Parasmai pada roots having Atmane pada forms

[RamanaMurthy Bathala]

Dear Sir,

I have been going through grammar books for learning the basic.

I found Parasmai pada roots are given Atmane pada forms in the chapter on verbs.

My understanding is that Parasmai pada are not supposed to have  Atmane pada forms and vice versa.

For example the root जि ji, cl. 1, 'to conquer,' is mentioned as Parasmai pada.

The following is from MW grammar: it gives Atmanepada forms.

Can you please correct my understanding?

Regards

Ramnana murthy

[Madhav Deshpande]

I don't know the source of MW.  However, you should check Whitney's book on Sanskrit Roots and Verb Forms, where he gives particular details of where the forms occur, such as Vedic or Epic Sanskrit.  Whitney's description is not based on the prescriptive rules of Pāṇini, but on his observation of the occurrence of forms in Vedic, Epic and other Sanskrit literatures known to him.  Many of these forms will be considered ārṣa in the traditional Sanskrit grammar.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dhaval Patel]

The source for MW may have been 'विपराभ्यां जेः' which gives Atmanepada forms like विजेताहे, विजेष्ये etc.

See,

https://www.sanskritworld.in/sanskrittool/SanskritVerb/panini.php?first=ji&upasarga=vi&lakAra=luw&sanAdi=&tran=SLP1&vAcya=kartR&frontend=1&jsonmode=0&cond11=2&number=01.0642&removed_sutras=&step=11&type=tiGanta

And

https://www.sanskritworld.in/sanskrittool/SanskritVerb/panini.php?first=ji&upasarga=vi&lakAra=lfw&sanAdi=&tran=SLP1&vAcya=kartR&frontend=1&jsonmode=0&cond11=2&number=01.0642&removed_sutras=&step=11&type=tiGanta

[Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)]

Namaste

 

(This  response is not a criticism. This is articulating my personal doubts and seeking calrifications from the Vidwat janas, pl. ).

 

1.  On the observation < Many of these forms will be considered ārṣa in the traditional Sanskrit grammar. >

 

      Did not Acharya Madhwa address a similar issue by taking recourse to ‘Dhaatu Paatha – Vrutti’s?  and Sayana Maadahvas works have some wrotongs on this issue, in connection with ‘ Veda –Bhaashya’ ?

      How Would Whitney get a higher priority and authority over native standing tradition ?  

 

      If Lexicon writers have erred ( which is other wise established, specially in the case of MW and his followers/ Apte ) why hesitateto call a spade a spade ? 

 

     I may not know what is right; but I do sense when something is ‘not-right’.

 

2.  On < Whitney's description is not based on the prescriptive rules of Pāṇini, but on his observation of the occurrence of forms in Vedic, Epic and other Sanskrit literatures known to him  > :

       Whitney’s modeling of ‘ Language’  for ‘ Analytics’ is NOT the same as the one used by ‘ Paninian Tradition.    

      When one analyst (Whitney)  uses a vertical split  ( = Historical, Human Construction model of Vedas)   and some other person ( Paninian Tradition)  uses horizontal split ( Veda is Rushi Darshana- Apaurusheya) , the     

      potato’s ( = Academic research opinions)  fall out in different  shapes and sizes  in different lands and regions.

 

So how are we to go explore ‘Vedas ‘   for   ‘ Vedaartha- Prakaashana (= Meaning on light of Vedas)’ ,  ‘ Veda- Anuvaada (= Veda Translation)   , ‘ Veda- Vihita – KarmaanuShThana (= Practice of Vedic Ritual = Karma Kaanda and Vedanta = Brahma Kaanda  as outcome of this)?

 

The question is straight and critical for   defining  ’ Brahamana Identity and Culture’  under which the ‘ Three Vedanta- Acharyas writings would fall in’.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[Rohan Kulkarni]

Namaste,

There are two possibilities

1) They may be passive

forms.

2) They may be by sutra 3.1.85 'व्यत्ययो बहुलम्'। Attached are the photos of the sutra.

[K S Kannan]

satyam eva jayate

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[K S Kannan]

Reflexive usages

[Rohan Kulkarni]

[K S Kannan]

Of the two roots,

ji jaye (intransitive), and

ji abhibhave (transitive),

(both 1P),

the former is more open to the Atmane.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Saroja Bhate]

Why are they two roots if the belong to the same gana ?

