अङ्गीक्रियते ... correct way of rendering

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

The above word is rendered as अङ्गीक्रियते and as अङ्गी क्रियते in various texts. Is there any difference between the two expressions or are both ways correct?

Thanks 

subrahmanian.v 

[K S Kannan]

What exactly is the meaning intended?

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te2e54S_%2B_aTUUbJHL%3DA2cU3BJYrRSVa7TE%3DPvOkt9AKYw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Dr. K.S.Kannan  D.Litt.

​Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Chair Professor, IIT-Madras.

Senior Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi.

Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.

Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.

Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.

Former Professor, CAHC, Jain University, Bangalore.

Former Director, Karnataka Samskrit University, Bangalore.

Former Head, Dept. of Sanskrit, The National Colleges, Bangalore.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:32 PM K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

What exactly is the meaning intended?

I came across the usage ‘ अथ तत्त्वदर्शनोपायो योगः’ इति सम्यग्दर्शनाभ्युपायत्वेनैव योगोऽङ्गीक्रियते ; (Shankara Bhashya) and also a few as follows:

Siddhiviniścaya - SARIT: Search and Retrieval of Indic Texts ...

sarit.indology.info › siddhiviniscayatika

लभ्यमानानां तद्व्यापारे च उपलभ्यमानानां नियमेन नित्यत्वे निष्कलत्वे निरंशत्वे अङ्गी क्रियमाणे तादृशां

पृष्ठम्:गोलाध्यायः (सिद्धान्तशिरोमणेः ...

sa.wikisource.org › wiki › पृष्ठम्:गोलाध्याय...

अङ्गी क्रियते । पुनवक्यालंकारे । असावादेशः । नूनं निश्चयेन । लग्नबलाश्रितः ।  

regards

[K S Kannan]

In the contexts cited,

it can only be a single word,

not two words.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te2_TJ_U1QtR_p41zEfyTugH9dmhDHr%2B2v73hFcwcefQiw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:13 PM K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the contexts cited,

it can only be a single word,

not two words.

Thanks.  Are usages such as अङ्गी चकार correct? 

regards 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7DJSYHdi7QXYxwUXViD5xpOXC_m7ZFmg97Q5oe0v%2BV_w%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

There can be situations where

such a usage can be warranted.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te0fZX0rudKPUmA7pvfo6XiBhn5Jq5SujrGzNGG%2B3Erzsg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

“कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी क्रियते” इत्यादिषु समासाभावात्पदद्वयं वर्तते, न तु पदैक्यम्। अत्र “कृष्णी” इति सुबन्तमव्ययपदं पृथक्, “करोति” इति तिङन्तं क्रियापदं च पृथक्। एवमेव “अङ्गी” इति सुबन्तमव्ययपदं पृथक्, “क्रियते” इति तिङन्तं क्रियापदं च पृथक्। प्रायेण सुपां तिङा समासो न भवति, अतो यद्यसमस्तपदानि पृथक्कृत्य लिख्यन्ते तर्हि “कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी क्रियते” इति पृथग्लेखनमेव साधु।

यद्यपि कुत्रचिदपवादत्वेन सुपां तिङाऽपि समासो भवति (“पर्यभूषयत्”, “अनुव्यचलत्”, इत्यादीन्युदाहरणानि यत्र तत्र व्याकरणशास्त्रेषु शाब्दिकैरुदाहारिषत) परं तत्र समासस्वरसिद्धिरेव प्रयोजनमिति टीकाग्रन्थेभ्यो ज्ञायते।

“कृष्णीकृत्य” इत्यत्र तु “कुगतिप्रादयः” इत्यनेन नित्यसमासो भवति। यदि समासो नाभविष्यत्तर्हि ल्यबेव नाभविष्यत् (“समासेऽनञ्पूर्वे क्त्वो ल्यप्‌”)। “कृष्णीकृत्य” इत्येकमेव पदम्, न तु पदद्वयम्। अतः “कृष्णी कृत्य” इति पृथग्लेखनं न साधु। अपि च, नित्यसमासात् “कृष्णी कृत्वा” इति व्यस्तप्रयोगो न सम्भवति।

“कृष्णीकृतः”, “कृष्णीकर्तुम्”, “अङ्गीकरणम्”, “अङ्गीकारः” इत्यादिष्वपि सुपां सुपा समासो बोद्धव्यः। 

[Krishnaprasad G]

Excellent Misra Ji. These days a scholar like you is very rare. I highly admire you.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

True. We have been missing this contribution from aadaraNIya Nityanand-ji on the list. Hope we will be back to such discussions again. 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:30 AM Krishnaprasad G <krishnap...@gmail.com> wrote:

Excellent Misra Ji. These days a scholar like you is very rare. I highly admire you.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/e1503ce0-f569-41d2-8f69-37860fbf5d32o%40googlegroups.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director,  Inter-Gurukula-University Centre , Indic Academy

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

 

 

[Madhav Deshpande]

May I express a slightly different opinion.  As far as the grammatical analysis is concerned, I agree with Shri Nityanand Ji.  However, Pāṇini's rules do not describe how to write Sanskrit.  They are rules of spoken Sanskrit, and the rule does not say that there are gaps in the utterance of asamasta padas.  The Sandhis apply across the stretch of a sentence, as we witness in the recitation of Vedic Saṃhitās or metrical recitations.

Modern writing of Sanskrit with gaps between words is a relatively recent phenomenon guided by editors and publishers influenced in part by the way English is printed with gaps between words.  Even English is not spoken with gaps between words.  Typical manuscripts do not show gaps between words, and the early printed pothis from the Nirnaya Sagara or publishers in Varanasi did not show any gaps between words. Here is an early printed pothi of the Laghusiddhāntakaumudī where the gaps between words are not regularly shown:

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:00 PM Krishnaprasad G <krishnap...@gmail.com> wrote:

Excellent Misra Ji. These days a scholar like you is very rare. I highly admire you.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः।

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:16 AM Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

“कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी क्रियते” इत्यादिषु समासाभावात्पदद्वयं वर्तते, न तु पदैक्यम्। अत्र “कृष्णी” इति सुबन्तमव्ययपदं पृथक्, “करोति” इति तिङन्तं क्रियापदं च पृथक्। एवमेव “अङ्गी” इति सुबन्तमव्ययपदं पृथक्, “क्रियते” इति तिङन्तं क्रियापदं च पृथक्। प्रायेण सुपां तिङा समासो न भवति, अतो यद्यसमस्तपदानि पृथक्कृत्य लिख्यन्ते तर्हि “कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी क्रियते” इति पृथग्लेखनमेव साधु।

महोदय, एवं सति अङ्गीत्यस्य व्यस्तपदस्य विभक्तिः क्रियत इति योगे प्रथमा भवतु, करोतीति योगे तु का गतिः?

धन्योस्मि,

--Praveen R. Bhat

/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Praveen R. Bhat]

क्षम्यताम्, अन्यदपि प्रष्टव्यमासीत्। अव्ययपदमिति चेत्तत् केन सिद्ध्यति? तद्धितश्चासर्वविभक्तिरित्यनेन वा?

Kind rgds,

--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[V Subrahmanian]

How would अङ्गी कारः be written, with gap or without gap?

regards

subrahmanian.v

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CACT7j-Ht7RMY1nxYYOdGgjAQ-nu2h7ZTO9cBovwBPT8BSPC8PA%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

What Prof. Deshpande says is quite to the point.

In literature, we see this printed as a single word,

almost without exception.

(The same was the case with ancient Greek where too

words had no gaps in between. And again, it is on account of this that

the problem of juncture has given rise to many ambiguities,

and consequent multiple interpretations of not only the terse Brahma-sutra-s,

but even the Upanishad-s and the Gita etc., which represent the spoken tongue.)

In grammatical literature, we see a good deal of ambivalence.

In some texts in fact, where the line has ended with  कृष्णी, they have even put a hyphen

- to underscore the unity of the word, leaving us in no doubt!

Guided perhaps by the fact that

कृष्णी  is considered as the प्रकृति to which the प्रत्यय has been added,

most editors have taken it as a single word.

The theoretical grounds presented by Misra-ji are convincing.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te0z2O-3S23-AqYOBXuJeu5xhkTYrgvdZh24qXTJOiAbVA%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

I attest four references from grammatical literature,

where we can find the hyphen printed at the end of the line

indicating the continuation of the same word:

1. Hyphen after  कृष्णी appearing at the end of the line,

followed by भवति in the next line

which conveys the clear idea that it is a single word:

p.939, line 21,

1910 edition, edited and published by 

S.Chandrasekhara Sastrigal, Teppakulam

Siddhanta Kaumudi with Balamanorama

2.गङ्गी  followed by hyphen, followed by

स्यात् in the next line:

p.654, line 7 from the bottom,

ed. Giridhara Sharma & Paramesvarananda Sharma,

Vaiyakarana Siddhanta Kaumudi

(with Balamanorama and Tattvabodhini)

2006, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.

3.दिवा followed by hyphen, followed by

भूता रात्रिः

line 4 from the bottom,

same book as above.

4. पटू  followed by hyphen, followed by

करोति in the next line:

p.311, line 6,

Kasika, with Nyasa & Padamanjari

(ed.) Tripathi JSL, & Bhattacharya B,

1994, Tara Book Agency, Varanasi.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 09:59:53 UTC+5:30, Madhav Deshpande wrote:

May I express a slightly different opinion.  As far as the grammatical analysis is concerned, I agree with Shri Nityanand Ji.  However, Pāṇini's rules do not describe how to write Sanskrit.  They are rules of spoken Sanskrit, and the rule does not say that there are gaps in the utterance of asamasta padas.  The Sandhis apply across the stretch of a sentence, as we witness in the recitation of Vedic Saṃhitās or metrical recitations.

Modern writing of Sanskrit with gaps between words is a relatively recent phenomenon guided by editors and publishers influenced in part by the way English is printed with gaps between words.  Even English is not spoken with gaps between words.  Typical manuscripts do not show gaps between words, and the early printed pothis from the Nirnaya Sagara or publishers in Varanasi did not show any gaps between words. Here is an early printed pothi of the Laghusiddhāntakaumudī where the gaps between words are not regularly shown:

I agree with Prof. Deshpande, there is nothing in Pāṇini’s rules to mandate a space between asamasta words. That is a modern typographical convention to help readability. My point is that there should be consistency in following this convention. What I meant was if uncompounded words are written separately with a gap in between (यद्यसमस्तपदानि पृथक्कृत्य लिख्यन्ते), then then usages should also be written separately (तर्हि “कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी क्रियते” इति पृथग्लेखनमेव साधु) due to lack of a compound between the words.

I am attaching a screenshot of a page from the book comment Pātañjala Yogadarśana. This is one of the rare books which prints such words separately. The editor, Vyākaraṇācārya Rāmaśaṅkara Bhaṭṭācārya, clarifies this in the highlighted footnote.

Dr. Kannan’s observation is correct that most books print such usages as single words. But they should be printed as two separate words. 

[Nandu Ravi]

नमांसि,

क्षम्यताम्, अन्यदपि प्रष्टव्यमासीत्। अव्ययपदमिति चेत्तत् केन सिद्ध्यति? तद्धितश्चासर्वविभक्तिरित्यनेन वा?

 ऊर्यादिच्विडाचश्च (अष्टाध्यायी 1.4.61) इत्यनेन निपातसंज्ञा तथा स्वरादिनिपतमव्ययमिति (अष्टाध्यायी 1.1.37)।

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 10:01:34 UTC+5:30, Praveen Bhat wrote:

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः।

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:16 AM Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

“कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी क्रियते” इत्यादिषु समासाभावात्पदद्वयं वर्तते, न तु पदैक्यम्। अत्र “कृष्णी” इति सुबन्तमव्ययपदं पृथक्, “करोति” इति तिङन्तं क्रियापदं च पृथक्। एवमेव “अङ्गी” इति सुबन्तमव्ययपदं पृथक्, “क्रियते” इति तिङन्तं क्रियापदं च पृथक्। प्रायेण सुपां तिङा समासो न भवति, अतो यद्यसमस्तपदानि पृथक्कृत्य लिख्यन्ते तर्हि “कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी क्रियते” इति पृथग्लेखनमेव साधु।

महोदय, एवं सति अङ्गीत्यस्य व्यस्तपदस्य विभक्तिः क्रियत इति योगे प्रथमा भवतु, करोतीति योगे तु का गतिः?

