complex nesting of sentences

[karthik holla]

Namaste,

I have a doubt regarding complex nesting of sentences like the below

The man who saw the dog that chased the cat which ate the mouse ran.

मूषकं खादितवन्तं बिडालम् अनुधावितवन्तं शुनकं दृष्टवान् पुरुषः अधावत् ।

Is the above translation correct ?

With regards 

Karthik 

[HONGANOUR KRISHNA]

Namaste,

This is a beautiful and intricate example of nested relative clauses, and your Sanskrit translation is impressively close! Let’s examine both the English sentence and the Sanskrit rendering step by step to ensure the nesting and participial constructions align properly.

 

English Sentence Breakdown

Sentence:

The man who saw the dog that chased the cat which ate the mouse ran.

Structure:

• Main clause: The man … ran

• Relative clause 1: who saw the dog

• Relative clause 2: that chased the cat

• Relative clause 3: which ate the mouse

So the nesting is:

• Mouse ← eaten by a cat ← chased by a dog ← seen by a man ← who ran

 

Sanskrit Translation Analysis

Your version:

मूषकं खादितवन्तं बिडालम् अनुधावितवन्तं शुनकं दृष्टवान् पुरुषः अधावत् ।

Let’s break it down:

• मूषकं खादितवन्तं बिडालम् — “the cat that had eaten the mouse”

• अनुधावितवन्तं शुनकं — “the dog that had chased (that cat)”

• दृष्टवान् पुरुषः — “the man who saw (that dog)”

• अधावत् — “ran”

This matches the English structure perfectly in terms of nesting and participial usage. The participles are used in the past active sense (खादितवन्तं, अनुधावितवन्तं, दृष्टवान्), which is appropriate for describing completed actions.

 

My final say:

Yes, your Sanskrit translation is correct and elegant.

It preserves the nested structure faithfully and uses proper participial forms to convey the relative clauses. The word order is also natural in  Sanskrit, where qualifiers precede the noun they describe.

Thank you,

HONGANOUR S KRISHNA

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAD4O7mj-_BCsdhzYBdkCKj957NKLWU_25aLMFZ1GJqBaPpWD9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[karthik holla]

Thank you mahodaya

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAHtV9sb2TPbjVocEcNwzBKA%2B8iS0vhNugyz9LpWz1D2TRsEn5g%40mail.gmail.com.

[संस्कृत संवादः]

Yes, your translation is absolutely correct, and it is syntactically elegant.

You have brilliantly avoided a clumsy chain of relative pronouns by using कृदन्त (kṛdanta - participles formed from verbal roots), specifically the क्तवतु (ktavatu) प्रत्यय (pratyaya - suffix). According to Pāṇini, the suffixes क्त (kta) and क्तवतु (ktavatu) are termed निष्ठा (niṣṭhā - denoting completed action) and are used to express the past tense.

क्तक्तवतू निष्ठा॥ [Pāṇini, Aṣṭādhyāyī, 1.1.26] Padaccheda: क्त-क्तवतू निष्ठा। (kta-ktavatū niṣṭhā.)

Grammatical Breakdown & Analogy (उपमा - upamā)

To understand why your sentence works so well, we can compare Sanskrit participle nesting to Russian Matryoshka nesting dolls. Each smaller doll fits perfectly inside the larger one through the rule of विशेषण-विशेष्य-भाव (viśeṣaṇa-viśeṣya-bhāva - the relationship of adjective and noun), where the modifier must strictly match the gender, case, and number of the noun it modifies.

Let us un-nest your sentence from the innermost doll to the outermost:

1. The Innermost Doll (Modifying the Cat): मूषकं खादितवन्तं (mūṣakaṃ khāditavantaṃ - the one who ate the mouse). Here, खादितवन्तं is in the द्वितीया-विभक्ति (dvitīyā-vibhakti - accusative case) to perfectly describe the object, बिडालम् (biḍālam - the cat).

2. The Middle Doll (Modifying the Dog): [मूषकं खादितवन्तं] बिडालम् अनुधावितवन्तं ([mūṣakaṃ khāditavantaṃ] biḍālam anudhāvitavantaṃ - the one who chased the [mouse-eating] cat). Here, अनुधावितवन्तं is also in the द्वितीया-विभक्ति (dvitīyā-vibhakti) because it modifies the next object, शुनकं (śunakaṃ - the dog).

3. The Outer Doll (Modifying the Man): [[...] शुनकं] दृष्टवान् पुरुषः ([[... ] śunakaṃ] dṛṣṭavān puruṣaḥ - the man who saw the [...] dog). Here, the case changes. दृष्टवान् is in the प्रथमा-विभक्ति (prathamā-vibhakti - nominative case) because it modifies the main subject of the sentence, पुरुषः (puruṣaḥ - the man).

4. The Main Action: पुरुषः अधावत् (puruṣaḥ adhāvat - the man ran).

Different Structural Perspectives (विभिन्न-दृष्टिकोण)

While your translation using participles is the most natural and preferred method in classical Sanskrit prose (like the Pañcatantra or Daśakumāracarita), a grammarian looking at English syntax might also attempt to use the यद्-तद् (yad-tad - relative-correlative pronoun pairs).

The Correlative Approach: If we were to translate the English sentence using literal relative clauses ("who", "that", "which"), the sentence becomes heavily fragmented. Sanskrit requires every "यत्" (yat - which/who) to have a corresponding "तत्" (tat - that/he).

A literal translation using this method would look like this: यः पुरुषः तं शुनकं दृष्टवान्, यः शुनकः तं बिडालम् अनुधावितवान्, येन बिडालेन मूषकः खादितः, सः पुरुषः अधावत्। (yaḥ puruṣaḥ taṃ śunakaṃ dṛṣṭavān, yaḥ śunakaḥ taṃ biḍālam anudhāvitavān, yena biḍālena mūṣakaḥ khāditaḥ, saḥ puruṣaḥ adhāvat.) Translation: "Which man saw that dog, which dog chased that cat, by which cat the mouse was eaten, that man ran."

As you can see, the correlative approach is technically grammatically correct but extremely clunky to read and speak. Therefore, your usage of nested क्तवतु (ktavatu) participles is highly commendable and is the mark of a skilled Sanskrit writer.