विस्मृतः but why not विष्मृतः

[Abhishek Mehta]

Can someone please explain why the इण्कोः, आदेशप्रत्ययोः sutras doesn't apply to विस्मृतः to give us विष्मृतः? Which sutra prevents the स् in the above from becoming murdhanya?

[R Sridharan]

The dhatu in upadesa is itself स्मृ . Therefore there is no adesa to revert to murdhanya.

R. Sridharan, 

Plot 5 A, Block 5,

MCHS Colony,

HSR Layout Sector 6,

Bengaluru 560102

Tel: +91 99000 63650

On Sat, 6 Dec 2025, 22:42 Abhishek Mehta, <docabh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can someone please explain why the इण्कोः, आदेशप्रत्ययोः sutras doesn't apply to विस्मृतः to give us विष्मृतः? Which sutra prevents the स् in the above from becoming murdhanya?

--
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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN9yavA9YXJJL6%3D_F3Lp5ec%2BECBPDe1ru%3D9HFEtNd06V7Uy7rQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Then can you explain how that works in सुषुप्त:? 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAF_1X%2Bfc29T8ADR%3DjFdhYFxE9f2_gt2Pb3wkhq0W-k_ML9FUmg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Kanshi]

See Kashika on sutra 8.3.88. You will be able to see the solution.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN9yavCZ%2BNaRuytY26ChHmzHMY9ECE6V66TgQWMLqeg0GL%3DOuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Thank you for pointing that out. I may ask more questions in case I have more doubts in this regard.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAEdOMxjO0%2BAvQ%2BtrWEd_79%3Dgexmn%3DAoQh5sSDXUYjG5ndSJxCw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lalitha Ramakrishnan]

ञिष्वपँ क्षये 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN9yavCZ%2BNaRuytY26ChHmzHMY9ECE6V66TgQWMLqeg0GL%3DOuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Ah. So you are saying that adeshapratyayoh works only when the स is in the upadesha itself. Not when upadesha has a ष to begin with. Thanks. It's becoming slightly more clear.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAMVi6M-t7JrctVY%3DXHQv1H-_Jr9cLepPRyqxE%2Bg8-fN1LD%2Bwcw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mahamaho. Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Ah. So you are saying that adeshapratyayoh works only when the स is in the upadesha itself. Not when upadesha has a ष to begin with. Thanks. It's becoming slightly more clear  ----- विद् अभिषेक मेहता

’ आदेशप्रत्यययोः ’  does not apply here - because there is neither an आदेश (स्मृ) nor a प्रत्यय ।

प्रयोगशरणम् व्याकरणम् - प्रयुक्तानामिदमन्वाख्यानम् -- the usage is not there .

षत्वम् after वि is seen only in the case of  सुपि - सूति - सम -- सु-वि-निर्-दुर् भ्यः सुपि-सृति-समाः (पा 8-3-88) -- so there is no विधायकसूत्रम्  for वि स्मृ ।

Better sit down with a good वैयाकरण । It is not possible to teach the nuances of any शास्त्रम्  on a platform like this .

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam

Prof of Sanskrit (Retd)

Chairman , Bharateeya Vidvat Parishat

Ph:09866110741

https://sites.google.com/view/koradeeyam/home

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN9yavDLUCV3jx-XBoMn3PnQ1ZNzg51F_i-JKP1pW17oPX39AQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[syn_mail]

Indeed, this grammar discussion via social consensus has bothered me.

Good that Prof Korada spoke up.

Young people also have rough language (new age!).

Regards,

BM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELS3qtgxYd4JMrteaZ-Voe1HvnH98LmC_kPPv%2BiU_G%3D1yw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramanath Pandey]

Why the इण्कोः, आदेशप्रत्ययोः sutras doesn't apply to विस्मृतः to give us विष्मृतः? Which sutra prevents the स् in the above from becoming murdhanya?

