This is quite interesting, Madhav. Even though Yāska may not attach a meaning to the two roots from which Śākaṭāyana derives the word “sat-ya”, I wonder whether there was a tradition of find a meaning in the term of “taking someone to sat”. I was reminded of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.3.28) statement: asato mā sad gamaya, the latter being a causative of √gam, which is a synonym of √i.
Patrick
On Oct 4, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh@umich.edu> wrote:
Just for additional information, perhaps the oldest etymology for the word satya was offered by a grammarian named Śākaṭāyana. This is referred to by Yāska in his Nirukta [1.13, 1.14], where we are told that Śākaṭāyana derived parts of a word from other words [padebhyaḥ padetarārdhān saṃcaskāra śākaṭāyanaḥ]. Śākaṭāyana derives the "ya" of satya from the causative of the root "i" [eteḥ kāritaṃ ca yakārādiṃ ca antakaraṇam], while he derives the "sat" of satya from the root "as" [asteḥ śuddhaṃ sakārādiṃ ca]. It is not entirely clear what meaning Śākaṭāyana saw in this etymology. Nirukta [1.14] seems to suggest that there was no meaning connection between these elements thus derived, and it seems to fault Śākaṭāyana [atho etat padebhyaḥ padetarārdhān saṃcaskāra iti / yaḥ ananvite saṃcaskāra, sa tena garhyaḥ] for proposing an etymology with constituents that do not meaningfully relate to each other. Śākaṭāyana probably believed that all constituent elements proposed in an etymology need to be derived from a verb-root.
Madhav DeshpandeAnn Arbor, Michigan, USA______________________________
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmisra@gmail.com> wrote:
A member asked offline why there is no ‘jaśtva’ (‘t’ to ‘d’ change) by ‘jhalāṃ jaśo’nte’ (A. 8.2.39) in sat + ya = satya, unlike in cases likesat + yukti = sadyukti
sat + yoga = sadyoga
I am copying the answer here too. The reason is that due to ‘yaci bham’ (A 1.4.18), ‘sat’ in ‘sat + ya’ is not a ‘pada’ but a ‘bha’. This is why ‘jhalāṃ jaśo’nte’ is not applicable. ‘yaci bham’ does not apply in ‘sadyukti’, ‘sadyoga’, etc.
On 3 October 2016 at 22:20, Howard Resnick <hr@ivs.edu> wrote:
Thank you.Howard
On Oct 2, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmisra@gmail.com> wrote:
The derivations I am aware of are
sati sādhu satyamsat + yat (tatra sādhuḥ, A 4.4.98) = satya
or
sate/sadbhyo hitaṃ satyamsat + yat (tasmai hitam, A 5.1.5) = satya
On 2 October 2016 at 20:53, Howard Resnick <hr@ivs.edu> wrote:
Dear Scholars,
Does the derivation of satya, truth, from ‘sat’ follow any particular set of rules for derivative nouns?
Thanks,
Howard
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
--
--
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
_________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)