Dear Dipak,   Thanks for these clarifying comments. The syntax of constructions with passive forms of Å›ak is very complicated. Patañjali's usage of "Å›akyam (neuter nom) cÄnena Å›vamÄṃsÄdibhir api ká¹£ut (fem nom) pratihantum" in the MahÄbhÄá¹£ya has generated long debates in the commentaries. With best wishes,MadhavOn Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Dipak Bhattacharya <dipak.d2004@gmail.com> wrote:<sabhÄm vÄ na praveá¹£á¹avyam (Manu 8.13)>
30 12 14
Dear Colleagues,
Perhaps the PÄṇinian assessment of the case is not exactly what has been observed here. According to the PÄṇinian system the ká¹›tya-category suffixes may mean the action or the object (3.4.70). When action is meant by the suffix in praveá¹£á¹avyam it does not affect the object of the active voice which shall retain its second (dvitÄ«yÄ) case-ending by 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. This explains sabhÄm. But when it means the object it becomes an adjective it must have the number, gender etc of the object.Â
The above means that in the PÄṇinian system the problem of MÄdhav which occurs with a finite verb and not with a ká¹›tya-suffix is not solved by the example from Manu. In the sentence cited by Madhav, which has a passive-voice, the object is understood as abhihita (by 3.4.69) and normally its case-ending should be the first one by 2.3.46.
I just put the PÄṇinian point of view without any claim to its theoretical correctness. The basic problems of the PÄṇinian standpoint have been dealt with by me in a recent publication on PÄṇini with statement of its opponents' standpoints. But I have not yet got a copy of the book.
The problem of accord between the ká¹›tya-ending word and its corresponding noun has often to be faced in Sanskrit. Cf., Å›akyam añjalibhiḥ pÄtuṃ vÄtÄḥ ketakagandhinaḥ RÄm., Kiá¹£kindhÄ 28.8. Here too Å›akyam is taken to mean the action.
My best wishes for all for a happy 2015
DB
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh@umich.edu> wrote:Of all the explanations I have received, this one seems most convincing, and especially the example from Manu seems like a good parallel. Thanks, Hans.Madhav--On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Hock, Hans Henrich <hhhock@illinois.edu> wrote:Hi, Madhav.
If prÄpyate is construed as a verb of motion (in the sense ‘reach’), the structure has precedents; compare the structure below, which shows that with verbs of motion the goal is not always construed as object in post-Vedic. Of course, the parallel with labhate might suggest an interpretation ‘obtain’. In that case (i.e., if it is not to be taken as a motion verb), there may be a parallel in late Sanskrit (one of the versions of the VetÄlapañcaviá¹Å›ati, perhaps the one edited by Uhle); unfortunately I can’t find the exact reference.
sabhÄm vÄ na praveá¹£á¹avyam (Manu 8.13)
All the best for the New Year,
Hans
On 28-Dec-2014, at 7:52, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh@umich.edu> wrote:
_______________________________________________n a Sanskrit work titled NityÄcÄradarpaṇa by BrahmÄnanda, on p. 2, I see a quotation from Daká¹£asmá¹›ti:
आचारालà¥à¤²à¤à¤¤à¥‡ पूजामाचारालà¥à¤²à¤à¤¤à¥‡ पà¥à¤°à¤œà¤¾: ।
आचारातà¥à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¯à¤¤à¥‡ सà¥à¤µà¤°à¥à¤—माचारातà¥à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¯à¤¤à¥‡ सà¥à¤–मॠ।।
Here, ÄcÄrÄt prÄpyate svargam is an irregular usage, unless one assumes that the word svarga is somehow used in neuter gender. With the normal masculine gender of the word svarga, svargam would be an accusative case form, and this does not fit well with the passive verb. In Marathi, such passive constructions are possible: रामाने (instrumental) रावणाला (accusative) मारिले (passive verb). This usage alternates with a more Sanskrit like passive: रामाने रावण (nom) मारिला/मारला (nom). I am wondering if anyone has come across Sanskrit passive (bhÄve) constructions where the object shows up in the accusative case. Any information or suggestions are appreciated.
Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info
Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info--Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA