<sabhām vā na praveṣṭavyam (Manu 8.13)>
30 12 14
Dear Colleagues,
Perhaps the Pāṇinian assessment of the case is not exactly what has been observed here. According to the Pāṇinian system the kṛtya-category suffixes may mean the action or the object (3.4.70). When action is meant by the suffix in praveṣṭavyam it does not affect the object of the active voice which shall retain its second (dvitīyā) case-ending by 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. This explains sabhām. But when it means the object it becomes an adjective it must have the number, gender etc of the object.
The above means that in the Pāṇinian system the problem of Mādhav which occurs with a finite verb and not with a kṛtya-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 Pāṇinian point of view without any claim to its theoretical correctness. The basic problems of the Pāṇinian standpoint have been dealt with by me in a recent publication on Pāṇini with statement of its opponents' standpoints. But I have not yet got a copy of the book.
The problem of accord between the kṛtya-ending word and its corresponding noun has often to be faced in Sanskrit. Cf., śakyam añjalibhiḥ pātuṃ vātāḥ ketakagandhinaḥ Rām., Kiṣkindhā 28.8. Here too śakyam is taken to mean the action.
My best wishes for all for a happy 2015
DB
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 prāpyate 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 Vetālapañcaviṁśati, perhaps the one edited by Uhle); unfortunately I can’t find the exact reference.
sabhām vā na praveṣṭavyam (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 Nityācāradarpaṇa by Brahmānanda, on p. 2, I see a quotation from Dakṣasmṛti:
आचाराल्लभते पूजामाचाराल्लभते प्रजा: ।
आचारात्प्राप्यते स्वर्गमाचारात्प्राप्यते सुखम् ।।
Here, ācārāt prāpyate 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 (bhāve) 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