Double letters in Wilson's Sanskrit dictionary

[Mārcis Gasūns]

Namaste,

What do the double letters in Wilson mean? Most of them occur after "r", what is the logic behind them? 

Same words occur with onle 1 letter instead of 2 letters in other Sanskrit dictionaries.

Compare hiMsAkarmman

http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/WILScan/disp3/index.php

and hiMsAkarman http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/PWScan/disp2/index.php

Sample list (whole list in the .xls file)

• barbbaṭa
  
• śrīgarbbha
  
• nagamūrddhan
  
• carmmāvanaddha
  
• gucchārddha
  
• chinnanāsika
  
• jīrṇṇaparṇṇa
  
• amūrtta
  
• aṅkaparivarttana
  
• pārvvaṇa
  
• animiṣācāryya
  
• kṣattriyaprāya

Need advice how to treat them. Should I leave them as they are? But that would mean that in my 250 000 

Sanskrit word list 2500 pseudo words would appear. What do you think about such orthographic variants?

M.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:43:54 PM UTC+8, Mārcis Gasūns wrote:

Namaste,

What do the double letters in Wilson mean? Most of them occur after "r", what is the logic behind them? 

Same words occur with onle 1 letter instead of 2 letters in other Sanskrit dictionaries.

Compare hiMsAkarmman

http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/WILScan/disp3/index.php

and hiMsAkarman http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/PWScan/disp2/index.php

Most of them where the duplication is after "r" are spelling variants where the consonant following "r" is optionally duplicated by the rule PS 8.4.46 aco rahābhyāṁ dve of the Aṣṭādhyāyī. So both "dharma" and "dharmma" are correct. Sanskrit inscriptions, older manuscripts and some 19th century printed books use the variation with duplication. In contrast, Prakrit inscriptions (like those of Emperor Asoka) use the variation without duplication. In all such cases you can safely use the spelling without the duplication.

However, caveat lector! In some cases the spelling with the duplication is the only correct spelling. Some examples that come to mind are 

1. "tottra" (a whip or goad for a horse or elephant) is correct, "totra" is wrong.

2. "tattva" (essense/substance) is correct, "tatva" is wrong

3. "kṣattra" (dominion/the warrior race) is correct,  "kṣatra" is wrong

3. "kṣattriya" (the warrior race) is correct,  kṣatriya" is wrong

In these examples, the derivation does not have optional duplication rather it the result of two instances of the same consonant coming together and the lack of application of PS 8-4-65 jharo jhari savarṇe due the conditions of 8-4-65 not being satisfied.

For instance see the Prakriya of the word kṣattra

kṣaṇ + kvip = kṣat = nāśa meaning destruction

One who protects from destruction or kṣat is kṣattra. 

kṣaṇ -> sampadādibh‍yaḥ kvip (Vārttika on 3-3-94) -> kṣan kvip -> upadeśe'janunāsika it (1-3-2), halantyam (1-3-3), laśakvataddhite (1-3-8), tasya lopaḥ (1-3-9) -> anubandhalopa -> sarvāpahāralopa -> kṣaṇ -> gamādīnāmiti vaktavyam (Vārttika on 6-4-40) -> kṣa -> hrasvasya piti kṛti tuk (6-1-71) -> kṣa tuk -> upadeśe'janunāsika it (1-3-2), halantyam (1-3-3), tasya lopaḥ (1-3-9) -> anubandhalopa -> kṣa t -> kṣat 

kṣatāt trāyate iti kṣattraḥ

ātaścopasarge (3-3-136) -> kṣat ṅasi trā ka -> laśakvataddhite (1-3-8), tasya lopaḥ (1-3-9) -> anubandhalopa -> kṣat ṅasi trā a -> āto lopa iṭi ca (6-4-64) -> kṣat ṅasi tr a -> kṣat ṅasi tra -> kṛttaddhitasamāsāśca (1-2-46) -> supo dhātuprātipadikayoḥ (2-4-71) -> kṣat tra -> kṣattra -> declension as nominative singular masculine -> kṣattraḥ

Here the form kṣattra (with two 't's) is the only correct form and kṣatra (with single 't') is wrong, since here the rule jharo jhari savarṇe (8-4-65) does not apply here.

[Mārcis Gasūns]

Thanks for the detailed answer.

On Thursday, 12 December 2013 14:15:51 UTC+4, Nityanand Misra wrote:

On Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:43:54 PM UTC+8, Mārcis Gasūns wrote:

What do the double letters in Wilson mean? Most of them occur after "r", what is the logic behind them? 