धन्योस्मि,

“कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी करोति”, “शुक्ली करोति”, इत्यादिषु “कृष्णी”, “अङ्गी”, “शुक्ली” पदेषु द्वितीया विभक्तिर्ज्ञेया।

कृष्णी करोति—अकृष्णः कृष्णः सम्पद्यते तं करोति/अकृष्णं कृष्णं सम्पद्यमानं करोति

अङ्गी करोति—अनङ्गमङ्गं सम्पद्यते तत्करोति/अनङ्गमङ्गं सम्पद्यमानं करोति

शुक्ली करोति—अशुक्लः शुक्लः सम्पद्यते तं करोति/अशुक्लं शुक्लं सम्पद्यमानं करोति

काशिकायामपि “मलिनं शुक्ली करोति” इत्यत्र ‘मलिनम्’ इतिवत् ‘शुक्ली’ इत्यत्र द्वितीया। 

[K S Kannan]

Balamanorama says

कृष्णीति ईकारान्तमव्ययम् ।

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/f6afdc96-1408-425f-8a6d-65e150ab15f8o%40googlegroups.com.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

नमस्ते नन्दुमहोदय।

धन्यवादः। स्वरादिनिपातमव्ययमित्यत्र निपातग्रहणादपि केनापि च्व्यान्तं पदमुदाहृतं न दृष्टं मया पूर्वम्। अतः प्रश्नो जातः।

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

प्रायेण सुपां तिङा समासो न भवति, अतो यद्यसमस्तपदानि पृथक्कृत्य लिख्यन्ते तर्हि “कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी क्रियते” इति पृथग्लेखनमेव साधु। 

                                      ------ Vid Nityananda Misra

अङ्गीकरोति - अङ्गीकारः

कृभ्वस्तियोगे संपद्यकर्तरि च्विः पा 5-4-50

ऊर्यादिच्विडाश्च पा 1-4-61  निपातत्वेन अव्ययत्वात् सोर्लुक् । 

अशुक्लं शुक्लं  संपद्यमानं करोति  शुक्लीकरोति  ।

उच्चारणमेव स्वीकुर्मः  -- किं -- शुक्ली ... करोति  इति उच्चार्यते वा - तर्हि अर्थान्तरं  संपद्यते ( शुक्लस्य भार्या शुक्ली - पुंयोगादाख्यायाम् - सा किञ्चित् करोति इत्यर्थः) ।  शुक्लीकरोति - इति एकपदत्वेन उच्चारणे एव तद्धितार्थः प्रत्याययितुं शक्यते ---

समर्थः पदविधिः 2-1-1  इति अधिकारसूत्रम्  -- तद्धितश्च पदविधिरेव -- तर्हि एकमेव पदं  यथा  समासेषु , क्त्सु , सनाद्यन्तेषु ।

महाविभाषया वाक्यमपि ।

ऐकपद्यम् , ऐकस्वर्यम् इत्यादि सिद्ध्यति । 

समासे ऐकपद्यम् - वाक्ये तु  भिन्नपदत्वम् --- शुक्ली करोति इति उच्चारणे (लेखने वा ) वाक्यमेव भवति - न तद्धितवृत्तिः ।

भाष्यादिग्रन्थेषु तथैव उदाहरणानि प्रदर्श्यन्ते ---

अङ्कुरीभवन्ति यवाः -- कैयटः 5-4-50

समीपीभवति , अभ्याशीभवति -- भाष्यम्

अरूकरोति - अरूभवति- अरूस्यात् -उन्मनीकरोति ---- अरुर्मनसोः ... 5-4-51 ---काशिका

अग्नीभवति - उदकीभवति --- अभिविधौ ... 5-4-53 -- काशिका

ग्रामीकरोत्याज्ञया (यौगन्धरायणः) -- स्वप्नवासवदत्ता 

धन्यो’स्मि

 

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit

299 Doyen , Serilingampally, Hyderabad 500 019
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm5Odbc8La2%3DCCOiyNxwLVvegrS-H0BSoNHO%3DUqVC-cq%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Even though SCVasu has regularly shown space in between,

many have shown it as a single word (as occurring within a line also) :

-  Ref. 2  (Motilal text) has

1 कृष्णीकरोति, 2 ब्रह्मीभवति, 3 गङ्गीस्यात् , 4 दोषाभूतम्,

5 दिवाभूता, 6 गार्गीभवति, 7 शुचीभवति, 8 पटूस्यात्,

9 [स्वस्तीस्यात्], 10 मात्रीकरोति, 11 अरूकरोति, 12 उन्मनीस्यात्,

13 उच्चक्षूकरोति, 14 उच्चेतीकरोति, 15 विरहीकरोति, 16 विरजीकरोति,

17अग्नीभवति, 18 शुक्लीभवति, 19 जलीभवति

- all shown as single words only.

- Ref 4 (Tara) has

1 शुचीकरोति, 2 शुचीभवति, 3 शुचीस्यात्, 4 पटूकरोति, 5 पटूभवति, 6 पटूस्यात्

- all shown as single words only.

If grammatical literature shows it this way (25 examples),

no wonder, those who are not deeply specialised in grammar

can get misled.

[G S S Murthy]

I am an outsider in this discussion and I am rightly not understanding much.

1. If it is a matter of how to write, either with space between अङ्गी and करोति or without space, is it not a matter outside the purview of grammar?

2. Cannot all these be treated similarly? दूरीकरोति, उररीकरोति, अलं चकार, आविर्भवति, अङ्गीकरोति etc?

३. I seek the pardon of scholars. Are such discussions covered by the well-known क्षौममूल्यविचिन्तनम्?

Thanks and regards,

Murthy

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CACT7j-HUChRjdN2teFg%3D_nEotN6ZL6e-E5iVJEz-4%2B3DUQvECw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

[K S Kannan]

It is Prof. Korada's position that was hinted at by me precisely.

If you speak of the items as prakrti and pratyaya, as the base and the affix,

the natural conclusion is that

the two components are taken as constituting a single word.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELQzEk39RqDKQ6OGAdbEsA29s_nHT8hBkk_otmfi33jAyg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:41 AM Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

“कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी क्रियते” इत्यादिषु समासाभावात्पदद्वयं वर्तते, न तु पदैक्यम्। अत्र “कृष्णी” इति सुबन्तमव्ययपदं पृथक्, “करोति” इति तिङन्तं क्रियापदं च पृथक्। एवमेव “अङ्गी” इति सुबन्तमव्ययपदं पृथक्, “क्रियते” इति तिङन्तं क्रियापदं च पृथक्। प्रायेण सुपां तिङा समासो न भवति, अतो यद्यसमस्तपदानि पृथक्कृत्य लिख्यन्ते तर्हि “कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी क्रियते” इति पृथग्लेखनमेव साधु।

महोदय, एवं सति अङ्गीत्यस्य व्यस्तपदस्य विभक्तिः क्रियत इति योगे प्रथमा भवतु, करोतीति योगे तु का गतिः?

धन्योस्मि,

“कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी करोति”, “शुक्ली करोति”, इत्यादिषु “कृष्णी”, “अङ्गी”, “शुक्ली” पदेषु द्वितीया विभक्तिर्ज्ञेया।

कृष्णी करोति—अकृष्णः कृष्णः सम्पद्यते तं करोति/अकृष्णं कृष्णं सम्पद्यमानं करोति

अङ्गी करोति—अनङ्गमङ्गं सम्पद्यते तत्करोति/अनङ्गमङ्गं सम्पद्यमानं करोति

शुक्ली करोति—अशुक्लः शुक्लः सम्पद्यते तं करोति/अशुक्लं शुक्लं सम्पद्यमानं करोति

निपातत्त्वेन च्व्यन्तस्य अव्ययपदत्वमज्ञातम्। ततः कश्चिन्मोहो जातः। ज्ञाते विभक्तिरपि अवगता।
 

काशिकायामपि “मलिनं शुक्ली करोति” इत्यत्र ‘मलिनम्’ इतिवत् ‘शुक्ली’ इत्यत्र द्वितीया। 

 

 धन्यवादः।

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 12:02:03 UTC+5:30, ks.kannan.2000 wrote:

Even though SCVasu has regularly shown space in between,

many have shown it as a single word (as occurring within a line also) :

-  Ref. 2  (Motilal text) has

1 कृष्णीकरोति, 2 ब्रह्मीभवति, 3 गङ्गीस्यात् , 4 दोषाभूतम्,

5 दिवाभूता, 6 गार्गीभवति, 7 शुचीभवति, 8 पटूस्यात्,

9 [स्वस्तीस्यात्], 10 मात्रीकरोति, 11 अरूकरोति, 12 उन्मनीस्यात्,

13 उच्चक्षूकरोति, 14 उच्चेतीकरोति, 15 विरहीकरोति, 16 विरजीकरोति,

17अग्नीभवति, 18 शुक्लीभवति, 19 जलीभवति

- all shown as single words only.

- Ref 4 (Tara) has

1 शुचीकरोति, 2 शुचीभवति, 3 शुचीस्यात्, 4 पटूकरोति, 5 पटूभवति, 6 पटूस्यात्

- all shown as single words only.

If grammatical literature shows it this way (25 examples),

no wonder, those who are not deeply specialised in grammar

can get misled.

Some grammatical works using the space consistently.

Pic01: An old edition of Kashika (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=2eQoAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA113)

Pic02: Prathama-vritti of Brahmadatta Jijnasu

Pic03 and Pic03b: Bhaimi of Pt. Bhimasena Shastri

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 12:09:54 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Some grammatical works using the space consistently.

Pic01: An old edition of Kashika (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=2eQoAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA113)

Pic02: Prathama-vritti of Brahmadatta Jijnasu

Pic03 and Pic03b: Bhaimi of Pt. Bhimasena Shastri

 

Here is Pandit Ishvarachandra stating on page 459 of his four-volume commentary on Siddhantakaumudi (Chaukhambha Sanskrit Pratishthan, 2010). Though the book prints कृष्णीकरोति as a single word, Pandit Ishvarachandra states that there is no samasa and this is not a single pada (यह एकपद नहीं है).

 

[K S Kannan]

Thanks for the sources given

in addition to Vasu's I showed.

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/39361a12-788b-4672-a6ad-e0fd63d62886o%40googlegroups.com.

[Krishnaprasad G]

Charudeva Sastri uses space in his books.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/R3zePqByeus/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm5yb%2B3D8u5%3D%2BDQHUgCJ77sHCa5G1z1FiZByZ37u%3D7k%3Daw%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Thanks for the Charudeva Sastri reference.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAODNnZgfzoxhAGjGi5FN6p%3DvPz1s%3D-H-aF-WqSMOaxHdwch_4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishnaprasad G]

In his Vakyamuktavali (if i remember correctly) he specifically commented about the samasta and vyasta for chvi. That is very much similar to what N Misra Ji wrote.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm6TJ1ZCEGm3jETw%3D6qBzF9bfPexcuxAODWxY3xQx6GT5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

How would this to be rendered correctly -   अङ्गीक्रियमाणेषु,   अङ्गीक्रियमाणायां, etc?  

regards      

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 12:09:54 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Some grammatical works using the space consistently.

Pic01: An old edition of Kashika (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=2eQoAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA113)

Pic02: Prathama-vritti of Brahmadatta Jijnasu

Pic03 and Pic03b: Bhaimi of Pt. Bhimasena Shastri

Pic04: Rama Nath Sharma in The Ashtadhyayi of Panini, Volume IV, p. 692, also separates the words with a space between them for cvi examples. 

[Krishnaprasad G]

Bheemasena Shastri writes

ध्यान रहे कि 'कृष्णी' और 'करोति' पदों का समास नहीं होता क्योंकि लोक में सुबन्त का तिङन्त के साथ समास वर्जित है ( ०६ ) । अतः इन दोनों को पृथक् पृथक् लिखना चाहिये मिला कर नहीं। हां यदि कृधातु क्त्वान्त होगी तो कु-गति प्रादयः (४६) से गति समास होकर क्त्वा को समासेन पूर्वे क्त्वा ल्यप् (८८४) से ल्यप् आदेश भी हो जायेगा-कृष्णीकृत्य । इसीप्रकार कृदन्त धातु के साथ भी समास हो जाता है-कृष्णीकृतः, कृष्णीकृतवान्, कृष्णीकर्तुम् आदि।

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/R3zePqByeus/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/18ce38d4-10cd-4b0c-b205-b3f7e120b583o%40googlegroups.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Nityanandji,

I wanted to share that अङ्गी is used as a separate word in old Odia as we see evidence

Sarala Das's Mahabharata (15th century).  it is used mostly in the sense on truce between

warring parties (Sarala creates arbitrary wars).  It is also used in marriage decisions like

svayamvara.  In odia अङ्गीकार is a later word.  I don't see its use in poetry.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/18ce38d4-10cd-4b0c-b205-b3f7e120b583o%40googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 15:24:03 UTC+5:30, V Subrahmanian wrote:

How would this to be rendered correctly -   अङ्गीक्रियमाणेषु,   अङ्गीक्रियमाणायां, etc?  

