[INDOLOGY] asti as copula

[Nagaraj Paturi]

To your

> I have noted that Speijer seems aware of no such avoidance, and gives a
couple examples of what he understands to be copulative *asti* from the
story literature (*Sanskrit Syntax* §§2-3).

Apte's dictionary has

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/apte_query.py?qs=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF&searchhws=yes&matchtype=exact

Often used at the commencement of a tale or narrative in the sense of 'so
it is', 'there', or merely as an expletive; अस्ति सिंहः प्रतिवसति स्म
Pt.4; अस्त्यत्र
नगरे...त्रयः पुरुषा देवस्य श्रियं न सहन्ते Mu. 1,5; अस्ति पूर्वमहं
व्योमचारी विद्याधरोऽभवम् Ks.22.56,1. 27; अस्ति तत्रभवान् वृषलं
याजयिष्यति P.III.3.146
is it that &c.

On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 11:17 PM jason.cannon-silber--- via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info> wrote:

> Dear members of the Indology listserv,
>
> I have recently been wondering about the nature of the copula in Sanskrit
> grammar (both in theory and in practice), and specifically whether and how
> often the form *asti* is used as a copula in Classical Sanskrit. I am
> sorry if this subject has been raised before on this list, but from my
> search of the archives it seems it has not been addressed directly.
>
> Any user of Sanskrit will know that there need be no word meaning "to be"
> (i.e., no copula) in a sentence expressing that "X is Y" (i.e., a nominal
> sentence). But from the exchange between Profs. Deshpande and Bronkhorst in
> the pages of *Annals BORI*, I gather that at least some *vaiyākaraṇa*s
> understood there to be a "silent," copulative *asti* in such nominal
> sentences as *Devadattaḥ pācaka odanasya* or even *Rāmo gataḥ*. (Whether
> Pāṇini himself was likely to have had such an understanding was there the
> *vivādāspada*.)
>
> On the other hand, I have been told by someone whose knowledge of Sanskrit
> usage I hold in high esteem that authors of classical Sanskrit almost never
> use *asti* in this way, and that such usage might even be considered
> wrong. This same person has suggested to me that (part of) the reason for
> this may lie in the fact that technical terms derived from the form *asti*
> (please bear in mind that I am speaking here only of the form *asti*, not
> of forms of the root *as-* in other tenses, persons, or numbers), such as
> *āstika* or *astitva*, are invariably connected with *asti*'s existential
> (or perhaps "adessive") meaning. I have noted that Speijer seems aware of
> no such avoidance, and gives a couple examples of what he understands to be
> copulative *asti* from the story literature (*Sanskrit Syntax* §§2-3).
>
> I would therefore like to know if there is any literature discussing this
> avoidance (or perhaps even proscription) of using *asti* as copula. A
> pre-modern discussion would be especially interesting, but I would also
> appreciate further secondary resources, or even your own thoughts.
>
> With best wishes,
> Jason Cannon-Silber
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>


-- 
Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
Dean, IndicA
BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra
BoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, Maharashtra
BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.
Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru
Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies,
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20240505/65aadba8/attachment.htm>