Re: [INDOLOGY] root skr̥?

Sat Oct 31 12:56:39 UTC 2020

Dear Madhav,

The addition of suṭ poses quite a few difficulties. Because you mentioned Kāśikāvṛtti sūtra A 6.1.136, I think it is relevant to point out one of the explanations of the Pradīpa and Uddyota under the Bhāṣya on A 6.1.135 vt.7 which offers an unconventional point of view on the matter. There, Kaiyaṭa says that Patañjali’s argument “evamartham eva tarhi kātpūrvagrahaṇaṁ kartavyaṁ kātpūrvo yathā syāt” (Bh III.93.3-4) may alternatively mean that pūrva in A 6.1.135 is used for specifying the stage when suṭ should be added (kālāvadhāraṇa) - when ḍukṛñ begins with the sound k, before the addition of aṭ or the reduplication. Nāgeśa comments that this is Patañjali’s final opinion on the issue. With this explanation, Kātyāyana’s vārttikas 5 and 6 on A 6.1.135, or Kāśikāvṛtti’s sūtra A 6.1.136, are unnecessary. But it does not solve all the difficulties mentioned by the commentators. For example, A 7.2.43 may undesirably be applicable in samskṛṣīṣṭa because there is an aṅga that begins with a saṃyoga and ends with ṛ (sam skṛ+liṅ). 

In my opinion, the requirement, introduced by Kātyāyana in his vārttika on A 1.1.66/67, that the preceding and following items must be in an immediate sequence without any other intervening item is unnecessary. As far as I can see, this requirement does not have any purpose and causes many difficulties. In addition, the Bhāṣya on A 1.1.57 (Bh 244.10-11) argues that pūrva is used also when there is something in between, as in “pūrvaṃ mathurāyāḥ pāṭaliputram”, and Kātyāyana says “dṛṣṭam ānantaryaṁ vyavahite” (A 1.1.7 vt.7-Bh I.59.11).

Yours

Sharon

On Friday, October 30, 2020, 9:30:06 PM GMT+2, Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info> wrote: 

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)
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
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)