The derivation of Gautama

[Mārcis Gasūns]

Namaste,

 Am I right and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautam_(given_name) and "derived from the Sanskrit roots "gŐ(गः)" and "tama (तम)".[1] "Tama" means "darkness" and "gŐ" means inter alia "bright light".[1] Together, they indicate the one, who dispels darkness (ignorance) by his brilliance (spiritual knowledge)." is a folk etymology? Is not it "the largest ox"? The issue with the "oxest" is that in https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Sanskrit_Grammar_by_Whitney_p1.djvu/506 तर tara and तम tama are the usual secondary suffixes of adjective comparison and go is not an adjective.

Marcis

[Nityanand Misra]

The Wikipedia entry is, for a change, mostly correct. The SKD and VP give a similar derivation and cite the MBh in support.

SKD

गोतमः, पुं, (गोभिर्ध्वस्तं तमो यस्य । पृषोदरादित्वात् साधुः । एतन्निरुक्तिर्यथा, महाभारते । १३ । ९३ । ९५ । “गोदमोऽहमतोऽधूमोऽदमस्ते समदर्शनात्। गोभिस्तमो मम ध्वस्तं जातमात्रस्य देहतः। विद्धि मां गोतमं कृत्ये यातुधानि निबोध माम्॥”) गौतममुनिः । स तु ब्रह्मपुत्त्रः । इति गयामाहात्म्ये वायुपुराणम् ॥

VP

गोतम पु० गोभिस्तमोध्वस्तं यस्य पृषो०। १ मुनिभेदे तन्नामनिरुक्तिः भा० आनु० ९३ अ० यथा “गोतमोऽयं मतोऽधूमोदमस्ते मम दर्शनात्। गोभिस्तमोमम ध्वस्तं जातमात्रस्य देहतः। विद्धि मां गोतमं कृत्ये यातुधानि! निबोध मे” इति। स च श्वेतवराहकल्पे व्रह्मणो मानसः पुत्रः यथाह वायु० गया० २ अ० “ब्रह्मा संभृतसंभारो मानसा नृत्विजोऽसृजत्” इत्युपक्रमे “सृकपालं गोतमञ्च तथा वेदशिरोव्रतम्”। इति। स च गोत्रप्रवर्त्तकः गोत्रशब्दे दृश्यम्। गोतमस्यापत्यम् ऋष्यण्। गौतम तद्वंश्ये प्रबरप्रवर्त्तके ऋषिभेदे बह्वर्थे तस्य लुक् गोतमाः। गौतमशब्देऽधिकं वक्ष्यते आर्षशब्दे ८२७ पृ० उदा० दृश्यम्। गोतमवश्याश्चाङ्गिरसगोत्रोत्पन्ना दश तद्भेदास्त्रत्रैव दृश्याः। अतिशयेन गौः जडत्वात् तमप्। २ अतिजडे पुंस्त्री। “मुक्तये यः शिलात्वाय शास्त्रमूचे सचेतसाम्। गोतमं तमवेतैव यथा वेत्य तथैव सः” नैष० चार्वाकोक्तिः। तस्य चान्वीक्षिकीविद्याप्रकाशकत्वमक्षपादशब्दे ४३ पृ० दृश्यम् तच्छब्दे एव तच्छास्त्रप्रतिपाद्याद्य क्तम्। तस्य छात्रः गौतम गोतमच्छात्रे गौरा० ङीष्। गोतमी तद्भार्य्यायां शतानन्दमातरि ३ अहल्यायाम् स्त्री

Why do we need a pṛṣodarādi explanation here? To make the word ajanta and not sānta like dīrghatamas (name of another seer), which is inflected as dīrghatamāḥ dīrghatamasam etc.

Mfg, Nityananda

 

[Mārcis Gasūns]

Dear Nityananda,

  It's great to see you around.

On Friday, 28 July 2017 03:32:20 UTC+3, Nityanand Misra wrote:

The Wikipedia entry is, for a change, mostly correct.

 https://sa.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%AE one more.

The SKD and VP give a similar derivation and cite the MBh in support.

MBh is an authority, but that is not the ultimate and only argument - and fold etymology was no less popular at the time when MBh was recited. 

SKD and VP many times copy each other, so that is not a strong argument as well. I'm interested in grammatical support. I do not know much

Sanskrit and my question might seem to be stupid, but excuse my ignorance and treat me like a mleccha, but please tell it in detail, not just quoting

some good old Indian-style dictionaries, thanks.

