Root, stem and prakRti
Hans Nilsson
Hi all,
I am trying to understand the relation between the grammar concepts of root, stem and pada. First, here is the explanation from Thomas Egenes book:
gam: root (dhAtu)
gaccha: verbal stem (aGga), formed according to verb class
gacchati: tinanta pada formed by adding conjugation inflection (tin)
Similarly, for nouns:
Root (dhAtu)
Nominal Stem, prAtipadika, formed by adding pratyaya, specifically a kRt primary derivative ending to the root (or another nominal stem)
Subanta pada formed by adding declension inflection (sup) to the stem
Correct so far? But what is then prakRti? In some books I have looked, it is equivalent to root, in others to stem. In Rama Nath Sharmas Intorduction to AD as a Grammatical Device, it is used (p. 165) as a general name for “dhAtu (verb root) and prAtipadika (nominal stem)”
Can someone please enlighten me and provide a structure for these concepts?
Hans Nilsson
Sweden
Vimala Sarma
Hans – I think a good grammar like one by Arthur MacDonell should help you.
The root first has to change into the present stem and then the verbal endings are added.
Changing root into stem has number of rules, including internal sandhi depending on the class of the root.
There are ten classes, which fall into two broad groups – thematic 1, 4 6 and 10 classes, and athematics – the rest.
For athematics there is the further complication of having strong and weak forms of the root - strong forms are used for singular endings except for optatives and for imperative where strong form is for 1st person in all numbers and 3rd singular, and for class 3 there is a reduplication of root again according to rules.
For present, imperfect past , optatives and imperative the present stem is used and the correct endings for number person is attached – again with rules.
Again there are two broad classes of endings – atmanepada and parasmaipada which have different standard endings, and roots can fall into either or both.
For other tenses – the endings are attached to the root or the modified root with rules.
It is not a good idea to start with root gam because this is irregular.
In the case of bhU – this is class 1 and this is usually parasmaipada.
bhU + a+ ti which is 3rd person singular ending in present indicative tense.
Internal sandhi makes the stem bhava; hence bhavati.
Vimala
From: sams...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hans Nilsson
Sent: Wednesday, 30 June 2010 5:54 AM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: SV: [Samskrita] Root, stem and prakRti
While waiting for a clarifying reply, I have to add the following remark:
In many places, it is said that
tinanti pada = root (dhatu) + inflextion (tin).
But should it not be:
tinanta pada = stem (aGga) + inflextion (tin) ?
e.g. bhavati = bhava + ti (and not bhu+ti)
Or does the term dhatu of Panini cover both what we call root and stem? Is aGga a term defined later, to distinguish between root and stem?
Hans
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
Naresh Cuntoor
I am writing mainly to motivate more knowledgeable list members to reply.
My (admittedly, shaky) understanding is as follows:
अङ्ग is defined in 1.4.13 as:
यस्मात् प्रत्ययविधिः तदादि प्रत्यये अङ्गम् ।
For something to qualify as अङ्ग it is not sufficient to be a simply a
base like a प्रातिपदिक or धातु. We need a few things in addition: the
presence of a pratyaya operation, and that form which begins. The
latter means, for example, that upsarga + dhaatu together would form
the अङ्ग when pratyaya is applied.
Sketching the textbook example bhU,
Using,
तिङ् शित् सार्वधातुकम्
and
कर्तरि शप् ( ... सार्वधातुके परे)
we form भू + अ + ति [शप् = अ in essence]
The अ is also termed the vikaraNa pratyaya
From previous definitions, भू qualifies as an अङ्ग with respect to अ
+ ति and gets a गुण (because सार्वधातुक follows.)
गुण of उ is ओ,
so भो + अ + ति = भव + ति (एचोऽयवायावः explains the अवादेश)
I think भव is still an अङ्ग with respect to ति
Then, no more scope for sandhi and we get the final form.
The point is that अङ्ग is defined with respect to a pratyaya, whereas
dhaatu stands by itself.
Btw, अङ्ग applies both dhaatus and praatipadikas.
Regarding writing
तिङन्त = धातु + तिङ्
may be ok as a first-order approximation.
Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Hans Nilsson <ha...@hansnilsson.se> wrote:
> While waiting for a clarifying reply, I have to add the following remark:
>
>
>
> In many places, it is said that
>
> tinanti pada = root (dhatu) + inflextion (tin).
>
> But should it not be:
>
> tinanta pada = stem (aGga) + inflextion (tin) ?
>
>
>
> e.g. bhavati = bhava + ti (and not bhu+ti)
>
>
>
> Or does the term dhatu of Panini cover both what we call root and stem? Is
> aGga a term defined later, to distinguish between root and stem?
>
>
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
>
> Från: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] För
> Hans Nilsson
> Skickat: den 29 juni 2010 08:39
> Till: sams...@googlegroups.com
> Ämne: [Samskrita] Root, stem and prakRti
>
>
>
Naresh Cuntoor
On second thoughts, this is probably not correct because there is no
scope for further pratyaya operations. The final form bhavati is set.
However, in the case of भवामि, भवावः, भवामः, भव would be an अङ्ग with
respect to मिप् वस् मस् respectively because these pratyayaas bring
the following rule into play: अतो दीर्घो यञि
Naresh
Hans Nilsson
Thank you for the very enlightening reply. I have now found and read 1.4.13 and it's commentaries. So my understanding is now that:
aGga: the base which is left after stripping off a pratyaya suffix (be it tin, sup or other) from a final pada or intermediate construct.
How does this then differ from prakRti?
My understanding is here (pls correct if wrong) that this is the ORIGINAL base to which pratyaya is applied. It may in some cases be the same as the resulting aGga but may also be different, if for example the aGga is a gunated form of a root, or an upasarga has been added to the root.
To use a somewhat halting mathematical metaphor:
prakRti is the operand of an addition, but aGga is the result of a subtraction...
Hans
S. L. Abhyankar
English writers of Sanskrit grammar seem to have very intelligently applied the words - root and stem, possibly employing the simile of how a tree grows ! First the root, then the stem, then the branches, leaves, etc.
This possibly becomes good help to understand how word-formation proceeds धातुः (मूलम्) --> मूलरूपं (स्तम्भः) --> प्रत्ययः --> पदम् (पत्राणि इत्यादयः)
Since उपसर्गाः can be many, every उपसर्गः can be considered as causing branching (शाखाः) from the main stem (स्तम्भः) The word प्रकृतिः is more a branch. If प्रकृतिः is a noun derived from धातुः "कृ", even without the उपसर्गः "प्र", there are number of nouns that come to mind - कार्यम्, कर्तव्यम्, करणीयम्, कृत्यम्, कर्म, कर्ता, करणं (उपकरणं) I think it will be quite some digression to dwell on the derivation of all these.
Sanskrit word अङ्गं is more for the naked body and प्रत्ययः is like the dress. Then पदम् is the dressed up personality.
In Subtractive approach if we take the dress the प्रत्ययः off, what we get to see is the body, the अङ्गं. This is still not the embryo मूलम् (धातुः)
सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।
Piergiorgio Muzi
----- Original Message -----From: Hans NilssonSent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 9:54 PMSubject: SV: [Samskrita] Root, stem and prakRti
While waiting for a clarifying reply, I have to add the following remark:
In many places, it is said that
tinanti pada = root (dhatu) + inflextion (tin).
But should it not be:
tinanta pada = stem (aGga) + inflextion (tin) ?
e.g. bhavati = bhava + ti (and not bhu+ti)
Or does the term dhatu of Panini cover both what we call root and stem? Is aGga a term defined later, to distinguish between root and stem?
Hans
Från: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] För Hans Nilsson
Skickat: den 29 juni 2010 08:39
Till: sams...@googlegroups.com
Ämne: [Samskrita] Root, stem and prakRti
Hi all,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
Hans Nilsson
Dear Piorgiorgio,
Hans
Naresh Cuntoor
I don't have Ram Nath Sharma's book to see how the term prakRti is
used there. But, generally, grammar texts use the term to mean the
upaadaana-kaaraNam - material cause which undergoes transformations to
yield the final result (i.e., the pada desired).
A commonly quoted analogy is in order कुण्डलाय हिरण्यम् -- हिरण्यं
प्रकृतिः, कुण्डलं विकृतिः
Note that such a relationship does not exist in उदकाय कूपः or वाहनाय
इन्धनम्, where water (resp. fuel) do not undergo material
transformation to yield a well (resp. vehicle).