🔷 1. Why “vi-smṛtaḥ” does NOT become “viṣ-mṛtaḥ”(विस्मृतः to give us विष्मृतः)

The question is:

Why does the rule iṇkoḥ ādeśapratyayayoḥ (Aṣṭādhyāyī 8.3.59) not apply to vi-smṛtaḥ, to make it viṣ-mṛtaḥ?

The answer is: because none of the conditions of this rule are satisfied.

Let’s examine the rule:
Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī 8.3.59, the sūtra ādeśapratyayayoḥ (आदेशप्रत्यययोः), is a grammatical rule that governs the retroflexion of the dental s (sa) into the retroflex ṣ (ṣa).
This rule says:
“A dental s becomes retroflex ṣ when it occurs in an ādeśa (substitute) or a pratyaya (affix), and is followed by iṇ, k, or u.”
So the rule applies only when:
the s is in an ādeśa (substitute), OR
the s is in a pratyaya, AND
the following letter is iṇ, k, or u.
Now apply this to smṛ.

 A. The ‘s’ in smṛ is NOT an ādeśa

The root in the Dhātupāṭha is smṛ (स्मृ) itself.
This s is not a substitute for any other original letter.
It is an upadeśa-s, the original member of the root.
Therefore condition (1) fails.
 B. The ‘s’ in smṛ is NOT in a pratyaya
In words like:

smṛti

smṛtaḥ

vi-smṛtaḥ

The s belongs to the verbal root itself, not to a kṛt or taddhita pratyaya.

Therefore condition (2) fails.

C. No iṇ / k / u follows the s

In smṛ, after ‘s’ comes m, not iṇ, k, or u.

Therefore condition (3) fails.

Conclusion

✔ Since none of the conditions of 8.3.59 apply, s → ṣ cannot happen.
✔ Thus the form is vi-smṛtaḥ, never viṣ-mṛtaḥ.

 2. Then why does suṣuptaḥ have retroflex ṣ?

Excellent question.

This is explained by a different rule, not by 8.3.59.

The key rule is:

 Aṣṭādhyāyī 8.3.88 — su-vi-nir-dur bhyaḥ supi-sṛti-samāḥ

This rule says:

After the prefixes su, vi, nir, dur, the roots or words
sup, sṛt, sam
undergo retroflexion of s → ṣ.

This is a completely special rule (apavāda), not general s-retroflexion.

✔ List of items covered by 8.3.88

Prefixes (upasargas):

su

vi

nir

dur

Special roots / prātipadikas:

√sup (सुप् ‘sleep’)

√sṛt

sam

 Applying this to √sup

The root “to sleep” is:

√sup (to sleep)

This is specifically covered in 8.3.88.

When you add a prefix like vi or su to √sup:

vi + sup

su + sup

the s becomes ṣ.

Thus:

vi-sup → vi-ṣup → suṣuptaḥ

su-sup → su-ṣup → suṣuptaḥ

(After internal sandhi, vowel changes, lopa, etc., we get the classical form suṣuptaḥ.)

 Important: This rule applies ONLY to √sup, √sṛt, and sam.

It does not apply to smṛ.

Therefore:

vi + smṛ → vi-smṛ, not vi-ṣmṛ.

 3. Why is suṣuptaḥ allowed but viṣmṛtaḥ not?

Because grammar explicitly says:

✔ 8.3.88 specifically mandates ṣ-change only for

sup, sṛt, sam
under certain prefixes.

✔ No rule mandates ṣ-change for smṛ.
✔ 8.3.59 (iṇkoḥ ādeśapratyayayoḥ) does NOT apply

because smṛ contains neither an:

ādeśa-s

pratyaya-s

nor a following iṇ/k/u letter

 4. Why does the teacher say: “There is no vidhāyaka-sūtra for vi-smṛ”?

Because “retroflexion after vi-” is NOT a general rule. It happens only for three items due to 8.3.88.

There is no general s → ṣ rule after “vi”.

So:

vi-sṛt → vi-ṣṛt

vi-sup → vi-ṣup → suṣuptaḥ

BUT

vi-smṛ → vi-smṛ, no change.