The suffix in the words क्रियमाण and क्रियमाणा is शानच्, which is a कृत् suffix, and so क्रियमाण and क्रियमाणा are कृदन्त words. As a result, there will be a mandatory compound (नित्यसमास) by कुगतिप्रादयः (2.2.18) between अङ्गी and क्रियमाण/क्रियमाणा to result in the leamma अङ्गीक्रियमाण/अङ्गीक्रियमाणा. After विभक्तिकार्यम्, the words would be अङ्गीक्रियमाणेषु and अङ्गीक्रियमाणायाम्. These are not to be split as there is ऐकपद्यम् here. Here also, the extract from Bhaimi commentary that Sh. Krishnaprasad Ji quoted (snapshot attached) is the guiding light.   

[V Subrahmanian]

Many thanks for this clarification. 

regards 

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/fcec86e1-1725-4f3e-9307-6c6064cb6478o%40googlegroups.com.

[K S Kannan]

I took a quick glance through the book

अनुवाद-कला  of Charudeva Shastri

(1989, Motilal Banarsidass),

as indicated by Sri Krishnaprasad G-ji.

I came across 4 instances where we find

the verbal form shown as a single word!

p.18 विरसीभवन्ति

p.86 समीकुरु

p.20 व्याकुलीभूः 

p.20 साधूभविष्यति .

Hence the statement that Charudeva Shastri has shown such instances

as separate words in the book अनुवाद-कला is not borne out.

(Of course, we have no problem with

p. 22 परोपकरणीकृतकायाः

as it involves a कृदन्त).

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te3H6%2B_qt4u9pEKWnVZ-00qC5FCj9vpUXDR-9Bm0uSvr0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishnaprasad G]

Here are the pages from Charudeva Sastri. He is specific 

शुक्ली करोति इत्यादि में शुक्ली आदि च्व्यन्त पृथक् पद हैं, लोक में तिङन्त के साथ समास न होने से। पर शुक्लीकृतः । शुक्लीकृत्य । शुक्ला कर्तुम् इत्यादि समस्त पद हैं। च्वि' की गति संज्ञा को है। अतः ये गति तत्पुरुष समास हैं । अत एव 'शुक्लीकृत्य' में क्त्वा को ल्यप् प्रदेश हुआ है।

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/R3zePqByeus/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm7ke9q%3D673F5JOMYhFBRiZRrRN-XLY1M-cf5YsDhn7Zsg%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

Thank you for these citations from 

Vyakarana-candrodaya, Vol. 2 of Charudeva Shastri.

This was first published in 1970,

whereas Anuvada-kala was first published in 1950.

Anuvada-kala  has undergone

2nd edition in 1956,

3rd edition in 1970 and

a mere reprint in 1989.

One must only remark that it is unfortunate that

authors do not sometimes take adequate care to see that

errors in previous editions are not repeated in subsequent editions.

Thanks again for bringing in Vyakarana-candrodaya.

This has become a sort of

uttarottaram prAmANyam!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAODNnZhMf6p3eiXuccCt40P-53WdO%3Dehrqe%3DBJpV20D%3DxrTt0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

Namaste

 

There seems to be two parts in the debated issue   here. 

 

First issue:   Compounding of Sup and ting <  प्रायेण सुपां तिङा समासो न भवति  > :  Example:  चूडामणीकृतविधुर्वलयीकृतवासुकिः

 

Second issue:      <   अतो यद्यसमस्तपदानि पृथक्कृत्य लिख्यन्ते तर्हि “कृष्णी करोति”, “अङ्गी क्रियते” इति पृथग्लेखनमेव साधु। > :

                     Which one would be  correct ? < वागर्थाविवसम्पृक्तौ  वागर्थप्रतिपत्तये    >    < वाक्-अर्थौ- इव -संपृतौ  , वाक्-अर्थ-प्रति-पत्तये>

 

 

May be the following extract from sarva- samasa-shesha-prakarana augments what has already been told by Prof. Korada.

 

My observation :  Learning convenience needs pada-ccheda ;  Lingusitic elegance and grammar compliance needs ' integral articulation and scripting without break'.

                                   Without taking out any credit for great work done by colonial scholars,  the violation of this rule of 'pada-cheda'  is rampant in  print documents  of several sanskrit-english lexicons,

                                  starting from celebrated Monier Williams.

 

                                  This 'pada-cheda'  approach in lexicon-text  publication, seems to have been  introduced as convenience to facilitate   word-split marks for a learning convenience ; for speciifc audience   

                                  beyond-india learners and researchers, for whom Paninian langauge was 'an artificial construct to express thought, in an ornate classical way'.

                                 This pedagogy was not meant  to groom skills for ' use  of Sanskrit' for  creative composition like that of  Valmiki, Vyasa, Kalidasa'  or be a crowd member of audience (prekshaka-

                                saamajika -sahrudaya)  which enjoyed the 'dasha-roopakas ( with Samskruth-Prakrtuh mix).

                                 

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELQzEk39RqDKQ6OGAdbEsA29s_nHT8hBkk_otmfi33jAyg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishnaprasad G]

"वागर्थाविवसम्पृक्तौ  वागर्थप्रतिपत्तये    >    < वाक्-अर्थौ- इव -संपृतौ  , वाक्-अर्थ-प्रति-पत्तये>"

Both are wrong.

1.  Before and After इव space is needed. Because इव is separate word and also सम्पृक्तौ 

2. Hyphenation problem because it misleads सम्पृक्तौ is included in compound. 

3. इवेन सह समासः... Is the blunder made by Mallinath.

 

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/R3zePqByeus/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5ef4237b.1c69fb81.f4798.2a3d%40mx.google.com.

[Krishnaprasad G]

Sorry after iva space is needed*

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

Namaste

1. Thanks for giving attnetion to the punctuation issue, which is a print
generation period problem ( and not the palm leaf writers problem ! What
medium Kalidasa scribed his work is a debated issue. Modern media projects
it in visually appelaing ways!) . The suggested hypenation/ separation leads
to ' chandobhanga'.

I refrain from making observations on your comment ' Malinatha's
blunder(?) on ' iva-samaasa'. see ' taaveva'- highlighted. should it be
just a sandhi or also a samaasa ?

2. I am placing the clipping of how Nirnayasagar press gave it to us.
(https://archive.org/details/raghuvamsha_with_sanjeevini_commentary_of_malli
natha/page/n3/mode/2up) . The 'punctuation format is not uniform , to the
expectation of word splits as a colonial reader looks for. The flow by
reading stylized sanskrit, as a flowing speech, chandas is the model used.
If this is situation in simpler style of Kalidasa,, Bana-bhatta text
punctuation would be much more complex . and much more complex would be
shaastra-vyaakhyaanas.

Error! Filename not specified.

<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CACT7j-Ht7RMY1nxYYOdGgjAQ-nu2h
7ZTO9cBovwBPT8BSPC8PA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .

--
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 on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te0z2O-3S23-AqYOBXuJeu5xhk
TYrgvdZh24qXTJOiAbVA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te0z2O-3S23-AqYOBXuJeu5xh
kTYrgvdZh24qXTJOiAbVA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .

--
Dr. K.S.Kannan D.Litt.
​Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Chair Professor, IIT-Madras.
Senior Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi.
Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.
Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.
Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.
Former Professor, CAHC, Jain University, Bangalore.
Former Director, Karnataka Samskrit University, Bangalore.
Former Head, Dept. of Sanskrit, The National Colleges, Bangalore.
--
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 on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm5Odbc8La2%3DCCOiyNxwLVve
grS-H0BSoNHO%3DUqVC-cq%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com

<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm5Odbc8La2%3DCCOiyNxwLVv
egrS-H0BSoNHO%3DUqVC-cq%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=foo
ter> .

--
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 on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELQzEk39RqDKQ6OGAdbEsA29s_
nHT8hBkk_otmfi33jAyg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELQzEk39RqDKQ6OGAdbEsA29s
_nHT8hBkk_otmfi33jAyg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/R3zePqByeus/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5ef4237b.1c69fb81.f4798.2a3d%40
mx.google.com

<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5ef4237b.1c69fb81.f4798.2a3d%4
0mx.google.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .

--
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 on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAODNnZgh5W6g%2BPZpw2KjkZHQRPA5
T8-V4dGDWvG5z9oUOh6-bw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAODNnZgh5W6g%2BPZpw2KjkZHQRPA
5T8-V4dGDWvG5z9oUOh6-bw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Dr Sastry Garu

On Thursday, 25 June 2020 09:39:40 UTC+5:30, Dr.BVK Sastry wrote:

Namaste

 

There seems to be two parts in the debated issue   here. 

 

First issue:   Compounding of Sup and ting <  प्रायेण सुपां तिङा समासो न भवति  > :  Example:  चूडामणीकृतविधुर्वलयीकृतवासुकिः

 

In चूडामणीकृतविधुर्वलयीकृतवासुकिः, there is a समास between the च्व्यन्त word चूडामणी and the कृदन्त word कृत (it is not तिङन्त). This is possible as Bhimasena Shastri, Charudeva Shastri, etc. have stated. The example चूडामणीकृत is similar to the example कृष्णीकृत given by Bhimasena Shastri in the Bhaimi.

The usually cited examples of a compound between सुबन्त and तिङन्त words are पर्यभूषयत् and अनुव्यचलत्. But these samasas are seen only in Vedas (not in Loka), as Siddhantakaumudi says: ’सह’ इति योगो विभज्यते। सुबन्तं समर्थेन सह समस्यते। योगविभास्येष्टसिद्ध्यर्थत्वात्कतिपयतिङन्तोत्तरपदोऽयं समासः। स च छन्दस्येव। पर्यभूषयत्। अनुव्यचलत् ।   This is the reason why Bhimasena Shastri says क्योंकि लोक में सुबन्त का तिङन्त के साथ समास वर्जित है. 

 

 

May be the following extract from sarva- samasa-shesha-prakarana augments what has already been told by Prof. Korada.

The example पर्यभूषयत् is given in Siddhantakaumudi with the rider that such samasas are in Vedas only, not in Loka.

Thanks, Nityananda

[Ragini Sharma]

हरये नमः

अङ्गीक्रियते इत्यत्र पदद्वयं राजते इति नास्ति कस्यापि विप्रतिपत्तिः। किन्तु "उर्यादिच्विडाचश्च" इत्यनेन क्रियायोग एव च्विप्रत्ययान्तानां गति सञ्ज्ञा जायते। क्रियायोगप्रदर्शनाय एका एव शिरोरेखा देया इति मे मतिः।

पुनश्च अन्ते यदभाणीत् सुपां सुपा समासः तत्रापि स्वकीयाम् अरुचिं द्योतयत्येषा। तत्र "गतिकारकोपपदानां कृद्भिः सह समासवचनं प्राक् सुबुत्पत्तेः" इतिपरिभाषाबलेन कृदन्तस्यैव सुपा समासः सिद्ध्यति सुबुत्पत्तेः प्राक्।

यथाभानमहं प्रत्यपादयम्।निष्कर्षाय तु विद्वांस: प्रष्टव्यास्ते प्रमाणम् |

🙏

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5ef45a4a.1c69fb81.c3ca.850f%40mx.google.com.

[ushavishnuvamsi .]

नमः। च्व्यन्तानां गतिसंज्ञकत्वात् ते प्राग्धातोरिति सूत्रप्रवृत्त्या तेषामव्यवहितप्रयोग एव साधुः । आगच्छति निर्गच्छति  उपविशतीत्यादिष्विव अङ्गीकरोति इत्येव अपृथगेव लेखनं साधु । पदद्वैतेपि संहिता नित्या ।।

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAHU8NSCtaMU6qW%3DTp%3DzW5MXN1g8ZjzNVVJXBX0OSsw9brb3rtg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishnaprasad G]

Biased mind in India is one of the reasons for Death of Sanskrit 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BPzM5wBsbLnu0-%2Bhgf9MzQ5zF1gtuZnk4x0bOwoRhxNGSOviQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishnaprasad G]

Sorry the mail recipient selected by mistake.

