I dealt with this in my MPhil dissertation (1986, University of Hyderabad) . It was written in Telugu.
I was applying the Paninian approach to case /kaaraka as delineated in Sādhanasamuddeśa of Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari.
Usually , Sambandha , the genitive / possessive case is presented as denoted by the 6th case marker. But this is not listed among the conventionally listed six kaarakas.
But interestingly , Bhartrhari treats this as a kaaraka.sāmānyaṃ kārakaṃ tasya saptādyā bhedayonayaḥ /
ṣaṭ karmākhyādibhedena śeṣabhedas tu saptamī // BVaky_3,7.44 //
( copied from the GRETIL website)
Sādhanasamuddeśa of Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari , after this verse has sections each called adhikāra dedicated to different kaarakas.
śeṣa , 'the remainder' is dealt in śeṣādhikāraḥ
[atha śeṣādhikāraḥ]
saṃbandhaḥ kārakebhyo 'nyaḥ kriyākārakapūrvakaḥ /
śrutāyām aśrutāyāṃ vā kriyāyāṃ so 'bhidhīyate // BVaky_3,7.156 //
dviṣṭho 'py asau parārthatvād guṇeṣu vyatiricyate /
tatrābhidhīyamānaḥ san pradhāne 'py upayujyate // BVaky_3,7.157 //
nimittaniyamaḥ śabdāt saṃbandhasya na gṛhyate /
karmapravacanīyais tu sa viśeṣo 'varudhyate // BVaky_3,7.158 //
sādhanair vyapadiṣṭe ca śrūyamāṇakriye punaḥ /
proktā pratipadaṃ ṣaṣṭhī samāsasya nivṛttaye // BVaky_3,7.159 //
niṣṭhāyāṃ karmaviṣayā ṣaṣthī ca pratiṣidhyate /
śeṣalakṣaṇayā ṣaṣṭhyā samāsastatra neṣyate // BVaky_3,7.160 //
anyena vyapadiṣṭasya yasyānyatropajāyate /
vyatirekaḥ sa dharmau dvau labhate viṣayāntare // BVaky_3,7.161 //
prādhānyaṃ svaguṇe labdhvā pradhāne yāti śeṣatām /
sahayoge svayoge 'taḥ pradhānatvaṃ na hīyate // BVaky_3,7.162 //
[iti śeṣādhikāraḥ]
( copied from the GRETIL website)
Here, he, very clearly, categorizes sambandha as a kaaraka
in
saṃbandhaḥ kārakebhyo 'nyaḥ kriyākārakapūrvakaḥ /
śrutāyām aśrutāyāṃ vā kriyāyāṃ so 'bhidhīyate // BVaky_3,7.156 //
Deriving from śrutāyām aśrutāyāṃ vā kriyāyāṃ , I identified śrutakriyā and aśrutakriyā as terms and concepts and under the influence of Chomskyan ideas , I translated them as ground structure verb and deep structure verb respectively.
I compared Fillmore's analysis of Genitive in The Case for Case https://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~syntax-circle/syntax-group/spr08/fillmore.pdfto this approach.
On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 12:43 PM Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:PS. Of course, that would be more oriented to current linguistic approaches than to what the traditional grammars have to say.Matthew T. KapsteinProfessor emeritusEcole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, PSL Research University, ParisAssociateThe University of Chicago Divinity SchoolMember, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Sent from Proton Mail for iOS.
-------- Original Message --------
On Tuesday, 05/05/26 at 10:10 Matthew Kapstein <mattkapstein@proton.me> wrote:Dear Adriano,I don’t have a copy on hand to check, but it may be useful to consult Colin Masica, The Indo-Aryan Languages.MatthewMatthew T. KapsteinProfessor emeritusEcole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, PSL Research University, ParisAssociateThe University of Chicago Divinity SchoolMember, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Sent from Proton Mail for iOS.
-------- Original Message --------
On Monday, 05/04/26 at 15:21 Adriano Aprigliano via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:Dear colleagues,A linguist friend asks me for references "that synthesize the Indian grammatical tradition(s) analysis of possessive/genitive constructions".Does anyone have suggestions?Best regardsAdrianoProf. Dr. Adriano ApriglianoLíngua e Literatura SânscritaFaculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências HumanasUniversidade de São PauloAv. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 403 CEP: 05508-900
Cidade Universitária, São Paulo - SP / BrasilGabinete 18, fone: 3091-4931+5511954675747
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
--Nagaraj PaturiHyderabad, Telangana-500044