 

SKD

गोतमः, पुं, (गोभिर्ध्वस्तं तमो यस्य । पृषोदरादित्वात् साधुः । एतन्निरुक्तिर्यथा, महाभारते । १३ । ९३ । ९५ । “गोदमोऽहमतोऽधूमोऽदमस्ते समदर्शनात्। गोभिस्तमो मम ध्वस्तं जातमात्रस्य देहतः। विद्धि मां गोतमं कृत्ये यातुधानि निबोध माम्॥”) गौतममुनिः । स तु ब्रह्मपुत्त्रः । इति गयामाहात्म्ये वायुपुराणम् ॥

VP

गोतम पु० गोभिस्तमोध्वस्तं यस्य पृषो०। १ मुनिभेदे तन्नामनिरुक्तिः भा० आनु० ९३ अ० यथा “गोतमोऽयं मतोऽधूमोदमस्ते मम दर्शनात्। गोभिस्तमोमम ध्वस्तं जातमात्रस्य देहतः। विद्धि मां गोतमं कृत्ये यातुधानि! निबोध मे” इति। स च श्वेतवराहकल्पे व्रह्मणो मानसः पुत्रः यथाह वायु० गया० २ अ० “ब्रह्मा संभृतसंभारो मानसा नृत्विजोऽसृजत्” इत्युपक्रमे “सृकपालं गोतमञ्च तथा वेदशिरोव्रतम्”। इति। स च गोत्रप्रवर्त्तकः गोत्रशब्दे दृश्यम्। गोतमस्यापत्यम् ऋष्यण्। गौतम तद्वंश्ये प्रबरप्रवर्त्तके ऋषिभेदे बह्वर्थे तस्य लुक् गोतमाः। गौतमशब्देऽधिकं वक्ष्यते आर्षशब्दे ८२७ पृ० उदा० दृश्यम्। गोतमवश्याश्चाङ्गिरसगोत्रोत्पन्ना दश तद्भेदास्त्रत्रैव दृश्याः। अतिशयेन गौः जडत्वात् तमप्। २ अतिजडे पुंस्त्री। “मुक्तये यः शिलात्वाय शास्त्रमूचे सचेतसाम्। गोतमं तमवेतैव यथा वेत्य तथैव सः” नैष० चार्वाकोक्तिः। तस्य चान्वीक्षिकीविद्याप्रकाशकत्वमक्षपादशब्दे ४३ पृ० दृश्यम् तच्छब्दे एव तच्छास्त्रप्रतिपाद्याद्य क्तम्। तस्य छात्रः गौतम गोतमच्छात्रे गौरा० ङीष्। गोतमी तद्भार्य्यायां शतानन्दमातरि ३ अहल्यायाम् स्त्री

Why do we need a pṛṣodarādi explanation here?

Because we do not take anything for granted. Even a 150 year old dictionary article. You disagree with MW on `go-tama a [p= 364,2] [L=67038] m. (go-) (superl.)`

 

To make the word ajanta and not sānta like dīrghatamas (name of another seer), which is inflected as dīrghatamāḥ dīrghatamasam etc.

 

All I want is to understand how it's made and if there are similar words that shed light on it. There are 371 words ending in -tama at http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/MWScan/2014/web/webtc2/index.php Here are a few:

• hayottama m. an excellent horse
  
• sevakottama m. (and f(ā).) best of servants 
  
• surottama m. chief of the gods MBh. (!- MBh.)
  
• śītottama n. " best of cold things ", water
  
• vīratama m. an eminent hero RV.  AV.  MBh.
  
• rūpatama n. the best form or colour ṠBr. 
  
• rathottama m. an excellent chariot
  
• bhūttama n. " best of minerals ", gold L. 
  

Marcis

[K S Kannan]

uttama coming at the end of a compound 

(in items 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 above in your list), and 

-tama as a suffix indicating the superlative 

(degree of comparison) - are different.

(Ultimately, even uttama has its constituent -tama suffix) .

Technically the suffix is called tamap.

--
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.

[Mārcis Gasūns]

On Friday, 28 July 2017 12:18:58 UTC+3, ks.kannan.2000 wrote:

uttama coming at the end of a compound 

(in items 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 above in your list), and 

-tama as a suffix indicating the superlative 

(degree of comparison) - are different.

(Ultimately, even uttama has its constituent -tama suffix) .

Exactly! It's the same.

 

Technically the suffix is called tamap.

And can we see a tamap in gotama, 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 28 July 2017 14:39:28 UTC+5:30, Mārcis Gasūns wrote:

Dear Nityananda,

  It's great to see you around.

Likewise, Dr. Gasuns.

 

On Friday, 28 July 2017 03:32:20 UTC+3, Nityanand Misra wrote:

The Wikipedia entry is, for a change, mostly correct.

 https://sa.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%AE one more.

The SKD and VP give a similar derivation and cite the MBh in support.

MBh is an authority, but that is not the ultimate and only argument - and fold etymology was no less popular at the time when MBh was recited. 