[Nityanand Misra]

Namaste

On Thursday, 25 June 2020 21:20:40 UTC+5:30, Ragini Sharma wrote:

हरये नमः

अङ्गीक्रियते इत्यत्र पदद्वयं राजते इति नास्ति कस्यापि विप्रतिपत्तिः। किन्तु "उर्यादिच्विडाचश्च" इत्यनेन क्रियायोग एव च्विप्रत्ययान्तानां गति सञ्ज्ञा जायते। क्रियायोगप्रदर्शनाय एका एव शिरोरेखा देया इति मे मतिः।

You mention च्विप्रत्ययान्त words are termed गति only in the presence of क्रियायोग. Are there any examples of च्विप्रत्ययान्त usage in the absence of क्रियायोग? I think च्वि is ordained only by the sutra अभूततद्भावे कृभ्वस्तियोगे सम्पद्यकर्तरि च्विः where the क्रियायोग is implied (कृभ्वस्तियोगे). So I would like to know any examples of च्विप्रत्ययान्त usage in absence of क्रियायोग where a च्विप्रत्ययान्त is not a गति.

Anyway, the logic of showing क्रियायोग by a single शिरोरेखा is unconvincing. By that logic, even मा कार्षीः should be written as माकार्षीः since the absence of अट् is only in the case of माङ्योगे (6.4.74) and so to show this माङ्योग there should be only one शिरोरेखा. But the usual practice is to write मा कार्षीः and not माकार्षीः. 

 

पुनश्च अन्ते यदभाणीत् सुपां सुपा समासः तत्रापि स्वकीयाम् अरुचिं द्योतयत्येषा। तत्र "गतिकारकोपपदानां कृद्भिः सह समासवचनं प्राक् सुबुत्पत्तेः" इतिपरिभाषाबलेन कृदन्तस्यैव सुपा समासः सिद्ध्यति सुबुत्पत्तेः प्राक्।

Yes, it should read सुपां नाम्ना (as in the case of कुम्भकारः) and not सुपां सुपा. Thanks for the eagle-eyed proofreading. 

Thanks, Nityananda

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 25 June 2020 22:18:19 UTC+5:30, vishnu namboodiri k wrote:

नमः। च्व्यन्तानां गतिसंज्ञकत्वात् ते प्राग्धातोरिति सूत्रप्रवृत्त्या तेषामव्यवहितप्रयोग एव साधुः । आगच्छति निर्गच्छति  उपविशतीत्यादिष्विव अङ्गीकरोति इत्येव अपृथगेव लेखनं साधु । पदद्वैतेपि संहिता नित्या ।।

पृथग्लेखनं समसाभावं द्योतयति, न तु व्यवधानम्।  

[Nityanand Misra]

*समासाभावं 

[Madhav Deshpande]

"उपसर्गादसमासेऽपि णोपदेशस्य" इत्यादिसूत्रविमर्शे इदं प्रतिभाति यत् "ते प्राग् धातो:" इत्यनेन उपसर्गधात्वो: भाषायां क्रमनिर्धारणेऽपि क्वचित् समासो भवति, क्वचिन्न भवतीति निश्चप्रचम् । तत्रापि वाक्ये संहिताया अविवक्षया असमासे असंहितप्रयोगोऽपि सम्भवति, न तु संहिता नित्यत्वेनापेक्ष्यते । पूर्वमेव मया लिखितं यत् लेखनविषये व्याकरणं तूष्णीभावं व्यनक्ति । लेखनस्य मुद्रणस्य च नियमा आधुनिकै: कल्पिता:, न तु प्राचीनैर्वैयाकरणै: । लेखनविषये व्याकरणसूत्रचर्चा किञ्चिदिव अस्थाने प्रतिभाति ।

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BPzM5wBsbLnu0-%2Bhgf9MzQ5zF1gtuZnk4x0bOwoRhxNGSOviQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 25 June 2020 23:14:57 UTC+5:30, Madhav Deshpande wrote:

"उपसर्गादसमासेऽपि णोपदेशस्य" इत्यादिसूत्रविमर्शे इदं प्रतिभाति यत् "ते प्राग् धातो:" इत्यनेन उपसर्गधात्वो: भाषायां क्रमनिर्धारणेऽपि क्वचित् समासो भवति, क्वचिन्न भवतीति निश्चप्रचम् । तत्रापि वाक्ये संहिताया अविवक्षया असमासे असंहितप्रयोगोऽपि सम्भवति, न तु संहिता नित्यत्वेनापेक्ष्यते । पूर्वमेव मया लिखितं यत् लेखनविषये व्याकरणं तूष्णीभावं व्यनक्ति । लेखनस्य मुद्रणस्य च नियमा आधुनिकै: कल्पिता:, न तु प्राचीनैर्वैयाकरणै: । लेखनविषये व्याकरणसूत्रचर्चा किञ्चिदिव अस्थाने प्रतिभाति ।

Dear Prof. Deshpande

Are there are examples of non-compounding between upasarga and dhātu in loka? I know examples from Vedic texts, where sometimes there is no compound between upasarga and dhātu. In the Ṛgvedasaṃhitā, we see (mantra 1.83.2, first image):

प्राचैर्देवासः प्र णयन्ति देवयुं ब्रह्मप्रियं जोषयन्ते वरा इव

प्रा॒चैर्दे॒वास॒ः प्र ण॑यन्ति देव॒युं ब्र॑ह्म॒प्रियं॑ जोषयन्ते व॒रा इ॑व

Here there appears to be no compound between प्र and नयन्ति, for they are written separately. The padapāṭha shows them as two separate padas (प्र । न॒य॒न्ति॒ ।).

Contrast this with (mantra 1.129.1, second image):

यं त्वं रथमिन्द्र मेधसातयेऽपाका सन्तमिषिर प्रणयसि प्रानवद्य नयसि

यं त्वं रथ॑मिंद्र मे॒धसा॑तयेऽपा॒का संत॑मिषिर प्र॒णय॑सि॒ प्रान॑वद्य॒ नय॑सि

Here there appears to be a compound between प्र and नयसि, for they are written together. The padapāṭha shows them as a single pada (प्र॒ऽनय॑सि), with the compound indicated by the avagraha (ऽ) sign as is usually done in the padapāṭha.

Outside of Vedic texts, I am unaware of any examples of non-compounding between upasarga and dhātu. 

There is णत्व in both these cases (समासेऽपि, असमासेऽपि). Perhaps Vedic examples alone is what Pāṇini had in mind when using असमासेऽपि in उपसर्गादसमासेऽपि णोपदेशस्य? I am not sure, but would like to see laukika examples where upasarga and dhātu are not compounded.

Also, while vyākaraṇa does not give rules for writing, writing may not be be a faithful representation of speech if vyākaraṇa rules are ignored or not consistently followed. In manuscripts/printed editions of saṃhitāpāṭhas or padapāṭhas, svaras are to be marked with the correct signs, compounds are to be shown by ऽ, etc. So I do not think discussing vyākaraṇa on this thread is completely out of context. 

This topic is more relevant to a Sanskrit style manual (is there any?) than a Sanskrit grammar book. However, even style manuals have ample discussion on grammar. English punctuation and spacing standards follow English grammar. The single word, everyday is an adjective (e.g. an everyday chores) while as two words, every day is an adverb (e.g. I study every day). So why not have Sanskrit punctuation and spacing follow Sanskrit grammar.

I am sure we will have disagreements, but that is the beauty of this group. :) 

Thanks, Nityananda     

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 26 June 2020 07:32:16 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

This topic is more relevant to a Sanskrit style manual (is there any?) than a Sanskrit grammar book. However, even style manuals have ample discussion on grammar. English punctuation and spacing standards follow English grammar. The single word, everyday is an adjective (e.g. an everyday chores) while as two words, every day is an adverb (e.g. I study every day). So why not have Sanskrit punctuation and spacing follow Sanskrit grammar.

Typo. I meant an everyday activity/everyday chores 

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Nityanand Ji,

     This is a great question.  I am speaking historically.  As far as I know, rules like उपसर्गादसमासेऽपि णोपदेशस्य in Panini are not limited to Vedic language.  Exceptions for Vedic usage, like छन्दसि परेऽपि, व्यवहिताश्च "In the Vedic language, the upasargas can occur even after the verbs and there can be other words in-between" are explicitly stated.  All other rules apply to both छन्दस् and भाषा alike.  What we consider as the classical language is largely a post-Paninian development, where the svaras are lost and compounds become longer and longer.  Patterns of writing Sanskrit are not dictated by Panini's rules, but develop over centuries as conventions, sometimes slightly different in different regions.  So, by convention, the upasargas are now written not only before the verb, but always with sandhi.  What I am saying is that this is the post-Paninian convention, but the sandhi is not required by Panini's rules.  We can of course discuss as to which conventions are proper or useful, but citing Panini is not always useful.  With best regards,

 

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/8a4ebca7-8db9-4613-b02d-86851a701a78o%40googlegroups.com.

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

नमस्ते  नित्यानन्द मिश्र महोदयाः

 

 

The topic is too technical  and complex.  

 

1.    I draw your attention to  the snippets from url : http://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tools/ashtadhyayi/vyakhya/2/2.1.4.htm  to place on record  that grammarians have held  'sup-ting' samasa occurs , it is valid in ' loka' also.

 

    Regarding < स च छन्दस्येव   >   The  option part of 'chandasyeva' is for  ' svara- nirNaya'.  The 'svara'  rule  operates  only because it is considered as a 'samasa'.

    This endorses  the 'Samasa' validation in loka use.   It does not prohibit 'samasa' in bhahsaa.   Regarding 'Chandasi',  it is for याज्जिकी विधि- viniyoga of     मन्त्र- दर्शन .

    The rule does not apply to ' mantra-darshana' as such ( where no grammar rule operates as   vivakshaa).  It is a given fact that mortals like me are not   able to distinguish mantra darshana and yaajniki viniyoga part of ' given Vedas   in 'Karma-Kanda' .  One needs to  think deeply on Vedanga Vyakarana model and Patanjali dictum 'oohaH khalvapi, vibhaktim kurvanti'.

 

See Translation part  on Sutra 649 of SK at  https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.136453/page/n401/mode/2up   and balamanorama  explanation of  SK.

 

This is amplified in balamnorama  explaining SK. See highlighted.

 

 

 

The view of Kashikaa  is clear that  sup-ting samasa is valid; and  not limited to  chandas.

 

 

 

 

2.  Regarding < In चूडामणीकृतविधुर्वलयीकृतवासुकिः, there is a समास between the च्व्यन्त word चूडामणी and the कृदन्त word कृत (it is not तिङन्त).  > I am placing my views below. Schoalrs differe in the interpretation and I respect their opinion.

 

 

१.  < In चूडामणीकृतविधुर्वलयीकृतवासुकिः, there is a समास between the च्व्यन्त word चूडामणी and the कृदन्त word कृत (it is not तिङन्त).   >

 

Agreed on the technicality of चूडामणि (  a समस्तपद). This   is enhanced to yield the meaning   as 'अभूत-तद्भाव-क्रिया’ that which was not , has become now to be that.  What is the governing condition ?  It is is   'कृभ्वस्तियोगे  सम्पद्यकर्तरि  च्विः ( ५-४-४० / २११७)  operating  before  च्वि. 

 

Without the  धातु-गर्भ- क्रिया  there is no pratyaya and samaasa. Therefore, I feel that the reference goes back to identifying   सामर्थ्य  of  पद-विधिः which dictates how compounding is to be viewed , as a process and as a ' menaing enhancement-  enrichment'. How is vivakshaa translated to  prakriyaa ? What is given ? What is taken out ? What remains untouched ?

 

What is the primary feature in  समास ? ?    It is operating on      सामर्थ्य  of  पद-विधिः = (A)    सामर्थ्य  of  पद (B)  सामर्थ्य  of  विधिः  .   I am not expanding on the deeper meanings of सामर्थ्य   leading to what will be '  सम- अर्थ’   -  समर्थ - सं -अर्थ   --  तस्य भावः’.

