वाक्यपदीयम् तथा चर्चाविषयः - Are there any nouns in Sanskrit ?

[S. L. Abhyankar]

नमांसि !

सहर्षं निवेद्यते यदस्ति लेखः प्रस्तुतः - Are there any nouns in Sanskrit ?

सस्नेहम्
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः ।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

You might need to write a paragraph connecting the last paragraph to all the previous discussion. Otherwise, your reader can not figure out why all of a sudden Vakyapadiyam is coming into discussion. 

--
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+unsubscribe@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.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[S. L. Abhyankar]

धन्योऽस्मि महोदय !

भवतां सूचनामनुसृत्य परिष्कृतोऽन्तिमः परिच्छेदः निम्नमिव => 

So, what a word is etymologically and what the role of the word is in a sentence are two different things. Possibly one should be finding good discussion on the role of a word in a sentence in वाक्यपदीयम् of भर्तृहरिः. That could be the logic of its title having the word वाक्य not वाक्. It comes to mind that by this viewpoint, study of वाक्यपदीयम् of भर्तृहरिः has its own significance. Probably such significance of वाक्यपदीयम् has not been brought out at all. There is so much talk of study of अष्टाध्यायी, कौमुदी etc., that study of वाक्यपदीयम् hardly ever gets any mention.

अपि साध्विदम् ?

सस्नेहम्
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः ।

"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. What a word is etymologically and what is its role in a sentence is not the issue dealt in vAkyapadIyam. That is not the reson why is called vAkyapadIyam.

2. As per the theory presented in vAkyapadIyam, words do not have an independent existence. dividing a sentence into words and words into their constituent units such as the root/the stem, prefix, suffix etc. is done by the grammarian for the purpose of analysis. vAkya is important because people speak in vAkya-s not in words. Words are important because people think there are words. व्यवहारः पदाश्रयः -वा.प. aShTAdhyAyI generates words not sentences. But the nature of words is to contribute to a unified meaning called sentence-meaning. That is the meaning (at least one of the meanings of समर्थः पदविधिः 2.2.2. Since the book deals with the actually real वाक्य and analytically real पद , it is called वाक्यपदीयम् .

3. Another reason for its being called vAkyapadIyam is the significance for the two kANDa-s vAkyakANDa and padakANDa. The book is also called as trikANDi. The beauty is that the first chapter is named after the ultimately real , i.e., Brahman (here, S'abdabrahman) and the second , after the theoretically real , i.e., vAkya and the third, after the pragmatically real , i.e. pada. 

3.You know the following : सुप्तिङंतम् पदम् । नाम and आख्यात are the only two categories of words as per Sanskrit grammarians. Adjective is only a  functional role of a नाम. In सुंदरी बाला , both the words are nouns only. Both can be used as independent nouns in a sentence without any change in their form. 

4. In vAkyapadIyam, the adjectival meaning of a noun is dealt in guNasamuddEs'ya and the nominal meaning of noun is dealt in dravyasamuddEs'ya, both as chapters of padakANDa. 

[अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः | श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।]

महोदय !

1. दृश्यते ज्ञातव्यं "वाक्यानां पदानां विषये इदमिति वाक्यपदीयम्" !
   
2. मम विचारेण तु "सुन्दरी बाला" इत्यत्र द्वावपि शब्दौ विशेषणे स्तः | 
   
3. सुपः विशेषणेभ्योऽपि युज्यन्ते एव | अतः "सुप्तिङंतम् पदम्" इति सूत्रेण केवलं नामानि आख्यातानि च निर्दिष्टानीति किं कारणेन मन्तव्यम् ?
   

अभ्यसनीयं खलु मया वाक्यपदीयम्, तत्रापि प्रकरणे "गुणसमुद्देश्य" "द्रव्यसमुद्देश्य" च, यथा भवता निर्दिष्टम् ! 

धन्यवादाः !!

 

[Taff Rivers]

SL,

   Is the sphoṭa your subject?

Confining your research to narrow regions of the world and its past epochs gives a false sense of reality.

For example, See Bhartṛhari's Philosophy of Language
  Journal of the American Oriental Society
  Vol. 119, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1999), pp. 88-125

Darwin has an alternative view on the origin of sphoṭa when 'bursting' is interpreted as 'emergence'.

Compare and contrast for a greater understanding of the nature of thing aka the meaning of life (:-).

Anyway, the mental associations that arise in my mind when 'noun' sounds, do not seem to have the same associations as your 'noun' sounds do.


Taff,

   If all my sentences above, are false, am I telling the truth?



  On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 05:46:28 UTC+1, SL Abhyankar wrote:

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Respected Sri S L Abhyankar-ji,

> दृश्यते ज्ञातव्यं "वाक्यानां पदानां विषये इदमिति वाक्यपदीयम्" !

Yes, that is why I said, 

"Since the book deals with the actually real वाक्य and analytically real पद , it is called वाक्यपदीयम्"

To be more precise, vAkyArtha  and padArtha are the subject matter of the book. 

In fact, the topic of each samuddEs'ya is a padArtha. These padArtha-s are not word meanings; they are in fact categories of word-meanings. 

Though this word padArtha is used in nyAya and vais'Eshika too, there padArtha-s are entities and are not necessarily categories of word-meanings. But in vAkyapadIyam, they are essentially categories of word-meanings only. 

.....................

