वर्णाः पदं प्रयोगार्हानन्वितैकार्थबोधकाः

[Mārcis Gasūns]

Namaste,

Please help to translate "वर्णाः पदं प्रयोगार्हानन्वितैकार्थबोधकाः।" "letters fit to be used [in language], joined together to give one meaning are [form] a word". Is it right?

M.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

If this is a context of defining पदम्(word) then

letter are word which denote a single meaning(entity) which(meaning) can be used(independent of other words/sentence) and is not related (to other meaning, i.e. kArya or yogyetara).

The only error I could find in yours is that you translated अननन्वित as joined or related.

Rest is on the scholars who have command on shabda-shAstra and English, both.

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
www.lalitaalaalitah.com

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nityanand Misra]

This defintion occurs in the second Pariccheda of Sāhityadarpaṇa.

My translation -

वर्णाः पदं प्रयोगार्हानन्वितैकार्थबोधकाः = Those syllables that are fit to be used [in speech], and which cause the perception of an unconnected specific meaning are [called] पद.

 

How I arrived at the translation follows below. The slightly involved compound प्रयोगार्हानन्वितैकार्थबोधकाः is to be first decomposed.

प्रयोगः = use/employment

प्रयोगम् अर्हन्ति = प्रयोगार्हाः = those that are fit to be used/capable of being used. The अच् suffix to the root अर्ह् with an accusative उपपद  comes from PS 3-2-12 अर्हः.

अन्वितः = joined or connected

न अन्वितः = अनन्वितः = not joined or connected

एकः = one/single/specific

अर्थः = meaning

अनन्वितश्चासौ एकश्चासौ अर्थश्च = अनन्वितैकार्थः = an unconnected specific meaning

बोधकाः = those which cause/result in/bring about perception

अनन्वितैकार्थस्य बोधकाः = अनन्वितैकार्थबोधकाः = those which cause the perception of an unconnected specific meaning

प्रयोगार्हाश्चामी अनन्वितैकार्थबोधकाः = प्रयोगार्हानन्वितैकार्थबोधकाः = those which are fit to be used and which cause the perception of an unconnected specific meaning

वर्णाः = syllables

प्रयोगार्हानन्वितैकार्थबोधकाः वर्णाः पदम् = Those syllables that are fit to be used [in speech], and which cause the perception of an unconnected specific meaning are [called] पद.

As per a Sanskrit commentary (see link below), the plurality is not intended in the definition. So even a single sylable which satisfies the above properties qualifies to be a पद. Examples would be indeclinables like उ, आ, etc and some others.

http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/scripts/FullindexDefault.htm?path1=/data6/upload/0136/396&first=126&last=990&barcode=99999990002237

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:14:43 PM UTC+8, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः wrote:

If this is a context of defining पदम्(word) then

letter are word which denote a single meaning(entity) which(meaning) can be used(independent of other words/sentence) and is not related (to other meaning, i.e. kArya or yogyetara).

" ... single meaning (entity) which (meaning) can be used ..."

There is a mistake here. Meaning (अर्थ) is never used [in speech], rather words, sounds or letters are used. Meaning is the person or thing (dravya) or idea or concept that words or sounds used in speech represent. As Patañjali says in Mahābhāṣya

अथ गौरित्यत्र कः शब्दः। किं यत्तत्सास्नालाङ्गूलककुदखुरविषाण्यर्थरूपं सः शब्दः। नेत्याह। द्रव्यं नाम तत्।

Although meaning is inseparable from the speech (वागर्थाविव संपृक्तौ ...), it is not the same as speech. We never hear that Vālmīki, Vyāsa or Kālidāsa have used a specific meaning, but a particular word, sound or syllable.