In the case of ti~g / sub-antas, this means that dhaatu and
praatipadikas both are considered prakRti, because they undergo
'material' change.
For example, गम् -> गच्छ, (see, इषु ... छः ).
In the context of these derivations, I think that प्रकृति has a less
formal definition compared to अङ्ग. I am sure reading the commentaries
has given you a better appreciation of the nuances associated with the
latter. Such a parsing is not there for prakRti, rather it is used as
a generally understood term to better explain the role of dhaatu,
praatipadika, pratyaya, etc. Just that you start with some substratum
which undergoes modifications to yield the final result. This notion
is captured by prakRti-vikRti, hence their usage, I suspect.
As far as the suggestion on McDonnell's book, IMO, Hans gets it right.
We have gone over this in a previous thread where it was pointed out
that even circa-19th century European grammarians advise serious
students to go back to Panini sutras. At any rate, intermediate /
advanced students in India continue to use his sutras (through
Kashika, Kaumudi, college notes-supplemented Kaumudi etc.). So it is
certainly not "impossible" as P. Muzi puts it.
Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com
धनंजय वैद्य <deejayvaidya@yahoo.com>
though.
I suppose "prakRti" (a word not mentioned by pANini) could be dhAtu
(verb-roots, which are lexemes listed in the dhAtupATha, or a few
others formed through grammatical transformations "sanAdyantA
dhAtavaH") or prAtipadika (which are mostly obtained by grammatical
transformation=clear etymology). However, note that these derived
roots contain a pratyaya too!
nadI (river)
comes from nada + I (feminine pratyaya) -> nadI
here is nada is aGga with respect to the I pratyaya
however to form the nominative dual case nadI, you have
nadI + au -> nadyau
Here nadI is the aGga with respect to the au pratyaya.
Thus "aGga" is not subtractive but contextual.
As also explained in the example by Naresh, in
bhU+a+ti
bhU is tha aGga in the context of -a-
but bhU-a is the aGga in the context of the ti
Dhananjay
On Jun 30, 1:08 am, Hans Nilsson <h...@hansnilsson.se> wrote:
> Dear Naresh,
>
> Thank you for the very enlightening reply. I have now found and read 1.4.13 and it's commentaries. So my understanding is now that:
> aGga: the base which is left after stripping off a pratyaya suffix (be it tin, sup or other) from a final pada or intermediate construct.
>
> How does this then differ from prakRti?
>
> My understanding is here (pls correct if wrong) that this is the ORIGINAL base to which pratyaya is applied. It may in some cases be the same as the resulting aGga but may also be different, if for example the aGga is a gunated form of a root, or an upasarga has been added to the root.
>
> To use a somewhat halting mathematical metaphor:
> prakRti is the operand of an addition, but aGga is the result of a subtraction...
>
> Hans
>
Piergiorgio Muzi
Sanskrit by means of
Panini's grammar. I said it is "almost impossible", that is, very difficult;
besides, it can create more barriers to students than the direct approach to
the language being lead by general and serious knowledge of cross-linguistic
grammar. What's its use in teaching/learning Sanskrit? I'm reading these
conversation about the meaning of this or that rule or Sanskrit technical
term. This seems to mean that, to understand we have to translate them into
the same language (at present preferably English...unluckily for me!) we use
for every language grammatical terms, like subject, object, clause,
predicate, prefix, suffix, transitive, passive, genitive, instrumental....
Only this way we can recognize in Sanskrit the same universal structure all
the languages have got, from the primitive to the developed ones, like
Sanskrit itself.
I allow myself to notice:
1. The XIX century's grammarians, who gave all there life to study Sanskrit
inhered non only important notions from Indian vaiyâkarana-s, but also
learned the analytical and logical methods to found and carry out
linguistic research.
The modern linguistics, both comparative and synchronic, is due to their
effort, which started with Panini, etc. and only continued with Max Mûller,
etc.
and arrives to De Saussure, N.Chomsky and all the modern linguistics great
scholars.
This is the reason why you who are a serious scholar of Sanskrit possess the
dictionary of Monier-Williams or MacDonell and need them.