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018, 07:53 K S Kannan, <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Of the two roots,

ji jaye (intransitive), and

ji abhibhave (transitive),

(both 1P),

the former is more open to the Atmane.

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Rohan Kulkarni <kulkarn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

There are two possibilities

1) They may be passive

forms.

2) They may be by sutra 3.1.85 'व्यत्ययो बहुलम्'। 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Rohan Kulkarni]

Namaste,

One root जि in the sense जयः or अभिभवः is intransitive and other in the same sense is transitive. Thus, two roots though in same class are justifiable.

On 16 Sep 2018 5:18 pm, "Saroja Bhate" <bhate...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why are they two roots if the belong to the same gana ?

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018, 07:53 K S Kannan, <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Of the two roots,

ji jaye (intransitive), and

ji abhibhave (transitive),

(both 1P),

the former is more open to the Atmane.

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Rohan Kulkarni <kulkarn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

There are two possibilities

1) They may be passive

forms.

2) They may be by sutra 3.1.85 'व्यत्ययो बहुलम्'। 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Here we are hitting the ultimate gaps in our knowledge of the original dhātupāṭha of Pāṇini.  As Palsule's work on comparison of multiple transmissions of dhātupāṭha shows, there is no complete unanimity among various recensions of the dhātupāṭha [or of the gaṇapāṭha for that matter].  Secondly, the question of whether Pāṇini's original dhātupāṭha had meaning entries, or the available meaning entries are authored by someone named Bhīmasena is also not entirely resolved.  So all one can say is that according to a particular version of dhātupāṭha, there are two separate roots ji jaye and ji abhibhave, but, to my knowledge, we have no proof that such a distinction goes back to Pāṇini himself.  This takes us back to Professor Saroja Bhate's question.  If the meaning entries in the dhātupāṭha are post-Pāṇinian, how do we find out what Pāṇini intended?  Only direct indications in the Sūtras of the Aṣṭādhyāyī can provide such help.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 12:18 PM Rohan Kulkarni <kulkarn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

One root जि in the sense जयः or अभिभवः is intransitive and other in the same sense is transitive. Thus, two roots though in same class are justifiable.

On 16 Sep 2018 5:18 pm, "Saroja Bhate" <bhate...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why are they two roots if the belong to the same gana ?

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018, 07:53 K S Kannan, <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Of the two roots,

ji jaye (intransitive), and

ji abhibhave (transitive),

(both 1P),

the former is more open to the Atmane.

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Rohan Kulkarni <kulkarn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

There are two possibilities

1) They may be passive

forms.

2) They may be by sutra 3.1.85 'व्यत्ययो बहुलम्'। 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Harshada Joshi]

Respected Scholars, 

I have a querry. The picture which has been posted by Bathalaji, shows that the root is सेट्. As per my knowledge, it should have been अनिट्.

Kindly enlighten me.

Thanks.

Harshada 

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

Namaste  Deshpande ji

1. Your statement responding to Prof. Saroja Bhates observation opens up several clinkers related  to  'Sanskrit Research: Modern and Traditional'. as Primary theme and secondary research built on  'faulty premise- faulty text and teaching -pedagogy' ! 

   Your clarity of thought and honesty in expression is worth contemplating:  < Here we are hitting the ultimate gaps in our knowledge of the original dhātupāṭha of Pāṇini. >  

      Now, your observation triggers series of  major challenges  for   Bharateeya 'vidwans  / Shishta / Vijna's  of Bharath' to answer several logical  constructs and deconstructs using 'Sanskrit texts from archieves and  print-publications, distanced away from voice tradition' !  In this deliberation,  one needs to stay calm without getting in to emotional fits and battle: tantrums. ( Jijnyaasaa- Tarka - Vaada   in Shaastra is different from Vitandaa and jalpa  by those who want to win a ' brownie point and a medal of award/ or insult other side).

So the questions are  : 

- What should be the standard ' Dhatu Patha' that should be used to understand what ' Panini-Patanjali- Yaska' , which is  tagged  and marked   as ' 'Vedanga' ?  

-What are pre-Paninian 'Vedic Grammars'  ?  ( Quotes from Ashtaadhyayi indicates their existence; but does not tell the pedagogy)

- How did they disappear just after Panini ? No survivors of ' those veanga vyakarana traditions, where as ' Pratishaakhyas and Shikshas survive ?? 

- Did Panini honestly consolidate the 'Vedic Language Grammar'? and Patanjali commented on that for a holistic construction ?