Therefore प्रयोगार्ह is to be taken as an adjective of वर्ण and not of एकार्थ. The Hindi commentary शशिकला by Satyavrat Singh (Chaukhambha, Varanasi, 1957, page 38) also takes प्रयोगार्ह as an adjective of वर्ण and not एकार्थ as you have taken above.

http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/scripts/FullindexDefault.htm?path1=/data6/upload/0136/396&first=127&last=127&barcode=99999990002237

 

 

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

That appears to be correct as you presented. So, pryogArhAH ananvitaikArthabodhakAshcha is desired meaning.
I will check the link you presented.

[Sachchidanand Mishra]

Dear Scholars,

It seems to me that the sentence should be translated as follows: The letters which are able to be used in a conversation (प्रयोगार्ह) and convey an unrelated meaning are a word.

Here it seems to me that we have to make a clear line between word and पद. In Sanskrit we have two words पद and शब्द. A proper synonym of शब्द is word, but what is a proper synonym of पद I am doubtful. Every पद is शब्द but every शब्द is not पद.

This is a very carefully crafted  statement. If these criteria are fulfilled the letters would be considered a word. If the letters are not प्रयोगार्ह they are not a पद; for example a word devoid of विभक्ति is not प्रयोगार्ह, so is not a पद.
However a sentence conveys a meaning as well as it is प्रयोगार्ह but it is not a पद for the simple reason that a sentence is not अनन्वितार्थबोधक rather it conveys a related meaning. A sentence is also not different from letters.

Namaste,

Please help to translate "वर्णाः पदं प्रयोगार्हानन्वितैकार्थबोधकाः।" "letters fit to be used [in language], joined together to give one meaning are [form] a word". Is it right?

M.

--

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:02:17 PM UTC+8, Sachchidanand Mishra wrote:

Dear Scholars,

Here it seems to me that we have to make a clear line between word and पद. In Sanskrit we have two words पद and शब्द. A proper synonym of शब्द is word, but what is a proper synonym of पद I am doubtful. Every पद is शब्द but every शब्द is not पद.

शब्द is better translated as sound. शब्द could be of an animal (खरशब्द, भेकशब्द) or bird (काकशब्द) or a cloud (घनशब्द), etc. "Word" is not used in English in these senses, but "sound" is.

पद may be translated as "inflected form" (e.g. conjugated verb or inflected noun/pronoun, etc).

"Lemma" is the term used for uninflected forms (which are listed in a dictionary).

 

[Ashok Aklujkar]

A few additions to the very helpful post by Shri Nityanand Misra:

I have used "expression" for ;"sabda" since 1965, when the context would not restrict it to 'phoneme', 'word'. 'inflected word', 'phrase', 'clause', 'sentence' or 'statement'. The generality of ";sabda" can thus be preserved. In most writings that Sanskritists, Indologists or philologists do, the context makes it clear that 'linguistic expression' or 'articulate expression' is meant. In the remaining contexts, "sound" or one of its synonyms or specific designations ("crowing", "thundering", etc.) may be preferred.

When ;sabda as pada or 'inflected word/form' is meant, it should be understood that in some cases the inflection may be in the form of a zero morpheme, that is, not apparent. This is, in fact, what Paa.nini does. For example, techically suffixes are added to the nipaatas but are subsequently elided and remain only implicitly in the sentences of which they are a part.

"Lemma" can be used for uninflected forms, but "lexeme", too, can be useful similarly.

a.a.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, March 28, 2014 12:21:07 AM UTC+8, Ashok Aklujkar wrote:

A few additions to the very helpful post by Shri Nityanand Misra:

I have used "expression" for ;"sabda" since 1965, when the context would not restrict it to 'phoneme', 'word'. 'inflected word', 'phrase', 'clause', 'sentence' or 'statement'. The generality of ";sabda" can thus be preserved. In most writings that Sanskritists, Indologists or philologists do, the context makes it clear that 'linguistic expression' or 'articulate expression' is meant. In the remaining contexts, "sound" or one of its synonyms or specific designations ("crowing", "thundering", etc.) may be preferred.

When ;sabda as pada or 'inflected word/form' is meant, it should be understood that in some cases the inflection may be in the form of a zero morpheme, that is, not apparent. This is, in fact, what Paa.nini does. For example, techically suffixes are added to the nipaatas but are subsequently elided and remain only implicitly in the sentences of which they are a part.