> मम विचारेण तु "सुन्दरी बाला" इत्यत्र द्वावपि शब्दौ विशेषणे स्तः |

विशेषण means specifying, the word that specifies, qualifies. Hence it always requires a विशेष्य, the qualified. 

In सुंदरीं बालां  पश्यामि, the  विशेष्य -  विशेषण relationship is explicit. बाला is विशेष्य and सुन्दरी is विशेषण here.  

When सुन्दरी बाला = beautiful girl, then विशेष्य -  विशेषण relationship is explicit again.  बाला is विशेष्य and सुन्दरी is विशेषण here too.   

When सुन्दरी बाला = सुन्दरी  च बाला च  as in सीता  सुंदरी बाला (अस्ति) then ' "सुन्दरी बाला" इत्यत्र द्वावपि शब्दौ विशेषणे स्तः |' is correct. Even in सीता  सुंदरबाला (अस्ति), "सुन्दरी बाला" इत्यत्र द्वावपि शब्दौ विशेषणे स्तः is correct. 

In तत्सुंदरी बाला (अस्ति), बाला is   विशेषण  and सुन्दरी is विशेष्य . 

In तद्बाला सुंदरी (अस्ति) बाला is विशेष्य and सुन्दरी is विशेषण . 

सा बाला अस्ति । can mean She is a girl or That person is a female and is in childhood. 

When it is used as equivalent to 'she is a girl' , बाला sounds to be a noun. When it is used in the sense of That person is a female and is in childhood, बाला sounds to be an adjective. Thus a subanta has an inherent potential to be a nominal or adjectival word. 

............................................ 

> सुपः विशेषणेभ्योऽपि युज्यन्ते एव | अतः "सुप्तिङंतम् पदम्" इति सूत्रेण केवलं नामानि आख्यातानि च निर्दिष्टानीति किं कारणेन मन्तव्यम् ?

-- Above explanation has answer to this too. 

 

 

[Michael Bykov]

Dear sirs,

by the way,

I definitely know that, for example, in ancient Greek grammars there are neither nouns nor adjectives. And in medieval grammars also they are not exist. But only "names".

And moreover, even in the first Russian grammar of Maletiy Smotritsky - ca. 1600, they also do not exist, only "names".

It is also obvious that modern grammar significantly changes the meaning of the ancient text, when it treats some word as a noun or as an adjective, and not as a "name". Modern grammars are the result of the work of Descartes, Newton, Kant's thought, when a single entity is divided into an object, or a thing, and a subject, or a representation. Adjective is automatically understood as an element of our consciousness. Red for me can be green for you, and there is no (in modern knowledge) ways to make sure both reds are the same. And "red" in modern grammar is adjective. 

Therefore, the ancient text should be read, having in hand and in a mind an only ancient grammar. And ancient set of the notions, and ancient way of working with these notions. Otherwise, an anachronism, a crude mistake, is inevitable.

--

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+unsubscribe@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.

--

М.

http://diglossa.ru
xmpp://m.b...@jabber.ru

[अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः | श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।]

Dear Mr. Taff Rivers,

No, स्फोटः is not my subject. The चर्चाविषयः is simple. It focuses on derivation and etymology of words and their use or role in a sentence. When used in a sentence, it seems what is विशेषणम् by etymology becomes नाम and/or vice versa. 

Though I have not studied वाक्यपदीयम्, it came to mind that this वाक्यपदीयम् must be dealing in this aspect of the language. Dr. Paturi is explaining it beautifully. I am thankful to him. 

[Taff Rivers]

Gentlemen,

Possibly one should be finding good discussion on the role of a word in a sentence. iti SL.


  I'm trying to get to the root of the matter, etymologically speaking (:-).
  As regards Sanskrit, I have yet to come across a topic that has not been discussed and extensively so, over the centuries.

  So, Nirukta (per Yāska) or Vyākaraṇa?

Viz.

  The study of Nirukta has been closely related to the ancillary Vedic science of Vyākaraṇa, but they have a different focus.

  Vyākaraṇa deals with linguistic analysis to establish the exact form of words to properly express ideas, while Nirukta focuses on linguistic analysis
  to help establish the proper meaning of the words, given the context they are used in.?

  Thank you,

    Taff

[अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः | श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।]

Dear Mr. Taff Rivers !

I am impressed by your urge "to get to the root of the matter". It seems that in so doing, you would like to derive some synthesized conclusion from a comprehensive study of 

1. यास्काचार्याणाम् निरुक्तम् 
2. मुनित्रयाणां (पाणिनिः, वररुचिः, पतञ्जलिश्च) व्याकरणम् 
3. भर्तृहरेः वाक्यपदीयम् 

It comes to mind that basically all these should be considered as complimentary to each other. 

But with so many great works involved, there will be the challenge to keep focus on "the role of a word in a sentence ". 

BTW I happened to be browsing through "Indian Semantic Analysis: The Nirvacana Tradition By Eivind Kahrs" Some interesting reading !

[Naresh Cuntoor]

[Moderator's note]

At this point, the discussion on this thread is way too scattered to be useful. Please continue this discussion off-the-list. If you have something more concrete, then feel free to write in the group.

While Abhyankarji's goal of a synthesized conclusion from a study of the three texts is laudable, could you perhaps break it down for a discussion? Otherwise it is too abstract a wish at this point.

Naresh