SKD and VP many times copy each other, so that is not a strong argument as well. I'm interested in grammatical support. I do not know much

Sanskrit and my question might seem to be stupid, but excuse my ignorance and treat me like a mleccha, but please tell it in detail, not just quoting

some good old Indian-style dictionaries, thanks.

 

Maybe I was too terse. Anyway, this is what I meant: as per the SKD and VP (citing the MBh), the word is a compound of go (=cow) and tamas (=darkness). This is to say that word formed is gotamas, of which the final sound s is elided. This elision is explained by counting the word in the pṛṣodarādi class, in which the elision of a sound is often seen (varṇanāśātpṛṣodaram). So the word gotamas becomes gotama.

Now, there has to be some strong reason why the author of the Mahābharata thought that the word is go + tamas = gotamas -> gotama, rather than go + tama = gotama. Could the reason be the name of sage Dīrghatamas? The way dīrghatamas is inflected, it is clearly dīrgha + tamas = dīrghatamas. So a similar name go + tamas = gotamas is possible, and as words in the pṛṣodarādi class are common, it is not unfounded for SKD and VP to follow the Mahābharata nirukti and offer a pṛṣodarādi  explanation, which by the way is very much in the grammatical framework.

This is not to say that go + tama(p) = gotama is not possible. In fact, that is the second derivation given by the VP as atiśayena gauḥ jaḍatvāt tamap. So at least the VP acknowledges both possibilities. 

One thing that SKD or VP do not consider is the accent of the word. The word gotama occurs in the Rigveda. The accent may be different with the two derivations (I have not checked it yet, as I am pressed for time now). If some scholar can throw light on what accent the word will have with the two derivations, it would be great. If they are different, we can cross-check with the Rigveda to see which one matches the attested accent(s).

 

Why do we need a pṛṣodarādi explanation here?

Because we do not take anything for granted. Even a 150 year old dictionary article. You disagree with MW on `go-tama a [p= 364,2] [L=67038] m. (go-) (superl.)`

 

Well, that was not a question for you, but for myself to answer (in the line below). As for M-W, I have stopped using and trusting it after I found several basic errors. Anyway the M-W is to a great extent plagiarized from Boehtlingk-Roth, who in turn copy some entries from Wilson, who in turn essentially published what was a work of Bengali Pandits (without even naming them). So to me, VCP and SKD are much more reliable any day.

[Mārcis Gasūns]

On Friday, 28 July 2017 14:16:43 UTC+3, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Maybe I was too terse. Anyway, this is what I meant: as per the SKD and VP (citing the MBh), the word is a compound of go (=cow) and tamas (=darkness). This is to say that word formed is gotamas, of which the final sound s is elided. This elision is explained by counting the word in the pṛṣodarādi class, in which the elision of a sound is often seen (varṇanāśātpṛṣodaram). So the word gotamas becomes gotama.

So your argument is against hnbhat's https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bvparishat/Os8VKbDWJtk:

The word meaning  "darkness" is tamas ending in constant s and in masculine gender nominative it will be   " तमाः" and not  तमः. Though the word   गो has multiple meaning,  the given seems to be folk etymology and fancy.

 

Now, there has to be some strong reason why the author of the Mahābharata thought that the word is go + tamas = gotamas -> gotama, rather than go + tama = gotama. Could the reason be the name of sage Dīrghatamas? The way dīrghatamas is inflected, it is clearly dīrgha + tamas = dīrghatamas.

So we see an analogy, ok.

 

So a similar name go + tamas = gotamas is possible, and as words in the pṛṣodarādi class are common,

How common? What does your intuition says?

 

it is not unfounded for SKD and VP to follow the Mahābharata nirukti and offer a pṛṣodarādi  explanation, which by the way is very much in the grammatical framework.

I see.

 

This is not to say that go + tama(p) = gotama is not possible. In fact, that is the second derivation given by the VP as atiśayena gauḥ jaḍatvāt tamap. So at least the VP acknowledges both possibilities. 

But there can be no 2 true solutions. One should be preferred to the other. Etymology is not a game after all.

 

One thing that SKD or VP do not consider is the accent of the word. The word gotama occurs in the Rigveda.

And I checked it's occurrences in Rigveda, indeed.

 

The accent may be different with the two derivations (I have not checked it yet, as I am pressed for time now). If some scholar can throw light on what accent the word will have with the two derivations, it would be great.

Indeed, that would help.

 

If they are different, we can cross-check with the Rigveda to see which one matches the attested accent(s).

 

Why do we need a pṛṣodarādi explanation here?