"Lemma" can be used for uninflected forms, but "lexeme", too, can be useful similarly.

a.a.

Thanks Prof. Aklujkar Ji. After reading your post, I now think "expression" is the better word to use for शब्द if the context is linguistic or grammar.

"Sound" may be used in the more generic context of Nyaya, as per which we have श्रोत्रग्राह्यो गुणः शब्दः। आकाशमात्रवृत्तिः। स द्विविधो ध्वन्यात्मको वर्णात्मकश्चेति। ध्वन्यात्मको भेर्यादौ। वर्णात्मकः संस्कृतभाषादिरूपः॥ (त.सं ३३) So here शब्द (=ध्वन्यात्मक + वर्णात्मक) may be called "sound", ध्वन्यात्मक शब्द as "inarticulate sound" and वर्णात्मक शब्द as "articuate speech" or maybe "expression" as you use.

Panini also uses शब्द in the generic sense of Nyaya in the धातुपाठ. e.g. ध्वन शब्दे, and qualifies them with अव्यक्त at times e.g. गुजि अव्यक्ते शब्दे which would be probably the ध्वन्यात्मक शब्द in Nyaya. Panini uses व्यक्त वाक् for वर्णात्मक शब्द, e.g. गद व्यक्तायां वाचि or PS 1-3-48 व्यक्तवाचां समुच्चारणे. Patanjali's and Bhartrihari's use of the term शब्द may be different from Panini in some contexts.

If the context is Mimamsa, where शब्द is eternal, a better translation is needed.

Lastly I saw the use of the term "letter" for वर्ण in this post. In the given context, वर्ण may be better translated as syllable. Letters are units of writing or typography, letters form an alphabet or script. Syllables on the other hand are units of articulated speech, and together form lemmas, inflected forms, phrases, sentences et cetera.

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On 2014-03-27, at 6:21 PM, Nityanand Misra wrote:

> > I saw the use of the term "letter" for वर्ण in this post. In the given context, वर्ण may be better translated as syllable. Letters are units of writing or typography, letters form an alphabet or script. Syllables on the other hand are units of articulated speech, and together form lemmas, inflected forms, phrases, sentences et cetera.

I agree with the proposition that "letter" should not be used for var.na (although some scholars still follow the early Indologists in this misleading usage). But I do not agree with the suggestion that var.na should be translated as "syllable". Syllables, at least in the context of Skt, are almost entirely defined by vowels, but var.nas cover both vowels and consonants. "Phoneme" in the sense 'distinction-making sound' and as something different from "phone", which belongs to the phonetic level of language, is in my view the closest 'convenient' translation, unless one wishes to use phrases like "distinctive sound" every time "var.na" is used.

True, in modern linguistics "phoneme" is used for all sounds within a word that are distinctive -- that make a difference to the outcome of communication, whereas in Paa.ninian grammar only generalized or abstracted forms of vowels are accepted as var.nas irrespective of their length, accent, etc. (thus, the //a// in the Pratyaahaara-suutras, although pronounced short (hrasva), stands for hrasva "a", diirgha "a" (i.e., "aa"), pluta "a3" etc.) and the length difference is viewed as something caused by praak.rta-dhvanis. It is better to use "phoneme" for var.na by keeping this difference in mind than to use "syllable", which has different primary associations in English and hence cannot reflect the essence of the var.na notion right away.

(That there were some thinkers in the Indian tradition who thought like modern linguists and spoke of "aa" etc. as var.nas is known from a line in Kumaarila's ;Sloka-vaarttika: var.naantaratvam evaahu.h kecid diirgha-plutaadi.su.)