- Did the traditional acharyas from Shankara ( circa 600 A.D - upper limit)  to Acharya Madhwa ( 14th century) - Sayana - Bhattoji and others use a common  

   'Dhatu Patha'  or used their 'preferred versions' ?? What needs to be reference here ? WHY ?? 

       Here is Maxmullers observation on Sayana Madhava using his own Madhaveeya Dhatu Vrutti   for his commentary on  'Veda'! 

Max Mullers observation on Madhaveeya Dhatu Vrutti for Veda Bhashya

          The detailed implications of such ' preferred Dhatu Patha/ vrutti'  are analyzed in the Notes of Prof. Max Muller  with examples  and line of argument -'I have edited it (Sayanas Veda  bhashya) as if I had to edit Plato or Aristotle'  :  Explore link :    <https://archive.org/stream/RgVedaSamhitaVolIv/RgVedaMuller_IV#page/n145/search/sringeri  )  

           This is  not just my question ! This question was articulated by Prof. Maxmuller in 1892 -   Preface to the Sayana Bhashya - Rigveda; making an observation on  how the 'Rig-Veda' text and ' Sayana Bhashya' were edited  by him, using the principles of ' Greek and Latin  Classical Pedagogy',  And why he 'doubted the version and interpretations which were provided by the then ' resident scholar of Shringeri'.  Maxmuller  reiterates that he did overrule the traditional text of Sayana held as authority by Shringeri; 

Till date, this issue remains unquestioned and unchallenged. Which in other words means : The Sayana commentary held as sacrosanct and being used today  has many ' filtering's' introduced by Chief Editor: Max Muller in the year 1892. And the deliberation will be intricately, integrally, internally connected with the ' reference of Dhatu- Patha' versioned Text of Rig Veda !  Summary: If  Sayana had missed /messed Panini-Patanjali- Yaska,  and Sringeri  used ' preferred versions of Vyakarna and Dhatu Patha' , then the tradition got ' Original Vedas' differently than what might have been ' original Panini period understanding' ! This opens the a flood gate of issues and defenses .

 The research involved is humungous ! and stares at the very integrity and identity of ' Acharya Sampradayas of All Vedanta flavors'!  Which ever way it may go, the hard hit and causality will be the ' Brahminical Vedanta Acharya Traditions touting Panini Sanskrit Scholarship to interpret and defend Vedas - Vedantas  and a Cultural  derivative of it called ' Hinduism ' ! 

2.   Coming to your next observation < ..Secondly, the question of whether Pāṇini's original dhātupāṭha had meaning entries, or the available meaning entries are authored by someone named Bhīmasena is also not entirely resolved.  So all one can say is that according to a particular version of dhātupāṭha, there are two separate roots ji jaye and ji abhibhave    > .

      If , as traditional ' prAmANika's  / ShishTa's   believe and hold,  the ' Dhatu-patha / gana-pATha/ Dhatu Vrutti/ '  is to be the  foundation of ' 'VERB FORMATION OF WORDS' in Samskruth (and several other secondary  nouns and other forms of words - Krut- Taddhita -Samaasaascha praatipadikaaha ; kvachit avyayani cha) is a ' DOUBTED DATA' , and a ' VARIBLE INPUT  OF CONVENIENCE  by  the TEXT VERSION' preferred by the ' Academic Researcher',  

   AND 

    This doubt of ' Text- Authenticity/ Corruption / Correction'  stretches over the vast historic time duration between ' Panini (circa 700 BCE)  to a later writer 'Bhimasenacharya' ; 

   THEN the logical corollary of this would be a series of  valid doubts : like: 

-  'WHAT WAS STANDARD SAMSKRUTH TEACHING -LEARNING- AUDITING pedagogy' by which masters who composed works on various Shaastras  and commented on earlier works' stood by ?

- What was Teaching of ' Samskruth' as 'Shaastra Bhashaa' at institutions like Nalanda …   all the way to Benares ? over a historic time line of a millennia at the minimum ?!

- What was the ' linguistic connection of ' Prakruth's / Tamils  to ' the ' Pedagogy of Samskrutham/ Bhashaa - Vyakarana  aspect' which writers like Hemachandra adapted ? 

