A question on grammar.

[P.K.Ramakrishnan]

My father was a Sanskrit scholar.   He was also conversant with the various slokas attributed to Sankaracharya.

I had heard from him  that he had come across only one grammatical mistake of Sankaracharya. He quotes from the uma-maheswara-stotram - 

namaḥ śivābhyāṃ jaṭilandharābhyāṃ

jarāmṛtibhyāṃ ca vivarjitābhyām | 

janārdanābjodbhavapūjitābhyāṃ

namo namaḥ śaṅkarapārvatībhyām || 10 |

Here jatilamdharaabhyaam should be jataadharaabhyam.

I put this in the group for discussion.

-----------------------------------
P.K.Ramakrishnan
http://peekayar.blogspot.com

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, March 16, 2013 2:22:44 PM UTC+8, P.K.Ramakrishnan wrote:

My father was a Sanskrit scholar.   He was also conversant with the various slokas attributed to Sankaracharya.

I had heard from him  that he had come across only one grammatical mistake of Sankaracharya. He quotes from the uma-maheswara-stotram - 

namaḥ śivābhyāṃ jaṭilandharābhyāṃ

jarāmṛtibhyāṃ ca vivarjitābhyām | 

janārdanābjodbhavapūjitābhyāṃ

namo namaḥ śaṅkarapārvatībhyām || 10 |

Here jatilamdharaabhyaam should be jataadharaabhyam.

The "proposed correction" जटाधराभ्यां is obviously wrong as it does not fit the metre (उपेन्द्रवज्रा)

The reading जटिलन्धराभ्यां fits the metre, and looks like an अलुक्समास like जलंधर.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

 

Here jatilamdharaabhyaam should be jataadharaabhyam.

The "proposed correction" जटाधराभ्यां is obviously wrong as it does not fit the metre (उपेन्द्रवज्रा)

The reading जटिलन्धराभ्यां fits the metre, and looks like an अलुक्समास like जलंधर.

This question has been once raised earlier in this group itself and was tried:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/samskrita/3KQj_fx2sgM/CFL92dETyG4J

and जलंधर is not aluk-samasa. It can can be a simple संज्ञा with जल+धारि - derived with खच् suffix by 3-2-46 संज्ञायां भृतृवृजिधारिसहितपिदमः . I don't think there is aluk for द्वितीया in the अलुक् प्रकरण.

Or the alternative reading possible be जटिकन्धराभ्यां

which is possible to be confused with ल.

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:10:26 AM UTC+8, hnbhat wrote:

and जलंधर is not aluk-samasa. It can can be a simple संज्ञा with जल+धारि - derived with खच् suffix by 3-2-46 संज्ञायां भृतृवृजिधारिसहितपिदमः . I don't think there is aluk for द्वितीया in the अलुक् प्रकरण.

Thanks for the correction, the न् comes from म् by using मोऽनुस्वारः (8-3-23) and अनुस्वारस्य ययि परसवर्णः (8-4-58). The म् in turn comes from अरुर्द्विषदजन्तस्य मुम् (6-3-67) and not सुप् affix अम् as I thought earlier.

However there is surely a समास here since अरुर्द्विषदजन्तस्य मुम् (6-3-67) has the अनुवृत्ति of  उत्तरपदे from अलुगुत्तरपदे (6-3-1). From अलुगुत्तरपदे (6-3-1),  अधिकार of अलुक् goes till  आनङ् ऋतो द्वन्द्वे (6-3-25) while that of उत्तरपदे goes till सम्प्रसारणस्य (6-3-139). Is it an उपपदसमास then by  उपपदमतिङ् (2-2-19)?

Back to the original question, जटाधराभ्यां, even though grammatically correct, is not possible here as the metre would not allow it. जटिलन्धराभ्यां/जटिकन्धराभ्यां are both grammatically correct and fit the metre.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

However there is surely a समास here since अरुर्द्विषदजन्तस्य मुम् (6-3-67) has the अनुवृत्ति of  उत्तरपदे from अलुगुत्तरपदे (6-3-1). From अलुगुत्तरपदे (6-3-1),  अधिकार of अलुक् goes till  आनङ् ऋतो द्वन्द्वे (6-3-25) while that of उत्तरपदे goes till सम्प्रसारणस्य (6-3-139). Is it an उपपदसमास then by  उपपदमतिङ् (2-2-19)?

It should be उपपद compound. like कुम्भकार and there is no लौकिकविग्रहवाक्य for the compound.  

"तत्रोपपदं सप्तमीस्थम्" इति उपपदत्वात् जल+ङस्+धारि + खच् = ण्यन्तस्य धारेः खचि, ह्रस्वः, णिलोपश्च। 

"उपपदमतिङ्" इति उपपदसमासे, जल+धर - इति समासः अतिङ्ङन्तेन समासे,  मुम्, "नश्चापदान्तस्य" इति अनुस्वारे, परसवर्णे, सुबुत्पत्तौ, जलन्धरः, जटिलन्धरः इत्यादिरूपसिद्धिः।

 

Back to the original question, जटाधराभ्यां, even though grammatically correct, is not possible here as the metre would not allow it. जटिलन्धराभ्यां/जटिकन्धराभ्यां are both grammatically correct and fit the metre.

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

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

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

[Subrahmanian R]

Respected Sirs,

 

I could not understand the point raised by Sri Ramakrishnan. Is it that Jatila is incorrect. This word is used by Adi Sankara elsewhere also - ' jatilo mundi lunchita kesa:'. The word Jatila is found in Dictionary - eg cologne:

jaTila		mf({A})n. (g. {picchA7di}) = {-TA-dhArin} Mn. ii f. MBh. Hariv. &c. hairy (the face) MBh. vii , 93 , 47 ; twisted together (the hair)

If it relates to 'Samasa', I withdraw with apologies as it is above my head.

 

With respects

R Subrahmanian

2013/3/18 Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Simple reply will be you will not find a compound like जटिलन्धर as a name of either of Parvathi or Shiva, in which case the compound explained would take place.

Please go through earlier posts. Since it is an adjective, it could not have any compound with other words than an substantive noun qualified by it.