Toward the end of the second åhnika of the Mahaabhaa.sya 'ak.sara-samaamnyaaya" is used in the sense of 'var.na-samaamnyaaya', Because we commonly translate ak.sara as 'syllable', it may be thought that var.na should be translated as 'syllable'. However, In the Mahaabhaa.sya passage concerned, ak.sara is used for something that endures -- is nitya, not for something that becomes a unit (within the sequence we called pada) because it has a vowel associated with it. In other words, like "var.na", "ak.sara" has more than one meaning associated with it.

a.a.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:52:43 PM UTC+8, Ashok Aklujkar wrote:

On 2014-03-27, at 6:21 PM, Nityanand Misra wrote:

> > I saw the use of the term "letter" for वर्ण in this post. In the given context, वर्ण may be better translated as syllable. Letters are units of writing or typography, letters form an alphabet or script. Syllables on the other hand are units of articulated speech, and together form lemmas, inflected forms, phrases, sentences et cetera.

I agree with the proposition that "letter" should not be used for var.na (although some scholars still follow the early Indologists in this misleading usage). But I do not agree with the suggestion that var.na should be translated as "syllable". Syllables, at least in the context of Skt, are almost entirely defined by vowels, but var.nas cover both vowels and consonants. "Phoneme" in the sense 'distinction-making sound' and as something different from "phone", which belongs to the phonetic level of language, is in my view the closest 'convenient' translation, unless one wishes to use phrases like "distinctive sound" every time "var.na" is used.

Hmm, maybe even वर्ण is used at two levels like शब्द? I mean to refer to both vowels and consonants at the broader level, and also for एकाच् (which is syllable in English)?

I know of the appendix on Sanskrit prosody in the dictionary by V S Apte which uses वर्ण in the sense of a sound consisting of one vowel (syllable in English) - the entire section on वार्णिक वृत्तs organizes metres into headings like "चार वर्णों के चरण वाले वृत्त" (Metres with each foot consisting of four syllables), etc.

Apte V.S. (2007), Sanskrit-Hindi Kosh Raj Sanskaran, ISBN  9788120820975, pp. 1186-1198.
http://books.google.com/books?id=bsSZ27z5fSYC&pg=1200

Contrast this with how the term syllable is used in English prosody - octosyllable/octosyllabic verse, decasyllable/decasyllabic verse.

 

[Ganesh R]

Dear Scholars,

I really welcome the views of Prof Aklujkar and Sri Nityanada Mishra with regards to the use of thee word expression for shabda. Here it may not be out of place to remember Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy, one among the doyens of alaMkaarashaastra, who used to emphasize the need for the usage of the word 'expression' while understanding the phrases like शब्दार्थौ सहितौ काव्यम् , तददॊषौ शब्दार्थौ सगुणावनलंकृती पुनः क्वापि,  रमणीयार्थप्रतिपादकः शब्दः काव्यम्  etc., as the word shabda is a holistic representation of the complete poem, the verbal expression of the poet. I personally prefer to suggest the word 'experience' for the word 'artha' as the great Prof. M. Hiriyanna too has hinted that rasa is the very art-experience (we can remember the famous dictum of Bharata here: न हि रसादृते कश्चिदर्थः प्रवर्तते). Even the astounding polymath and polyglot Dr. Ananda K. Koomaraswamy has coined many such holistic terms with reference to form and content in the field of art. Especially a phrase like structure and substance is note worthy. Since long me too have been coning and using using some phrases like  rUpa and swarUpa, aakRti and aashaya to emphasize the holistic understanding  of  shabda and artha in the field of Indian aesthetics.

regards


ganesh

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On 2014-03-27, at 11:24 PM, Nityanand Misra wrote:

> I know of the appendix on Sanskrit prosody in the dictionary by V S Apte which uses वर्ण in the sense of a sound consisting of one vowel (syllable in English) - the entire section on वार्णिक वृत्तs organizes metres into headings like "चार वर्णों के चरण वाले वृत्त" (Metres with each foot consisting of four syllables), etc.
>
> Apte V.S. (2007), Sanskrit-Hindi Kosh Raj Sanskaran, ISBN 9788120820975, pp. 1186-1198.
> http://books.google.com/books?id=bsSZ27z5fSYC&pg=1200

