Grammar clarification

[karthik holla]

I was reading chandamama sanskrit edition and found this sentence.

नदीतः जलम् आनीय पत्या स्नानं कारयति ।

Any rule for the word पत्या to be in तृतीया ?

Or better it should be पत्युः in षष्ठी ?

With regards 

Karthik 

[sumant]

Isn't the causative कारयति enough to get a तृतीया?

हृक्रोरन्यतरस्याम्

Sumant

--
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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAD4O7mi6nn3eHMtUnhV%2Bn8NGYV4dVrv%3DLpywU0s0%2B1H2pEXKGA%40mail.gmail.com.

[karthik holla]

Thank you.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CACF_XGckSUE2RZ46gLCmj4mTkZ5ThNwhSaPcOKRz9wGiPPJRKg%40mail.gmail.com.

[kenp]

The word पत्या (Patyā) in the third case (तृतीया - Instrumental) is actually grammatically correct here due to the rules of causal verbs (णिजन्त - Causative) in Sanskrit.

Using पत्युः (Patyuḥ) in the sixth case (षष्ठी - Genitive) would be grammatically incorrect in this specific sentence structure.

Here is the exact grammatical breakdown of why this happens.

1. The Rule of the Causative Agent (प्रयोज्य कर्ता)

In a normal sentence, the person doing the action is the subject (कर्ता) and takes the 1st case (प्रथमा).

• Normal: पतिः स्नानं करोति। (The husband does the bath / takes a bath.)

When you change the verb into a causative/prompted action (कारयति - causes to do / makes someone do), the original subject becomes the "prompted agent" (प्रयोज्य कर्ता).

According to Panini's grammar rule (कर्तृकरणयोस्तृतीया - 2.3.18), the prompted agent of a causative verb generally takes the तृतीया विभक्ति (Third Case), unless it falls under specific exceptions (like verbs of motion, eating, or knowing).

Since कृ (to do/make) does not fall under those exceptions:

• The husband (the one being made to bathe) must be in the तृतीया विभक्ति.
• Causative: (सा) पत्या स्नानं कारयति। ([She] makes the husband take a bath / causes bathing by the husband.)

2. Why Genitive (पत्युः) is Incorrect

If you change it to the Genitive case (पत्युः), the sentence would mean: "She causes the bath of the husband [by someone else]."

While Genitive can show possession, Panini's syntax requires the actual doer of the action (even in a causative sentence) to be expressed in either the 2nd (द्वितीया) or 3rd (तृतीया) case depending on the verb root. For the root कृ (कारयति), the 3rd case is the standard rule.

3. A Brief Word Form Check

Just to clarify the declension (शब्दरूप) of the cargo word पति (Husband):

• पत्या = तृतीया विभक्ति, एकवचन (Instrumental Singular) — "by/through the husband"
• पत्युः = पञ्चमी / षष्ठी विभक्ति, एकवचन (Ablative/Genitive Singular) — "from/of the husband"

Therefore, पत्या is the precise and correct grammatical choice for this sentence.

[kenp]

यह संस्कृत वाक्य "नदीतः जलम् आनीय पत्या स्नानं कारयति ।" का हिंदी अनुवाद है: "नदी से जल लाकर अपने पति को स्नान कराती है।"

यह वाक्य किसी कथा या कहानी (जैसे 'चन्दामामा' की प्राचीन कथाओं) का एक अंश प्रतीत होता है, जो पतिव्रता पत्नी की सेवाभावना को दर्शाता है।

व्याकरण की दृष्टि से इसमें निम्नलिखित पद हैं:

• नदीतः: (नदी से) - अपादान कारक (पंचमी विभक्ति)।
• जलम्: (जल को) - कर्म कारक (द्वितीया विभक्ति)।
• आनीय: (लाकर) - 'आ' उपसर्ग, 'नी' धातु और 'ल्यप्' प्रत्यय से बना अव्यय।
• पत्या: (पति के द्वारा/साथ) - करण कारक या सहार्थक (तृतीया विभक्ति)।
• स्नानम्: (स्नान) - कर्म।
• कारयति: (कराती है) - 'कृ' धातु (प्रेरणार्थक), प्रथम पुरुष, एकवचन।

[karthik holla]

Thank you for the detailed post and very clear information.

With regards 

Karthik 

--

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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/ae76db59-1a05-4aea-a6e6-fad309547267n%40googlegroups.com.

[NathRao]

[Due to my eyesight, I prefer to use larger type]

Actually, the relevant rules are 1.4.52 (which says that the doer (kartaa) of the simple verb is the karman of the causative for certain types of verbs), and 1.4.53, which says that both karman and karaNa are allowed for the the two roots hR and kR. Thus, (1) 'patiM snAnam kArayati', and (2) 'patyA snAnam kArayati' are grammatical. Neither Mahabhashya, nor Kashika seem to add anything to this.

[There have been quite a few articles in the scholarly literature exploring the case used for the "causee" in causative construction. in Sanskrit.  If you just want to know what one sees is known Sanskrit literature, Speijer's "Sanskrit Syntax", Section 49, is a good summary. Speijer's book is well-written, very readable, and freely available at archive.org. He also often notes what is said in the grammatical literature on a given topic.

One thing that is not discussed in the articles I have read is the possible influence of the speaker's primary language/variety of Prakrit. In some, the case of the causee is based on semantic grounds. This is what Speijer sees, but H. H. Hock says that this is valid only for "madhyadesa Sanskrit". In some, double accusatives are disfavored, so they would avoid things like (1) irrespective of the intended meaning. Yet others, the choice is affected by what is called the animacy hierarchy, so they will avoid not just (1), but also the more idiomatic Sanskrit "patiM snApayati".]

Regards

Nath Rao