सीतायाः पतये नमः

[Rajagopalan Ayilam]

namaste,

I have a doubt in the following verse


रामाय रामभद्राय रामचन्द्राय वेधसे ।
रघुनाथाय नाथाय सीतायाः पतये नमः।। 

in the above sloka सीतायाः पतये is wrong. It should be सीतापतये or सीतायाः  पत्ये
About this a discussion is done in Samskrita Bharati's book Shuddhi Koumudi. But I am not satisfied with the explanations given there. In fact some more similar examples are given in the book.

I would like to know the opinion of experts of this group.

PS:- I don't know whether a discussion on this has happened before. If so, could anyone point me to the link.


Regards

--
A.S.Rajagopalan

[Nityanand Misra]

Have you ever heard of "aluksamaasa"?

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

रामाय रामभद्राय रामचन्द्राय वेधसे ।
रघुनाथाय नाथाय सीतायाः पतये नमः।। 

in the above sloka सीतायाः पतये is wrong. It should be सीतापतये or सीतायाः  पत्ये
About this a discussion is done in Samskrita Bharati's book Shuddhi Koumudi. But I am not satisfied with the explanations given there. In fact some more similar examples are given in the book.

I would like to know the opinion of experts of this group.

I don't think there is any doubt that it is wrong according to Panini as he explicitly excludes it from the technical term घि, by restricting the use of the term as part of a compound only like भूपतये, गिरिजापतये, सीतापतये etc. and isolated usage of it like क्षेत्रस्य पतिना वयम्, or सीतायाः पतये are incorrect. No more discussion is needed in this respect than accepting such usages are archaic to preserve their form limited to ancient usages in पुराण-s.

कालिदास-s usage is authentic :

पत्युः शिरश्चन्द्रकलामनेन etc.

and "जायेव पत्ये उशती सुवासाः" etc. usages are also available in archaic texts.

"पतिना नीयमानायाः पुरः शक्रो न दुष्यति", 

"पतिव्रतायां भुक्तायां गृहस्थे निर्गते पतौ ॥३२।" नृसिंहपुराण्म्,

"नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ । " पराशरस्मृतिः,

"पतौ जीवति या नारी उपोष्य व्रतचारिणी" 

इत्यादयः प्रयोगाः, कथमिति चेदत्राह - शरवणदेवः -

"शेषो घ्यसखिपती" इति वक्तव्ये, पृथक्सूत्राम्भसामर्थ्यादस्यानित्यज्ञापनार्थम्।   गर्भिण्याम्जीवपत्याम् च । (पा-४,१.३२; अकि-२,२१३.१५-२१४.८; रो-३,४९०-४९१; भा-२०/२६) एतस्मिन् विषये । (पा-४,१.३२; अकि-२,२१३.१५-२१४.८;  ) इति प्रयोगश्च समासे। शेषग्रहणानुवृत्तेः, "ङिति ह्रस्वश्च" (१-४-६) इति नदीत्वादिति मैत्रेयरक्षितः। 

एवमेव "सखिना वानरेन्द्रेण" इति।

"सीतायाः पतये नमः" इत्यत्र अलुक् समासेनापि समाधानं वक्तुं शक्यते इति नित्यानन्दाः।

तत्रालुक्समासे पृथग्विधानात् - "ऋतो विद्यायोनिसम्बन्धेभ्यः" इत्यतः ऋत इत्यनुवृत्तेः, ऋकारान्तशब्देभ्य एवालुग्विधानमुक्तेष्वेवार्थेषु अलुक्समासस्य नियमनात्। अन्यत्र तु, "षष्ठ्याः आक्रोशे" (6-3-21) इत्याक्रोशे गम्यमाने एव समासविधानात्, अत्र च निन्दायाः सुतरामभावात्, अलुक्समास इति दुर्वचम्।

कथंचिदत्र समाहितेऽपि, अन्यत्र तादृशसमाधानस्याभावात्, जीवपत्यामिति पाणिनीयप्रयोगानुरोधेन ज्ञापनेनानित्यत्वसमर्थनं शरणदेवस्येष्टमेव।

अन्यथा प्रामादिका एव प्रयोगाः, आर्षत्वेनाङ्गीकार्याः। छन्दसि यथादृष्टविधानात् वाचस्पतिप्रभृतीनाम्लुक्समासाङ्घीकरणम्। 

This is what I got from दुर्घटवृत्ति of शरवणदेव. It is better to say it is wrong according to Panini or equally good आर्षत्वात् साधुत्व if not willing into the intricacies of व्याकरण as done following the दुर्घटवृत्ति.