If Panini had to be born again and have a chair in an Eastern or Western
University, he wouldn't repeat what he said in IV century b.C., but he would
prove the same scientific accuracy and rigor in his modern theories and
discoveries. But we don't need revelation and dogmatism.
2. You know that a lot of things about Greek and Latin grammar have been
cleared and deepened thanks to the study of Sanskrit, in spite of the stupid
refusal by some Eurocentric people, like James Mill, etc. Luckily important
linguistic analysis have been embodied in general grammatical theories, e.g.
the
compound, the attention to correct phonological systems and mechanisms,
the generative structure of morphology, etc.
The present general grammar of every school is a fruit both of the Indian
origin and of the encounter with
a developing Western culture, people who loved and love the greatness of
Indian culture and its deep involvement in researching of universal truth.
3. It is for this reason that you can't find a sufficient explanation of
syntax in Panini, but the most important and precious book about syntactical
rules is that of Speijer, where you can find the spirit of Panini and
several quotations from Astadhyaya, together with crosslinguistic account
comparing Latin and Old-Greek with Sanskrit. The same you could see on
Apte's composition book and in many other works.
4. I can give an example of incompleteness of Panini's grammar, due to the
fact that Panini couldn't get the tools to enrich his theory up to a
universal level. I could give tens
of other examples, but consider only: gata/gantum, hata/hantum, mata/mantum,
bhavatas/bhavantas, etc. Why this alternation between a and an? Only by
comparison, which shows general laws of apophony, together with discovery of
the development of vocalic nasals in I.E languages, could you get a clear
reason of these facts and their rule. (See Szemerényi, Introduction to
Indo-European linguistics).
5. Of course I envy your knowledge of Panini's grammar, since it is
important
about the history of Indian linguistic science and mainly about spiritual
attitude of reasoning and researching true laws of the human language, which
now a lot of thinkers do believe to be one of the most important path to
catch essentials features of the cognitive processes and also, just like
Bhartrhari
saw, the ontology of human mind and its place in nature, as well as its
transcendence and freedom.
6. I'm planning to come to India (it would be the eleventh time!) to
concentrate on the study of Panini and, above all, to be assisted in my
reading and translating Upadeçasâhasrî of Çankaracârya (a great philosopher
and theologian, not a numerologist...).
सस्नेहं धन्यवादः
Piergiorgio Muzi
Naresh
vaak.wordpress.com
--
Naresh Cuntoor
Sorry, mahodaya Abhyankar, I haven't said that it is "impossible" to learn Sanskrit by means of
Panini's grammar. I said it is "almost impossible", that is, very difficult;
Just to clarify, it was my reaction, not Abhyankar ji's. Difficult, or not, the point was that students continue to learn "even today".
present preferably English...unluckily for me!) we use for every language grammatical terms, like subject, object, clause, predicate, prefix, suffix, transitive, passive, genitive, instrumental.... Only this way we can recognize in Sanskrit the same universal structure all the languages have got, from the primitive to the developed ones, like Sanskrit itself.
That assumes that there is a universal grammar to begin with! I refer you to this article:
Evans N, Levinson SC, "The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science", Behav. Brain Science, Oct. 2009.
This work along with others have dealt a severe blow to the theory of universals.
Moreover, in your example of subject, object, etc., the important notion of anabhihite is lost if you try to map kartA to subject, etc.
In English, we may define the nominative as subject - this is certainly not the case in the Paninian sense. (I will add that Kaatyaayana gives an alternate formulation with his abhihite prathamaa, etc., which is unnecessary in Panini's view of things.)
The modern linguistics, both comparative and synchronic, is due to their
effort, which started with Panini, etc. and only continued with Max Mûller, etc.
and arrives to De Saussure, N.Chomsky and all the modern linguistics great scholars.
This is the reason why you who are a serious scholar of Sanskrit possess the
dictionary of Monier-Williams or MacDonell and need them.
The sad thing is that the drive to conform to English-based teaching has meant a loss of several pedagogical methods. For example, the practice of learning Amarakosha / dhAtupATha, which was fairly common a few decades ago, has diminished drastically.
If Panini had to be born again and have a chair in an Eastern or Western
University, he wouldn't repeat what he said in IV century b.C., but he would
prove the same scientific accuracy and rigor in his modern theories and
discoveries. But we don't need revelation and dogmatism.
