Question on indefinite pronouns

[Harry Spier]

Coulson's sanskrit textbook translates केनापि जलं न पीतं as No one has drunk the water.  Can that also be translated as "Someone has not drunk the water." If not then how would the sentence   "Someone has not drunk the water." be expressed in sanskrit using an indefinite pronoun such as केनापि or कश्चित् etc.

Thanks,

Harry Spier

 .

Thanks,

Harry Spier 

[Lakshmanan Krishnamurti]

The problem is trying to translate into English, because there may not be equivalent meanings

This sentence would best be translated as “by someone water has not been drunk”, though it could also mean “by no one has water been drunk”. The latter sentence could be said as कैश्चिदपि जलं न पीतं

--
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/CAJ3b0o9nyd3kyA%3D_%3DbmGwg%3DZuROFxcSFf845p58p64%2BJbCmgEA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lakshmanan Krishnamurti]

The sentence is in passive voice

[Amba Kulkarni]

Namaste,

I think केनचित् जलं न पीतं translates to 'someone has not drunk the water'. and केनापि जलं न पीतं  translates to No one has drunk the water.

I've not checked any Sanskrit texts, but my intuition from my mother tongue Marathi, I drew this conclusion.

In Marathi we use कोणीतरी & कोणीही for someone and no one respectively.

Best,

Amba

--

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/CAJ3b0o9nyd3kyA%3D_%3DbmGwg%3DZuROFxcSFf845p58p64%2BJbCmgEA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

आ नो भद्रा: क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वत: ll
Let noble thoughts come to us from every side.
- Rig Veda, I-89-i.

Sr. Professor & Head
Department of Sanskrit Studies
University of Hyderabad

Prof. C.R. Rao Road 

Hyderabad-500 046

(91) 040 23133802(off)

http://scl.samsaadhanii.in

http://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/scl

http://tdil-dc.in/san/

http://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/faculty/amba

[Mohan Chettoor]

केनापि जलं न पीतं (passive voice) is translated as 'Water was not drunk by anybody.'

"Someone has not drunk the water."(active voice) is translated as कश्चित् जलं न पीतवान्। here केनापि cannot be used.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAPYmdmP%2B8pEAJqqMrJPp79CzGLtx%3DvnAcEDR3egy%2B%3DQeTFjN6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lakshmanan Krishnamurti]

Ambaji

You are right except the sentence is in passive not active voice. By somebody the water has not been drunk

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAFffahDjdsuZH0YFO9sCL6Msa3x-EYMZkPqM0p%3D1YVYpUcdfbg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Harry Spier]

Both Lakshmanan Krishnamurti and Mohan Chetoor pointed out the sentence is in passive voice.  But Coulson points out in his grammar that sometimes the best english translation of a sanskrit past passive sentence is with an english active voiced sentence.  See the following:

Harry Spier

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAAdWWbdT4Myatb9tBDGdbhepAYwuZ7DRKk8E6sF%3Dcov%3DW%2Bs-bA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Amba Kulkarni]

Oops, sorry, as pointed out by Krishnmaurty ji and others, the Sanskrit sentence is in passive, so the English translations are wrong.

I just focussed on the markers चित् & अपि to mark the 'some one' and 'no one' sense, and missed the passive part.

The translations in active would be

कोऽपि जलं न अपिबत् (No one )

कश्चित् जलं न अपिबत्  (someone)

Best,

Amba

[Harry Spier]

Amba Kulkarni wrote:

as pointed out by Krishnmaurty ji and others, the Sanskrit sentence is in passive, so the English translations are wrong.

But as pointed out by Coulson's textbook, is not the most natural english translation sometimes an english active voiced sentence.  He even goes so far as to say as shown in his page I just posted. "We thus have in sanskrit a way of expressing past active statements in which the subject is represented by the instrumental case, the object by the nominative case and the verb by a past participle agreeing with the later".  That is the exact form of these sentences,.