 -- 

Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

I do not see anything problematic in  सीतायाः पतये.  I cannot cite Panini but my school-learnt grammar says that the dative case of the इ-ending noun पति is पतये and therefore सीताया: पति: तस्मै is सीताया: पतये.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, May 24, 2012.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Arvind_Kolhatkar <kolhat...@gmail.com> wrote:

I do not see anything problematic in  सीतायाः पतये.  I cannot cite Panini but my school-learnt grammar says that the dative case of the इ-ending noun पति is पतये and therefore सीताया: पति: तस्मै is सीताया: पतये.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, May 24, 2012.

I don't think you memory is correct. Because the word पति and सखि are dissimilar with other masculine words ending in "i" and still they are given their declension as special words.

The technical problem I have already explained in my post. You can refer to any list of declensions of words online for the declension of the above two words. In other words, the word पति is declined like other words only in compound as it is specially mentioned in a rule "पतिः समास एव" and only words like भूपति and other compounds formed as तत्पुरुष are declined like other words ending in इ and excludes the usage of isolated word पति like them for derivation process. 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I agree with Dr. Bhat  even elementary books on grammar give the same explanation
Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Please see below declension of पति
पतिः पती पतयः:
हे पति हे पती  हे पतयः
पतिम् पती पतीन्
पत्या पतिभ्याम्  पतिभि:
पत्ये पतिभ्याम्  पतिभ्य :
पत्यु : पतिभ्याम्  पतिभ्य :
पत्यु :पत्यो: पतीनम्
पत्यौ पत्यो: पतिषु

Please note पति exacltly resembles हरि  in the declension when it is in a compund ( ex पतिस्समस एव ). ex भूपति: श्रीपति :
when it is declined independently please note how it changes in the singulars

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

If  सखि appears at the end of a compund it becomes अकारान्त  like राम  ( सखि रजाहस्सखिभ्यषट्च्) ex रमसख: इन्द्रसख:. When declined independently it resembles पति from तृतीया onwards.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please see below declension of पति
पतिः पती पतयः:
हे पति हे पती  हे पतयः
पतिम् पती पतीन्
पत्या पतिभ्याम्  पतिभि:
पत्ये पतिभ्याम्  पतिभ्य :
पत्यु : पतिभ्याम्  पतिभ्य :
पत्यु :पत्यो: पतीनम्
पत्यौ पत्यो: पतिषु

Please note पति exactly resembles हरि  in the declension when it is in a compound ( ex पतिस्समस एव ). ex भूपति: श्रीपति :

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

If  सखि appears at the end of a compund it becomes अकारान्त  like राम  ( सखि रजाहस्सखिभ्यषट्च्) ex रमसख: इन्द्रसख:. When declined independently it resembles पति from तृतीया onwards.

Not any compound, but तत्पुरुष compound only. Therefore, in बहुव्रीहि it is differently declined as in isolation. So, परमश्चासौ सखा - परमसखः - परमस, परमः सखा यस्य सः - परमसखा, परमसखायौ - परमसखायः।

and also declined like कवि  परमसखिना, परमसखये, परमसखेः, etc.

 So It is only in तत्पुरुष and कर्मधारय सखि takes ending अ and not in other compounds and in different compounds, it takes different declensions in certain cases.

 

-- 

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Thank you Dr Bhat for correcting my misconception on this point.

[Nityanand Misra]

Dr. Bhat, I think you are partly correct and partly incorrect.

You are right in saying that सीतायाः पतये नमः is not an instance of अलुक्समास since the अधिकारक्षेत्र of अलुक्समास does not cover this case. षष्ठ्या आक्रोशे (6.3.20), ऋतो विद्यायोनिसम्बन्धेभ्यः (6.3.22) and विभाषा स्वसृपत्योः (6.3.23) are the relevant Sutras here and there being an absence of गम्यमान आक्रोश, and ऋकारान्तत्व, an अलुक्समास is not possible. Thanks for correcting me.