There is no “vidhāyaka” rule giving you viṣmṛ.

 5. Summary (all key points)
 Why viṣmṛtaḥ is impossible:

The s in smṛ is not an ādeśa (substitute).

The s in smṛ is not in a pratyaya.

After this s, the letters iṇ/k/u do not occur.

Therefore 8.3.59 does not apply.

No other rule mandates ṣ-retroflexion for smṛ.

8.3.88 applies only to √sup, √sṛt, sam.

Since smṛ is NOT one of these, the ṣ-change cannot occur.

Thus the correct form is:

✔ vi-smṛtaḥ

not
✘ vi-ṣmṛtaḥ

✔ Why suṣuptaḥ is allowed:

√sup ("to sleep") is explicitly listed in 8.3.88.

Rule mandates s → ṣ after prefixes su/vi/nir/dur.

Therefore vi-sup → vi-ṣup → suṣuptaḥ.

[Abhishek Mehta]

First of all this message was not meant for you but the person who made that comment. So I did not ask you to teach me nuances of vyakarana or any shastra from that matter. Since the comment was one line I was merely trying to interpret/guess what might be the reason for this. Also I was just being polite and acknowledging that reply more or less and encourage him to say more as I was interested to know what he wished to say. This is a common trick online where you say something deliberately yet slightly incorrect to encourage the other side to clarify and explain their answer. Check Cunningham's Law - Meta-Wiki https://share.google/y86sQPEIGB7s3JQ6x

And Prof. Ram Kanshi ji has already pointed this sutra out and that had already answered my question. Of all the people, his answers to my question are always to the point, terse and self-complete. I think it takes the level of competence and expertise of Prof. Ram Kanshi ji to say and point out exactly what is needed to put someone on a path from where one can pick up and understand the rest of the subtleties and nuances. If you are unable to do that you can simply ignore the question.

Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELS3qtgxYd4JMrteaZ-Voe1HvnH98LmC_kPPv%2BiU_G%3D1yw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Kanshi]

It is 

ञिष्वपँ शये।

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAMVi6M-t7JrctVY%3DXHQv1H-_Jr9cLepPRyqxE%2Bg8-fN1LD%2Bwcw%40mail.gmail.com.

[syn_mail]

Dear Dr Mehta,

Let me apologize for interposing in this discussion.  What Prof Korada suggested and what I agree is that

grammar like any other subject needs grounded cultivation.  It needs respect like other subjects in the

sciences.  Many in the west and lately in India try to learn grammar as a hobby.  A scholar understands 

the difference between casual learning and professional learning.  A grammar-learning has to go with

many years of practice of recitations to hear the sounds.  Distinguishing sounds needs meditative

concentration. It is a beautiful revelation of our inner mechanism.  It takes its own time depending

on effort and discipline.  

It is gratifying to observe that many young bright scholars are attracted to Sanskrit.  My own journey

seriously didn't begin until I was forty years of age.  One has to discover why our speech is not casual

and then check what makes grammar.  Panini's grammar is derived, hence it has to have many exceptions.

A bright physicist like you should look for natural grammar, the way a tree talks to the clouds. This 

animation is the purport of the Vedas, the Indian science lives through this animation.  Such animation

is mapped in our voice, with its range of frequencies, tone and melody.  

What I wanted to convey is that the matter is much more elegant and scientific than a line in a text.

You talked about  विस्मृत and विष्मृत .  Recite them aloud and you would discover the neurological

difference.  You may discover the strength of expression if you try more.  Then you may analytically

explore if there is a natural rule.  We have the capacity to express the object (this is cosmology)

and we appreciate it as physicists.

I will present my model of cosmology and neurology of grammar in a seminar on Dec 20.  I invite

you and other scholars to join and help in developing a science of speech.  Of course, it is complicated

and needs many more years of sustained research and exploration. 

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

US

Physics, Sanskrit, Neurology

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN9yavBgFDCSAuqTLNwK4VNX34eMsA%2BdvNBM4jY5HFrKcxrp4g%40mail.gmail.com.