Same words occur with onle 1 letter instead of 2 letters in other Sanskrit dictionaries.

Compare hiMsAkarmman

http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/WILScan/disp3/index.php

and hiMsAkarman http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/PWScan/disp2/index.php

Most of them where the duplication is after "r" are spelling variants where the consonant following "r" is optionally duplicated by the rule PS 8.4.46 aco rahābhyāṁ dve of the Aṣṭādhyāyī.

Right, Dhaval pointed me to कविकाव्यलक्षणपरिचयः topic.

 

So both "dharma" and "dharmma" are correct. Sanskrit inscriptions, older manuscripts and some 19th century printed books use the variation with duplication. In contrast, Prakrit inscriptions (like those of Emperor Asoka) use the variation without duplication.

Right, understood.

 

In all such cases you can safely use the spelling without the duplication.

Perfect, that is what I need to test. I want to change Wilson's double consonants to one consonant and see what happens. I hope I do not forget to not convert ddh as dh :)

 

However, caveat lector! In some cases the spelling with the duplication is the only correct spelling.

This what I was feeling, but could not express, thanks.

 

1. "tottra" (a whip or goad for a horse or elephant) is correct, "totra" is wrong.

2. "tattva" (essense/substance) is correct, "tatva" is wrong

3. "kṣattra" (dominion/the warrior race) is correct,  "kṣatra" is wrong

4. "kṣattriya" (the warrior race) is correct,  kṣatriya" is wrong

This was exactly for what I was looking for. Words that I can't just kill. So right now there are 4 words. Are there a few more?

M.

[dhaval patel]

1. "tottra" (a whip or goad for a horse or elephant) is correct, "totra" is wrong.

2. "tattva" (essense/substance) is correct, "tatva" is wrong

3. "kṣattra" (dominion/the warrior race) is correct,  "kṣatra" is wrong

4. "kṣattriya" (the warrior race) is correct,  kṣatriya" is wrong

This was exactly for what I was looking for. Words that I can't just kill. So right now there are 4 words. Are there a few more?

Dear Marcis,

these are not examples of  अचो रहाभ्यां द्वे though.

I don't forsee any catastrophe if you remove the duplication of vowel + (r/h) + duplicated consonant ---> vowel + (r/h) + single consonant.

 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fro 

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/groups/opt_out.

--
Dr. Dhaval Patel, I.A.S

District Development Officer, Rajkot

www.sanskritworld.in

[Ravi Khangai]

I am working on a topic "aborigins in the Mahabharata' . can anybody suggest the books please? thank you

--
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/groups/opt_out.

--

"Think about environment before taking print-out of my Email"
 Dr. Ravi Khangai   
            Assistant Professor 
            Department of History

            Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University

            Amravati Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India- 440033
          
Mo-9402168854, 9862799912

[Siddhartha Krishna]

If the double tt versions of both words are wrong, then why is the Rig Veda filled with both words in their single "t" version (see 1.24.6 and 4.12.3, both words combined in their single "t" version have been used in the entire Rig Veda alone around 90 times). Please clarify. Thank you. 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Siddhartha Krishna <vedab...@gmail.com> wrote:

If the double tt versions of both words are wrong, then why is the Rig Veda filled with both words in their single "t" version (see 1.24.6 and 4.12.3, both words combined in their single "t" version have been used in the entire Rig Veda alone around 90 times). Please clarify. Thank you. 

Firstly, I was talking about Laukika, and not Vaidika forms. In Veda, whatever form is seen is Sadhu.

Secondly, what do you mean by "Rigveda"? The oral tradition? The old manuscripts? Or modern printed editions? Think twice before trusting modern printed editions - in this context, they are not a reliable source since many editions printed in nineteenth century and later had to make compromises due to the typesetting constraints. Unless we see what form is seen in old manuscripts (or hear the authentic pronunciation in an uncorrupted oral tradition), we can never be sure. 

I can give you an example from my Shakha (Shukla Yajurveda Vajasaneyi Madhyandini).In most (probably all?) printed editions, SY-VM 20.25 has the form क्षत्रं with a single त्.

However, refer Vachaspatyam here -

http://archive.org/stream/vacaspatyam03tarkuoft#page/771/mode/1up

The word listed is क्षत्त्र and the example is the same Mantra SY-VM 20.25, listed with the two त्s. In fact Vachaspatyam does not list क्षत्र at all! Maybe in the manuscripts the कोषकार had access to, the 90 forms in Rgveda were with two "t"s.