However, I don't agree when you say that क्षेत्रस्य पतिना वयम् (and similarly सीतायाः पतये नमः, which I will come to in a bit) is incorrect. Immediately following शेषो घ्यसखि (1.4.7) and पतिः समास एव (1.4.8) is the Sutra

षष्ठीयुक्तश्छन्दसि वा [पतिः घि] (1.4.9)

"In the context of Vedas, pati (पति) when combined with a word ending in the genitive case optionally gets the ghi (घि) nomenclature." (Translation is mine, and is far from perfect).

1. क्षेत्रस्य पतिना (तैत्तेरीय संहिता 1.1.14.2) being Vedic is correct, where पति gets the optional घि संज्ञा
2. दिशां च पतये (माध्यन्दिन संहिता 16.17) being Vedic is correct, where पति gets the optional घि संज्ञा
3. Two examples where पति does not get the घि संज्ञा (when combined with a word in the genitive) in Vedas are कुलुञ्चानां पत्ये (माध्यन्दिन संहिता 16.22), पत्ये विश्वस्य भूमनः (17.78)

Now coming to original question about सीतायाः पतये नमः - by the rule षष्ठीयुक्तश्छन्दसि वा (1.4.9), it is correct Vedic usage, an example of छान्दस पाणिनीय प्रयोग and is definitely not an अपानिणीय प्रयोग. For more details on both क्षेत्रस्य पतिना  and सीतायाः पतये नमः, one may refer the चन्द्रलेखा commentary on अष्टाध्यायी by पण्डित ईश्वरचन्द्र (Chaukhambha Surbharati Prakashan, Varanasi, 2004).

Remember that by tradition, the श्रीरामरक्षास्तोत्रम् was instructed in a dream by शिव to विश्वामित्र (बुधकौशिक) - as the Stotra itself says (Rāmarakṣāstotram verse 15)

आदिष्टवान्यथा स्वप्ने रामरक्षामिमां हरः
तथा लिखितवान्प्रातः प्रबुद्धो बुधकौशिकः

"Just as Śiva instructed this Rāmarakṣā in [his] dream, the arisen Budhakau sika wrote in the morning.[15]" (My translation from here, again far from perfect).

Hence the Rāmarakṣāstotram is believed to be Apauruṣeya, especially in the Rāmānanda Sampradāya. Being an Apauruṣeya or in other words "Alaukika" work revealed to a Mantradraṣṭā (just as the Vedas were revealed), a Vedic or Alaukika usage is not surprising.

Thanks, Nityanand

2012/5/24 Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

--
Nityānanda Miśra
Member, Advisory Council, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University
Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, India
http://nmisra.googlepages.com
http://jagadgururambhadracharya.org/jrhu/donate

|| आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो ||
(Thou art from/for/of/in That Ātman, O Śvetaketu)
     - Ṛṣi Uddālaka to his son, Chāndogyopaniṣad 6.8.7, The Sāma Veda

[Nityanand Misra]

There are many more examples of पतये used in conjunction with genitive in the Mādhyandina Saṃhitā, and all of them are valid by षष्ठीयुक्तश्छन्दसि वा (1.4.9). 

This search will show tens of examples of this usage

http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/database/titusinx/titusinx.asp?LXLANG=16915&LXWORD=pataye&LCPL=0&TCPL=0&C=H&PF=11

In contrast, पत्ये is used only rarely in Mādhyandina Saṃhitā, as this search will show

http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/database/titusinx/titusinx.asp?LXLANG=16915&LXWORD=patye&LCPL=0&TCPL=0&C=H&PF=11

Hope this answers the doubts raised by Sh. Rajagopalam Ayilam. Also would like to know if the explanation offered in Samskrita Bharati's book is any different.

2012/5/27 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Thanks 

2012/5/27 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

There are many more examples of पतये used in conjunction with genitive in the Mādhyandina Saṃhitā, and all of them are valid by षष्ठीयुक्तश्छन्दसि वा (1.4.9). 

Thanks for bringing to my notice this rule. It is enough if Panini says both forms are valid due to the optional application of the preceding rule in आर्ष usages in the case of used with षष्ठी.

