Dear colleagues,

We have reached the solutions bellow:

Lars Fosse: [mleccho ha vā eṣa][yad apaśabdaḥ],  "this one is indeed a mleccha because [yad = yasmāt] he is one whose speech is ungrammatical [apaśabdah being a bahuvrīhi of the masculine idea in eṣaḥ]”

D. Wujastyk through Nāgeśa: "a bad word [apaśabdaḥ] is really despicable [mlecchaḥ]", probably here also yad for yasmāt (“ because a bad word…”);

Hans Hoch opts for the invariable yad-construction (= namely, viz.), also referred to by MW in his yad-entry: " that is to say " , " to wit " e.g. ततो देवा एतं वज्रं ददृशुर् यद् अपः , " the gods then saw this thunderbolt , to wit , the water “. Hoch gave: ‘That indeed is barbarous [taking mleccha as adjective], namely/viz. incorrect speech.’ 

Also G. Cardona e D. Bhattacarya understand the yad for an adverbial yad (= yasmād, “ because”). The gloss in Sūktiratnākara quoted by Cardona being “yad yasmād apaśabdo mleccho, mlecchatayātiprasiddha ity arthaḥ”.

So the adverbial yad seems to have been preferred by most.

Still I ask if anyone doesn’t feel the position of the yad to be awkward in this passage. Would it be accounted for just by the wider freedom of sanskrit word order or by some decorum in imitating the Vedic style. Also of note, in the MW example –if he is wright—, we have the same awkward position. 

Thanks a lot to all for the immense help.

Prof. Dr. Adriano Aprigliano
Área de Língua e Literatura Latina
 
Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas
Universidade de São Paulo
São Paulo, Brasil








Em 30/10/2013, às 13:23, Dipak Bhattacharya escreveu:

te'surāḥ. te surā helayo helaya iti kurvantaḥ parābabhūvuḥ. tasmād brāhmaṇena na mlecchitavai nāpabhāṣitavai. mleccho ha vā eṣa yad apaśabdaḥ.
“(The sentence beginning with) ‘Those demons’.
Those demons while making (the sounds) ‘he ‘layo he ‘layaḥ’ suffered defeat. So a Brahmin should not speak like a barbarian. For a corrupt word is indeed a barbarian.”
After Dr  K.C.Chatterji. Patañjali’s Mahabhāṣya Paspaśāhnika
Calcutta 1953
Best
DB
 


On Wednesday, 30 October 2013 8:04 PM, Adriano Aprigliano <aprigliano@usp.br> wrote:
Right, Hans,

This usage is also referred to by MW (ततो देवा एतं वज्रं ददृशुर् यद् अपः , " the gods then saw this thunderbolt, to wit , the water " S3Br.)

It seems to be the best possibility so far, but hard to interpret, always confusing this use of yad...

Thanks to all

Prof. Dr. Adriano Aprigliano
Área de Língua e Literatura Latina
 
Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas
Universidade de São Paulo
São Paulo, Brasil








Em 30/10/2013, às 12:21, Hock, Hans Henrich escreveu:

Dear All,

A clue as to how to interpret yad apazabdaH may lie in the morphology of apabhASitavai, which is a Vedic formation; not also the Vedic particles ha vai. This may make it possible to interpret the passage mleccho ha vai eSo yad apazabdaH as an instance of what I have termed the "invariable yad-construction" (see the grammatical notes in my UpaniSadic Reader); so the translation would be something like this 'That indeed is barbarous [taking mleccha as adjective], namely/viz. incorrect speech.'

All the best,

Hans Henrich Hock



On 30 Oct 2013, at 09:06, Adriano Aprigliano wrote:

Thanks to Dominik W. and Lars F. for the propositions. 

I think yad is the main problem in fact... and still. It is solved by Lars as 'because': the syntax becomes smooth in terms of order, but still taking apazabdah as bahuvriihi sounds to me quite strange. 

As for Naageza's explanation brought up by Dominik, it leaves yad out, as far as I could gather from the translation. 

Understanding mleccha as an adjective of apazabda, albeit uncommon, as noted by Naageza himself, seems rather ok. But next the text goes: mlecchaah maa bhumety adhyeyam vyaakaranam. 

So it seems to me that maybe the commentators were a bit at lost with that construction themselves, don't you think?

Best

(first response went just to D. Wujastyk, sorry)

Prof. Dr. Adriano Aprigliano
Área de Língua e Literatura Latina
 
Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas
Universidade de São Paulo
São Paulo, Brasil








Em 30/10/2013, às 11:40, Dominik Wujastyk escreveu:

This exact point was discussed in the Pradīpa and clarified further in the Uddyota.   One might think, Nāgeśa said, that the word mleccha would usually refer to a person or a place; how could it refer to a bad word?  But in this case it is a term of criticism.  "A bad word (apaśabda) is really despicable (mleccha)." 

("Bad word" is of course probably not one's final choice for translating apaśabda.)



--
Dr Dominik Wujastyk
Department of South Asia, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies,
University of Vienna,
Spitalgasse 2-4, Courtyard 2, Entrance 2.1
1090 Vienna, Austria
and
Adjunct Professor,
Division of Health and Humanities,
St. John's Research Institute, Bangalore, India.
Project | home page | HSSA | PGP





On 30 October 2013 13:38, Adriano Aprigliano <aprigliano@usp.br> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

I have been having doubts on how to translate this MBhāṣ sentence (Kielhorn, p.2, line 8):

te'surāḥ. te surā helayo helaya iti kurvantaḥ parābabhūvuḥ. tasmād brāhmaṇena na mlecchitavai nāpabhāṣitavai. mleccho ha vā eṣa yad apaśabdaḥ.

The problem is on the last sentence, what to make of that yad apaśabdaḥ. I start with ' for this one/he is indeed a mleccha...". 

Any suggestions?

best wishes

Prof. Dr. Adriano Aprigliano
Área de Língua e Literatura Latina
 
Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas
Universidade de São Paulo
São Paulo, Brasil









_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info



_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info