vina and the instrumental case

[Subrahmanian R]

I understand that the words [सह] with and [विना] without govern the [तृतीया विभक्ति] instrumental case.

 

I am puzzled by the following two instances:

अनायासेन मरणम्, विना दैन्येन जीवनम् ।

देहि मे कृपया कृष्ण, शरणागत वत्सल ॥

 

why the instrumental case for 'anaayaasam'?

 

विना वेंकटेशं न नाथो न नाथ:

सदा वेंकटेशं स्मरामि स्मरामि ॥

Why accusative case is used instead of instrumental?

 

Possibly, the word has different connotations: (1) without (2) except or other than

It cannot be 'without Venkatesa', it has to be 'other than or except Venkatesa, who [else] is the saviour - none'

Is it that instrumental case is mandatory only when it is used in the sense of 'without'.

 

On this subject, I am also reminded of 'कश्चित् कान्ता विरह गुरुणा . . ’ wherein viraha with similar meaning of vina has caused the instrumental case.

R Subrahmanian

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

<अनायासेन मरणम्, विना दैन्येन जीवनम् । देहि मे कृपया कृष्ण, शरणागत
वत्सल ॥ <

I know another variation of this verse, which, I think is more
expressive.

अनायासेन मरणं विना दैन्येन जीवितम्।
अन्तकाले च गोविन्द स्मरणं देहि मे तव॥

Now coming to the query about the the instrumental case for अनायास, I
see no difficulty of any type. आयास is 'effort' or 'struggle, अनायास
is its opposite. Just as आयासेन मरणं is quite grammatical, so would
be अनायासेन मरणं.

The question about कश्चित् कान्ताविरहगुरुणा is not clear to me. The
whole verse is

कश्चित्कान्ताविरहगुरुणा स्वाधिकारात्प्रमत्तः
शापेनास्तङ्गमितमहिमा वर्षभोग्येण भर्तुः।
यक्षश्चक्रे जनकतनयास्नानपुण्योदकेषु
स्निग्धच्छायातरुषु वसतिं रामगिर्याश्रमेषु ॥

कान्ताविरहगुरु and वर्षभोग्य are qualifiers of शाप. शाप is the
causative for the यक्ष to become अस्तङ्गमितमहिमा. Hence शाप is in the
instrumental case and, following it, so are its qualifiers
कान्ताविरहगुरु and वर्षभोग्य. The instrumental case is not brought
about by विरह.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, November 22, 2011.

[Kiran Paranjape]

The indeclinable 'विना' is used with
accusative, instrumental or ablative case.

E.g. [जलं/जलेन/जलात्] विना मत्स्याः न जीवंति
--------------------------------------
Webmaster-Translations:
http://freetranslationblog.blogspot.com

R Subrahmanian

--
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.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Subrahmanian R <subrah...@gmail.com> wrote:

I understand that the words [सह] with and [विना] without govern the [तृतीया विभक्ति] instrumental case.

These are not the only words pre-requirement of तृतीया vibhakti. There are many others. Instrumental case properly translated from कर्तृकरणयोस्तृतीया, in respect of the करण = Instrument of any action, sense the use of this vibhakti generally and in passive voice, it is used in respect of the agent of the action. All the others are extended usages. The case government, in collocation with other words, is called उपपदविभक्ति and the in contrast with the regular विभक्ति called कारकविभक्ति. 

 

I am puzzled by the following two instances:

अनायासेन मरणम्, विना दैन्येन जीवनम् ।

देहि मे कृपया कृष्ण, शरणागत वत्सल ॥

 

why the instrumental case for 'anaayaasam'?

 

विना वेंकटेशं न नाथो न नाथ:

सदा वेंकटेशं स्मरामि स्मरामि ॥

Why accusative case is used instead of instrumental?

7. पृथग्विनानानाभिस्तृतीयान्यतरस्याम् (द्वितीया, पञ्चमी) (पा०2.3.32) 

As you can see the word विना can take द्वितीया and पञ्चमी also in addition to तृतीया। This accounts for  the Accusative in the above example and in the first example. 

 

Possibly, the word has different connotations: (1) without (2) except or other than

It cannot be 'without Venkatesa', it has to be 'other than or except Venkatesa, who [else] is the saviour - none'

Is it that instrumental case is mandatory only when it is used in the sense of 'without'.

But not with any synonyms of it or any other words. That is how उपपदविभक्ति works, unless otherwise prescribed. So विरह though means विनाभाव, it is not covered by this rule and there is no place for doubt. and अनायास though means the same, absence of आयास or विना आयासं as you would expect or विनायासेन. like the first two examples. On the other hand, "सहयुक्तेऽप्रधाने" warrants it with its synonymous usages too and even without "saha" also, which is the case of अनायासेन (सह) मरणम्.

 

On this subject, I am also reminded of 'कश्चित् कान्ता विरह गुरुणा . . ’ wherein viraha with similar meaning of vina has caused the instrumental case.

विरह is not included among the words demanding तृतीयाविभक्ति and also in your question you have separated the word विरह from the compound which is not normally done without splitting the compound formally.  In other words it is wrong to split ungrammatically and get yourself puzzled. As Arvindji had already pointed out, there is no case for तृतीया because of the word विरह, as it is part of the compound qualifying the शाप and doesn't have independent syntactic value. Even if it is independent, it doesn't warrant तृतीयाविभक्ति like विना which is specially listed among others governing it.

   

-- 

Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Just reading the headline, from the incoming message, I was late to realize the content of this message. "Vina and the Instrumental" -  I though it might have been related with something in musical instruments! Better the use of Sanskrit words and Devanagari script to attract attention immediately in the messages relating to Grammar of Sanskrit particularly.

[Subrahmanian R]

Thank you Sir, for the advice. I will observe it for the sake of clarity as pointed out by you.

R Subrahmanian

[Subrahmanian R]

Sir, I am thankful to you. This has clarified all the doubts I had entertained on vina [without].

R Subrahmanian