With the argument of being आर्ष all the archaic usages like पतौ, पतये etc. could be justified as quoted in स्मृति texts and पुराण-s as many of the स्तोत्र-s are taught by one or other ऋषि-s, at least by वेदव्यास himself as the author of the पुराण-s. 

Only the point is, in spite of these usages, it is better for us to follow Panini's rulings for our daily usage in our writings. This is my sincere opinion.

 

[Nityanand Misra]

Dr. Bhat,

Agree with you that we should be following the rules for Laukika in our day to day use. The आर्षत्व of usages like पतिना, पतये and पतौ from this rule also explains why Kalidasa et al have not used these forms, as you pointed out earlier.

Thanks, Nityanand

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

[GIRISH]

Respected sir
As i discussed with my guru
सीतायाः पतये is correct because as you count the line (रामाय
रामभद्राय रामचन्द्राय वेधसे) it contains 16 letters
the next line(रघुनाथाय नाथाय सीतायाः पतये नमः) should also contain 16
letters according to CHANDASSU and other vyakarana factors.
सीतापतये is also correct but not suited here becase it counts 5
letters
पत्ये will not come becase E karanta pullinga it always PRONOUNCED
AS पतये , HARAYE

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

E karanta pullinga it always PRONOUNCED AS   पतये , HARAYE

I have never heard  पत्ये pronounced as पतये unless one doesnot know the word or its usage in classical sanskrit. It has been clearly shown in this thread that as per Panini grammar used in classical literature पत्ये is correct. The word सीतापतये as a compound word  is correct. One can justify पतये if you consider puranas do use archaic words and vedic usages and is allowed in Panini's grammar though not used.

I don't know about the verses metrical accuracy.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

E karanta pullinga it always PRONOUNCED AS   पतये , HARAYE

Simply it means that he has not heard either ए-कारान्तपुंलिङ्ग or the declensions of the word पति ending in इ. 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

Regarding metrical or prosodic accuracy, Girish Mahoday is correct. The verse being Anushtup must have eight syllables in each quarter. With पत्ये there would be only seven syllables in last quarter while with पतये the metre would be complete.

Sent from my iPhone

[Vidya R]

NamassarvebhyaH |

Poets are well known for composing in meter and still being grammatically correct.  The composer of this particular verse would have used a 'filler' to complete the meter had he / she chosen to use  सीतायाः पत्ये or सीतापतये.

This meter aspect is only incidental, and not a reason or justification for the usage of  सीतायाः पतये |

An observation.

Vidya

---

From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>
To: "sams...@googlegroups.com" <sams...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "sams...@googlegroups.com" <sams...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: सीतायाः पतये नमः

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

It sounds perfect if one considers that verse as a puranic verse and archiac and vedic usage is allowed in the puranas. Thanks for providing the metrical details.  I was confused because Girish Mahoday's guru was counting letters for metrical accuracy instead of the normal practice to count syllables
Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[murthy]

If the poet wanted to meet prosodic requirements without sacrificing grammar he could have perhaps said, “सीतायाः स्वामिने नमः” !

Regards,

Murthy

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

The entire analysis as I understand was about  why सीतायाः पतये is used in the below mentioned verse

रामाय रामभद्राय रामचन्द्राय वेधसे ।
रघुनाथाय नाथाय सीतायाः पतये नमः।।

Is it correct or wrong? if he had said सीतायाः स्वामिने नमः then the whole discussion would have not taken place.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[krishnaprasad]

I saw this dispute long back but not in the net, among my friends,
some of my friends said, this sloka comes in PadmaPurana So this is
Arsha Prayoga but some said it is not found in padmapurana,
Also
शशिनीव हिमार्तानां धर्मार्तानां रवाविव |
मनो न रमते स्त्रीणां जराजीर्णेन्द्रिये पतौ ||
here पतौ is called arsha prayoga, i don't know the original author of
this sloka but it comes in Hitopadesa 5th story 110 sloka

On May 28, 3:45 pm, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gargeshw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The entire analysis as I understand was about  why सीतायाः पतये is used in
> the below mentioned verse
> रामाय रामभद्राय रामचन्द्राय वेधसे ।
> रघुनाथाय नाथाय सीतायाः पतये नमः।।
> Is it correct or wrong? if he had said सीतायाः स्वामिने नमः then the whole
> discussion would have not taken place.
>
> Regards
> Ajit Gargeshwari
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM, murthy <murthy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > **

>
> > If the poet wanted to meet prosodic requirements without sacrificing
> > grammar he could have perhaps said, “सीतायाः स्वामिने नमः” !
>
> > Regards,
>

> > Murthy******
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gargeshw...@gmail.com>
> > *To:* sams...@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 11:05 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Samskrita] Re: सीतायाः पतये नमः

>
> > It sounds perfect if one considers that verse as a puranic verse and
> > archiac and vedic usage is allowed in the puranas. Thanks for providing the
> > metrical details.  I was confused because Girish Mahoday's guru was
> > counting letters for metrical accuracy instead of the normal practice to
> > count syllables
> > Regards
> > Ajit Gargeshwari
>
> > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>  Regarding metrical or prosodic accuracy, Girish Mahoday is correct. The
> >> verse being Anushtup must have eight syllables in each quarter. With पत्ये
> >> there would be only seven syllables in last quarter while with पतये the
> >> metre would be complete.
>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
>
> >> On 28 May, 2012, at 12:34 AM, Ajit Gargeshwari <

> >> ajit.gargeshw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>  E karanta pullinga it always PRONOUNCED AS   पतये , HARAYE
>
> >> I have never heard  पत्ये pronounced as पतये unless one doesnot know the
> >> word or its usage in classical sanskrit. It has been clearly shown in this
> >> thread that as per Panini grammar used in classical literature पत्ये is
> >> correct. The word सीतापतये as a compound word  is correct. One can justify
> >> पतये if you consider puranas do use archaic words and vedic usages and is
> >> allowed in Panini's grammar though not used.
>
> >> I don't know about the verses metrical accuracy.
>
> >> Regards
> >> Ajit Gargeshwari
>

[Hnbhat B.R.]

नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ । 

पञ्चस्वापत्सु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते । । ४.३० । ।

[Vimala Sarma]

I must say I am a little mystified about all these emails on this topic.

Surely it is saying -salutation  to the Lord of Sita - therefore sita is ablative fem sing - sItAyAH; and pataye is the dative sing masculine for pati.

Am I missing something here?

Vimala

 

Vimala Sarma

My new e-mail is sarma...@gmail.com

+612 9699 4414

+61 409 690 220

[Hnbhat B.R.]

शशिनीव हिमार्तानां धर्मार्तानां रवाविव |
मनो न रमते स्त्रीणां जराजीर्णेन्द्रिये पतौ ||

It may be a part of any स्मृति text, as in such cases पराशरस्मृति  recommends  a second marriage suggesting divorce:.

नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ । 

पञ्चस्वापत्सु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते । । ४.३० । ।

In both of these cases, it is metrically preferred to पत्यौ as it would violate the metre: "द्विचतुःपादयोर्हस्वं सप्तमं दीर्घमन्ययोः" It would make the 7th letter गुरु.

 