Only part II added to Appendix A by the editors of the revised and enlarged edition of Apte's _The Practical ..._, Dictionary_ (has the word "var.nav.rtta" p 14 and p. 28 at the end of the third volume). This part is said to be a reproduction of Prof. H.D. Velankar's _Jayadaaman_, to which I have no access. In the earlier versions of Apte's dictionary part II is not found. Nor is "var.nav.rtta" found in what would now call part I. The common practice is to use "ak.sara-ga.na-v.rtta" for what the editors of the revised and enlarged edition give under "var.nav.rtta".

a.a.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Please help to translate "वर्णाः पदं प्रयोगार्हानन्वितैकार्थबोधकाः"  ----- Marcis

Before we discuss the above definition please bare a couple of things in mind --

वर्णः , प्रकृतिः, पदम् , वाक्यम् , अवान्तरवाक्यम् , महावाक्यम् , परा , पश्यन्ती, मध्यमा , वैखरी , ध्वनिः , शब्दप्रमाणम् etc (धातुर्वै शब्दः - महाभाष्यम्) - are referred to by the term शब्दः , which is untranslatable (already said under प्रकृतिः, प्रत्ययः etc).

ध्वनिर्वर्णाः पदं वाक्यम् इत्यास्पदचतुष्टयम् ।

यस्याः सूक्ष्मादिभेदेन वाग्देवीं तामुपास्महे ॥ सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरणम् of भोजराजः

Panini says  वाक्यम् is a शब्दसंज्ञा - वचो’शब्दसंज्ञायाम् 7-3-67 

( वाच्यः etc are अर्थसंज्ञाः) ।

वर्णः ---- वैखरी - are शब्दसंज्ञाः । Depending on the context  we decide the meaning.

If one translates' शब्द ' then there will be problem with back-translation  also.

We come across a number of words which are to be adapted rather than try for a rendering - योगः , धर्मः , पुण्यः , उपनयनम्  etc. and such words have already found their way into English Dictionaries .

Terms which are culture specific and pregnant with meaning should not be translated - includes Philosophy .

There are four kinds of  शब्दाः , following प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम् - जाति - गुण - क्रिया -संज्ञाशब्दाः ।

One may offer an explanation in parenthesis for  संज्ञाशब्दाः and should not try for translation for obvious reasons - रामः ( रमन्ते अस्मिन् योगिनः) ।

वर्ण cannot be letter / syllable / phoneme etc. 

वर्णः - अक्षरम् -- is discussed in BVP.

According to Modern Linguistics - Phoneme is a unit of language , without meaning and it cannot be used independently .

--" but this does not mean that we must necessarily pronounce p in exactly the same way every time , and we do not "

"it most constantly be remembered that a phoneme in a given language is defined only in terms of its differences from the other phonemes of the same language " --

-- Hockett in A course in Modern Linguistics

अक्षराणां अकारो’स्मि - भगवद्गीता 10-33

Sometimes it is only अच् , sometimes it can be अच्+हल् etc.

वर्णं वाहुः पूर्वसूत्रे - महाभाष्यम् ।

Even शब्दनित्यत्वम् does not come in the way --

According to वैयाकरणाः it is कूटस्थनित्यत्वम् / प्रवाहनित्यत्वम् |

According to मीमांसकाः it is प्रत्यभिज्ञानित्यत्वम् ( औत्पत्तिकस्तु शब्दस्यार्थेन सम्बन्धः - पू मी सू 1-1-4 )

औत्पत्तिक इति नित्यं ब्रूमः (शाबरभाष्यम्)|

I shall under some other heading discuss the six types of Sabda and 18 types of Artha .

                                      ******

 "वर्णाः पदं प्रयोगार्हानन्वितैकार्थबोधकाः।" -----

Visvanatha (unnecessarily) went to define a पदम् in his work साहित्यदर्पणः ।

There are three commentaries (may be more) - विश्वप्रिया and लोचना are just like टुप्टीका , ie very brief ,  and do not go into details 

A टीका / विवृति of  रामचरण-तर्कवागीश-भट्टाचार्य (1902, Jawaji , Bombay) is a good commentary .