Who said anything about dogmatism? Similarly, what makes you think there is any less rigor in Panini's or the later grammarians' arguments?
In fact, raising questions is an important part of traditional learning, which requires critical thinking.
3. It is for this reason that you can't find a sufficient explanation of
syntax in Panini, but the most important and precious book about syntactical
rules is that of Speijer, where you can find the spirit of Panini and
several quotations from Astadhyaya, together with crosslinguistic account
comparing Latin and Old-Greek with Sanskrit. The same you could see on
Apte's composition book and in many other works.
Clearly, no one is claiming that Panini gave a universal structure or even that he covered all usages in Samskritam! (see, vaartikas, Kaatyaayana).
Panini uses the notion of saamarthya to capture syntax. Of course, Kaatyaayana thinks that Panini did not do complete justice to that topic. So he added his thoughts, as did many others.
In fact, there is a variety of opinions when it comes to syntax in Samskritam! I am not saying this to take away the contributions of Speijer - rather, to claim that these topics are not addressed at length previously is a bit of stretch. Of course, one should read several books - that is good. But one should not assume that these are a substitute for the main texts.
4. I can give an example of incompleteness of Panini's grammar, due to the
fact that Panini couldn't get the tools to enrich his theory up to a universal level. I could give tens
of other examples, but consider only: gata/gantum, hata/hantum, mata/mantum,
bhavatas/bhavantas, etc. Why this alternation between a and an? Only by
comparison, which shows general laws of apophony, together with discovery of
the development of vocalic nasals in I.E languages, could you get a clear
reason of these facts and their rule. (See Szemerényi, Introduction to
Indo-European linguistics).
But the distinction between gam becoming gantum, whereas bhU becoming bhavitum is well-explained through iT, aniT, etc.
Again, before asserting incompleteness, may I suggest that you study what is there in the first place!
Naresh
vishvAs vAsuki
6. I'm planning to come to India (it would be the eleventh time!) to
concentrate on the study of Panini and, above all, to be assisted in my
reading and translating Upadeçasâhasrî of Çankaracârya (a great philosopher
and theologian, not a numerologist...).
Hans Nilsson
Thanks to your replies, I now understand that prakRti and aGna are more or less equivalent. aGna is defined by Panini as the input operand to a pratyaya.
prakRti is not used by Panini but according to Louis Renou, it is defined in Sarasvatikanthabharana by Bhojedava as
tad ubhayaM vikaraNavIbhakti ca pratyaye prakRtiH.
The difference between the two terms is that aGna is only defined in relation to a pratyaya, whereas prakRti can "stand by itself".
Hans
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] För ????? ????? <deejay...@yahoo.com>
Skickat: den 1 juli 2010 14:50
Till: samskrita
Ämne: [Samskrita] Re: Root, stem and prakRti
Looks mostly right. I would not use the metaphor of subtraction
though.
I suppose "prakRti" (a word not mentioned by pANini) could be dhAtu
(verb-roots, which are lexemes listed in the dhAtupATha, or a few
others formed through grammatical transformations "sanAdyantA
dhAtavaH") or prAtipadika (which are mostly obtained by grammatical
transformation=clear etymology). However, note that these derived
roots contain a pratyaya too!
nadI (river)
comes from nada + I (feminine pratyaya) -> nadI
here is nada is aGga with respect to the I pratyaya
however to form the nominative dual case nadI, you have
nadI + au -> nadyau
Here nadI is the aGga with respect to the au pratyaya.
Thus "aGga" is not subtractive but contextual.
As also explained in the example by Naresh, in
bhU+a+ti
bhU is tha aGga in the context of -a-
but bhU-a is the aGga in the context of the ti
Dhananjay
On Jun 30, 1:08am, Hans Nilsson <h...@hansnilsson.se> wrote:
> Dear Naresh,
>
> Thank you for the very enlightening reply. I have now found and read 1.4.13 and it's commentaries. So my understanding is now that:
> aGga: the base which is left after stripping off a pratyaya suffix (be it tin, sup or other) from a final pada or intermediate construct.
>
> How does this then differ from prakRti?