- What was the ' model of Samskrutham/ Bhashaa' to which volumes of compositions  in Puranas, logical hair splitting arguments on 'Vibhaktyartha - Shaabda bodha ( Navya Nyaya especially from Gangesha and others) - Sphota vaada' et al;  were built ? How did KAshikaa system and Bhattoji's Kaumudi prakriyaa system address the referential models of ' Dhatu/ Gana PAtha'  for classical language and more critically for ' Veda / Upanishad Vyakhyanam'? 

- What would be the status of 'Sanskrit Dictionaries' like Shabda Kalpadruma and others ??  A confused mumbo jumbo using preferred derivation using roots of convenience ?? 

- And Friends in Sanskrit Computtional Linguistics generating' Online - On the fly'  Samskruth Verb forms - What is the base of ' DATA  and RULES  OF PROCESS' to ' ANALYZE THE PRAKRUTI DHATU- PRATYAYA- DHATU GANA' ?  A DATA BASE OF Multiple entries and convenience of reference? 

In short, it puts the entire ' scholarship and pedagogy of Bharateeya Vidwat paramparaa Granthas' on a pedestal of' DOUBTFUL LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY'.

This fact, was articulated even by insider traditionalists, as a ' matter of personal opinion / call it as a ego claim amongst' Pandits and Shastri's to argue out that ' I know more, better and secret issues than you !' The talk is ' Doubting the rule structure of ' Ashtaadhyaayi' itself,  on  the point of  ' True Total Text Inheritance, Completely and authentically' as a   voiced / scripted tradition ! One such debate , unresolved has been  : Did 'Ashtaadhyaayi  have a 'Sa-Svara' paatha ?  If so, who knows it? IF not, is our learning of 'Vyakarna' down graded to that extent ?? For example: The last sutra of Ashtaadhyaayi (8-4-68)  speaks of two ' a' -s; Samvrutha and Vivrutha.; But does it cover the  udaata -anudaata -et al ? Which svara is on the first 'a' and which on second 'a' ?  Obviously a meticulous mind like Panin-Patanjali- Kaiyyata- Bhattoji can not have brushed off this issue ? Does Maheswara sutra/ Pratishaakhya listing of 'Samskrutha varnamaala' carry  'Svara accents' ?? as Shikshaa shastra would suggest ?? 

The dangerous consequences of such  '  insider - pedagogic  questions , lurking around, free floating from the Schoalrs, distancing 'Samskrutham studies ' from ' VEDANGA'  status and ' YOGA' pedestal, and still  remaining unanswered can be imagined by the learned.  

  IF 'Sanskrit grammar' ( Vyakarana) as the root  anchor and shield of ' language of sacred texts of tradition (Called Vedas)' remains a free for all  by academic license of freedom, stripped off from the ' Vedanga' attribute,  a critical test criterion,  pushed forward for socio-cultural convenience as a ' historic classical language of  religion, to be promoted for street conversation use' 

THEN  

any and all interpretations of texts of past to construct fancy history are ' valid ' 

BECAUSE  

there will always be ' some recension of Dhatu-Patha' and ' Some stretch of rule from Panini'  to provide the fig leaf cover ! for the proposed theories.. 

3.  The question  raised by you <  but, to my knowledge, we have no proof that such a distinction goes back to Pāṇini himself.  This takes us back to Professor Saroja Bhate's question.  If the meaning entries in the dhātupāṭha are post-Pāṇinian, how do we find out what Pāṇini intended?  Only direct indications in the Sūtras of the Aṣṭādhyāyī can provide such help. > 

  This precisely is the ' DOUBT Planted' in the Research Scholars mind ( By Colonial and Oriental Seekers of Knowledge) . The antiquity of university debate on this goes to  17 th century. The construct was ' Sanskrit modelled as language of ' Hindu Religion, the religion of migrating Nomads'   and using the ' Gods Revelation of Scriptures (Tower of Babel) model to study 'Vedas' and ' Language of Vedas' . 

   Traditional Scholars have plausibly only one answer to such ' Vedic Language related  academic engagements:  < Paramparaa =  Unbroken Oral Tradition>   which rests on the  hypothesis < My Teacher Taught me Truly, Totally, Perfectly : मम आचार्यः सर्वज्ञः सत्यसंधः धर्मकामः अवतार-विशेषः …; शास्त्रमिदं सनातनं अविच्छिन्न=परम्परया रक्षितं …तपसा दृष्टं   etc;> 

  The evidence of any kind of manuscript will not survive on an upper limit of one thousand year maximum; and is subject to Script evolution, conventions of script dynamics ( भारतीय -भाषाणां लिपिशास्त्र पद्धतिः) .  The vulnerability of depending on the Voiced tradition is well known. This is where the archeology evidence and script reading, dating the evidence of archeological evidence is held as forte of ' Western Academia's  theories on Veda- Samskrutham- to ride over tradition'. 

