Dear Colleagues

I have received this question from my friend and colleague in Cambodia, Kunthea Chhom, the director of the archaeological museum in Siem Reap. She is working more or less in isolation in Siem Reap, and is a very worthy and grateful recipient of your support.

Thanks in advance for your help with this

McComas

============

I'm working on a Cambodian inscription of early 7th century in Sanskrit. Below is the reading of a stanza which contains the particle of past tense SMA and its translation:

(17)yajvā trayāṇām iha devatānāṁ datvā dhana(ṁ) yo harati sma lobhāt·

(18)saha prasūtyā niraye nimajjed āsaṁplavāt sthāvarajaṅgamānāṁ (||)

The sacrificer has given here some wealth for/ to the three gods; he who, out of avidity, takes away (this wealth) will fall into hell along with his descendants (saha prasūtyā) from the floating (the rising) of the movable and immovable beings (it means here while other beings are rising, that criminal falls into hell)

I find that the use of the particle ‘sma’ seems abnormal. Grammatically, it is used with a verb in present simple tense to turn it into past simple tense. In a subordination clause like yo harati ‘he who takes away’, the present form harati ‘takes away’ should be preferred to the past form harati sma ‘took away’.

I would like to know if you have other examples of the particle 'sma' in similar context of the inscription. And how do you explain that?

Looking forward to hearing back from you soon.

==========

------------------------------------------------------------------------

McComas Taylor, SFHEA
Associate Professor, Reader in Sanskrit
College of Asia and the Pacific
The Australian National University, Tel. + 61 2 6125 3179
Website: https://sites.google.com/site/mccomasanu/

Address: Baldessin Building 4.24, ANU, ACT 0200

Ask me about my new project:

'Translating the Viṣṇu Purāṇa'