Because we do not take anything for granted. Even a 150 year old dictionary article. You disagree with MW on `go-tama a [p= 364,2] [L=67038] m. (go-) (superl.)`

 

Well, that was not a question for you, but for myself to answer (in the line below). As for M-W, I have stopped using and trusting it after I found several basic errors.

If there is one thing I would want to request, that would be listing those errors. I've seen some of your notes regarding specific terms, but that would not be enough to stop using it at all. At least because Apte (as did MW himself before) copies many articles 1:1 from MW. 

It was the year 2004 when I had my first discussion about MW. Scholars told me that they add notes on margins of the printed edition of MW and then I realized, that still so many (even Indians) use MW, but do not give back. So I wanted to change it. Now, in 2017 it has changed a bit with http://sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/awork/apidev/simple-search/v1.0/list-0.2s.html in simple search mode.

 

Anyway the M-W is to a great extent plagiarized from Boehtlingk-Roth

I'm a bad attorney for MW and Zgusta - Copying in Lexicography - Monier-Williams 1988 http://yadi.sk/d/h8ALxcCb8sY9w is a way to understand why, but I can't agree with all said below.

 

, who in turn copy some entries from Wilson,

I have compared (textdiff method) Wilson and PWG and I must say it's a bold statement.

 

who in turn essentially published what was a work of Bengali Pandits (without even naming them).

Did VCP name all of its sources? I guess not less unnamed effort was in the background as well.

 

So to me, VCP and SKD are much more reliable any day.

If you can read German, and I understand that you can, it's strange to use SKD (as the main source), that was a source for PWG and ignore PWG - for it was made by a man who loved Panini above all and Sanskrit is in debt to him. 50 years passed since SKD when PWG came out, that's a big time frame, indeed and a lot was done. Why not Apte in 3 volumes? Or you like the SKD method before?

For MW there is http://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tutorial_wikner/wikner.pdf - a way to understand how to work with MW. Typographically it is the best dictionary far above anything else ever made or seen.

For SKD or VCP - is there something similar? I do not understand many things in both because I do not know what to look for where. I guess there is none, but it's a pity. Until that time http://www.payer.de/amarakosa/amara205a.htm is the source I prefer most if we speak about Indian dictionaries. Is there any lexicographical research done related to SKD or VCP? All I've seen is one review mid-1830.

Thanks for your patience. For many things, I'm too dumb and beg my pardon, if they are obvious even to a child in India,

Marcis

 

[Nityanand Misra]

Answers inline.

On Friday, 28 July 2017 17:17:48 UTC+5:30, Mārcis Gasūns wrote:

On Friday, 28 July 2017 14:16:43 UTC+3, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Maybe I was too terse. Anyway, this is what I meant: as per the SKD and VP (citing the MBh), the word is a compound of go (=cow) and tamas (=darkness). This is to say that word formed is gotamas, of which the final sound s is elided. This elision is explained by counting the word in the pṛṣodarādi class, in which the elision of a sound is often seen (varṇanāśātpṛṣodaram). So the word gotamas becomes gotama.

So your argument is against hnbhat's https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bvparishat/Os8VKbDWJtk:

Well, I agree with Dr. Bhat who says that gotamas would be inflected as gotamāḥ and not gotamaḥ in nominative singular. Dr. Bhat had not considered the possibility of pṛśodarādi which SKD and VP give based on the MBh nirukti. Being the fine grammarian he is, if he considers the pṛśodarādi option, he will also say that go + tamas -> gotamas -> gotama is possible.

 

 

Now, there has to be some strong reason why the author of the Mahābharata thought that the word is go + tamas = gotamas -> gotama, rather than go + tama = gotama. Could the reason be the name of sage Dīrghatamas? The way dīrghatamas is inflected, it is clearly dīrgha + tamas = dīrghatamas.

So we see an analogy, ok.

Yes we do, to the extent that both are names of Vedic seers. The names are inflected differently though.

 

 

So a similar name go + tamas = gotamas is possible, and as words in the pṛṣodarādi class are common,

How common? What does your intuition says?

I cannot answer how common. Perhaps we could grep on pṛṣodarādi/pṛṣo in SKD and VP. But some very common words like हंस and सिंह are indeed explained as pṛṣodarādi formations. Perhaps other scholars in the list can comment here. 

 

 

This is not to say that go + tama(p) = gotama is not possible. In fact, that is the second derivation given by the VP as atiśayena gauḥ jaḍatvāt tamap. So at least the VP acknowledges both possibilities. 

But there can be no 2 true solutions. One should be preferred to the other. Etymology is not a game after all.