 

What is covered in this  पद-विधि ?   Two parts:  One related to अक्षर     and another related to  अर्थ.

 

अक्षर-विधि  covers  सुप्- लोप   first   and   - सुबुत्पत्ति   after प्रातिपदिक  -संज्ञा प्राप्ति.   This process is not taking out the ' धातु-गर्भता’ / धातु-योग  of  च्व्यन्त.   In the present case अस्य च्वौ

takes care of this part.  (     Agreed that   च्वि is a   तद्राज-तद्धित    which is अतिङ् .  But 'च्वि’  is coming only after   ' धातु-योग  - a pointer to ' तिङ्-योग’. )

 

Now,   what will be covered  under  अर्थ-विधि ?  where does the अर्थान्वय /  अर्थ -सामर्थ्य / वि वक्षा   go  for चूडामणि  ?  Is it going to the   कृत्-प्रत्यय or  तद्धित प्रत्यय    or   धात्वर्थ गर्भित तद्धित -प्रत्यय  ? without the 'dhaatu ( तिङ्- योग )   the required form of word can not be derived.

 

Why ?   प्रत्यय  only  enhances and firms up /flavors / modifies the  मूल-प्रकृत्यर्थ /  प्रातिपदिकार्थ  be it  धातु  or  प्रातिपदिक.   It does not take away the original nature of धातु .  

 

Therefore, I feel :   सुपां  तिङां समासः  अर्थ-विधिना -   अर्थ-सामर्थ्य- योगेन भाषायामपि भवितुं अर्हति इति । 

एतादृश- चिन्तनं तिङन्त-नामधातु प्रकरणे, प्रत्ययमाला-प्रकरणे अति-सूक्ष्मतया  द्रष्टव्यमिति  विज्ञापयामि ।

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

 

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nityanand Misra
Sent: Thursday, 25 June, 2020 9:18 PM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: अङ्गीक्रियते ... correct way of rendering

 

 

Dear Dr Sastry Garu

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/638a0510-485c-4448-98ca-0b5878b07c93o%40googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 26 June 2020 14:10:08 UTC+5:30, Dr.BVK Sastry wrote:

नमस्ते  नित्यानन्द मिश्र महोदयाः

 

 1.    I draw your attention to  the snippets from url : http://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tools/ashtadhyayi/vyakhya/2/2.1.4.htm  to place on record  that grammarians have held  'sup-ting' samasa occurs , it is valid in ' loka' also.

There is no doubt that sup-tiṅ samāsa occurs. But which grammar source says it occurs in both veda and loka? Not saying anything on this is not the same as saying something to this effect. 

In contrast, Siddhāntakaumudī (Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita), Tattvabodhinī (Jñānendra Sarasvatī), Vyākaraṇacandrodaya (Cārudeva Śāstrī), Bhaimī (Bhīmasena Śāstrī) all say that sup-tiṅ samāsa occurs in chandas only or that it is prohibited in loka. I have nothing further to add that my position is based on these texts. 

 

    Regarding < स च छन्दस्येव   >   The  option part of 'chandasyeva' is for  ' svara- nirNaya'.  The 'svara'  rule  operates  only because it is considered as a 'samasa'.

sa ca chandasyeva in SK 649 does not look like an option, does it? Does any commentary or work support your interpretation of sa ca chandasyeva? From its context, the word sa in sa ca chandasyeva refers to the tiṅantottarapada samāsa which is what is mentioned immediately before the quoted sentence. 

The svara rules operate in both veda and loka (it is a different matter that accent was later lost in loka) so it is not likely that sa in sa ca chandasyeva is referring to svara. 

 

 

Therefore, I feel :   सुपां  तिङां समासः  अर्थ-विधिना -   अर्थ-सामर्थ्य- योगेन भाषायामपि भवितुं अर्हति इति । 

एतादृश- चिन्तनं तिङन्त-नामधातु प्रकरणे, प्रत्ययमाला-प्रकरणे अति-सूक्ष्मतया  द्रष्टव्यमिति  विज्ञापयामि ।

 

I think it boils down to examples. paryabhūṣat is from a Vedic text

devo devān kratunā paryabhūṣat # RV.2.12.1b;

Other example can be traces. Are there any examples from Laukika texts with sup-tiṅ samāsa?

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 26 June 2020 19:35:19 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

 

    Regarding < स च छन्दस्येव   >   The  option part of 'chandasyeva' is for  ' svara- nirNaya'.  The 'svara'  rule  operates  only because it is considered as a 'samasa'.

sa ca chandasyeva in SK 649 does not look like an option, does it? Does any commentary or work support your interpretation of sa ca chandasyeva? From its context, the word sa in sa ca chandasyeva refers to the tiṅantottarapada samāsa which is what is mentioned immediately before the quoted sentence. 

On, this one may refer what Paṇḍita Īśvaracandra and Somalekhā observe in the Puṣpāñjali Hindi commentary on the Siddhāntakaumudī (page 4, volume 2, Chaukhambha Sanskrit Pratishthan, 2010). 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 26 June 2020 20:50:42 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

On Friday, 26 June 2020 19:35:19 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

 

    Regarding < स च छन्दस्येव   >   The  option part of 'chandasyeva' is for  ' svara- nirNaya'.  The 'svara'  rule  operates  only because it is considered as a 'samasa'.

sa ca chandasyeva in SK 649 does not look like an option, does it? Does any commentary or work support your interpretation of sa ca chandasyeva? From its context, the word sa in sa ca chandasyeva refers to the tiṅantottarapada samāsa which is what is mentioned immediately before the quoted sentence. 

One more reference. S K Ray and K R Ray's English translation and Sanskrit commentary on the Siddhantakaumudi. Please see pages 2 and 3 of the second volume and the image attached. The translation and Sanskrit commentary state that the sup-tiṅ samāsa occurs in Vedas only and not in Loka (न भाषायाम्).

Archive link: https://archive.org/stream/Siddhantakaumudi_English_Translation_SR_Ray/4.SiddhantakaumudiVol2Part2-Samasa-SRay1910#page/n6/mode/1up

 

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

Dear list members,

This has been a very interesting thread to follow. Something to add to what Prof. Deshapande says below. There is an interesting book “Moonwalking with Einstein” by Joshua Foer, which talks about the art of memorization. It is a very good and entertaining read and one of the chapters talks about the use of white space in manuscripts. Apparently this is a very late innovation, relatively speaking, even in the West. He points

out that even reading from a text meant that the text was mostly memorized because of lack of punctuation and white space. I attach a shot of a couple of the pages for your reference.

Ramakrishnan

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:29 AM Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu> wrote:

May I express a slightly different opinion.  As far as the grammatical analysis is concerned, I agree with Shri Nityanand Ji.  However, Pāṇini's rules do not describe how to write Sanskrit.  They are rules of spoken Sanskrit, and the rule does not say that there are gaps in the utterance of asamasta padas.  The Sandhis apply across the stretch of a sentence, as we witness in the recitation of Vedic Saṃhitās or metrical recitations.

Modern writing of Sanskrit with gaps between words is a relatively recent phenomenon guided by editors and publishers influenced in part by the way English is printed with gaps between words.  Even English is not spoken with gaps between words.  Typical manuscripts do not show gaps between words, and the early printed pothis from the Nirnaya Sagara or publishers in Varanasi did not show any gaps between words. Here is an early printed pothi of the Laghusiddhāntakaumudī where the gaps between words are not regularly shown:

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:00 PM Krishnaprasad G <krishnap...@gmail.com> wrote:

Excellent Misra Ji. These days a scholar like you is very rare. I highly admire you.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/e1503ce0-f569-41d2-8f69-37860fbf5d32o%40googlegroups.com.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzdbX7CPjc3SAd7cx%3D0n9FzdNGYwn9B_v3a%3DN9V77vUyXw%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

I did refer to old Greek written with no space between words.

I too thought of the stock example

godisnowhere, and the two ways of marking off word-boundaries as

 god is nowhere and god is now here.

I did not go into these details as it would be a digression.

When just heard , not written, even these can yield more than one construction/construal :

I scream/ Ice-cream.

Bee-feeder/Beef-eater

Great Issues/Gray Tissues

I had collected all such problems, classified them,

and written an article called "anekA(pA)rtha-shAstra"

while I was at IIT-Kanpur.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAH8aEvvPhdPfai7bnQ2pwWBUA0GGStfimG9i8HLMivksnqjBSw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

Namaste

 

Vyakarana is a technical discipline where opinions on constructions do differ. I respect the translators  effort.  I sumbit my  perspective, using  the same resource used by the translator, taking recourse to the previous line in the same section-segment of sutra.

 

1.  Some illustrations of worldly use of <sup-ting>  samasa.  Rules provisions get higher priority authenticity over  the translators notes, even though helpful to understand the issue.     

 

सारसाक्ष परिपालय  मामिह  - इति  प्रसिद्धः  प्रयोगः  संगीत -साहित्ये  भाषायां    दृश्यते । 

 

अनुगृह्णाति  इत्यन्यत् उदाहरणम् ।  प्रतिवदति, प्रतिजानीहि  इत्यपि।   परिपालयति, प्रतिगमिष्यामि, अनुगच्छामि, परिभाषते । 

 

उपसर्गः पूर्वं अस्ति । उत्तरपदे धातुः, धातुगर्भता वा ।  समस्तस्य पदस्य प्रातिपदिकत्वम् , अव्ययत्वं वा। क्वचित् भ्रमः स्यात्  एते प्रयोगाः अव्ययीभावसमासान्तर्गताः वा   इति ।

 

अस्ति वा समासः अत्र?    समासः   कीदृशानां पदानाम् ?    

 

अस्ति समासः | सुपां तिङां च |    लक्ष्ये    उपसर्गः तिङन्तेन , तिङ्-योग्य प्रकृत्या  वा   युक्तः । पूर्व-पदस्य  उपसर्गस्य अत्र  उत्तरपदेन  तिङन्तेन सम्बन्धः कीदृशः ?  

 

केवल सामीप्यं चेत् भिन्न -पदत्वम् । तेन च पदार्थावगहन-गतिः   अन्वयादिकं  भिद्यते । स्वरादि पदविहितकार्यं न भवति ।

 

एकपदत्वं इति ब्रूमश्चेत् -  कथं पद-द्वय- संयोगः  केन नियमेन वक्तव्यः  ?   नात्र कृत्- तद्धित -प्रक्रियाया  अवकाशः । अवशिष्टं समास एव ।

 

समासः इति  अभ्युपगम्यते चेत्,   एकपदत्वं, प्रातिपदिकत्वं , सुप्-तिङ्-प्रत्यय-योग-योग्यता  सिद्ध्यति । 

 

उपसर्गाणां पदत्वं कथम् ?  केन नियमेन समासः ?  उपसर्गाणां  पदत्वे सति  समास सामर्थ्यम् ?  इति चेत् ,

उपसर्गाणां पदत्वं   निपातनात्, अव्ययत्वात् वा ।  अव्ययीभाव- समासनियमेषु तथा दर्शनाच्च । उपसर्गाणां पदविधि- सामर्थ्यात्  समासः । 

 

समस्त पदत्वात् -  प्रातिपदिकत्वम्   ।   प्रातिपदिकत्वात्  सुप्-योगः ।  सुप्-तिङ्-अन्तम् पदम् ।    सुप् -येषामन्ते, भवति/ भवितुमर्हति,     तिङ्-येषामन्ते भवति/ भवितुमर्हति, तेषां, तादृशानां इति विवरणम्  ।  पदत्वानन्तरं वाक्ये प्रयोगः ।   

प्रत्यय-योगानन्तरं नियमेन लोपः भवति चेत् , भवतु नाम । अदर्शनं लोपः, । न तत्  सामर्थ्य-योग-योग्यता- निरसनं इति।

 

एवं  समासे सिद्धे ,  प्रथमं प्रातिपदिकत्वं ततः सुबुत्पत्तिः , ततः पदरूपत्वं, अव्ययत्वं वा  । समस्त-पदस्य स्व-स्वरूपेण तिङ् न भवति।    

नामधातुप्रक्रियामाश्रित्य  समस्तपदस्य  सुब्योगात्  सुबन्तस्य   तिङ्-रूपं कर्तुं शक्यते - सुप आत्मनः क्यच् (३-१-८/२६५७) इति ।  विवक्षया ।

 

एवं  सुपां तिङां समासचक्रप्रवर्तनं भाषायामपि सिद्ध्यति,  विवक्षा -सामर्थ्य -योग-योग्यता  अस्ति चेत् ।   दत्तोदाहरण-प्रयोगेषु इदं लक्ष्यम् ।

 

    

2.   The issue goes deeper to explore the wide scope of  samjnaa definitions and the implications in 'meaning enhancement (विवक्षा)  +  usage in world ( bhashaa प्रयोग )  and application in yajna - processes (chandas विनियोग). There is always 'difference of opinion based on perspectives towards Panini-Vedanga- Vyakarana.

 

Rules to be looked at:    समर्थः पदविधिः, (२-१-१/६४७)  सह सुपा(२-१-४/६४९) ,       स्वरादि-निपातमव्ययम् (१-१-३७/४४७) , प्रादयः,  (१-४-५८/२१  )    उपसर्गाः क्रिया-योगे (१-४-५९/२२)     गतिश्च (१-४-६०/२३)

                                        तद्धितश्चासर्वविभक्तिः(१-१-३८/४४८),   अव्ययीभावश्च (१-१-४१/४५१)       भूवादयो  धातवः (१-३-१/१८)     अव्ययादाप्सुप: ( २-४-८२/४५२)     

                                          

 

 

Language Modeling to be noted:    In classical understanding, in 'Chandas ( as mantra -darshana)',  the given form is taken 'as given- as seen- as visioned'. 

                                     For grammar prupose,  the debate comes in the yaajnika application when 'mantra' is to be applied with modification in yajna( = yajna-viniyoga).  

                                    This yajna vinioyoga of mantra invovles modification of 'varna-akshara- pada -prakiyaa' in ' mantra' to suit a particualr need. like  अग्निमीळे  to  वह्निमीळे  ,  ( ऊहः, विभक्तिं कुर्वन्ति ). 

                                    The yajnika modification of 'mantra' needs to note  svara  and  samaasa  ( if there is one already in original mantra).  The rules  under 'vaidika -prakriyaa, samasa svara -prakrana'  address this isuse.

 

Where is this clarified in the traditional text ?   In 'paryabhUshayat', the laukika samasa  has no svara. The chandas usage has svara. It is clearly noted in commentary as ' samaasaantodaattatve'.

In the second example: <  anu- vi- achalat>   the first samasa is of <vi> with <achalat>.  This is <upasarga/ subanta and Dhatu/ tinganta > samasa. After samasa < vycahalat> gets padatva due to samasa. This is in bhashaa. Then the second samasa with <anu/ upasarga> takes place with <vyachalat> which is <samasta-pada>. This is clearly marked in the commentary.

 

Similar words are < vyaaharati, anuvyaaharet,  pra-vadiShyati>.   

 

 

 

 

Another rule where the issue is deliberated.

 

 

 

 

Regards

 

BVK Sastry

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nityanand Misra
Sent: Saturday, 27 June, 2020 7:11 AM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: अङ्गीक्रियते ... correct way of rendering

 

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/c6a15cd9-c1ca-4d9f-a1d5-03d84d3b484do%40googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, 27 June 2020 13:46:39 UTC+5:30, Dr.BVK Sastry wrote:

सारसाक्ष परिपालय  मामिह  - इति  प्रसिद्धः  प्रयोगः  संगीत -साहित्ये  भाषायां    दृश्यते । 

 

अनुगृह्णाति  इत्यन्यत् उदाहरणम् ।  प्रतिवदति, प्रतिजानीहि  इत्यपि।   परिपालयति, प्रतिगमिष्यामि, अनुगच्छामि, परिभाषते । 

 

उपसर्गः पूर्वं अस्ति । उत्तरपदे धातुः, धातुगर्भता वा ।  समस्तस्य पदस्य प्रातिपदिकत्वम् , अव्ययत्वं वा। क्वचित् भ्रमः स्यात्  एते प्रयोगाः अव्ययीभावसमासान्तर्गताः वा   इति ।

आचार्याः,

‘परिपालय’ इत्यस्य प्रातिपदिकत्वं कुतः सिद्ध्यति? स्वीकृतेऽस्य प्रातिपदिकत्वे सुबुत्पत्तिः स्यात्। छन्दसि (वेदे) तु “सुपां सुलुक्पूर्वसवर्णाच्छेयाडाड्यायाजालः” (पा॰सू॰ ७.१.३९) इति सूत्रेण सुपां लुक्सम्भवति। परं लोके प्रवर्तमानमीदृशं सूत्रं नास्ति येन सुपां लुक्स्यात्। 

अपि च, ‘परिपालय’ इत्यस्याव्ययत्वं कुतः सिद्ध्यति? “सदृशं त्रिषु लिङ्गेषु सर्वासु च विभक्तिषु, वचनेषु च सर्वेषु यन्न व्येति तदव्ययम्” इति हि भाष्यवचनम्। यत्सर्वेषु वचनेषु सदृशं तदव्ययमिति व्याचष्टे भाष्यकारः। ‘परिपालय’ इति पदं सर्वेषु वचनेषु सदृशं नास्ति। “त्वं परिपालय”। “युवां परिपालयतम्”। “यूयं परिपालयत”। ‘परिपालय’ इति रूपमेकवचन एव भवति, न द्विवचने बहुवचने वा। तर्हि तस्याव्ययत्वं कथमङ्गी क्रियते? यद्यव्ययत्वं न स्यात्तर्ह्यव्ययीभावमपि न स्यात्।

 

 

 

केवल सामीप्यं चेत् भिन्न -पदत्वम् । तेन च पदार्थावगहन-गतिः   अन्वयादिकं  भिद्यते । स्वरादि पदविहितकार्यं न भवति ।

 

एकपदत्वं इति ब्रूमश्चेत् -  कथं पद-द्वय- संयोगः  केन नियमेन वक्तव्यः  ?  

संहितैकपदे नित्या नित्या धातूपसर्गयोः।

नित्या समासे वाक्ये तु सा विवक्षपमपेक्षते॥

इति सिद्धान्तकौमुद्यां पठ्यते। ‘परिपालय’ एतादृशेषु प्रयोगेषु धातूपसर्गयोर्नित्यसंहितत्वात्परः सन्निकर्षोऽस्ति (संहिताऽस्ति) परं समासो नास्तीति मे मतिः।

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 26 June 2020 07:32:16 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Dear Prof. Deshpande

Are there are examples of non-compounding between upasarga and dhātu in loka? I know examples from Vedic texts, where sometimes there is no compound between upasarga and dhātu. In the Ṛgvedasaṃhitā, we see (mantra 1.83.2, first image):

प्राचैर्देवासः प्र णयन्ति देवयुं ब्रह्मप्रियं जोषयन्ते वरा इव

प्रा॒चैर्दे॒वास॒ः प्र ण॑यन्ति देव॒युं ब्र॑ह्म॒प्रियं॑ जोषयन्ते व॒रा इ॑व

Here there appears to be no compound between प्र and नयन्ति, for they are written separately. The padapāṭha shows them as two separate padas (प्र । न॒य॒न्ति॒ ।).

Contrast this with (mantra 1.129.1, second image):

यं त्वं रथमिन्द्र मेधसातयेऽपाका सन्तमिषिर प्रणयसि प्रानवद्य नयसि

यं त्वं रथ॑मिंद्र मे॒धसा॑तयेऽपा॒का संत॑मिषिर प्र॒णय॑सि॒ प्रान॑वद्य॒ नय॑सि

Here there appears to be a compound between प्र and नयसि, for they are written together. The padapāṭha shows them as a single pada (प्र॒ऽनय॑सि), with the compound indicated by the avagraha (ऽ) sign as is usually done in the padapāṭha.

Outside of Vedic texts, I am unaware of any examples of non-compounding between upasarga and dhātu. 

Apologies, what I wrote above is not correct. Paṇḍita Īśvaracandra explains in his commentary on Siddhāntakaumudī that [in loka,] the compounding is between उपसर्ग and कृदन्त forms but not between उपसर्ग and तिङन्त forms. If we follow his explanation (which I agree with after some thought), there is a compound/समास in usages like प्रकृत्य but not in usages like प्रकरोति. In both cases there is संहिता, which is नित्य in both a समास and between a धातु and an उपसर्ग (नित्या धातूपसर्गयोः, नित्या समासे). So the use of असमासे in उपसर्गादसमासेऽपि णोपदेशस्य seemingly accounts for णत्व when there is a तिङन्त form following an उपसर्ग (उपसर्गात्). The examples in काशिका (highlighted in red) are noteworthy: णोपदेशस्य धातोर्यो नकारस्तस्योपसर्गस्थान्निमित्तादुत्तरस्य णकारादेशो भवत्यसमासेऽपि समासेऽपि। प्रणमति। परिणमति। प्रणायकः। परिणायकः। Here first two (प्रणमति and परिणमति) are examples of असमासेऽपि and last two (प्रणायकः and परिणायकः) are examples of समासेऽपि. सिद्धान्तकौमुदी gives examples of असमासेऽपि only (प्रणदति and प्रणिनदिति). 

In च्व्यन्त + तिङन्त usages like अङ्गी क्रियते there is neither a समास nor is there नित्यसंहिता as अङ्गी is not an उपसर्ग. So I guess in past tense both अङ्गी अकरोत् and अङ्ग्यकरोत् should be theoretically correct, as the संहिता here depends on one's विवक्षा. In contrast, प्र अकरोत् would be incorrect and प्राकरोत् only would be correct as there is a नित्यसंहिता here).

These are my current thoughts after going through various sources. Would be useful to know what commentaries or other authors say on this issue.  

  

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

अङ्गीक्रियते -- अङ्गी  क्रियते  ---- शुचीभवति -- शुची  भवति ----- शुक्लीभवति -- शुक्ली  भवति

I have already , in the beginning , said  that one should  get the intended meaning ( विवक्षितार्थ )  by any  शब्दप्रयोग । 

This aspect is clearly stated by Panini and Patanjali --

तदस्य तदस्मिन् स्यादिति ( 5-1-16 ) छ-प्रत्ययः --- प्रासादीयं दारु ; प्रासादीया इष्टकाः  --

...शक्यार्थे लिङिति वक्तव्यम् ( = स्यात् इति ’ शकि लिङ् च ’ पा ) .... एवं तर्हि इतिकरणः क्रियते । ततश्चेत् विविक्षा भवति । विवक्षा च द्वयी ।

अस्त्येव प्रायोक्त्री विवक्षा , अस्ति लौकिकी ।

प्रायोक्त्री विवक्षा -- प्रयोक्ता हि मृद्व्या स्निग्धया श्लक्ष्णया जिह्वया मृदून् स्निग्धान् श्लक्ष्णान् शब्दान् प्रयुङ्ते ।

लौकिकी विवक्षा -- यत्र प्रायस्य विवक्षा भवति , प्राय इति लोको व्यपदिश्यते । न च प्रासादो देवदत्तस्य स्यात् प्राकारो नगरस्य स्यात् इत्यत्र 

उत्पद्यमानेन प्रत्ययेन प्रायस्य संप्रत्ययः स्यात् ।

शब्दान् = अपशब्दान् ;संप्रत्ययः = शाब्दं ज्ञानम् ।

Panini adds the term ' इति ’ in a number of  सूत्र-s  to denote a specific meaning -- here he added ' स्यात् ’ also--

 if one employs  a term like - ' प्रासादीयं ' दारु ( this wood is enough for the  lofty building )  , 'प्रासादीया' इष्टकाः ( these bricks

are enough for the lofty building ) , the लोक would get the intended meaning - not otherwise --

कैयटः --

प्रायस्येति । समग्रकल्पस्येत्यर्थः । तस्मात् यत्रार्थे लोकाः शब्दान् प्रयुञ्जते  तदर्थाभिधायिन एव शास्त्रेणानुविधीयन्ते , प्रयोगमूलत्वात् व्याकरणस्मृतेः।

अयमेव न्यायः क्वचित् - इतिकरणेन उपसंग्रुह्यते । तत्र  इति - शब्दो हेत्वर्थस्सन् विवक्षामनुसारयति । यो’यमर्थः - ’ तदस्य तदाअस्मिन् स्यादिति ’

तदर्थप्रत्यायनाय यदा विवक्षा भवति , अतो हेतोरयमर्थः प्रत्ययोत्पत्तिनिमित्तत्वेन आश्रीयते इति ।.... एवं यदि विवक्षा भवति तत्र प्रत्यय इत्यर्थः ।

In व्याकरणम् , everywhere , लोक means शिष्टलोकः ।

So if one says -- शुक्ली  भवति -- can  people get the  intended  sense --  'अशुक्लं  शुक्लं संपद्यमानं भवति ' ? or they will 

understand as - the lady called शुक्ली  is there ?