>
> My understanding is here (pls correct if wrong) that this is the ORIGINAL base to which pratyaya is applied. It may in some cases be the same as the resulting aGga but may also be different, if for example the aGga is a gunated form of a root, or an upasarga has been added to the root.
>
> To use a somewhat halting mathematical metaphor:
> prakRti is the operand of an addition, but aGga is the result of a subtraction...
>
> Hans
>
> 30 jun 2010 kl. 04:20 skrev Naresh Cuntoor <nares...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hans,
>
> > I am writing mainly to motivate more knowledgeable list members to reply.
> > My (admittedly, shaky) understanding is as follows:
>
> > ???? is defined in 1.4.13 as:
> > ??????? ???????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?
>
> > For something to qualify as ???? it is not sufficient to be a simply a
> > base like a ?????????? or ????. We need a few things in addition: the
> > presence of a pratyaya operation, and that form which begins. The
> > latter means, for example, that upsarga + dhaatu together would form
> > the ???? when pratyaya is applied.
>
> > Sketching the textbook example bhU,
> > Using,
> > ???? ???? ????????????
> > and
> > ?????? ??? ( ... ??????????? ???)
>
> > we form ?? + ? + ?? [??? = ? in essence]
> > The ? is also termed the vikaraNa pratyaya
>
> > From previous definitions, ?? qualifies as an ???? with respect to ?
> > + ?? and gets a ??? (because ?????????? follows.)
> > ??? of ? is ?,
> > so ?? + ? + ?? = ?? + ?? (??????????? explains the ??????)
> > I think ?? is still an ???? with respect to ??
> > Then, no more scope for sandhi and we get the final form.
>
> > The point is that ???? is defined with respect to a pratyaya, whereas
> > dhaatu stands by itself.
>
> > Btw, ???? applies both dhaatus and praatipadikas.
>
> > Regarding writing
> > ?????? = ???? + ????
> > may be ok as a first-order approximation.
>
> > Naresh
> > vaak.wordpress.com
>
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Hans Nilsson <h...@hansnilsson.se> wrote:
> >> While waiting for a clarifying reply, I have to add the following remark:
>
> >> In many places, it is said that
>
> >> tinanti pada = root (dhatu) + inflextion (tin).
>
> >> But should it not be:
>
> >> tinanta pada = stem (aGga) + inflextion (tin) ?
>
> >> e.g. bhavati = bhava + ti (and not bhu+ti)
>
> >> Or does the term dhatu of Panini cover both what we call root and stem? Is
> >> aGga a term defined later, to distinguish between root and stem?
>
> >> Hans
>
> >> Frn: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] Fr
> >> Hans Nilsson
> >> Skickat: den 29 juni 2010 08:39
> >> Till: sams...@googlegroups.com
Piergiorgio Muzi
----- Original Message -----From: Naresh CuntoorSent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:42 AMSubject: Re: [Samskrita] Root, stem and prakRti
Ramakrishna Upadrasta
These replies seem to elude the fact that Siddanta Kaumudi and Laghu
Siddanta Kaumidi were exactly steps in this direction: make pANini
more accessible by reorganizing the rules and give a condensed set of
rules respectively. In this context, it is not clear why the books of
Indologists should be given more precedence to the work of Indian
grammarians?
praNAmaH
Ramakrishna
2010/7/9 vsarma <vsa...@bigpond.com>:
> -
> Naresh Mahodya
> I understand where you are coming from but I would like to givefurther support to Piergiorgio's position. No one is suggesting that Pannini is incomplete - it is the very best and concise grammar ever written. But is was written at a certain period for a particular purpose. It is one way of learning Sanskrit but it is hard way and takes many years to master the rules as written in sutras.
>
> In this age there are other equally good or better ways of learning which are easier. The Indologists have written extremely good grammars, and linguists and philologists have compared the classical languages - Greek, Latin German with Sanskrit so they are coming from a much broader perspective because they can see common patterns in morphology and phonology and in grammar.
>
> The method of learning is not by rote or remembering but by understanding certain principles and being able to recognise forms through knowing where to look things up.
>
> This method gives a good understanding and is a equally valid way of learning. It is not a matter a reading Pannini first. If one does this without having some knowledge it will not be possible to understand it let alone learn from it.
