samskrita sambhasanam: vadatu or vada?

[sriniva...@gmail.com]

Namaste,

I have a question regarding verb usage and hope there are sanskrit experts who can answer it for me. I was looking at samskrita sambhashanam video and the teacher says 'bhavan vadatu' to indicate 'you say/speak'. This happens at 2:30 in this video 

Isn't vadatu a third person singular? Shouldn't this be second person singular vada instead of vadatu as in BG 3.2 'tad ekam vada niscitya' 'tell me one thing decisively'? 

Thank you

Srinivasa

[Taff Rivers]

Srinivasa,

   I haven't viewed your video, but:

bhavan-vadatu

bhavan

•  in comp. for bhavat.

bhavat 

      •  m. f. vocative. bhavan

      •  used respectfully for the 2nd pers. pron., but properly with the 3rd. 

      vadatu is indeed the imperative, accusative singular, 3rd person of vad.  

Taff, 

[DR Y N RAO]

Dear Srinivasa and others,

As a part of my 'LEARN SANSKRIT MODULES' (An e-mail based Sanskrit Basics' Learning Course), I have prepared a 'Full Lesson' on the Topic titled  ‘Tvm!’ versus ‘Évan!/ÉvtI’

[‘YOU’ versus ‘YOU’(HONORIFIC)].

The same is attached herewith in the PDF Format for your benefit.

With best wishes,

--Dr. Y.N. RAO,
06/09/2016

HYDERABAD

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Sivakumari Katuri]

युष्मद्शब्दे (समानाधिकरणे) प्रयुक्ते अप्रयुक्ते च मध्यमपुरुषप्रयोगः भवति। यथा - त्वं गच्छसि, अत्र युष्मद्-शब्दस्य समानाधिकरणत्वं वर्तते। गच्छसि, अत्र तु युष्मद्-शब्दस्य प्रयोगः नास्ति तथापि मध्यमपुरुषः।

When the युष्मद्-शब्दः (either implied or expressed) is the word that is in agreement with the verb, a मध्यम-पुरुष-प्रत्यय: is used. 

गीतासु उदाहरणम् - 
तस्मादेवं विदित्वैनं नानुशोचितुमर्हसि ।।2-25।। तिङन्त-पदम् is अर्हसि। Here त्वम् (युष्मद्-प्रातिपदिकम्, प्रथमा-एकवचनम्) is implied. 

तथापि त्वं महाबाहो नैवं शोचितुमर्हसि ।। 2-26।। तिङन्त-पदम् is अर्हसि। Here त्वम् (युष्मद्-प्रातिपदिकम्, प्रथमा-एकवचनम्) is expressed. 

भवत्-शब्दस्य प्रयोगे तु प्रथमपुरुषः एव भवति, तस्य युष्मद्-शब्दभिन्नत्वात्। 

--

सर्वे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु।

[sriniva...@gmail.com]

Namaste Sivakumari Mata,

Thank you very much for the explanation. Looking at another Gita example your explanation makes perfect sense.

BG 1.11 says: "bhīṣmam evābhirakṣantu bhavantaḥ sarva eva hi"

So in "bhavantaḥ bhīṣmam abhirakṣantu" prathama purusa verb is used. Is "युष्मद्शब्दे (समानाधिकरणे) प्रयुक्ते अप्रयुक्ते च मध्यमपुरुषप्रयोगः भवति" part of panini sutras? Could you please share the sutra number if you have. I found the ashtadhayi here: http://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tools/ashtadhyayi/

Regards

Srinvasa

[sriniva...@gmail.com]

Namaste Dr. Y.N. RAO mahodaya,

Thank you very much for sharing this material.

Regards

Srinivasa

[sriniva...@gmail.com]

I found the sutras:

"युष्मद्युपपदे समानाधिकरणे स्थानिन्यपि मध्यमः॥ " Link

"अस्मद्युत्तमः॥" Link

"शेषे प्रथमः॥" Link

Seems by the last sutra we must use prathama.

Regards

Srinivasa

[Subrahmanian R]

Are the words भगवान् and भगवती also treated as the respectful forms for you (त्वम्).

In the statement भगवति हरिवल्लभे मनोज्ञे त्रिभुवन्भूतिकरी प्रसीद मह्यम्. It appears भगवती is the respectful form and normally प्रसीदतु would be appropriate, but because of the subsequent 3 names addressed directly to the Goddess, overall the subject is second person and प्रसीद is used.

The sentence भवति बिक्षान् देहि was earlier discussed in this forum and one explanation for the second person verb was 'त्वम् is to be treated as implied' and it is भवति त्वं बिक्षान् देहि.

With reverence to all

R Subrahmanian

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On 10-Jun-2016 7:10 am, "Subrahmanian R" <subrah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are the words भगवान् and भगवती also treated as the respectful forms for you (त्वम्).
>
> In the statement भगवति हरिवल्लभे मनोज्ञे त्रिभुवन्भूतिकरी प्रसीद मह्यम्. It appears भगवती is the respectful form and normally प्रसीदतु would be appropriate, but because of the subsequent 3 names addressed directly to the Goddess, overall the subject is second person and प्रसीद is used.
>

भगवति is the vocative of भगवती, feminine gender of भगवत् . The meaning of भगवान् has been explained as

उत्पत्तिं प्रलयं चैव भूतानामगतिं गतिम्। 
वेत्ति विद्यामविद्यां च स वाच्यो भगवानिति॥

तत्तत्वविदस्तत्वम् यज्ज्ञानमद्वयम् ।
ब्रह्मेति परमात्मेति भगवानिति शब्द्द्यते ॥ 
              Bhagavatham 1.2.11.