अकर्तरि च कारके संज्ञायाम् (3-3-19) --

वार्तिकम् ---

अतिप्रसङ्ग इति चेत्  अभिधानलक्षणत्वात् प्रत्ययस्य सिद्धम् ।

भाष्यम् --

....अभिधानलक्षणाः कृत्तद्धितसमासाः ।

 

अभिधानम् = प्रयोगः --  संघीभवन्ति ब्राह्मणाः (महाभाष्यम् ) , ग्रामीकरोत्याज्ञया ( स्वप्नवासवदत्ता ) ।

Sometimes Panini does not clearly offer the प्रकृति+प्रत्यय  combination but suggests and it is called

ज्ञापकम् ---

1. क्रियाविशेषणम् -- no specific लक्षणम् is there -- we have to simply depend on सूत्र-s like -- धर्मं चरति , परिपन्थं

च तिष्ठति etc.

2. तद्धित on a क्रिया / वाक्यम् -- ’ अस्ति नास्ति दिष्टं मतिः ’ ( अस्ति can be a  तिङन्तप्रतिरूपकमव्ययम् as well ) --  आस्तिकः , 

नास्तिकः ।

Similarly ,  समास between सुबन्त / निपात and तिङन्त is used by Panini --

1. भ्राजभासधुर्विद्युतोर्जिपॄजुग्रावस्तुवः क्विप् 3-2-177 

ग्रावस्तुत् 

पदमञ्जरी -- 

ग्रावशब्दः सप्तमीनिर्देशाभावे’पि उपपदसंज्ञ इष्यते । अन्ये तु सूत्रनिर्देशात् धातुनैव  समासे पश्चात् क्विपं कुर्वन्ति ।

कौमुदी --

ग्रावशब्दस्य धातुना समासः सूत्रे निपात्यते ।

2. नमिकम्पिस्म्यजसकमहिंसदीपो रः 3-2-167

अजस्रम्

पदमञ्जरी /  बृहच्छ्ब्देन्दुशेखरः --

निपातनाच्च नञो धातुना समासः ।

कौमुदी --

जसिः नञ्पूर्वः क्रियासातत्ये वर्तते ।

3.जिदृक्षिगृहिपतिदयिनिद्रातन्द्राव्यथाभ्यमपरिभूप्रसूभ्यश्च 3-2-157

अव्यथी 

न्यासः  / प्रौढमनोरमा   --

निपातनाच्च नञो धातुना समासः ।

3. कर्मणा यम्  अभिप्रैति स संप्रदानम्  1-4-32

4. वचिप्रच्छ्यायतस्तुकटप्रुजुश्रीणां दीर्घश्च -- वार्तिकम् ( अन्येभ्यो’पि दृश्यते 3-2-178 क्विप् ) ---

शब्दप्राट् - आयतस्तूः - कटप्रूः

Here , Haradatta says - अभि इति पृथक् पदम्  ।

वेदे एव इति निर्णयः विवादास्पदः --

क्वसुश्च (3-2-107) --

कौमुदी --

इह भूतसामान्ये छन्दसि लिट् । तस्य विधीयमानौ क्वसुकानजावपि छान्दसाविति त्रिमुनिमतम् । कवयस्तु बहुलं प्रयुञ्जते ।...

’तं तस्थिवांसम् ’ , ’ श्रेयांसि सर्वाण्यधिजग्मुषस्ते ’ ।

प्रौढमनोरमा --

अत एव कित्करणसामर्थ्यत् भाषायामपि क्वसुकानचौ स्त इति केषाञ्चिदुत्प्रेक्षा नादर्तव्या इति हरदत्तमाधवादिग्रन्थे स्पष्टमिति

भावः ।

शब्दरत्नः --

अत्र अरुचिबीजं तु विभाषा पूर्वाह्णेतितिसूत्रे  भाष्ये पपुष आगतं पपिवद्रूप्प्यम् इति लौकिकविग्रहे क्वसुप्रयोगत् लोके’पि क्वसुः।

Here in the case of क्वसु , भट्टोजिदीक्षित  cannot be taken as प्रमाणम् -- पपुषः इति भाष्यप्रयोगात् लोके’पि क्वसुः ।

’अरुचिबीजं तु ’ - of शब्दरत्न is untenable as there is no अरुचि at all .

भाषायां  यङ्लुगन्तविषये’पि अस्ति विवादः --  भाषायां तु क्वचिद्यङ्लुक् भवति न सर्वत्र (प्रदीपः) परे त्वाहुः -भाषायामस्य

यङ्लुगन्तस्य प्रयोगे दृढतरं न मानम् ...(उद्योतः) --- भूसुवोस्तिङि 7-3-88 .

Actually why should Patanjali go for a योगविभाग -- सह - सुपा ?

Patanjali wanted to achieve  the results of two वार्तिक-s by योगविभाग ( see शब्दकौस्तुभ under सह सुपा 2-1-4) --

उदात्तगतिमता च तिङा (वार्तिकम् -- नित्यं क्रीडाजीविकयोः 2-2-17 अधिकारः , कुगतिप्रादयः 2-2-18 )

भाष्यम् --  उदत्तवता गतिमता च तिङा अव्ययं समस्यते इति वक्तव्यम् । अनुव्यचलत् , अनुव्याकरोति , यत्परियन्ति ।

इवेन विभक्त्यलोपः पूर्वपदप्रकृतिस्वरत्वं च ( वार्तिकम् -- सह सुपा and also कुगतिप्रादयः )

भाष्यम् -- इवेन सह समासो .....-- वाससी इव कन्ये इव ।

Kaiyata  under सह सुपा does not say that this is छान्दस nor there is any word by मुनित्रयम्  to this effect .

(योगविभागात् तिङन्तेन सह सुपः समासो भवति । योगविभागश्चेष्टप्रसिद्ध्यर्थ इति सर्वत्र समासो न भवति - कैयटः )

Then how this छान्दस has  crept in ?

Under  कर्मणा यम् अभिप्रैति स संप्रदानम् , Haradatta picked up some commentator's remark -- ' ..... अभिप्रैति 

इत्यत्र  समासे सति प्रातिपदिकत्वात् विभक्त्युत्पत्तिः स्यात् ’ -- and said ' नेति वयम् । तस्य छन्दोविषयत्वात् ।....’

Dikhita  has taken this statement  (शब्दकौस्तुभः - सह सुपा ) and went on ---

युक्तं चैतत् , छान्दसत्वेनैव तत्र सुब्लुको वक्तव्यत्वात् (compare with भाष्यम् under 4-1-1 एकत्वादय उक्ताः (see below) .

 ...तस्मात् काव्यादौ  प्रभवतीत्यादिप्रयोगेषु उपसर्गः पृथक् पदमेव ।

इदं त्ववशिष्यते -- तिङ्समासे कृते परमपि ’ तिङ्ङतिङः (8-1-28) इति निघातं बाधित्वा सतिशिष्टत्वात् समासान्तोदात्तता

प्राप्नोति ।

यथोत्तरं मुनीनां प्रामण्यम् (शब्दकौस्तुभः) -  does not hold water as all the three sages employed 

सुप्+तिङ् / गति + तिङ्  समास ।

Scholars may note this point ---

The question as to whether there will be स्वादयः on the समास ending with a धातु  is answered by Patanjali

--

ङ्याप्प्रातिपदिकात् 4-1-1 --

एकत्वादिष्वर्थेषु स्वादयो विधीयन्ते । ते चात्र तिङा उक्ता इति कृत्वा , उक्तार्थत्वात् न भवन्ति 

                                                               

Then why should Haradatta and Dikshita  go for छान्दसत्त्व ? 

Under सह सुपा , Haradatta notes the above point (4-1-1 ) without quoting the सूत्रम् / भाष्यम् ।

Under उपपदमतिङ् 2-2-19 , Haradatta says --

गतीनां तावत् -- व्याजिघ्रति इति व्याघ्रः।

So , the question as to whether प्रातिपदिकात् सुप् ( कृत्तद्धितसमासाश्च ) would be applicable on समास-s 

like - अनुव्यचलत् , अभिप्रैति  etc is untenable .

च्विप्रत्ययान्त has got गतिसंज्ञा - ' ऊर्यादिच्विडाचश्च ’ and समास by कुगतिप्रादयः --

अङ्गीक्रियते - शुचीभवति - शुक्लीकरोति

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit

299 Doyen , Serilingampally, Hyderabad 500 019
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5ef70060.1c69fb81.a6a3f.f2f6%40mx.google.com.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Thanks to Prof.Korada. From the beginning, I was expecting Korada's reply. By itself reading the reply of our beloved Professor gives a joy of reading Mahabhashya.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELSfLDfA92ymtV4-KF%3DxOneJz7qNX2kwoHNz0RHgj5PD2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

Respected Prof. Korada Ji

On Sunday, 5 July 2020 21:53:29 UTC+5:30, korada wrote:

So if one says -- शुक्ली  भवति -- can  people get the  intended  sense --  'अशुक्लं  शुक्लं संपद्यमानं भवति ' ? or they will 

understand as - the lady called शुक्ली  is there ?

The question is not of speech, but of writing. The point being discussed is how to write this: as शुक्ली भवति or शुक्लीभवति. 

 

Similarly ,  समास between सुबन्त / निपात and तिङन्त is used by Panini --

1. भ्राजभासधुर्विद्युतोर्जिपॄजुग्रावस्तुवः क्विप् 3-2-177 

ग्रावस्तुत् 

 

2. नमिकम्पिस्म्यजसकमहिंसदीपो रः 3-2-167

अजस्रम्

3.जिदृक्षिगृहिपतिदयिनिद्रातन्द्राव्यथाभ्यमपरिभूप्रसूभ्यश्च 3-2-157

अव्यथी 

4. वचिप्रच्छ्यायतस्तुकटप्रुजुश्रीणां दीर्घश्च -- वार्तिकम् ( अन्येभ्यो’पि दृश्यते 3-2-178 क्विप् ) ---

शब्दप्राट् - आयतस्तूः - कटप्रूः

None of the six examples cited above is a compound between सुबन्त and तिङन्त. Let us look at them one by one.

1)  ग्रावस्तुत्: the उत्तरपद (स्तुत्) is a क्विबन्त (कृदन्त) and not a तिङन्त. क्विप् is a कृत् suffix, not a तिङ् suffix.

2) अजस्रम्: the उत्तरपद (जस्रम्) is a रान्त (कृदन्त) and not a तिङन्त. र is a कृत् suffix, not a तिङ् suffix.

3) अव्यथी: the उत्तरपद (व्यथी) is an इन्नन्त (कृदन्त) and not a तिङन्त. इनि is a a कृत् suffix, not a तिङ् suffix.

4) शब्दप्राट् - आयतस्तूः - कटप्रूः: in all of these, the उत्तरपद is a क्विबन्त (कृदन्त) and not a तिङन्त. क्विप् is a कृत् suffix, not a तिङ् suffix.

As none of the उत्तरपदs is तिङन्त, the above examples cannot be used to prove the existence of a compound between सुबन्त and तिङन्त in loka.

 

वेदे एव इति निर्णयः विवादास्पदः --

स निर्णयो भट्टोजिदिक्षितस्य, न मम

 

So , the question as to whether प्रातिपदिकात् सुप् ( कृत्तद्धितसमासाश्च ) would be applicable on समास-s 

like - अनुव्यचलत् , अभिप्रैति  etc is untenable .

The position of तत्त्वबोधिनी on सह सुपा is exactly opposite to the above (highlighting mine): छन्दस्येवेति। यदि लोकेऽपि स्यात्तर्हि यत्प्रकुरुते इत्यादौ स्वाद्युत्पत्तिः स्यात्। लिङ्गसर्वनामनपुंसकतामभ्युपेत्य “स्वमोर्नपुंसकात्” इति लुकि कृतेऽपि “ह्रस्वो नपुंसके [प्रातिपदिकस्य]” इति ह्रस्वः स्यादित्यादि दूषणं “कर्मणा यमभिप्रैतीऽति” सूत्रेऽस्माभिरुद्भावितम्।

Here the तत्त्वबोधिनी not only says that सुप् suffix will be ordained from a compound of a सुबन्त and तिङन्त in loka, but also discusses the implications of luk of the sup and hrasva in case a neuter gender is accepted. 