This leads to the shift in debate of Time line measure by evidenced history and archeology (carbon dating , mythology, and latest being the DNA studies !) 

If the traditionalists ' Yuga Cycle concept' can not beat over the scale of ' God Created the earth, for which the date of around 4000 BCE becomes Sacrosanct and ' Darwin's evolution theory over powers the ' Srushti Theories of Traditional texts' , with established evidence, the debate will be a loosing game. 

 

4. Here below is what Prof. MAxmuller said about Panini in 1899. This can be a reference point to revisit and see: Have we inherited Truly and Totally, integrally and interconnected - the ' Six Vedanga based study and use of Vedas' ? The  clarity on 'Dhatu Patha' will be a key issue to  resolve  this question.  

Translation of Mahabhashya - eight volumes- by Sirisa Chandra Vasu in the year 1898

Maxmuller on Panini - Samskrutham

Regards

BVK Sastry 

==================== 

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:39 AM Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu> wrote:

Here we are hitting the ultimate gaps in our knowledge of the original dhātupāṭha of Pāṇini.  As Palsule's work on comparison of multiple transmissions of dhātupāṭha shows, there is no complete unanimity among various recensions of the dhātupāṭha [or of the gaṇapāṭha for that matter].  Secondly, the question of whether Pāṇini's original dhātupāṭha had meaning entries, or the available meaning entries are authored by someone named Bhīmasena is also not entirely resolved.  So all one can say is that according to a particular version of dhātupāṭha, there are two separate roots ji jaye and ji abhibhave, but, to my knowledge, we have no proof that such a distinction goes back to Pāṇini himself.  This takes us back to Professor Saroja Bhate's question.  If the meaning entries in the dhātupāṭha are post-Pāṇinian, how do we find out what Pāṇini intended?  Only direct indications in the Sūtras of the Aṣṭādhyāyī can provide such help.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 12:18 PM Rohan Kulkarni <kulkarn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

One root जि in the sense जयः or अभिभवः is intransitive and other in the same sense is transitive. Thus, two roots though in same class are justifiable.

On 16 Sep 2018 5:18 pm, "Saroja Bhate" <bhate...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why are they two roots if the belong to the same gana ?

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018, 07:53 K S Kannan, <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Of the two roots,

ji jaye (intransitive), and

ji abhibhave (transitive),

(both 1P),

the former is more open to the Atmane.

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Rohan Kulkarni <kulkarn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

There are two possibilities

1) They may be passive   forms.

2) They may be by sutra 3.1.85 'व्यत्ययो बहुलम्'। 

--

 

Regards

 

Dr. B V Venkatakrishna Sastry
(G-Mail)

 

 

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear BVK Sastry,

     Thanks for your thoughts regarding these questions.  While you are quoting Max Muller's comments from 1899, more recent comprehensive comparisons of various transmissions of Dhātupāṭha by Palsule and Gaṇapāṭha by Kapil Dev Shastri give objective data on this question.  While multiple versions of these Pāṭhas have come down to us, we cannot be sure as to which of these versions historically goes back to Pāṇini himself.  I hope you will take a look at these studies.  With best regards,

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

--

[Rohan Kulkarni]

Namaste,

The answer to the question of duplication of same root ji in same class have no relevance to its meaning. Let the meaning be post paninian, but that is also based on some path, which may be original or non-original. 

Answer is simple. One is transitive and other is intransitive. With one 'path' both wouldn't be possible.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Rohan Ji,

     If you think for a moment, any transitive verb can also be used intransitively, if so desired by the speakers.  Even for a common verb like खादति, the passive form खाद्यते can be used intransitively in भावे प्रयोग like बालै: खाद्यते.  Similarly, one can have an intransitive बाला: खादन्ति and transitive बाला: फलानि खादन्ति.  So, I do not see any absolute necessity to list two separate verbs जि/जि to allow transitive and intransitive usages. Perhaps, there is some other explanation that eludes us. With best wishes,

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

[K S Kannan]

The issue of avivaks"ita_karman usages is what is being posed here.

That way,  there is no akarmaka at all! Des'a, kAla, adhvan, gantavya - are always there to act the role of karman.