सर्वकर्ता सर्वभोक्ताऽन्वयी नियन्ता सर्वेश्वरो भगवानिति निर्विकल्पनिश्चयः।।

All apply in the case of भगवती. In this case, त्वम्  is to be taken as the implied subject.

So the words भगवान् and भगवती also treated as the respectful forms for you त्वम् like भवत्.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

> So the words भगवान् and भगवती also treated as the respectful forms for you त्वम् like भवत्.

Please read "treated" as "are not treated" in my earlier  message.

[Subrahmanian R]

Bhatt Sir, Thank you for elucidating the meaning of Bhagawan and Bhagavati and also for explaining the grammatical treatment.

 

With respects

R Subrahmanian

On 10 June 2016 at 10:20, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So the words भगवान् and भगवती also treated as the respectful forms for you त्वम् like भवत्.

Please read "treated" as "are not treated" in my earlier  message.

--

[Taff Rivers]

Srinivasa,

As has been amply explained 'vada' is the appropriate form in the context of  BG . 3.2

 

That of BG 1.11 however, is different. Neither respectful or imperative. A rendition* I have reads 'Let us all...'

This is a special usage**, that has not been mentioned, one that is neither imperative or respectful (formal?), but exhortive.

 

**As professor Walter Maurer has it, in  Lesson twenty-one of his book:

 

... Usually the pronoun , you is omitted in the imperative, but it is often used for emphasis.

Logically, we expect this mood of the verb to be used only in the second person (singular, dual or plural!), as it involves  direct address. 

 ... however, in Sanskrit it is possible to have an imperative in the first and also the third person!

Here neither a request nor an order, but rather an exhortation to do this or that, as, for example, when we say 'Let's go!'  

English has no special verb form for this, but uses the helping verb 'let' to express the idea.

 

Maurer, does not quote his source, so as to whether or not this is Pāṇinian grammar, perhaps others can advise.

 

  Taff,

 

   * Penguin Classic, 1962.

On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 21:01:00 UTC+1, sriniva...@gmail.com wrote:

[gopal krishnan]

युष्मद्युपपदे समानाधिकरणेस्थानिन्यपि मध्यम:

अस्मद्युत्तम:

शेषे प्रथम:

above three panini sutras clearly specify only yushmad shabda can be used for madhyama purusha,
 asmad for uttama purusha and the rest must be prathama purusha or third person...... without any ambiguity.

k.s.gopalakrishnan

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On 12-Jun-2016 6:04 pm, "gopal krishnan" <gopal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> युष्मद्युपपदे समानाधिकरणेस्थानिन्यपि मध्यम:
>
> अस्मद्युत्तम:
>
> शेषे प्रथम:
>

This has been explained earlier by Katuri. Please read earlier replies before postin replies to avoid repetition.

[sriniva...@gmail.com]

Thank you all, the esteemed members, for your valuable answers and elaborations. I came across another usage in Srimad Bhagavatam that relates to the same topic and on which I need some help understanding it. 

The verse in SB 9.10.4 says "kosalendro ’vatān naḥ" = "May the king of Ayodhya Protect us"

Here naḥ is used as an object (dvitiya bahuvacana) of asmad. Am I right in thinking the verb avatāt is prathama 1.1 of av[a] pālane? If yes how is the usage "kosalendro ’vatān naḥ" understood? Shouldn't uttama purusa be used here?

Regards

Srinivasa

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On 20-Jun-2016 11:56 pm, <sriniva...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you all, the esteemed members, for your valuable answers and elaborations. I came across another usage in Srimad Bhagavatam that relates to the same topic and on which I need some help understanding it. 
> The verse in SB 9.10.4 says "kosalendro ’vatān naḥ" = "May the king of Ayodhya Protect us"
> Here naḥ is used as an object (dvitiya bahuvacana) of asmad. Am I right in thinking the verb avatāt is prathama 1.1 of av[a] pālane? If yes how is the usage "kosalendro ’vatān naḥ" understood? Shouldn't uttama purusa be used here?
>
> Regards
> Srinivasa
>

Good question. As naḥ is अस्मद् द्वितीया used as उपपद to अवतात्  naḥ, why shouldn't uttama purusa be used here?

As far as I know,  'लः कर्मणि च भावे चाकर्मकेभ्यः  ३।४।६९' says that

लः=लकाराः सकर्मकेभ्यः धातुभ्यः कर्मणि कारके भवन्ति, चकारात् कर्त्तरि च, अकर्मकेभ्यः धातुभ्यः लकाराः भावे भवन्ति, चकारात् कर्त्तरि च। द्विः चकार-ग्रहणात् उभयत्र {} इति सम्बध्यते। verbs are used in कर्त्तरि for सकर्मक and अकर्मक both. Here it is कर्त्तरि प्रयोग, it takes subject in प्रथमा विभक्ति and नः is not with समानाधिकरण same case ending with the कर्ता of the verb. As such it is not समानाधिकरण उपपद अस्मच्छब्द as required by the rule. Hence it will not take प्रथमपुरुष.

Scholars may answer this question.

[sriniva...@gmail.com]

Respected HN Bhat and others,

I am sorry, looking at this sentence again it seems I didn't pay proper attention to it and confused others as well.  

KosalendraH is prathama ekavacana and the associated kriya is avatAt prathama-purusa ekavacana. naH is karma in dvitiya. In that sense there shouldn't be any ambiguity. Is this comprehension correct?