वंशस्थ and इन्दुवंशा
Arvind_Kolhatkar
In the verse
बुभुक्षितैर्व्याकरणं न भुज्यते
पिपासितैः काव्यरसो न पीयते।
न च्छन्दसा केनचिदुद्धृतं कुलं
सुवर्णमेवार्जय निष्फला गुणाः॥
a doubt was raised as to which of these two variants, न च्छन्दसा or न
छन्दसा , is correct. The verse as I know it has न च्छन्दसा in it.
As to the grammar rule for this, I found the following observation in
Whitney’s Grammar as Rule 227 on p. 72:
‘As a general rule, ch is not allowed by grammarians to stand in that
form after a vowel, but is to be doubled, becoming ccha.’
I request experts to throw more light on this question.
(Whitney’s Grammar is available at
http://books.google.com/books?id=7QJgAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
).
This creates yet another problem in its wake. न छन्दसा fits with the
meter of the verse, which, I believe is वंशस्थ (4 padas of 12 letters
each, arranged as लगुल गुगुल लगुल गुलगु). The version न च्छन्दसा adds
one more matra to the third line making it गुगुल गुगुल लगुल गुलगु.
Yet no difficulty is encountered in reciting it as a part the full
verse. Is there any explanation for this anomaly?
I found that there is another - and, to me, so far unknown – meter
called इन्दुवंशा. It is almost identical with वंशस्थ, except that the
first letter of every pada of it is गु, i.e., each pada is गुगुल गुगुल
लगुल गुलगु. The answer to the problem could be that the version न
च्छन्दसा almost imperceptibly changes the meter for the third line
from वंशस्थ to इन्दुवंशा. (How I located this meter is the subject of
another posting from me.)
Any comments on this?
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, June 20, 2011.
S. L. Abhyankar
अस्ति किन्चित्कुतूहलम् -
१) यः व्याकरण-नियमः भवता
‘As a general rule, ch is not allowed by grammarians to stand in that
२) तृतीयं पदम् "न च्छन्दसा केनचिदुद्धृतं कुलम्" एवम् पठित्वा अपि गेयं भवति, यतः इन्द्रवंशा-वृत्तमपि गेयं अस्त्येव ।
३) तथापि किम् वंशस्थ-वृत्तीये काव्ये इन्द्रवंशा-वृत्तीयस्य पदस्य सम्मीलनं ग्राह्यम् ?
- ३-१) उपजाति-वृत्ते तु इन्द्रवज्रा-उपेन्द्रवज्रा-वृत्तीयानां पदानां सम्मीलनं भवत्येव ।
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.
धनंजय वैद्य <deejayvaidya@yahoo.com>
This is the pANinIya sUtra relating to the doubling. The doubling
happens "saMhihAyAm" meaning when the sounds are very close together.
I suppose that between two different words, 'na' and 'chhandasA' you
could argue that there is no saMhitA in your personal pronunciation.
The four verse-quarters can be any combination of indravaMshA and
vaMshastha. piMgalasUtra "आद्यन्तावुपजातयः । ६.१७" specifically
relates to indravajrA and upendravajra. But bhaTTAhalAyudha, in his
commentary on the sUtra says:
केचिदिदं सूत्रं न्यायोपलक्षणपरं व्याचक्षते । तेन
वंशस्थेन्द्रवंशापादयोरपि संकरादुपजातयो भवन्ति ।
In anantashAstrI dhUpakara's footnote regarding the above sentence, he
says:
अत्र वंशस्थेन्द्रवंशयोरपि प्रस्तारे कृते चतुर्दशधा उपजातयो भवन्ति ।
And then proceeds to give examples of all of these from classical
poetry. Similar to your na cChandasA... example, which has vaMshastha-
vaMshastha-indravaMshA-vaMshastha, dhUpaakarashAstrI gives the
following example from the kumArasambhava 15.52 :
(वंशस्थ) परस्परं वज्रधरस्य सैनिका
(वंशस्थ) द्विषोऽपि योद्धुं प्रवरोद्धृतायुधा: ।
(इन्द्रवंशा) वैतालिकश्रावितमानसत्क्रमा-
(वंशस्थ) भिधानमीयुर्विजयैषिणो रणे ॥
(Hope there are no errors in the devanAgarI typing.)
Dhananjay
On Jun 20, 9:21 pm, "S. L. Abhyankar" <sl.abhyan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> नमो नमः श्रीमन् "अरविन्द कोल्हटकर"-महोदय !
> अस्ति किन्चित्कुतूहलम् -
> १) यः व्याकरण-नियमः भवता
> Whitney’s Grammar as Rule 227 on p. 72:
> ‘As a general rule, ch is not allowed by grammarians to stand in that
> form after a vowel, but is to be doubled, becoming ccha.’ एवम् उद्धृतः तस्य
> विवरणम् अष्टाध्याय्याम् केन सूत्रेण ?
> २) तृतीयं पदम् "न च्छन्दसा केनचिदुद्धृतं कुलम्" एवम् पठित्वा अपि गेयं भवति,
> यतः इन्द्रवंशा-वृत्तमपि गेयं अस्त्येव ।
> ३) तथापि किम् वंशस्थ-वृत्तीये काव्ये इन्द्रवंशा-वृत्तीयस्य पदस्य सम्मीलनं
> ग्राह्यम् ?
>
> - ३-१) उपजाति-वृत्ते तु इन्द्रवज्रा-उपेन्द्रवज्रा-वृत्तीयानां पदानां
> सम्मीलनं भवत्येव ।
>
> सस्नेहम् ,
> अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
> "श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।"
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Arvind_Kolhatkar
> <kolhatkar2...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Dear Group,
>
> > In the verse
>
> > बुभुक्षितैर्व्याकरणं न भुज्यते
> > पिपासितैः काव्यरसो न पीयते।
> > न च्छन्दसा केनचिदुद्धृतं कुलं
> > सुवर्णमेवार्जय निष्फला गुणाः॥
>
> > a doubt was raised as to which of these two variants, न च्छन्दसा or न
> > छन्दसा , is correct. The verse as I know it has न च्छन्दसा in it.
> > As to the grammar rule for this, I found the following observation in
> > Whitney’s Grammar as Rule 227 on p. 72:
>
> > ‘As a general rule, ch is not allowed by grammarians to stand in that
> > form after a vowel, but is to be doubled, becoming ccha.’
>
> > I request experts to throw more light on this question.
>
> > (Whitney’s Grammar is available at
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=7QJgAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&sou...
hnbhat B.R.
I suppose that between two different words, 'na' and 'chhandasA' you
could argue that there is no saMhitA in your personal pronunciation.
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,
PONDICHERRY - 605 001