I agree one should be preferred. But the other cannot be ruled out altogether. We have to see the accent and match it with the accent in RV. That will be the true test of the etymologies. But if we end up with the same accent with both, it is still a tie :). For Sanskrit commentators, this per se does not seem to be a problem. Sayana offers as many as five different etymologies for rudra in his commentary on RV 1.114.1. Is one true and others false? It is difficult to say. I say it adds to the beauty of Sanskrit by allowing for multiple meanings with independent etymologies. This is particularly true for compounds. Another example: RV hymn 4.58 is dedicated to five deities at once (Agni, Sūrya, Jala, Go, and Ghṛta). RV 4.58.3 (catvāri śṛṅgā trayo asya pādā dve śīrṣe sapta hastāso asya, tridhā baddho vṛṣabho roravīti maho devo martyām̐ ā viveśa) is an esoteric verse. Sāyaṇa gives two different meanings: one each for Agni and Sūrya, and says it should be similarly interpreted differently for the other three deities. Patañjali interprets it as describing Shabda Brahman. So we have six meanings of the same verse. This verse is a ṣatsandhāna kāvya! I doubt if such verses can be explained without considering multiple meanings and also multiple etymologies.

 

 

Well, that was not a question for you, but for myself to answer (in the line below). As for M-W, I have stopped using and trusting it after I found several basic errors.

If there is one thing I would want to request, that would be listing those errors. I've seen some of your notes regarding specific terms, but that would not be enough to stop using it at all. At least because Apte (as did MW himself before) copies many articles 1:1 from MW. 

It may not be enough, but I have stopped using M-W altogether. I am very much interested in Paninian derivations or niruktis. SKD and VP do that religiously. I like it. You look up a word in SKD or VP, there is a good chance you also learn something about an Unadi Sutra or a Paninian Sutra. It is wonderful. For people like me.

 

 

Anyway the M-W is to a great extent plagiarized from Boehtlingk-Roth

I'm a bad attorney for MW and Zgusta - Copying in Lexicography - Monier-Williams 1988 http://yadi.sk/d/h8ALxcCb8sY9w is a way to understand why, but I can't agree with all said below.

It is okay. We need not agree on everything. 

 

 

, who in turn copy some entries from Wilson,

I have compared (textdiff method) Wilson and PWG and I must say it's a bold statement.

 

I used to think PWG is great, until we had the discussion on Goldman’s wrong translation of kṛtajña in VR 1.1.2 as “knows how to act upon it” where it=what is right. Nobody uses kṛtajña in Sanskrit in this sense, and there are no known historical usages in this sense to me. A member mailed me offline showing the entries in M-W, PWG, and Wilson on kṛtajña. It is a bad chain of lexicographer after lexicographer repeating mistakes, starting from Wilson. Perhaps copied is a strong word, but I am sure they both drew upon Wilson.

 

who in turn essentially published what was a work of Bengali Pandits (without even naming them).

Did VCP name all of its sources? I guess not less unnamed effort was in the background as well.

 

I do not know how many people were involved in VCP. I do not have a reliable source on the same. So I cannot say. 

 

So to me, VCP and SKD are much more reliable any day.

If you can read German, and I understand that you can, it's strange to use SKD (as the main source), that was a source for PWG and ignore PWG - for it was made by a man who loved Panini above all and Sanskrit is in debt to him. 50 years passed since SKD when PWG came out, that's a big time frame, indeed and a lot was done. Why not Apte in 3 volumes? Or you like the SKD method before?

Well, I like to read meaning of a Sanskrit word in Sanskrit itself. Plus, SKD almost always gives a derivation. Why for for English when one can understand the word in Sanskrit. The former way you learn only one Sanskrit word. The latter way you learn many in one go. 

 

 

For MW there is http://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tutorial_wikner/wikner.pdf - a way to understand how to work with MW. Typographically it is the best dictionary far above anything else ever made or seen.

For SKD or VCP - is there something similar?

I just use the digital editions. 

 

Thanks for your patience. For many things, I'm too dumb and beg my pardon, if they are obvious even to a child in India,

Nothing like it! It is always good to have such discussions. 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 28 July 2017 19:00:00 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

I used to think PWG is great, until we had the discussion on Goldman’s wrong translation of kṛtajña in VR 1.1.2 as “knows how to act upon it” where it=what is right. Nobody uses kṛtajña in Sanskrit in this sense, and there are no known historical usages in this sense to me. A member mailed me offline showing the entries in M-W, PWG, and Wilson on kṛtajña. It is a bad chain of lexicographer after lexicographer repeating mistakes, starting from Wilson. Perhaps copied is a strong word, but I am sure they both drew upon Wilson.