केनापि जलं न पीतं and केनापि जलं न पीतं so I think Amba's english translations in active voice are the most natural. I.e. "Someone has not drunk the water" and "No one has drunk the water".

Thanks,

Harry Spier

 

--

आ नो भद्रा: क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वत: ll
Let noble thoughts come to us from every side.
- Rig Veda, I-89-i.

Sr. Professor & Head
Department of Sanskrit Studies
University of Hyderabad

Prof. C.R. Rao Road 

Hyderabad-500 046

(91) 040 23133802(off)

http://scl.samsaadhanii.in

http://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/scl

http://tdil-dc.in/san/

http://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/faculty/amba

--

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/CAFffahAk03N%2Bt0baAhyUpFMGt%3D91pfJu826tEG0Dc7xcwMkabw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

अपि part in केनापि is an emphasis marker. 

It is something like by whomever. 

So the literal passive voice translation would be

Water was not dunk by whomever. 

It is this emphasis marker that brings the universal negative  human quantifier 'noone'  into the active voice conversion.  

Someone is an indefinite human quantifier. 

Universal negative quantifier can not be replaced with an indefinite human quantifier. 

Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad, Telangana-500044

 

 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAFffahAk03N%2Bt0baAhyUpFMGt%3D91pfJu826tEG0Dc7xcwMkabw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Amba Kulkarni]

Namaste,

The passive formation in Sanskrit is natural, while in English, and even in modern Indian languages the passive constructions are not so natural.

In passive constructions, the karma(object) agrees with the verb, and hence is in nominative, and the kartaa (subject) takes the instrumental case.

Best,

Amba

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAJ3b0o9Oai3mxHjWRV6_%2Bw_HHDqdBvUmytWVowucxkDZ2cN2Sg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Harry Spier]

Thank you Nagaraj for answering my question 

I think you've also confirmed Amba's active voice translations. I.e. केनापि . . . न  as no one but केनचित् as someone 

Amba wrote:

 केनचित् जलं न पीतं translates to 'someone has not drunk the water'. and केनापि जलं न पीतं  translates to No one has drunk the water.

Thanks,

Harry Spier

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAJGj9eZvDOschzr1pmJxQ0NvQK-x5MZYOOUmRjVvN8RFmCz3bA%40mail.gmail.com.

[K Purushottamacharya]

The water is not drunk by anyone/ someone..

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAFffahAk03N%2Bt0baAhyUpFMGt%3D91pfJu826tEG0Dc7xcwMkabw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lakshmanan Krishnamurti]

With all due respect,  any language is ultimately best understood in that language itself rather than in translation. For e.g trying to read Shakespeare in the French translation may have some hilarious consequences. Can we do justice to the sentence, “Friends, Romans, and countrymen, lend me your ears”,  in any other language. I like the approach of Samskrita Bharati 

In teaching spoken Sanskrit. They work very hard to not rely on translations. I have seen many native English and Spanish speakers make the switch to thinking in Sanskrit and not relying on translation to English or Spanish. It seems daunting at first but over time, this approach works well.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CACKheMzskCFFMWCX7Kd1fj2gx6b65_cQ4%3DWnWbVJ%3DF3PNncVMw%40mail.gmail.com.

[HONGANOUR KRISHNA]

This touches on a subtle but important distinction in Sanskrit syntax and the semantics of indefinite pronouns with negation. Let’s unpack it carefully:

1. Coulson’s example:

केनापि जलं न पीतं

• Literally: “By someone, the water has not been drunk.”

• But in idiomatic Sanskrit, when indefinite pronouns like kenāpi (by someone) or kaścit are combined with negation, they often shift meaning toward “no one” rather than “someone not.”

• Hence Coulson’s translation: “No one has drunk the water.”

This is because Sanskrit tends to avoid “double negatives” and instead interprets the indefinite + negation as a negative indefinite (like Latin nemo, Greek oudeis).

