[INDOLOGY] A distraction from the Coronavirus

[Girish Jha]

Dear Professor Houben
I am overjoyed to read your reply.You have presented a great deal of
grammatical materials in order to derive "yaaji". Only Panini 3.3.110
resolves this problem which was not in my memory.Yaaji is in the sense of
sacrifice and is also conducive to the popular usage.Acc. to Unadi rule
"vasi vapi" quoted in the Siddhanta Kaumudi it conveys the sense of a
karta( agent)which is not required in the said context.
व्युत्पत्तिमालोक्य पदस्य याजे र्मनः प्रसादं नितरां प्रयाति।
हे शब्दशास्त्रीयविवेकदक्ष मुहुर्मुहुस्त्वामभिनन्दयामि।।
Girish K.Jha
Retd University Professor
Dept of Sanskrit,  Patna University
Residence : Kolkata


On Sun, 12 Apr 2020, 04:42 Jan E.M. Houben, <jemhouben at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Prof. Jha,
> No Ṛṣi-status required: it is not that difficult to derive *yāji* as
> action noun from *yaj* ‘to venerate (ritually)’, ‘to sacrifice’ (hence
> having a meaning equivalent to another action noun derived from *yaj*:
> *yajña* '(ritualized) veneration', 'sacrifice').
> See Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī 3.3.110 *vibhāṣākhyānapraśnayor iñ ca* and the
> Kāśikā.
> If I understood correctly, Vasiṣṭha is replying to a question of king
> Daśaratha, so the form could probably be justified in the context of the
> story ;)
> In addition, there is Uṇādisūtra pāda 4, sūtra ca. 124-134 (depending on
> the edition): *vasivapiyaji...vāribhya iñ*.
> Commentaries give here examples of mostly feminine action nouns, but in
> the case of *yāji* some commentaries explain the meaning, exceptionally,
> as an agent noun : sacrificer. Śabdakalpadruma vol. 4 p. 31 gives *yāji*
> as a masculine noun and notes that it means sacrifice, but acc. to another
> authority: sacrificer. Wackernagel AiG Band 2, 2 p. 301 mentions an
> occurrence of *yāji *(also in Hauschild's Register p. 190) in the sense
> 'offering' ('das Opfern') in Manu 10.79, but this must be a mistake for
> *yaji* which I see in all editions available to me and which, unlike
> *yāji*, gives a correct metre.
> Best regards,
> Jan Houben
>
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 05:14, Girish Jha <jhakgirish at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues
>> Whether अश्वयाजि is a ऋषि प्रयोग.If not,it is difficult to derive in my
>> view.I have not seen this usage.Please clarify.
>> Girish K.Jha
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020, 21:29 Jan E.M. Houben via INDOLOGY, <
>> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>>
>>> Or, to be preferred metrically:
>>> रक्षिताः संवृताश्चैवेत्यश्वयाजेरसंभवः ॥
>>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 17:32, Jan E.M. Houben <jemhouben at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alternatively for the second line:
>>>> रक्षिताः संवृताश्चैवेत्यश्वक्रतोरसंभवः ॥
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 16:43, Christian Ferstl via INDOLOGY <
>>>> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to
>>>>>
>>>>> a private note sent by Prof. Eli Franco, I change the last pāda to:
>>>>> vājimedho nv asaṃbhavaḥ, or even: hayamedhaṃ nu mā kṛthāḥ, which makes
>>>>> Vasiṣṭha's words sound more archaic, doesn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Christian
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 10.04.2020 08:01, schrieb Christian Ferstl:
>>>>> > And Vasiṣṭha pointed out another problem:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > कोरोनासमये राजन् राष्ट्रसीमाः समन्ततः ।
>>>>> > रक्षिताः संवृताश्चैव वाजिमेधो न संभवः ॥
>>>>> >
>>>>> > “In times of Corona, o king, the borders of your reign are all
>>>>> guarded
>>>>> > and closed. A horse sacrifice is not possible.”
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Am 09.04.2020 11:18, schrieb Christian Ferstl:
>>>>> >> Lockdown in ancient Ayodhya:
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20200412/896e5d49/attachment.htm>