Translation of "should have" from English to Sanskrit

[Paras Mehta]

Respected Scholars and Professors,
Humble pranaama-s,

I wish to know the correct method of translating "should have" from English to Sanskrit. This form (should have) is used in the Past Tense in English.

Here are a couple of examples that I have tried.

I should have seen that drama yesterday. 

ह्यः मया तत् नाटकं द्रष्टव्यम् आसीत् |

In the above example, I have used the passive voice in Sanskrit instead of the active voice in English. To convey the sense of "should have seen", I have used    द्रष्टव्यम् आसीत्. Is this a correct translation? Does it convey the intended sense of the English sentence? 

Perhaps, I can use the 6th vibhakti form मम instead of मया in the sense of षष्ठी शेषे. In that case, this would be the translation: 

ह्यः तत् नाटकं मम द्रष्टव्यम् आसीत् |

Here is another example, with a negation included in the sentence. 

I should not have become angry with him.

मया तस्मै क्रोधो न करणीयः आसीत् | 

In this example, I have again used the passive voice in Sanskrit instead of the active voice in English. Instead of "angry", I have used क्रोधः (anger). To convey the sense of "should not have become", I have used न करणीयः आसीत्. Does this translation convey the intended sense of the English sentence?

Another thing I wish to know is whether such usages (प्रयोगाः) are found in Sanskrit literature in general. In English, such usage is quite common in spoken language. 

Best regards,

Paras Mehta 

PhD Research Scholar

M.A. Sanskrit 

Phone: +91 7045083765

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/paras-mehta-a98200154/ 

[kenp]

Here is Google translation. If you highlight given translation it gives another edited version. Sanskrit scholars can verify it and send feed back

I should have seen that drama yesterday.

 मया श्वः तत् नाटकं द्रष्टव्यम् आसीत्।

तत् नाटकं मया श्वः एव द्रष्टव्यम् आसीत्।(Edited)

I should not have become angry with him.

मया तस्य प्रति क्रुद्धः न भवितुम् अर्हति स्म ।

तस्य प्रति मया क्रुद्धः न भवितुम् अर्हति स्म ।(Edited)

[Paras Mehta]

Thank you.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/7a0fd13f-ad8d-4d8b-9db4-d210697f6d1en%40googlegroups.com.

[Vishvas Vasuki (Vishvas)]

On Tuesday, 7 March, 2023 at 5:46:56 pm UTC+5:30 Paras Mehta wrote:

Respected Scholars and Professors,
Humble pranaama-s,

I wish to know the correct method of translating "should have" from English to Sanskrit. This form (should have) is used in the Past Tense in English.

Here are a couple of examples that I have tried.

I should have seen that drama yesterday. 

ह्यः मया तत् नाटकं द्रष्टव्यम् आसीत् |

ह्यो ऽन्तन्नाटकम् अद्रक्ष्यम् (तर्हि वरम् अभविष्यत्)।

 

In the above example, I have used the passive voice in Sanskrit instead of the active voice in English. To convey the sense of "should have seen", I have used    द्रष्टव्यम् आसीत्. Is this a correct translation? Does it convey the intended sense of the English sentence? 

Perhaps, I can use the 6th vibhakti form मम instead of मया in the sense of षष्ठी शेषे. In that case, this would be the translation: 

ह्यः तत् नाटकं मम द्रष्टव्यम् आसीत् |

Here is another example, with a negation included in the sentence. 

I should not have become angry with him.

मया तस्मै क्रोधो न करणीयः आसीत् | 

तस्मै नाक्रोत्स्यम्

[Paras Mehta]

Dear Vishvas Ji,

Namaste,

Thank you very much for your reply. 

Thank you for bringing the लृङ् usage to light. 

But, I am having some doubts about the usage of लृङ् in the translation of these English sentences.

I hope you don't mind thinking about my doubts.

This is the first English sentence: I should have seen that drama yesterday.
The लृङ् usage makes sense only when the part "तर्हि वरम् अभविष्यत्" (as in your reply) is a part of the sentence. 
I do not think that लृङ् can be used in this translation without the above part of अभविष्यत्. 

This is the 2nd English sentence: I should not have become angry with him.

The translation you have given is: तस्मै नाक्रोत्स्यम्

This does not make proper sense to me. 

Based on sutras लिङ्निमित्ते लृङ् क्रियातिपत्तौ, भूते च (3.3.139-40), etc., I think that लृङ् is used in the situation where there is the possibility of an action in the future or past and the certainty of its not occurring or having occurred. 

Thus, for this meaning of possibility to be conveyed, there has to be the use of an "if-then" structure or a question regarding the occurrence of the action. Thus, for लृङ् to be correctly used, the sentence should have other elements conveying possibility. 

The usage of लृङ् in an if-then structure is quite well-known. I just thought of an example when लृङ् is used in a question. 

Consider a teacher, who gave homework to the students, and asks the students the next day about the homework. 