>
> Vimala
Sai Susarla
is "easier", or are we discussing which way of exposition of grammar is
more logical/rational? I assume the former.
In that case, "easy" is obviously inherently subjective, and hence
relative to the way of thinking/learning that people of certain epoch
are accustomed to.
The learning methodology that people of Panini's/Varadarajaachaarya's
times must have been accustomed to and their intellectual capacity might
be very different from those of people of modern times. So it's natural
for many moderns to find the traditional style of exposition difficult
to follow. That's ok, and grammatical expositions (called bhaaShyas or
commentaries) suited to such minds are bound to sprout from time to time.
Having said that, one cannot judge the relative technical merit of those
exposition styles from only one breed of learners' view point.
The ability to keep lots of rules in one's memory and apply them in a
moment's notice to any complex reasoning (called 'avadhaana' or
'dhaaraNa') is a skill that comes naturally to traditionally taught
Indian pupils at a very tender age. Memorization is not as big a deal
for them as for many modern students because systematic development of
intellectual capacity is a mainstream practice for them unlike modern
education where it's a mere side-effect. And a treatise written assuming
such a sharp memory and intellectual acumen would obviously be difficult
for those not trained that way. That is not a problem with the treatise,
but with the readers, and that's why newer treatises will and should
arise periodically to cater to the changing times.
Even now, I know scholars in India who find the Ashtadhyaayi approach of
Samskrit grammar exposition to be much more systematic and intuitive
than even Siddhanta kaumudi, not even to speak of modern grammar books.
They find modern grammar theories to be a haphazard amalgam compared to
the muni-trayam's approach to grammar. And they have their reasons to
substantiate that.
If we're arguing about which method is easier, I feel that'll be a rat
hole because of its inherent subjectivity.
- Sai.
Naresh Cuntoor
I understand where you are coming from but I would like to givefurther support to Piergiorgio's position. No one is suggesting that Pannini is incomplete - it is the very best and concise grammar ever written. But is was written at a certain period for a particular purpose. It is one
I am afraid you are missing my point. It is not about whether Panini's is the best or most concise or whatever other superlative one may want to use. All I saying is that before saying that problem X or Y is not addressed by these grammarians (i.e., before or after Panini), one must *know* what is addressed! Let me add that I do not claim, by any stretch, to possess that kind of knowledge.
way of learning Sanskrit but it is hard way and takes many years to master the rules as written in sutras.
In this age there are other equally good or better ways of learning which are easier. The Indologists have written extremely good grammars, and linguists and philologists have compared
One is certainly free to pursue whichever path is considered the best from one's own perspective. At the same time, we should be cognizant of the limitations of the approach. I gave some examples of this in previous mails.
the classical languages - Greek, Latin German with Sanskrit so they are coming from a much broader perspective because they can see common patterns in morphology and phonology and in grammar.
I still maintain that *if* one wants to learn and appreciate the thinking behind the sutras, one has no choice but to work with them directly and with real-world examples that are quoted. The grammarians did not see their work in isolation with the rest of the society. Rather, usages, examples, philosophical musings, humor (however lame) all find place here.
The method of learning is not by rote or remembering but by understanding certain principles and being able to recognise forms through knowing where to look things up.
This just seems like another example of ascribing property X or Y without knowing what is conveyed in the sutras. Consider the way Panini organized letters with his mAheshvara sutras. I am sure you know about the significance as far as speech production is concerned.
More generally, he uses an utsarga-apavAda method. As far as possible, capture observed usages through a common rule. This is utsarga. But this is not possible always because of just the nature of speech. For those exceptions, make up special rules.
Another case in point: One sees several variables like ghi, gati, etc. which are used in general rules. And those that don't follow the general pattern get special treatment.
One cannot dismiss the entire approach by saying rote-learning = bad. Reality is a lot more nuanced.
This method gives a good understanding and is a equally valid way of learning. It is not a matter a reading Pannini first. If one does this without having some knowledge it will not be possible to understand it let alone learn from it.
Learning that something is called A or B in English does not prepare you to learn from the sutras! Just as knowing how to play cricket does not prepare you to play football (aka soccer). Sure, both are forms of sport involving 11 players on each side! But cricket is cricket and football is football.