This shows that printed editions cannot be treated as authentic sources. 

Maybe in the Vedas the form with a single "त्" exists. Maybe it does not. But we need to see old manuscripts to be sure.

[Mārcis Gasūns]

Vachaspatyam word list draft file might help, see attachment. Thanks, I was not aware of the same issues in Vachaspatyam, so क्षत्त्र was new to me.

[Siddhartha Krishna]

OK. I see the point. But, in that case what we are saying is this: Most (actually all) published editions of the Vedas and even of other scriptures like the Upanishads, Gita, Nighantu etc. are wrong, because the single "t" version of the two words in grammatically not possible. This I think is highly unlikely, because I can't believe that this issue never came into the consideration of any of those highly learned editors. Therefore, I may suggest the following.

First a question...

How this vigraha provided by you is possible with a kvip-pratyayAnta "kSat" - kṣatāt trāyate iti kṣattraḥ 

In the vigraha you are treating it as niSThA-pratyayAnta - "kShatAt".

In any case, one finds this niSThA-pratyayAnta Vigraha in Kalidasa's Raghuvamsa - "kSatAt kila trAyata ityudagrah"  2.53

But in that case, it has to be treated as a case of pRiShodarAdi-gaNa (as clearly stated in DevarAja YajvA's commentary on the NighaNTu and also in the vyAkhyA-sudhA commentary of Amara-kosha), in which case even a single "t" shouldn't be problematic at all. 

Therefore, I don't think one should make a big fuss around the single or double "t" in these two cases - kShatra and kShatriya. Both versions seem correct to me.

Yes, if we follow the vyutpatti provided in uNadi-kosha sutra - gudRivIpacivaciyamisadikSadibhyas trah, then "kShattra" with two "tt" is inevitable. 

In any case, the vyutpatti-prakriyA provided by you seems problematic to me because I can't see how "sampadAdibhyah kvip" vArtika can be applicable here, because the gaNa only lists 5 words, which don't include the root "kShaN", nor is it stated that it is AkRiti-gaNa. 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

Namaste Siddhartha Krishna Ji

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Siddhartha Krishna <vedab...@gmail.com> wrote:

OK. I see the point. But, in that case what we are saying is this: Most (actually all) published editions of the Vedas and even of other scriptures like the Upanishads, Gita, Nighantu etc. are wrong, because the single "t" version of the two words in grammatically not possible. This I think is highly unlikely, because I can't believe that this issue never came into the consideration of any of those highly learned editors. Therefore, I may suggest the following.

I am not saying the published editions are wrong or right. All I am saying is I am not sure. And the reason is the example of SY-YM 20.25 - as per Vachaspatyam it is क्षत्त्रम्, while as per the multiple editions of SY-YM Samhita (including one with करपात्रस्वामी's commentary) it is क्षत्रम्. Even शब्दकल्पद्रुम lists only क्षत्त्र/क्षत्त्रिय but not क्षत्र/क्षत्रिय. So who is correct - the editors of SY-YM Samhita or the compilers of Vachapatyam and Sabdakalpadruma? All of them were highly learned, and they differ. Which is why I would like to see what form old manuscripts had (They may very well have the single "t" form). 

First a question...

How this vigraha provided by you is possible with a kvip-pratyayAnta "kSat" - kṣatāt trāyate iti kṣattraḥ 

In the vigraha you are treating it as niSThA-pratyayAnta - "kShatAt".

Typo, thanks for pointing. It would be "क्षतस्त्रायते" - I had Raghuvamsha 2.53 in mind which says क्षतात् त्रायते, and wrote क्षतात् in place of क्षतः. The meaning is the same though क्षत् = क्षत and क्षतः = क्षतात्. The Prakriya stays the same.
 

In any case, one finds this niSThA-pratyayAnta Vigraha in Kalidasa's Raghuvamsa - "kSatAt kila trAyata ityudagrah"  2.53

But in that case, it has to be treated as a case of pRiShodarAdi-gaNa (as clearly stated in DevarAja YajvA's commentary on the NighaNTu and also in the vyAkhyA-sudhA commentary of Amara-kosha), in which case even a single "t" shouldn't be problematic at all.

In which case? In the क्षत + त्र case? Can you please quote the relevant extracts and Prakriya (if given) from the Nighantu and the Amarakosha commentaries? Do they derive it from क्षत + त्र and then do a तकारलोप citing पृषोदरादित्व? Does the Nighantu commentary talk about Raghuvamsha 2.53 at all?