Here is the thread on Goldman’s translation of kṛtajña in VR 1.1.2

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bvparishat/SCbhjYJaQJM/2X9bYFqlCQAJ

[Nityanand Misra]

Sorry, the above link opens to the middle of the thread. This is the link to the first message in the thread (from where it is easy to follow):

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bvparishat/SCbhjYJaQJM/9A_b8OaDCQAJ

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

 

गोमत् = consisting of cows
गोतम = having most cows = having most realization

also pls note
रत्न॒धात॑म, similarity
अम्बि॑ऽतमा, नदी॑ऽतमा, देवि॑ऽतमा, the difference

[Mārcis Gasūns]

On Friday, 28 July 2017 16:30:00 UTC+3, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Answers inline.

On Friday, 28 July 2017 17:17:48 UTC+5:30, Mārcis Gasūns wrote:

On Friday, 28 July 2017 14:16:43 UTC+3, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Maybe I was too terse. Anyway, this is what I meant: as per the SKD and VP (citing the MBh), the word is a compound of go (=cow) and tamas (=darkness). This is to say that word formed is gotamas, of which the final sound s is elided. This elision is explained by counting the word in the pṛṣodarādi class, in which the elision of a sound is often seen (varṇanāśātpṛṣodaram). So the word gotamas becomes gotama.

So your argument is against hnbhat's https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bvparishat/Os8VKbDWJtk:

Well, I agree with Dr. Bhat who says that gotamas would be inflected as gotamāḥ and not gotamaḥ in nominative singular. Dr. Bhat had not considered the possibility of pṛśodarādi which SKD and VP give based on the MBh nirukti.

That I cannot know. For me this is highest class.

 

Being the fine grammarian he is, if he considers the pṛśodarādi option, he will also say that go + tamas -> gotamas -> gotama is possible.

So be it, two ways possible.

 

 

 

Now, there has to be some strong reason why the author of the Mahābharata thought that the word is go + tamas = gotamas -> gotama, rather than go + tama = gotama. Could the reason be the name of sage Dīrghatamas? The way dīrghatamas is inflected, it is clearly dīrgha + tamas = dīrghatamas.

So we see an analogy, ok.

Yes we do, to the extent that both are names of Vedic seers. The names are inflected differently though.

Understood.

 

 

 

So a similar name go + tamas = gotamas is possible, and as words in the pṛṣodarādi class are common,

How common? What does your intuition says?

I cannot answer how common. Perhaps we could grep on pṛṣodarādi/pṛṣo in SKD and VP. But some very common words like हंस and सिंह are indeed explained as pṛṣodarādi formations. Perhaps other scholars in the list can comment here.

639 pfzo in SKD https://yadi.sk/d/p9I2wBON3LW7Nj

1163 pfzo in VCP https://yadi.sk/d/Yefkn8nh3LW7PV

Lists of such words attached in IAST. So it's a very small number I would say.

 

 

 

 

This is not to say that go + tama(p) = gotama is not possible. In fact, that is the second derivation given by the VP as atiśayena gauḥ jaḍatvāt tamap. So at least the VP acknowledges both possibilities. 

But there can be no 2 true solutions. One should be preferred to the other. Etymology is not a game after all.

I agree one should be preferred. But the other cannot be ruled out altogether. We have to see the accent and match it with the accent in RV. That will be the true test of the etymologies.

This I cannot but ask to help us.

 

But if we end up with the same accent with both, it is still a tie :). For Sanskrit commentators, this per se does not seem to be a problem. Sayana offers as many as five different etymologies for rudra in his commentary on RV 1.114.1.

That's way Roth said - enough with Sayana, I can make same amount of guesswork and his guesswork is no way better than mine.

 

Is one true and others false? It is difficult to say. I say it adds to the beauty of Sanskrit by allowing for multiple meanings with independent etymologies. This is particularly true for compounds. Another example: RV hymn 4.58 is dedicated to five deities at once (Agni, Sūrya, Jala, Go, and Ghṛta). RV 4.58.3 (catvāri śṛṅgā trayo asya pādā dve śīrṣe sapta hastāso asya, tridhā baddho vṛṣabho roravīti maho devo martyām̐ ā viveśa) is an esoteric verse. Sāyaṇa gives two different meanings: one each for Agni and Sūrya, and says it should be similarly interpreted differently for the other three deities. Patañjali interprets it as describing Shabda Brahman. So we have six meanings of the same verse. This verse is a ṣatsandhāna kāvya! I doubt if such verses can be explained without considering multiple meanings and also multiple etymologies.

In your case it's a riddle, an esoteric riddle, so it's done specially. In case of gotama there was no riddle meant, just or weak understanding.

 

 

 

Well, that was not a question for you, but for myself to answer (in the line below). As for M-W, I have stopped using and trusting it after I found several basic errors.

If there is one thing I would want to request, that would be listing those errors. I've seen some of your notes regarding specific terms, but that would not be enough to stop using it at all. At least because Apte (as did MW himself before) copies many articles 1:1 from MW. 

