sharonbendor at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 19 14:34:19 UTC 2022
Dear Rishi Rajpopat,
Thank you for the reply.
I don't have Joshi's translation of the kārakāhnika. I would be thankful if someone would provide me with a scan of the two relevant pages.
I looked at your note 75. You mention only the example gehaṃ praviśati/ *gehe praviśati which is problematic. At the moment, I have only the Mahābhāṣya with the Pradīpa and Uddyota. With Nāgeśa's comments on the bhāsya (vārttika 33), I think the argument of bhāṣya is clear and valid. According to Nāgeśa, the form 'gehe praviśati' is incorrect. Only 'gehaṃ praviśati' is correct ["gehe praviśati grāme āgata ity ādi tv asādhveveti bodhyam"] - Although I see that in Monier Williams dictionary, the object of this verb can be in the accusative or locative. The conflict occurs because the house concerning the activity of 'pra viś' is both the desired object (A.1.4.49: kartur īpsitatamaṁ karma) and the location (A.1.4.45: ādhāro' dhikaraṇam) [gehaṃ praviśatīty ādau gehādhikaraṇako gehakarmako vyāpāra iti bodhaḥ]. According to Kātyāyana, Patañjali and Nāgeśa, it is desired that the object 'geha' be karma, thus with an accusative ending. By A 1.4.1 and A 1.4.2, only A.1.4.49 applies because it is mentioned later. So, the speaker's wishes, whether he/she wants to express kartur īpsitatama or ādhāra, are irrelevant in respect to this example.
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 12:14:11 AM GMT, Rishi Rajpopat via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
It's so good to hear from you!
And thanks for your interest.
Firstly, contrary to your statement, I do actually discuss the issue you have raised about the karakas. Please see footnote 75 on pg 31 of my thesis. Contrary to what the tradition says (see joshis essay mentioned below for details) there is no conflict at all between the rules you mention. The two labels are never simultaneously applicable and the choice between the two karakas in question lies entirely with the speaker, as I say in my thesis too in the aforementioned footnote. (SD Joshi has written a beautiful piece on this: see pages x and xi of the introduction to his translation of the karakahnika of the MBH)
And no, it has to be param because it has to agree with karyam ("rhs operation"). So nominative.
Enjoy your holidays! 😀
On Sun, 18 Dec, 2022, 7:01 PM 川村悠人, <ykawamura0619 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Rishi and colleagues,
> Like Sharon, I'm also curious about how your interpretation of paratva could solve the problem of the co-application of kāraka names that does not involve the concept of the left-right sides/parts: apādāna (1.4.24) vs. karaṇa (1.4.42), or karaṇa (1.4.42) vs. kartṛ (1.4.54), for example. The utsarga-apavāda relation does not hold in these rules, unlike 1.4.45 and 1.4.46 you cited on p. 31 of your thesis, and hence ‘the apavāda tool’ cannot be used here to ‘identify the winning rule’. At a cursory glance, you do not seem to have discussed these issues in your thesis, the issues which I think are crucial to your new interpretation of paratva.
> Another simple impression is: if Pāṇini had intended what you said, would the rule have been formulated as . . . pare/parasmin kāryam ‘operation applicable to the right side/part’ instead of paraṃ kāryam?
> With best wishes,
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
More information about the INDOLOGY