 

Therefore, I don't think one should make a big fuss around the single or double "t" in these two cases - kShatra and kShatriya. Both versions seem correct to me.

Maybe both are correct. I am willing to change my opinion, but before I do that, I would need to go through the commentaries you are talking about where the single "t" form is derived counting it in पृषोदरादि. 
 

Yes, if we follow the vyutpatti provided in uNadi-kosha sutra - gudRivIpacivaciyamisadikSadibhyas trah, then "kShattra" with two "tt" is inevitable. 

I am aware of the Unadi Kosha derivation (that is the first derivation given in Sabdakalpadruma, which also gives the सम्पदादि derivation), but that will not result in a form with a single "त्" (unless one considers पृषोदरादिगणत्वम् in this derivation too for elision of one त्).
 

In any case, the vyutpatti-prakriyA provided by you seems problematic to me because I can't see how "sampadAdibhyah kvip" vArtika can be applicable here, because the gaNa only lists 5 words, which don't include the root "kShaN", nor is it stated that it is AkRiti-gaNa. 

 

With due respect to your opinion, Mallinatha and Taranatha Tarkavachaspati think otherwise. Please refer सञ्जीवनी commentary on Raghuvamsam 2.53 which clearly says "क्षणु हिंसायाम्" इति धातोः सम्पदादित्वात्क्विप्. The same derivation is given in Vachaspatyam under क्षत्त्र.

PS: Thanks for the in-depth discussion. I had come across your Samskrita commentary on Ashtadhyayi in Chitrakoot a few months ago. Good to speak to you personally.

--
Nityānanda Miśra
Vice President, Equity Markets, Citigroup, Hong Kong SAR
Member, Advisory Council, JRHU, Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, India
http://nmisra.googlepages.com

[Siddhartha Krishna]

In which case? In the क्षत + त्र case? Can you please quote the relevant extracts and Prakriya (if given) from the Nighantu and the Amarakosha commentaries? Do they derive it from क्षत + त्र and then do a तकारलोप citing पृषोदरादित्व? Does the Nighantu commentary talk about Raghuvamsha 2.53 at all?

Yes, I meant in the क्षत + त्र case. 

देवराज यज्वा writes in his commentary on the निघण्टु - क्षतशब्दात् त्रायतेश्च क्षत्रम्, पृषोदरादिः॥
व्याख्यासुधा on अमरकोश states - क्षतात्त्रायते वा, पृषोदरादिः॥
As you can see, no one states what actually happens through पृषोदरादि. It was my suggestion that we do तकारलोप through पृषोदरादि to create क्षत्र.
Just consider how वारिवाहकः becomes बलाहकः through पृषोदरादि.

No, the Nighantu commentary doesn't talk about Raghuvamsha. There the context is that of water or strength, because in the Rig Veda क्षत्र means not only क्षत्रिय, but also आपः, बलम् and धन.  

 

Maybe both are correct. I am willing to change my opinion, but before I do that, I would need to go through the commentaries you are talking about where the single "t" form is derived counting it in पृषोदरादि. 

I think both are correct. Please kindly see this ancient manuscript of Raghuvamsha, where the word has been clearly written as क्षत्र, and not क्षत्त्र. Please see the words क्षत्रस्य वाचकः शब्दः towards the end of the last line on this page - http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-01396-00001/65

If you find it difficult to read it and ascertain whether it is क्षत्र or क्षत्त्र, please refer to the next page, where you can clearly see how a द्वित्व "त्त्र" is written in the specific manuscript. Please see the words क्षतात् खण्डनात्त्रायत इति at the beginning of the first line on this page - http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-01396-00001/66

I hope this clarifies the issue. Both versions are equally correct.

 

With due respect to your opinion, Mallinatha and Taranatha Tarkavachaspati think otherwise. Please refer सञ्जीवनी commentary on Raghuvamsam 2.53 which clearly says "क्षणु हिंसायाम्" इति धातोः सम्पदादित्वात्क्विप्. The same derivation is given in Vachaspatyam under क्षत्त्र.

It is clearly a bit over-stretching the scope of the Vartika. But, with due respect to both great scholars, I take back my objection. Thanks for enlightening me. 

 

PS: Thanks for the in-depth discussion. I had come across your Samskrita commentary on Ashtadhyayi in Chitrakoot a few months ago. Good to speak to you personally.

