Re: [INDOLOGY] root skr̥?

[Madhav Deshpande]

Thanks, Hans.  Indeed, that is the sort of difference I am noticing here.
Without a comment, Śākalya renders the *askr̥ta *of the Saṃhitā to *akr̥ta *in
the Padapāṭha.  This has both historical and theoretical implications.
Since we don't have Śākalya's grammar with us, Pāṇini shows what synchronic
grammarians might do with such things.  But for this specific example, I
don't remember seeing a particular rule in Pāṇini that would take us
from *akr̥ta
*of the Padapāṭha to *askr̥ta* of the Saṃhitā with augmentation of the root
with "*s*".  The closest I find is P.6.1.136, which says that the augment "
*s*" can be attached even when there is intervention by the past tense
marker "*a*" or reduplication of the root. The example of the first is
*sam-a-s-karot*. In RV we have 10.127.03a  *nír u svásāram **askr̥ta*, though
the pre-verb/preposition *nis/nir *is separated from the verb *askr̥ta*, it
is the intended combination *nir-a-s-kr̥ta* or the base verbal combination
*niṣkaroti/niṣkurute* that explains the "s" in this form.  Perhaps a good
example of "s-mobile".

Madhav

Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]


On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:29 AM Hock, Hans Henrich <hhhock at illinois.edu>
wrote:

> Thanks, Madhav.
>
> The padapāṭhakara evidently considered *askṛta* to be anomalous from his
> synchronic perspective; and Pāṇini’s treatment too makes synchronic sense.
> Here as elsewhere we need to remember that the Sanskrit grammatical
> tradition was synchronic, whereas western approaches to Sanskrit,
> especially to Vedic, tend to be diachronic.
>
> For historical-comparative linguists this difference, and the different
> conclusions regarding forms like *askṛta, pariṣkṛta*, should actually be
> quite instructive; they raise interesting questions about the development
> of the language after the “Ur-Ṛg Veda”. (George Cardona has had interesting
> things to say in this regard, in reference to metrical issues.)
>
> I hope you are keeping well,
>
> Hans
>
>
> On 29 Oct2020, at 17:53, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello Hans,
>
>      The fact that R̥gveda 10.127.3 has *askr̥ta* but the Padapāṭha has
> *akr̥ta*, probably explains why Pāṇini did not include a root * skr̥*,
> but only proposed a contextual insertion or augmentation with "*s"*. Best,
>
> Madhav
>
> Madhav M. Deshpande
> Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics
> University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
> Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies
>
> [Residence: Campbell, California, USA]
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 3:24 PM Hock, Hans Henrich <hhhock at illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Addition: A Sanskrit example of *s-*mobile would be the coexistence of a
>> root *tan-* and a root *stan-, *both meaning ‘thunder’
>>
>>
>> Dear Madhav and All,
>>
>> There is also *pari-ṣkṛta-**. *Unfortunately, Mayrhofer could not find
>> any convincing parallels outside Sanskrit. However, there is a general
>> phenomenon in Indo-European, called *s*-mobile (the varying presence or
>> absence of a root-initial * s*). The Wikipedia entry "
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_s-mobile” has a useful
>> summary, as well as some relevant references. (An alternative, but more
>> speculative explanation would be that in structures like *namaskṛ* the
>> *s* was reinterpreted as a simplification of earlier *ss* (similar to
>> *asi* ‘you are’ for expected *as-si*, not also the Vedic external sandhi
>> for *-s#st* etc.) and that this led to the notion that there is an
>> alternative root form *skṛ-*.)
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Hans
>>
>>
>> On 29 Oct2020, at 16:58, Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY <
>> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> In R̥gveda 10.127.3 there is a verb form *askr̥ta* showing the trace of
>> the root *skr̥*.  The Padapāṭha of Śākalya presents this form as *
>> akr̥ta*, indicating that the root *skr̥ *as an independent root is no
>> longer recognized. What is going on? Can one presume that forms like
>> *saṃskaroti* where Pāṇini prescribes the insertion of "s" are actually
>> survivals of this earlier root *skr̥*.  Please suggest references that I
>> can look up.
>>
>> Madhav M. Deshpande
>> Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics
>> University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
>> Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies
>>
>> [Residence: Campbell, California, USA]
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20201030/12a13790/attachment.htm>