• SkPur, 3, 13.2
  sraṣṭre vai lokatantrāya brahmaṇaḥ pataye namaḥ // 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 14, 15.2
  namo muṇḍārdhamuṇḍāya paśūnāṃ pataye namaḥ // 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 14, 19.1
  namo bhīmāya senānye paśūnāṃ pataye namaḥ / 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 20, 10.2
  sraṣṭre sarvasureśānāṃ brahmaṇaḥ pataye namaḥ // 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 20, 12.1
  ṛṣīṇāṃ pataye nityaṃ devānāṃ pataye namaḥ / 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 20, 12.1
  ṛṣīṇāṃ pataye nityaṃ devānāṃ pataye namaḥ / 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 20, 12.2
  vedānāṃ pataye caiva yogināṃ pataye namaḥ // 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 20, 12.2
  vedānāṃ pataye caiva yogināṃ pataye namaḥ // 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 20, 14.2
  sraṣṭre ca pataye caiva namaśca prabhaviṣṇave // 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 20, 15.1
  jagataḥ pataye caiva jagatsraṣṭre namaḥ sadā / 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 20, 15.2
  prakṛteḥ pataye nityaṃ puruṣātparagāmine // 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 20, 17.2
  namaste 'yograhastāya tejasāṃ pataye namaḥ // 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 21, 25.2
  namo gaṇādhipataye rudrāṇāṃ pataye namaḥ // 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 21, 26.2
  ādityānāṃ ca pataye vasūnāṃ pataye namaḥ // 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 21, 26.2
  ādityānāṃ ca pataye vasūnāṃ pataye namaḥ // 
  Context FN
• [SkPur, 21, 27.1
  namaḥ pṛthivyāḥ pataye ākāśapataye namaḥ / ]
  Context FN
• SkPur, 21, 27.1
  namaḥ pṛthivyāḥ pataye ākāśapataye namaḥ / 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 21, 27.2
  namaḥ svarlokapataye umāyāḥ pataye namaḥ // 
  Context FN
• [SkPur, 21, 27.2
  namaḥ svarlokapataye umāyāḥ pataye namaḥ // ]
  Context FN
• SkPur, 21, 43.1
  viṣṇave lokatantrāya prajānāṃ pataye namaḥ / 
  Context FN
• [SkPur, 21, 46.2
  bhūtāya bhūtanāthāya kuṣmāṇḍapataye namaḥ // ]
  Context FN
• SkPur, 23, 51.1
  gaṇānāṃ pataye caiva bhūtānāṃ pataye namaḥ / 
  Context FN
• SkPur, 23, 51.1
  gaṇānāṃ pataye caiva bhūtānāṃ pataye namaḥ / 
  Context FN
• [SkPur, 23, 53.1
  dvārādhyakṣāya śūrāya suyaśāpataye namaḥ / ]
  Context FN
• SkPur, 23, 55.2
  paśūnāṃ pataye caiva jetre mṛtyostathaiva ca // 
  Context FN

The above are the examples from स्कान्दपुराण. Only 4 are in compound, of which suyaśāpataye could have been suyaśā[ṃ] pataye also for meaning and grammatical correctness of the word सुयशस्.

As the above suggests, both the forms are listed as dative in database as suggested by Mm. Vimala of the word पति. There is no room for doubt that it is dative case. But I would suggest mm. to look into any list of declensions available on the net or in any form generators to understand the dative forms normally used:

http://murthygss.tripod.com/Sabda_hari.htm

in the above list provided by Murthy. Or you can get the same forms using morphology generators provided by Mm. Amba Kulkarni:

http://tdil-dc.in/san/skt_gen/generators.html#

or

directly the related noun declensions generator:

http://tdil-dc.in/san/skt_gen/noun/noun_gen.html

in case you missed the technical discussions in the previous messages regarding the justification of the form.

[Nityanand Misra]

You probably meant sItAyAH is genitive (and not dative)

Sent from my iPhone

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

आर्षः प्रयोगः is a term for usages which are not correct as per Panini, are still considered valid on account of these words having been used by rishis. Literally, word Arsha has following derivation: ऋषेरिदम् (अण्). Its meaning as per Apte's Dictionary is: Used by a rishi only, relating to or belonging to sages, archaic, Vedic (opp. लौकिक or classical). In all probability these usages were existent before Panini composed his grammatical rules.

So if one searches the Puranas or ancient Smriti texts one can find several such आर्ष usages and may also find usages which are not is Paninian Grammar but are used by other Grammatical schools.  Whenever such usages are found commentators and experts go at length either to defend the usage or censure such usages.

Regards

Ajit Gargeshwari

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:49 AM, krishnaprasad <krishna...@gmail.com> wrote:

I saw this dispute long back but not in the net, among my friends,
some of my friends said, this sloka comes in PadmaPurana So this is
Arsha Prayoga but some said it is not found in padmapurana,
Also
शशिनीव हिमार्तानां धर्मार्तानां रवाविव |
मनो न रमते स्त्रीणां जराजीर्णेन्द्रिये पतौ ||
here पतौ is called arsha prayoga, i don't know the original author of
this sloka but it comes in Hitopadesa 5th story 110 sloka

On May 28, 3:45 pm, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gargeshw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The entire analysis as I understand was about  why सीतायाः पतये is used in
> the below mentioned verse
> रामाय रामभद्राय रामचन्द्राय वेधसे ।
> रघुनाथाय नाथाय सीतायाः पतये नमः।।
> Is it correct or wrong? if he had said सीतायाः स्वामिने नमः then the whole
> discussion would have not taken place.
>
> Regards
> Ajit Gargeshwari
>

[Vimala Sarma]

Yes - it is genitive "of sita", and pataye is dative

Sorry for the error.

