by the strong ruler of the ascendant is itself considered
> positive, regardless of the type of aspect.
>
> -- whether tatra ... dṛṣṭe is a locative absolute or whether it is in
> direct concord to yadgṛhe. In the second, in my suggested reading, he is
> not necessarily uttamavīrya, but at least sahita with "that", i.e. with
> that house. MW 1095 col. 1 gives "(in astron.) in conjunction with (instr.
> or comp.)" for sahita. In western astrology, "in conjunction with" is
> always a matter of plus or minus 2-3 degrees, so that a planet can be in
> conjunction with another planet or even a house even if it is not squarely
> coinciding or residing in it, even if it is just outside that house:
> possibly Indian astrology is here more black and white,
>
>
> Both Indian astrology and ancient and classical astrology generally are
> indeed clearer in their distinctions than modern western astrology, but
> that is slightly beside the point: the present question is of a more
> technical and, to some extent, terminological nature. If a planet were
> within a few degrees of the first house but not actually in it, it would
> necessarily be in some other house: either the second (which relates
> primarily to wealth and assets: dhanabhāva) or the twelfth (which concerns
> losses and the like: vyayabhāva). This is true irrespective of which method
> is used for dividing the houses: there are no empty spaces between them. It
> would be highly counter-intuitive for Yādavasūri to state pleasures of the
> body as the only result to be expected from a planet actually placed in
> either the second or the twelfth house, even if it were close to the
> juncture with the first.
>
> The way I understand the syntax of the verse under consideration, the
> correlates of yadgṛhe are, first, tatra (with tatra ... dṛṣṭe ... vā
> sahit[e] indeed being a locative absolute, tatra standing in for tasmin for
> metrical reasons -- slightly inelegant, but not unusual), and second, asya.
> Tena refers to the agent of the two passive participles, which has to be
> something other than the house itself and therefore can only be the ruler
> of the ascendant. The conclusion of the verse bears this out: if [the
> planet] is in the first house (tanau), there is pleasure of the body, which
> is the domain of the first house. The ruler being sahita 'joined' thus
> clearly means being placed *in *a house (locative).
>
> I take your point about not neglecting particles and so on, but in a
> metrical text, I think a madhyamā pratipad is the wisest option. Sometimes
> these little ca, tu, hi, etc., really are just there to fill out a line,
> especially if the writer is an indifferent verse-maker, or in a hurry, or
> temporarily uninspired. I speak from experience. :-)
>
> Best wishes,
> Martin
>
>

-- 

*Jan E.M. Houben*

Directeur d'Études, Professor of South Asian History and Philology

*Sources et histoire de la tradition sanskrite*

École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE, PSL - Université Paris)

*Sciences historiques et philologiques *

54, rue Saint-Jacques, CS 20525 – 75005 Paris

*johannes.houben at ephe.sorbonne.fr <johannes.houben at ephe.sorbonne.fr>*

*johannes.houben at ephe.psl.eu <johannes.houben at ephe.psl.eu>*

*https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben
<https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben>*


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20190320/6a269f6a/attachment.htm>