 

2. Why it does not mean “Someone has not drunk the water”

• “Someone has not drunk the water” implies that at least one person (but not necessarily all) refrained from drinking.

• In Sanskrit, that nuance requires a different construction.

• The phrase kenāpi … na is understood distributively as “no one at all,” not “at least one person did not.”

 

3. How to say “Someone has not drunk the water” in Sanskrit

To express the existential but partial negation, you would use kaścit or kenāpi with careful placement:

• कश्चिज्जलं न पिबति (present tense)

→ “Someone does not drink the water.”

• कश्चिज्जलं न पीतवान् (perfective, active)

→ “Someone has not drunk the water.”

• केनापि जलं न पीतं अस्ति (passive, perfect)

→ “By someone, the water has not been drunk.”

(Here the sense is: at least one person has not drunk it, not that no one has drunk it.)

Notice the difference:

• केनापि जलं न पीतं (without asti) is idiomatically “No one has drunk the water.”

• Adding asti or using kaścit in nominative makes it clear you mean “Someone has not drunk.”

So the key is:

• Indefinite + negation (without auxiliary) → “no one.”

• Indefinite + negation (with auxiliary or nominative subject) → “someone has not.”

Thank you,

HONGANOUR S KRISHNA

On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 1:31 AM K Purushottamacharya <kpa8...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CACKheMzskCFFMWCX7Kd1fj2gx6b65_cQ4%3DWnWbVJ%3DF3PNncVMw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lakshmanan Krishnamurti]

While the use of passive voice is discouraged in in English language, the use of passive voice is ubiquitous in literature and poetry in Samskritam. Something is lost in translating a sentence in passive voice in Samskrita to active voice in English.

[Lakshmanan Krishnamurti]

 We’re nice exposition. Thank you 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAHtV9sY%2BMnGj5RydJttNz7wAoDwW2QMF6Wm1EE%2B-eKg9yB%2BgMg%40mail.gmail.com.

[aham brahmaasmi]

नमो नमः ! 

1) In  my understanding, the सन्दर्भः (context) is most important while interpreting a sentence/word/group of words. Therefore, सन्दर्भः / प्रकरण-पर्यालोचनम्  followed by   वाक्यार्थः (meaning of a sentence)  followed by  पदार्थः (meaning of a word).  This order of interpretation is necessary in order to try and arrive at the correct meaning. 

Whilst this is more often discussed in the मीमांसा सन्दर्भः  i.e analysis of veda-vakyas,  with a bit of thought, one realises that it applies to laukika-bhasha i.e day-to-day transactions too.   For example, the word 'capital' could mean 4 different things based on the context. 

2) I also agree with Krishnamurti ji about the method of learning any language, and more so wrt Sanskrit. 

So, Harry ji, please would you tell us some more about the context in which this sentence is framed? 

भवदीया ! 

साक्षी ! 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAPYmdmPwNe%3DtF%3DzmZ%2Bm1WpPFDki_e%2BYRy9Ar1eiaTK0zrL-LLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Harry Spier]

Dear sir,

You asked the context.  This was just a question for my clarification of what is said on page 77 of Coulson's Teach Yourself Sanskrit as below but I think Nagarajji and Ambaji have answered my question.

Thanks,

Harry Spier

Harry Spier

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CADKAaHvEHeXk3Hio5fwO3HAR7ObsOyU_YKTORaMN7GqZFPBCWw%40mail.gmail.com.

[aham brahmaasmi]

Harry ji, 

Thank you. 

Sorry, I thought you were trying to interpret some sanskrit text, which is where the context will be necessary. 

Also, please disregard my second comment. On further reflection, there are many different ways of learning, to suit many kinds of students. Sincere apologies, 

with regards, 

sakshi 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAJ3b0o_E5O-W9dvx5r%2Be-jGPom5oa82jtwhjKZj9QqAt_d6Pwg%40mail.gmail.com.