She asks, किं यूयं गृहपाठम् अकरिष्यत ? 

Here, the usage of लृङ् shows that she is certain that the students have not done the homework.

Dear Vishvas Ji, kindly let me know if I am lacking in my understanding of the usage of लृङ्.
Thank you once again for your reply.

Best regards,

Paras Mehta 

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/3c687ef6-280a-40a3-aa62-bfd2c1fe3a58n%40googlegroups.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

+ shabda-shAstra-समूहो येषाम् अभिप्रायान्तराणि स्युः।

On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 21:56, Paras Mehta <psmeh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Vishvas Ji,

Namaste,

Thank you very much for your reply. 

Thank you for bringing the लृङ् usage to light. 

But, I am having some doubts about the usage of लृङ् in the translation of these English sentences.

I hope you don't mind thinking about my doubts.

This is the first English sentence: I should have seen that drama yesterday.
The लृङ् usage makes sense only when the part "तर्हि वरम् अभविष्यत्" (as in your reply) is a part of the sentence. 
I do not think that लृङ् can be used in this translation without the above part of अभविष्यत्. 

आवरणस्थं विनाप्य् अर्थपूर्णः प्रयोग इति मे मतम् । कुतः? लृङ्प्रयोगोऽत्र भूते क्रियातिपत्तिमात्रं सूचयति । क्रियातिपत्तेः कारणम् परिणामो वापि तद्वाक्ये सूचनीय इति नास्ति सूत्रे निर्बन्धः। 

तथापि यदीष्यते, "तर्हि वरम् अभविष्यत्" इत्यादेर् अध्याहारः सहजो - व्यक्त-वचन-निरपेक्षः।

"ह्यस् तन्नाटकम् अद्रक्ष्यम्"

इत्य् अनेन "गतदिने तन्नाटकस्य मत्कर्तृकाया दर्शनक्रियाया अतिपत्तिः" इत्य् एतावद् एवोच्यते। 

किन्तु नानेन "should have" इत्यनेन सूचितः पश्चात्तापो ऽन्तर् भवति। तत्स्थाने "could have" इतिवत् किञ्चिद् उच्यते।

तदर्थं "तर्हि वरम् अभविष्यत्" इति व्यक्तं वा वाच्यम्, अध्याहार्यम् इति वा वचनध्वनिना विषादयुक्तेन सूचनीयम्।

 

This is the 2nd English sentence: I should not have become angry with him.

The translation you have given is: तस्मै नाक्रोत्स्यम्

This does not make proper sense to me. 

Based on sutras लिङ्निमित्ते लृङ् क्रियातिपत्तौ, भूते च (3.3.139-40), etc., I think that लृङ् is used in the situation where there is the possibility of an action in the future or past and the certainty of its not occurring or having occurred. 

तस्मै नाक्रोत्स्यम् = तद्विषयकक्रोधक्रियाया अतिपत्तिर् न भूतकाले।

पुनर् अत्र पश्चात्तापं सूचयितुम् "तर्हि वरम् अभविष्यत्" इति व्यक्तं वा वाच्यम्, अध्याहार्यम् उत सूचनीयम्।

 

Thus, for this meaning of possibility to be conveyed, there has to be the use of an "if-then" structure or a question regarding the occurrence of the action. Thus, for लृङ् to be correctly used, the sentence should have other elements conveying possibility. 

The usage of लृङ् in an if-then structure is quite well-known. I just thought of an example when लृङ् is used in a question. 

Consider a teacher, who gave homework to the students, and asks the students the next day about the homework. 

She asks, किं यूयं गृहपाठम् अकरिष्यत ? 

Here, the usage of लृङ् shows that she is certain that the students have not done the homework.

अयम् अपि प्रयोगो ऽर्थपूर्णो मे भाति।

किं यूयं गृहपाठम् अकरिष्यत = युष्मत्कर्तृक-गृहपठ-क्रियातिपत्तिः किम् भूतकाले?

 

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/samskrita/l6dKMwvcDiU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAMiKArPF%2BqpP032CHuSgQ3yha3WU9g1BVjVes-h7V_NoN5y_ag%40mail.gmail.com.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[Paras Mehta]

आर्य विश्वास, 

प्रणामः,

सम्यगुक्तं भवता लृङ्-लकारनियमविषये। 

अहमपि भवद्वचनानुसारं तन्नियमं मन्तुम् उत्सहे। 

परन्तु तत्स्वीकृत्यर्थं पूर्वाचार्याणां सत्कवीनां वा किञ्चित् तादृशं प्रयोगम् अपेक्षे। 

अस्ति वा कश्चित् तादृशः प्रयोगः? अस्ति चेत् कृपया सूचयतु।

सादरम्,

पारस मेहता 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/samskrita/CAFY6qgHU283%2B8afe8%3DXhfjLodXx9MwJq-8vvVCyV2-0JBwoXyA%40mail.gmail.com.