It may not be enough, but I have stopped using M-W altogether. I am very much interested in Paninian derivations or niruktis. SKD and VP do that religiously. I like it.

Would love to read your note on what is SKD and VP and why they should be preferred.

 

You look up a word in SKD or VP, there is a good chance you also learn something about an Unadi Sutra or a Paninian Sutra.

That I agree.

 

It is wonderful. For people like me.

But first you have you have to spend 10 years with Unadi, to understand how to understand the structure of the dictionaries.

 

 

 

Anyway the M-W is to a great extent plagiarized from Boehtlingk-Roth

I'm a bad attorney for MW and Zgusta - Copying in Lexicography - Monier-Williams 1988 http://yadi.sk/d/h8ALxcCb8sY9w is a way to understand why, but I can't agree with all said below.

It is okay. We need not agree on everything. 

But I agree on Zgusta and can understand your disappointment. What I do not understand - don't you get disappointed with different other issues in SKD or VCP?

 

 

 

, who in turn copy some entries from Wilson,

I have compared (textdiff method) Wilson and PWG and I must say it's a bold statement.

 

I used to think PWG is great, until we had the discussion on Goldman’s wrong translation of kṛtajña in VR 1.1.2 as “knows how to act upon it” where it=what is right.

1 out of 144k words and you stop using a dictionary? Are you serious?

 

Nobody uses kṛtajña in Sanskrit in this sense, and there are no known historical usages in this sense to me. A member mailed me offline showing the entries in M-W, PWG, and Wilson on kṛtajña. It is a bad chain of lexicographer after lexicographer repeating mistakes, starting from Wilson. Perhaps copied is a strong word, but I am sure they both drew upon Wilson.

Sure they took everything they could from Wilson. They tried to be critical but failed here.

 

 

who in turn essentially published what was a work of Bengali Pandits (without even naming them).

Did VCP name all of its sources? I guess not less unnamed effort was in the background as well.

 

I do not know how many people were involved in VCP. I do not have a reliable source on the same. So I cannot say. 

Boethlingk at least names his sources.

 

 

So to me, VCP and SKD are much more reliable any day.

If you can read German, and I understand that you can, it's strange to use SKD (as the main source), that was a source for PWG and ignore PWG - for it was made by a man who loved Panini above all and Sanskrit is in debt to him. 50 years passed since SKD when PWG came out, that's a big time frame, indeed and a lot was done. Why not Apte in 3 volumes? Or you like the SKD method before?

Well, I like to read meaning of a Sanskrit word in Sanskrit itself.

Lucky you. I use Russian-Russian dictionaries myself for similar task. But here - my knowledge is not enough. I would want to try

 

Plus, SKD almost always gives a derivation. Why for for English when one can understand the word in Sanskrit. The former way you learn only one Sanskrit word. The latter way you learn many in one go. 

 

 

For MW there is http://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tutorial_wikner/wikner.pdf - a way to understand how to work with MW. Typographically it is the best dictionary far above anything else ever made or seen.

For SKD or VCP - is there something similar?

I just use the digital editions. 

Sure, but still one needs to know the structure. Seen http://sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/awork/apidev/simple-search/v1.0/list-0.2s.html ? See https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/Cologne/issues/156 as well.

Marcis

[K S Kannan]

Apropos gotamas in lieu of *gotama (when tamas is involved as a member of the compound-word).

There is a grammatical maxim, though I cannot trace it to its source. It says

sarve sāntā adantā api syuḥ.

As per this maxim, we may have śira as valid in lieu of śiras too!

(So with manas or tapas.)

Cf. Bhāsa who uses śiropadhāna instead of śiraupadhāna as a compound. This is notwithstanding unPāṇinian usages in Bhāsa.

--

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

Namaste All

My  observations seeking technical clarifications on this thread of discussion on Gautama (-- ?  --Gotama).

The summary point I wish to drive is the 'Critical Need to revisit the issues: How to Study Samskrutham using Current dictionaries ? Challenges posed by post 1500 CE Sanskrit Dictionaries in understanding Pre 1500 BCE  texts and traditions in the Language Class called 'SAMSKRUTHAM'. The first line of effort begins with MW-Dictionary  review for 40,000 L -marked words out of 1,86,000 listed entries.

The Language Tools -Grammar -Dictionary for understanding SAMSKRUTHAM are covered by SIX traditional disciplines called VEDANGA in a UNIFIED APPROACH (Yoga way of learning- using Samskrutham).

The requested clarifications ( being technical, only limited readers may have interest in this line of analysis). 