Vimala

 

Vimala Sarma

My new e-mail is sarma...@gmail.com

+612 9699 4414

+61 409 690 220

 

[Nityanand Misra]

I think आर्ष प्रयोग and अपाणिनीय प्रयोग are different sets though they overlap. आर्ष means used by the Rishis or used in Vedas but it need not be incorrect as per Panini, for Panini's grammar is a system for both Vedic and Laukika grammar. In fact Panini has himself used the word अनार्ष in the sense of Laukika Samskrita in the following Sutra

सम्बुद्धौ शाकल्यस्येतावनार्षे

If आर्ष means अपाणिनीय, then the above Sutra would mean "In the system of Panini, in the opinion of Sakalya, .... " which would be redundant since this is the grammar of Panini.

आर्ष प्रयोग may or may not be पाणिनीय प्रयोग. क्षेत्रस्य पतिना, दिशां च पतये, सीतायाः पतये नमः are both आर्ष (Vedic) प्रयोग as well as पाणिनीय प्रयोग. Some आर्ष प्रयोग may not be पाणिनीय प्रयोग though they might have confirmed to the eight old grammar systems which preceded Panini's system.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I agree with Nityananda. It is not only definition of आर्ष given by Apte that would explain all the usages. आर्षप्रयोग is very popular in usage as :

आर्षं धर्मोपदेशं च वेदशास्त्राविरोधिना।

यस्तर्केणानुसन्धत्ते स धर्मं वेद नेतरः॥ (मनुस्मृतिः १२/१०६)

which has been explained as ऋषिप्रणीतम् धर्मोपदेशं - which does not not include only Veda, and शास्त्र, but any teaching taught by the sages. आर्ष refers to one of the 8 varieties of विवाह also as per याज्ञवल्क्य.

The आर्ष in the case of usages other than Veda-s also like धर्मशास्त्र, स्मृति etc.
and need not necessarily mean अपाणिनीय. In the case of Veda-s mostly Panini uses "छन्दसि बहुलम्" and many times explains the deviation. 

[Nityanand Misra]

Although षष्ठीयुक्तश्छन्दसि वा (1.4.9) can explain the usages सीतायाः पतये नमः in श्रीरामरक्षास्तोत्रम् and ब्रह्मणः/पशूनां/देवानां/योगिनां/जगतः/प्रकृतेः/तेजसां/रुद्राणां/वसूनां/पृथिव्याः/उमायाः/प्रजानां/गणानां/भूतानां पतये नमः in स्कन्दपुराणम्, it still does not explain the usages like

1. सखिना वानरेन्द्रेण in रामायणम्
2. कृष्णस्य सखिरर्जुनः in भारतम्
3. नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ

While reading the Tattvabodhinī commentary on पतिः समास एव (1.4.8), I came the following explanation (in fact the same explanation is offered for सीतायाः पतये नमः) by the तत्त्वबोधिनीकार for the above usages -

अथ कथं "सीतायाः पतये नमः" इति,  "नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ" इति पराशरश्च। अत्राहुः। पतिरित्याख्यातः पतिः 'तत्करोति तदाचष्टे' इति णिचि टिलोपे 'अच इः' इत्यौणादिकप्रत्यये 'णेरनिटि' इति णिलोपे च निष्पन्नोऽयं पतिशब्दः 'पतिः समास एव' इत्यत्र न गृह्यते, लाक्षणिकत्वात् इति॥ एतेन 'कृष्णस्य सखिरर्जुनः'  इति भारतम्, 'सखिना वानरेन्द्रेण' इति रामायणं च व्याख्यातम्॥

2012/5/29 Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

--

[murthy]

As far as Commentaries on Valmiki Ramayana are concerned (Govindaraja and Teertha), when they encounter a non-Paninian usage in the text they invariably say "aarshapryogaH". It is quite apt as Valmiki was a rishi.