Thank you very much for your kind words. I plan to publish a completely revised edition of the book, because I started writing that book when I was 16 years old, and I feel now after teaching it a few times that it requires a revision. I'm also planning to add Vartikas this time and also will dedicate a lot of effort to the Vedic Prakriyas, because Veda Samhita, Brahamana, Aranyaka and Upanishads have been the main subjects of my studies over the past 10 years. The manuscript is ready, just need to find the time and inspiration to type everything again into my laptop and the prepare a book with Page Maker. 

Also my Pranams to JagadGuruji. My home was blessed by him back in the late 1980s when I had started learning Panini's Ashtadhyayi by heart. I remember reciting to him the first chapter of the Sutra Patha. It is my pleasure to get in touch with you as well. Please accept my heartfelt Pranams. 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sunday, December 15, 2013 4:48:49 AM UTC+8, Siddhartha Krishna wrote:

Yes, I meant in the क्षत + त्र case. 

देवराज यज्वा writes in his commentary on the निघण्टु - क्षतशब्दात् त्रायतेश्च क्षत्रम्, पृषोदरादिः॥
व्याख्यासुधा on अमरकोश states - क्षतात्त्रायते वा, पृषोदरादिः॥
As you can see, no one states what actually happens through पृषोदरादि. It was my suggestion that we do तकारलोप through पृषोदरादि to create क्षत्र.
Just consider how वारिवाहकः becomes बलाहकः through पृषोदरादि.

No, the Nighantu commentary doesn't talk about Raghuvamsha. There the context is that of water or strength, because in the Rig Veda क्षत्र means not only क्षत्रिय, but also आपः, बलम् and धन.  

 

I think both are correct. Please kindly see this ancient manuscript of Raghuvamsha, where the word has been clearly written as क्षत्र, and not क्षत्त्र. Please see the words क्षत्रस्य वाचकः शब्दः towards the end of the last line on this page - http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-01396-00001/65

If you find it difficult to read it and ascertain whether it is क्षत्र or क्षत्त्र, please refer to the next page, where you can clearly see how a द्वित्व "त्त्र" is written in the specific manuscript. Please see the words क्षतात् खण्डनात्त्रायत इति at the beginning of the first line on this page - http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-01396-00001/66

I hope this clarifies the issue. Both versions are equally correct.

Many thanks for the extract from commentaries and the links. With the क्षत्र form seen in manuscripts, I stand corrected and now believe that my previous statement on क्षत्र/क्षत्त्र was incorrect. Both forms are Paninian if we count the word in the पृषोदरादि group.

To summarize the three derivations - 

(1) As per देवराज यज्वा and व्याख्यासुधा, we have क्षत+त्र which becomes क्षत्र by पृषोदरादित्व (elision of one of the त्s and अ). By अनचि च, क्षत्र becomes क्षत्त्र. This makes both forms valid.

(2) As per Mallinatha's derivation, we have the form क्षत्+त्र = क्षत्त्र. This cannot become क्षत्र by झरो झरि सवर्णे as the rule is not applicable, which makes only क्षत्त्र valid. But if we allow for elision of त्  by पृषोदरादित्व then it can explain क्षत्र.

(3) As per the Unadi-Paninian derivation, we have  क्षद्+त्र = क्षत्त्र by खरि च (चर्त्व). Again this cannot become क्षत्र by झरो झरि सवर्णे, but if we allow for elision of त्  by पृषोदरादित्व then it can explain क्षत्र.

 because I started writing that book when I was 16 years old.

Incredible achievement indeed! But on second thoughts, entirely credible and hardly surprising. After all, like [grand]father, like [grand]son. You are only doing justice to your पितृगण's eminence. 

I'm also planning to add Vartikas this time and also will dedicate a lot of effort to the Vedic Prakriyas, because Veda Samhita, Brahamana, Aranyaka and Upanishads have been the main subjects of my studies over the past 10 years. The manuscript is ready, just need to find the time and inspiration to type everything again into my laptop and the prepare a book with Page Maker. 

Looking forward to read it. Why don't you outsource the typing (I do that @ Rs. 30 a page) and proofread the result to save time? And maybe try out something better than Page Maker like InDesign or LaTeX?

 

It is my pleasure to get in touch with you as well. Please accept my heartfelt Pranams. 

Frankly, I don't deserve any. Especially from a person of your knowledge. 

With humble salutations, Nityanand

[Siddhartha Krishna]

Thank you very much. Excellent suggestion. Never thought of it, will consider. Thank you very much.