1. Technical: Are we focused in this thread on understanding the communication from the above term as

1-a) Gautama as a 'Prakruti shabda (Base unit)'  a NOUN ( Subanta -prakriyaa yogya Prakruti) in its FULL, as given form ?  - in which case, it is a samketa, a designation.

It does not matter  where it occurs; how one explains/ explained the derivation -process to suit a usage -context, even in SKD or VP or MW for convenience with a plurality of meanings.  The very split of the given unit as 'Go (a given prakruti with multiple meanings - in chandas and Bhashaa) added on with a modifier '- tama (pratyaya with a swara marking) following a rule which yields a relative/ comparative /superlative value becomes ' objectionable' in this model.

 
Or     

1-b) Gautama as a 'Ting- anta prakruti (Base unit)'  a DHATU  ( or DHATU GARBHA   or DHATU SAMASA getting a samjna for further -prakriyaa's ) in its SPLIT form ?  - in which case, it is a PRE-PROCESSED DERIVATIVE, open for Meaning associations; all of which may or may not be listed in any one or all of the dictionaries. Certainly the Translators and ' indology interpreters and Orientalists using ' academic freedom' and Indian poets like Sri Harsha using 'poetic license'  would go in a ' free for all' model to interpret the word and claim ' better understanding of tradition -texts-practices'.

Or

2) All approaches are open ?!  Then lung power rules over logic and tradition.  As is seen in the recent ' Mahabharata -related discussions on BORI -Critical Edition review' .

Net Result : Battle -Sanskrit

RESAON : SANSKRIT DICTIONARIES carrying Embedded issues in interpreting - understanding a word belonging to 'SAMSKRUTHAM: LANGUAGE CLASS.

Note: Panini, a part of Vedanga Linguistics covers both Chandas and Bhashaa - as branches of  ONE LANGUAGE CLASS - SAMSKRUTHAM :: One Language Class where two sets of words result due to  different levels of refinement and standards.  Historicity and Social usage are minimalistic criterion  or non-issues.

There is all evidence in tradition and in this list itself to show GAUTAMA is understood and used differently in CHANDAS and BHASHAA branchs of SAMSKRUTHAM LANGUAGE CLASS.    This is what I have pointed to in my earlier posts seeking 'Yoga way of Learning Samskrutham', as a 'Language Class by levels of  refinement by  APPLICATION - UTILITY ( VINIYOGA) . One may like to see Dr. Yadu's posts on importance of Viniyoga in this forum.

Regards

BVK Sastry

--

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.

--

 

Regards

 

Dr. B V Venkatakrishna Sastry
(G-Mail)

 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 28 July 2017 20:29:48 UTC+5:30, Mārcis Gasūns wrote:

I used to think PWG is great, until we had the discussion on Goldman’s wrong translation of kṛtajña in VR 1.1.2 as “knows how to act upon it” where it=what is right.

1 out of 144k words and you stop using a dictionary? Are you serious?

 

Well, not one but several. And also the opinion of Theodor Goldstücker who wrote in Panini—His Place in Sankrit Literature (colour emphasis mine):

“In now adverting to the treatment which the scientific and classical literature has received in the Sanskrit Wörterbuch, I need only say that this department is in the hands of Dr. Boehtlingk. In saying this, I have said everything. After such an expression of opinion, it will, of course, be my duty to show, at the earliest opportunity, that Dr. Boehtlingk is incapable of understanding even easy rules of Panini, much less those of Katyayana, and still less is he capable of making use of them in the understanding of classical texts. The errors in his department of the Dictionary are so numerous and of so peculiar a kind — yet, on the whole, so thoroughly in accordance with the specimens I have adduced from his Commentary on Panini, that it will fill every serious Sanskritist with dismay, when he calculates the mischievous influence which they must exercise on the study of Sanskrit philology.”

https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_zQ0dhaI-rNAC#page/n271/mode/1up

 

[Shashi Bala]

Excellent information.

I wish to know about the errors in Monier Williams as well.

Please share if any of the scholars know about them.

--

[Mārcis Gasūns]

Nityanand,

 You raise a very difficult issue and there is no easy solution. Goldstücker http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/GSTScan/2014/web/index.php is said to be "the all beginning and nothing ending one" (by Boethlingk, in a letter in German language to Roth). So Goldstücker's Sanskrit-English Dictionary stuck in the middle of अ, although it was just a remake of Wilson, is a joke compared to PWK and PWG, that remain the biggest Sanskrit dictionaries up to date. Similar to Poona dictionary, mid-अ. Goldstücker lived in London, is forgotten even by historians of science and was always saying bad words about Otto, who was well known and has given more to Sanskrit than whole generations of scientists. 1/4 of money in Russian Academy of Sciences went to PWG and PWK, so Russia values Sanskrit and has proved it many times in the past. 

Marcis