Regards,

Murthy

[Subhash]

Dr. Bhat,

Where is the below shloka taken from?
To what work does 4.30 refer to?

- Subhash.

On May 29, 12:58 am, "Hnbhat B.R." <hnbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे* च पतिते पतौ ।

> पञ्चस्वापत्सु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते । । ४.३० । ।
>
> --

> *Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
> **Research Scholar,
> *

[Rajagopalan Ayilam]

Hi all,

Sorry I was not able to check my mail for the last 15 days. Thanks for Nityanadji and Dr.Bhatt for clarifying my doubts.

In Samskrita Bharathi's book the following is given as explanation for " सीतायाः पतये नमः"

एते प्रयोगाः आर्षप्रयोगाः इति महाकविप्रयोगाः इति वा उच्यन्ते । ’सीतायाः पत्ये’ इति "सीतापतये" इति वा वक्तव्यम्। घिसंज्ञायां सत्येव ’पतये’ इति रूपं भवति। पतिशब्दस्य घिसंज्ञ तु ’पतिः समास एव (१.४.८) इति सूत्रेण समासे एव। अतः सीतापतये इति रूपं साधु। यदि समासः न क्रियते तर्हि पत्ये इति रूपम्। 
 
यद्यपि सीतायाः पतये नमः इति मनोरमायां कथञ्चित् समर्थितम् सा तु अगतिकगतिः।


A.S.Rajagopalan

2012/5/27 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

[Hnbhat B.R.]

2012/6/9 Rajagopalan Ayilam <ayil...@gmail.com>

Hi all,

Sorry I was not able to check my mail for the last 15 days. Thanks for Nityanadji and Dr.Bhatt for clarifying my doubts.

In Samskrita Bharathi's book the following is given as explanation for " सीतायाः पतये नमः"

एते प्रयोगाः आर्षप्रयोगाः इति महाकविप्रयोगाः इति वा उच्यन्ते । ’सीतायाः पत्ये’ इति "सीतापतये" इति वा वक्तव्यम्। घिसंज्ञायां सत्येव ’पतये’ इति रूपं भवति। पतिशब्दस्य घिसंज्ञ तु ’पतिः समास एव (१.४.८) इति सूत्रेण समासे एव। अतः सीतापतये इति रूपं साधु। यदि समासः न क्रियते तर्हि पत्ये इति रूपम्। 
 
यद्यपि सीतायाः पतये नमः इति मनोरमायां कथञ्चित् समर्थितम् सा तु अगतिकगतिः।

 

A.S.Rajagopalan

in the above sloka सीतायाः पतये is wrong. It should be सीतापतये or सीतायाः  पत्ये

About this a discussion is done in Samskrita Bharati's book Shuddhi Koumudi. But I am not satisfied with the explanations given there. In fact some more similar examples are given in the book.

 It is the same explanation we all have given. If you had given the above extract in the first post, mentioned why you are not satisfied with the explanation, you could have saved our time and effort by being precise in our replies. There is nothing new point in our replies than they have given. In fact, they were not satisfied with the explanation given in Manorama and concluded the usage as archaic another name for grammatical aberrations in epic usages as explained by Nithyanandaji. 

With regards

[murthy]

Which is this book of Samskritabharati that has been referred to?

Thanks and regards,

Murthy

[Hnbhat B.R.]

2012/6/9 murthy <murt...@gmail.com>

Which is this book of Samskritabharati that has been referred to?

Thanks and regards,

Murthy

He has already named the book in his first post as शुद्धिकौमुदी.

It seems to be the same as described in this page:

http://bookstore.samskritabharatiusa.org/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage-ask.tpl&product_id=883&category_id=31&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26&vmcchk=1&Itemid=26

authored by Janardana Hegde as given in the title page. 

With regards 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

This is the Link to buy the book. I could not find the excerpt.

http://samskritabharati.in/archives/product/shuddhakoumudi

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

2012/6/9 murthy <murt...@gmail.com>

[murthy]

Many thanks, Mr Bhat

Regards

Murthy

----- Original Message -----

From: Hnbhat B.R.

To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 7:38 PM

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] सीतायाः पतये नमः

[Sita Raama]

I know its an old discussion, I am attaching a page that I found in old Chandamama. 

--
धन्यवाद: - राम