Thanks, Nityananda  

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sunday, 5 July 2020 23:26:22 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

None of the six examples cited above is a compound between सुबन्त and तिङन्त. Let us look at them one by one.

1)  ग्रावस्तुत्: the उत्तरपद (स्तुत्) is a क्विबन्त (कृदन्त) and not a तिङन्त. क्विप् is a कृत् suffix, not a तिङ् suffix.

2) अजस्रम्: the उत्तरपद (जस्रम्) is a रान्त (कृदन्त) and not a तिङन्त. र is a कृत् suffix, not a तिङ् suffix.

3) अव्यथी: the उत्तरपद (व्यथी) is an इन्नन्त (कृदन्त) and not a तिङन्त. इनि is a a कृत् suffix, not a तिङ् suffix.

4) शब्दप्राट् - आयतस्तूः - कटप्रूः: in all of these, the उत्तरपद is a क्विबन्त (कृदन्त) and not a तिङन्त. क्विप् is a कृत् suffix, not a तिङ् suffix.

As none of the उत्तरपदs is तिङन्त, the above examples cannot be used to prove the existence of a compound between सुबन्त and तिङन्त in loka.

I went through another useful reference: the वैयाकरणभूषणसारः of कौण्डभट्ट. In the समासशक्तिनिर्णयः, कौण्डभट्ट cites the examples ‘कटप्रूः’, ‘आयतस्तूः’ under the category सुपां धातुना and says that the उत्तरपदम् here is धातुमात्रम् and not तिङन्तम्. The उत्तरपदम् is also not कृदन्तम्, as I erroneously stated in my previous post. 

Quote

“सुपां धातुना। उत्तरपदं धातुमात्रम्, न तिङन्तम्। ‘कटप्रूः’, ‘आयतस्तूः’। “क्विब्वचिप्रच्छयायतस्तुकटप्रुजुश्रीणां दीर्घश्च” इति वार्त्तिकात्। 

Unquote

In the same context, the वैयाकरणभूषणसारः says 

Quote

सुपां तिङा, पूर्वपदं सुबन्तमुत्तरपदं तिङन्तम्। ‘पर्य्यभूषयत्’, ‘अनुव्यचलत्’। “गतिमतोदात्तवता तिङाऽपि समासः” इति वार्त्तिकात् समासः।

Unquote

This context in वैयाकरणभूषणसारः and commentaries on it may throw more light on the accent rules involved and whether or not this सुपां तिङा compound is limited to Vedas as per कौण्डभट्ट. 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 26 June 2020 19:35:19 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

I think it boils down to examples. paryabhūṣat is from a Vedic text

devo devān kratunā paryabhūṣat # RV.2.12.1b;

Other example can be traces. Are there any examples from Laukika texts with sup-tiṅ samāsa?

I was able to trace the source of अनुव्यचलत् also. The compounded usage अनुव्यचलत् occurs in the 14th ‘sūkta’ of the 15th ‘kāṇḍa’ of the Atharvaveda-saṃhitā. In each of the twelve mantras of this ‘sūkta’, we see the uncompounded usage “अनु व्यचलत्” and also the compounded usage “अनुव्यचलत्” as is evident form the ‘svara’ and ‘padapāṭha’ differences (attached image). It appears this “अनुव्यचलत्” example is also limited to chandas, to account for the different ‘svara’ from the uncompounded case.

 

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

Namaste

 

1.     The discussion on the  < a compound between सुबन्त and तिङन्त   > is getting more interesting.

 

2.     I am picking the observation from Prof. Koradas post below and constructing a  conversation context.

      < So if one says -- शुक्ली  भवति -- can  people get the  intended  sense --  'अशुक्लं  शुक्लं संपद्यमानं भवति ' ? or they will  understand as - the lady called शुक्ली  is there ?>

 

3.  The   constructed local context is placed below:

 

     आपणे  संस्कृतम् :      लेपनस्यास्य  नियतं   उपयोगेन शुक्लीभवति  त्वक् ।  कृष्णा   अकृष्णा भवति   । त्वचः   अकृष्णीकरणार्थं /   अकृष्णीभवितुं  अस्माकं लेपनं  क्रीणातु भवान् / भवती

 

      Sanskrit-Shop: (Sales Talk- Intention ) :   By   regular  use of this cream-paste,   skin ( which was not  that white before)   becomes white ( after use).

                                                                         Dark  complexioned (lady) become  fair and  white complexioned. 

                                                                         Madam , To   loose your darker (skin tone)  and become fair and white , please buy our product cream-paste.

 

4.  The question  :  Is the Samskruth expression truly, totally bringing out the ' intention'  presented in the  worldly conversation ?  If Yes, what rule ? If not, what should be the construction?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELSfLDfA92ymtV4-KF%3DxOneJz7qNX2kwoHNz0RHgj5PD2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[उ॒ज्ज्व॒लः]

अ॒नु॒व्य॑चलत्। प॒र्यभू॑षत्।

इती॒मौ प्रति॒ यद् अ॒हं मन्ये॒ तद् आ॒विष्क॑रोमि।

प॒र्यभू॑ष॒द् इत्य॒यमत्र॑ पठ्यते -

यो जा॒त ए॒व प्र॑थ॒मो मन॑स्वान् दे॒वो दे॒वान् क्रतु॑ना प॒र्यभू॑षत्।

यस्य॒ शुष्मा॒द् रोद॑सी॒ अभ्य॑सेतां नृ॒म्णस्य॑ म॒ह्ना स ज॑नास॒ इन्द्रः॑॥ (ऋ॰ २.१२.१)

अ॒नु॒व्य॑चल॒द् इति॑ दर्शि॒तम् ए॒वात्र॒ भव॑ता नित्यानन्दमिश्रमहोद॒येन॑।

स यत् प्राचीं॒ दिश॒म् अनु॒ व्यच॑ल॒न्मारु॑तं॒ शर्धो॑ भू॒त्वानु॒व्य॑चल॒न् मनो॑न्ना॒दं कृ॒त्वा। इति॑। (अथर्व॰)

तिङ्ङतिङः (पा॰) इत्य॒नेनानु॑दात्तः अचल॒द् इति॑।

यद्वृत्तान्नित्यम् इति॒ न तथा॒ अभू॑ष॒द् इति॑। (यो जा॒तः इत्यत्र॒ हि “यद्” वर्त॑ते।)

(यथा॑ च॒ “व्यच॑ल॒द्” इत्यत्रापि॑, स यत् प्राची॒म् इत्यत्र॒ हि “यद्” वर्त॑ते।)

अनु॑। परि॑। अत्रो॒भौ क॑र्मप्रवचनीयभू॒तौ ( अनुर्लक्षणे, अधिपरीअनर्थकौ )। न गती॑।

गतिर्गतौ,  तिङिचोदात्तवति इति॒ गते॑रनुदात्त॒त्वं विहि॑तम्।

क॒थम् अग॑ते॒रत्र॑? क॒थम् अनोः॑? क॒थम् परेः॑?

इति॑ मीमां॒सया॑ समा॒सो३॒॑नयो॒र्विहि॑तः। तेना॑नुदात्त॒त्वम॒नयोः॑।

तदु॒क्तं म॑हाभाष्यका॒रेण॑ -

( कुगतिप्रादयः > उदात्तगतिमता च तिङा )

उ॒दात्त॑वता॒ तिङा॒ गति॑मता च॒ तिङा॑व्य॒यं सम॑स्यत॒ इति॑ वक्त॒व्य॑म्।

[Ramanujachar P]

महोदय,

अनुव्यचलत् इत्यत्र अकारेणोदात्तेनैव भाव्यम् ।

समस्तस्यापि अनुदात्तं पदमेकवर्जम् इति नियमः अन्वेत्येव ।

रामानुजः

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/16d2f076-39b2-484a-a877-3ec6ee1fe204n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Dr. P. Ramanujan
Parankushachar Institute of Vedic Studies (Regd.)

Bengaluru

9449088616

[उ॒ज्ज्व॒लः]

आचा॑र्य॒ नम॑स्ते।

 

अनुव्यचलत् इत्यत्र अकारेणोदात्तेनैव भाव्यम् ।

समस्तस्यापि अनुदात्तं पदमेकवर्जम् इति नियमः अन्वेत्येव ।

विरु॒दात्तोत्र॑ न॒नु? येन॒ संहि॑तः “अ॒च॒ल॒द्” इत्य॒स्याका॒रः स्व॑रि॒तो॑भवत्।

प॒द॒पा॒ठेपि॒ तथा॑ दृश्यते॒ यो नि॑त्यानन्दमहोद॒यैर्द॒त्तः।

अ॒न्यान्यपि॑ सन्ति॒ यानि॒ संहि॑ताया॒म् अपि॒ लक्ष्या॑णि -

तं बृ॒हच्च॑ रथन्त॒रं चा॑दि॒त्याश्च॒ विश्वे॑ च दे॒वा अ॑नु॒व्य॑चलन्।

तं य॑ज्ञाय॒ज्ञियं॑ च वामदे॒व्यं च॑ य॒ज्ञश्च॒ यज॑मानश्च प॒शव॑श्चानु॒व्य॑चलन्।

तं वै॑रू॒पं च॑ वैरा॒जं चाप॑श्च॒ वरु॑णश्च॒ राजा॑नु॒व्य॑चलन्।

(अथर्व॰ १५.२, विश्वा॑नी॒मानि॑)

[Ramanujachar P]

भवतु । समीचीनम् ।

मया याजुषानुसारं अनोः कर्मप्रवचनीयत्वं स्याद्वेति तर्कितम् ।

पदपाठे तथैव दृश्यते खलु ।

रामानुजः

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/b1701acf-2067-494c-9559-3d35fa2c3152n%40googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

वैयाकरणभूषणसारे शाङ्करी टीकाऽपि द्रष्टव्या—

सुपां तिङेति। एतद्विवरणं पूर्वपदं सुबन्तमित्यादि। तथा च सुबन्ततिङन्तात्मकपूर्वोत्तरपदघटितत्वमवान्तरधर्मः। एवां रीत्याऽग्रेप्यवान्तरधर्मः स्वयमूह्यः। उदाहरणं पर्यभूषत्, अनुव्यचलदिति। गतिमतोदात्तवतेति। उपलक्षणमिदं, सहेति योगविभागस्यापि। देवो देवान् ऋतुना पर्यभूषदिति ऋक्संहितायाम्। अन्वित्यस्य व्यचलदित्यनेन, वीत्यस्य चाचलदित्यनेन युगपत्समासः। उभयत्रापि सहेति योगविभागेन समासे सति ‘न समासे’ (वा ६.१.१२७) इति शाकलनिषेधाद्यणादेशः समासोदात्तत्वं च सिध्यति। अन्ये तु तत्र सुबित्येकत्वस्य विवक्षितत्वाद्वेः पूर्वं समासः पश्चादनोः। तत्र शाकलप्रतिषेधाद्यणादेशेऽप्यन्तोदात्तत्वं न भवति, ‘तिङ्ङतिङः’ (८.१.२८) इति निघातात्। अनोर्गतिर्गताविति (८.१.७०) निघातः। वेर्यणादेश उदात्तस्वरितयोः (८.२.४) इत्यटः स्वरितत्वमित्याहुः। 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Monday, 6 July 2020 01:29:34 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

I went through another useful reference: the वैयाकरणभूषणसारः of कौण्डभट्ट. In the समासशक्तिनिर्णयः, कौण्डभट्ट cites the examples ‘कटप्रूः’, ‘आयतस्तूः’ under the category सुपां धातुना and says that the उत्तरपदम् here is धातुमात्रम् and not तिङन्तम्. The उत्तरपदम् is also not कृदन्तम्, as I erroneously stated in my previous post. 

Quote

“सुपां धातुना। उत्तरपदं धातुमात्रम्, न तिङन्तम्। ‘कटप्रूः’, ‘आयतस्तूः’। “क्विब्वचिप्रच्छयायतस्तुकटप्रुजुश्रीणां दीर्घश्च” इति वार्त्तिकात्। 

Unquote

वैयाकरणभूषणम्, समासशक्तिनिर्णयः—

सुपां धातुना। उत्तरपदं धातुमात्रं न सुप्तिङन्तम्। यथा कटप्रूः। आयतस्तूः।