वर्णाः स्वरव्यञ्जनरूपाः । 

प्रयोगार्हाश्च ते अनन्वितैकार्थबोधकाश्च ।

Author himself explains - "प्रयोगार्हेति प्रातिपदिद्कस्य व्यवच्छेदः" -- 

व्यवच्छेदः = elimination - by the word प्रयोगार्ह , 'प्रातिपदिकम्’ is eliminated .

प्रातिपदिकम् is nominal root and this covers (उपलक्षणम्) the verbal root , धातु , also.

"अनन्वितेति वाक्यमहावाक्यद्योः" (व्यवच्छेदः)- the word अनन्वित eliminates वाक्यम् and महावक्यम् - not having mutual connection either between / among पदानि or अवान्तरवाक्यनि ।

पदसमूहः वक्यम् , अवान्तरवाक्यसमूहः महावक्यम् - subject to आकाङ्क्षा -योग्यता - आसत्ति ।

"एकेति साकाङ्क्षानेकपदवाक्यानाम् "(व्यवच्छेदः) - what he says is - there is a group of words as well as a group of sub-sentences (अवान्तरवक्यनि) which have got आकाङ्क्षा only , ie neither योग्यता nor आसत्ति is there - so although there is अनन्वितार्थबोधकत्वम्  such a group cannot be called a पदम् ।

"अर्थबोधका इति कचटतपेत्यादीनम् "(व्यवच्छेदः) -- a single वर्ण like क च etc cannot be a पदम् as it cannot express any meaning .

"वर्णाः इति बहुवचनम् अविवक्षितम्" -- there can be एकवर्णं and द्विवर्णं पदम् ।

So -- वर्णाः , which are fit for usage , other than वाक्यम् and महावाक्यम् , other than a group of पदानि or अवान्तरवाक्यानि having आकाङ्क्षा only , and meaningful are called पदम् ।

                                        *******

Bonus Info --

the above definition of a पदम् is व्यभिचारदोषजुष्टम् --

when you say अनन्वित - not only वाक्य and महावाक्य but समास has also to be taken into consideration as the words in a समास are अन्वित --

नीलोत्पलम् - is a पदम् with मुख्यार्थ ।

श्वेतः ( in the sentence श्वेतः धावति , with two meanings) -- श्वेतः as well as श्वा इतः - with लक्ष्यार्थ ।

So there is अव्याप्ति ( under-application , ie not covering a genuine example ).

The author offers an example - ’क्षीरोदजावसतिजन्मभुवः प्रसन्ना ’ for पदगतक्लिष्टत्वम् (7 th परिच्छेदः) and this is a समास which is considered  as a पदम् ।                         

If you say एकार्थ , what about घटौ घटाः - द्वयर्थबहुत्वबोधकशब्दाः?

There are other problems , which we cannot discuss here (too lengthy).

The commentator , रामचरण offers another definition --

’असमासाङ्गसुप्तिङ्तल्लोपयुक्प्रकृतिः’

सुप्तिङन्तं पदम् (पाणिनिसूत्रम्) is the best.

                       ****

Another example for वाक्यम् , offered by विश्वनाथ , ie शून्यं वसगृहं विलोक्य ...., is untenable . 

It is to be taken as an example of महावाक्यम् ।

Mimamsakas take a वाक्यम् , wherein there is (are) क्त्वान्त / ल्यबन्त as a महावाक्यम् --

I have discussed this in महावाक्यविचारः --

मुखं व्यादाय स्वपिति ( he is sleeping with his mouth open) is considered as a महावाक्यम् in शाबरभाष्यम् । 

Same is the case with रक्तः पटो भवति ।

Under स्वादुमि णमुल् , Katyayana and Patanjali discuss - व्यादाय स्वपिति ।

धन्यो’स्मि

--

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Personal Website: www.korada.org