Look, all I hear from this series of emails (and similar ones in the past) is a dogmatic refusal to attempt Samskritam on its terms (sutra or otherwise). And I say this as someone who started learning Samskritam grammar through the non-Samskritam route (through English and Indian regional languages using Kale's book and high school textbooks).
Naresh
S. L. Abhyankar
वादे वादे जायते तत्त्वबोधः अथवा वादे वादे जायते कण्ठशोषः ।
कथंविधः वादः चलति ननु ?
यदि विषयः व्याकरणस्य अभ्यासस्य तर्हि व्याकरणस्य अभ्यासमेव कुर्मः । कथमिदम् ?
"काव्य शास्त्र विनोदेन कालो गच्छति धीमताम्" ।
अत्र चर्चायां काव्यं वा शास्त्रं वा विनोदः एव भवितव्यः, इति अतिविनम्रतया सूचयामि ।
सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
"श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
--
S. L. Abhyankar
प्रथमस्य पाठस्य प्रतिकृतिः तु मया झटिति मम संगणके निवेशितास्ति ।
अन्यान् पाठानपि प्राप्तुमिच्छामि । कृपया अनुग्रहीतु भवान् ।
धन्यवादाः !
सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।
Dear Sirs,
Regarding Panini and methods of learning Sanskrit, it need not be stressed that all languages except computer languages have naturally evolved and grammars attempt to provide an artificial structure through classification and discovery of artificial rules to explain the variegated ways in which natural languages are expressed and used. In the realm of providing such a structure to a naturally evolved language Panini is unsurpassed. In fact most modern languages are not provided with a structure like the one devised by Panini for Sanskrit.
However, learning Sanskrit through Panini may not be the best method for a modern learner unless he is willing to go through the traditional route. The system prevalent in the olden days was that the student knew by rote declensions of nouns and conjugation of verbs along with Amarakosha before he matured to study Panini. He would have also studied a few cantos of Kalidasa, Bharavi and Magha. This stream of Sanskrit learning has flowed continuously for more than two millennia in India. The best and the most brilliant became proficient in Sanskrit through this method.
Even the prevalent methods of teaching Sanskrit as a second or third language in Indian schools and colleges fail to make a student conversant.
There is a concerted effort to teach conversational Sanskrit by Sanskritabharati. Unless one is soaked in the ambience of a language in ones day to day activities, one may not learn a language much except through serious study.
It is in this context that I have devised a series of 30 lessons through which a learner is exposed to the broad outlines of Sanskrit grammar and a fairly broad base of vocabulary. These lessons are given free over Email and I am happy that quite a few are learning through this course. Details can be seen at
http://murthygss.tripod.com/samskrutasopanam_1.htm
Regards
GSS Murthy
G S S Murthy
Dear Sirs,
Regarding Panini and methods of learning Sanskrit, it need not be stressed that all languages except computer languages have naturally evolved and grammars attempt to provide an artificial structure through classification and discovery of artificial rules to explain the variegated ways in which natural languages are expressed and used. In the realm of providing such a structure to a naturally evolved language Panini is unsurpassed. In fact most modern languages are not provided with a structure like the one devised by Panini for Sanskrit.
However, learning Sanskrit through Panini may not be the best method for a modern learner unless he is willing to go through the traditional route. The system prevalent in the olden days was that the student knew by rote declensions of nouns and conjugation of verbs along with Amarakosha before he matured to study Panini. He would have also studied a few cantos of Kalidasa, Bharavi and Magha. This stream of Sanskrit learning has flowed continuously for more than two millennia in India. The best and the most brilliant became proficient in Sanskrit through this method.
Even the prevalent methods of teaching Sanskrit as a second or third language in Indian schools and colleges fail to make a student conversant.
There is a concerted effort to teach conversational Sanskrit by Sanskritabharati. Unless one is soaked in the ambience of a language in ones day to day activities, one may not learn a language much except through serious study.
It is in this context that I have devised a series of 30 lessons through which a learner is exposed to the broad outlines of Sanskrit grammar and a fairly broad base of vocabulary. These lessons are given free over Email and I am happy that quite a few are learning through this course. Details can be seen at
http://murthygss.tripod.com/samskrutasopanam_1.htm
Regards
GSS Murthy
--
Have you visited my web site? http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm