किम् शुद्धम्?

[Madhav Gopal]

PraNaam Friends,

 

I was inquisitive about these constructions in Sanskrit:

 

1.  रामः हमीदा च उद्यानं गच्छतः।

2. रामः च हमीदा च उद्यानं गच्छतः।

 

Here, I think, both sentences are grammatically correct. If one च is sufficient for coordination, then why the language experts repeat this च unnecessarily? Please share your opinoin with us on this issue.

 

Warm regards,

Madhav

--
Madhav Gopal
Centre for Linguistics,
School of Language Literature and
Culture Studies,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi-67
India

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On 2010-08-21, at 5:55 AM, Madhav Gopal wrote:

1.  रामः हमीदा च उद्यानं गच्छतः।

2. रामः च हमीदा च उद्यानं गच्छतः।

 

...  If one च is sufficient for coordination, then why the language experts repeat this च unnecessarily? Please share your opinoin [--> opinion] with us on this issue.

It seems that originally the 'X ca Y ca' type construction was used when the items were perceived as belonging to distinct categories (whether they actually belonged to distinct ontological categories could have been debatable. That the speaker/author perceived them as belonging to different categories was sufficient). 

See Aklujkar, Ashok.  1991. "Syntactic Gleanings from Bhart®-hari's Trikå∫∂^ [= Våkyapad^ya]." Studies in Sanskrit Syntax, pp. 1-11. (ed) Hock, Hans Henrich. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.  

In older literature, using only two ca-s to join three items, that is, to employ an 'X, Y ca Z ca' construction is also found; e.g. Nirukta ima.m grantha.m [= nigha.n.tum] samaamnaasi.sur, veda.m ca vedaa:ngaani ca.'

See Aklujkar, Ashok.  1999. The Theory of Nipåtas (Particles) in Yåska's Nirukta. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Post-graduate and Research Department Series No. 42. Pandit Shripad Shastri Deodhar Memorial Lectures, sixth series. 

a.a.

[sadasivamurty rani]

Namaskarams to all the members of the Parishad! The present discussion has inclined me to participate in the discussion. I submit my observations for the approval of the Scholars. Here we have two sentences presented by Madhav Ji.

1. रामः हमीदा च उद्यानं गच्छतः। 2. रामः च हमीदा च उद्यानं गच्छतः।

1. In the first instance रामः हमीदा च उद्यानं गच्छतः, I think,  the word ca is used as a couplative conjunction. Hence single च is sufficient to combine both RAMA and HAMIDA as the collective agents of the same action. 2. Sometimes च is also used to indicate Simultaneity of the same action by two agents or Simultaneity of two actions by the same agent. In such cases ca is repetitively used with the two agents or two actions as the occasion demands. रामः च हमीदा च उद्यानं गच्छतः might be an example of this kind. In such case च does not act as a mere coupulative conjunction but serves as an element of simultaneity of the same action by two agents RAMA and HAMIDA. Respected scholars of this forum may correct me if I am wrong.   With warm Regards, Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty --- On Sat, 21/8/10, Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com> wrote:

-- अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि। ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।। तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः। निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[Madhav Gopal]

Shri Aklujkar Sir,

 

"It seems that originally the 'X ca Y ca' type construction was used when the items were perceived as belonging to distinct categories (whether they actually belonged to distinct ontological categories could have been debatable. That the speaker/author perceived them as belonging to different categories was sufficient)."

 

It is very difficult for me to agree with this view. I don't think there is any evidence in the literature that supports this view, if it exists, please discuss it. In Sanskrit च  is a copula and it links two or more linguistic items in a sentence, whether those items are ontologically similar or not. We can see these examples:

 

A.   1. रामः च समुद्रः च पृथक् पदार्थौ।

      2. रामः समुद्रः च पृथक् पदार्थौ।   

B.  1. रामः च लक्ष्मणः च चलचित्रम् पश्यतः।

      2. रामः लक्ष्मणः च चलचित्रम् पश्यतः।

 

In A there are two ontologically different items linked and in B the similar ones. In both cases there is no syntactic anomaly. You yourself are saying that the distinct ontological categories could have been debatable. If they are questionable, then on this basis we can't conclude anything. Also, we can't decide how the speakers or authors are perceiving things, if there is not any uniformness in usage. If that (yours) is the case, there must be solid evidence. Please elaborate your view.

 

Thank you.

 

Shri Dr. Murty Sir,

 

Yes, that could be. Please add an example to show "simultaneity of two actions by the same agent" using च at least two times. Let us see what our wise scholars say about this matter.

 

Thank you.

 

With regards,

Madhav

 

 

2010/8/21 sadasivamurty rani <ranisada...@yahoo.com>

Mob. +91-9811021605

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On 2010-08-21, at 10:07 AM, Madhav Gopal wrote:

> [quoting me:]"It seems that originally the 'X ca Y ca' type construction was used when the items were perceived as belonging to distinct categories (whether they actually belonged to distinct ontological categories could have been debatable. That the speaker/author perceived them as belonging to different categories was sufficient)."

> It is very difficult for me to agree with this view. I don't think there is any evidence in the literature that supports this view, if it exists, please discuss it. In Sanskrit च is a copula and it links two or more linguistic items in a sentence, whether those items are ontologically similar or not. We can see these examples:
>
> A. 1. रामः च समुद्रः च पृथक् पदार्थौ।
> 2. रामः समुद्रः च पृथक् पदार्थौ।
> B. 1. रामः च लक्ष्मणः च चलचित्रम् पश्यतः।
> 2. रामः लक्ष्मणः च चलचित्रम् पश्यतः।
>
> In A there are two ontologically different items linked and in B the similar ones. In both cases there is no syntactic anomaly. You yourself are saying that the distinct ontological categories could have been debatable. If they are questionable, then on this basis we can't conclude anything. Also, we can't decide how the speakers or authors are perceiving things, if there is not any uniformness in usage. If that (yours) is the case, there must be solid evidence. Please elaborate your view.

Please note "originally" in my statement. It should suggest that I am talking about early/older usage. Citing self-made modern examples misses the point.

The issue is of meaning difference (this meaning may be thought of as dyotya 'co-signified' or as connotation of the sentence as a whole), not of syntax.

When you wrote, "I don't think there is any evidence in the literature that supports this view, if it exists, please discuss it," had you read the literature I referred to?

I am open to correction as the use of "seems" in my quoted remark should indicate. However, that correction should be based on an accurate understanding of what I wrote and a body of evidence coming from the same period that serves to offer a more straightforward / plausible / economic explanation than the one I gave.

a.a.

[Madhav Gopal]

Right Sir, I will read the literature you referred. But what you will suggest the modern Sanskrit writers/speakers? Should they continue this repetition unnecessarily or stop it?

 

thank you.

regards,

madhav

2010/8/21 Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca>

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On 2010-08-21, at 10:40 AM, Madhav Gopal wrote:

> But what you will [--> will you] suggest [to] the modern Sanskrit writers/speakers? Should they continue this [sort of] repetition unnecessarily or stop it?
>
First, utility alone cannot be and should not be a decisive consideration in all life situations. If Skt did not have the freedom to employ more than one ca, how would we get the beauty of lines like dhik taa.m ca ta.m ca madana.m ca imaa.m ca maa.m ca (Bhart.r-hari, ;Sataka-traya).

Secondly, it is not a universal truth that languages have no unnecessary elements. Constructions like "He ain't no fool" meaning "He is not a fool' are quite common in certain varieties of American English.

Thirdly, any language in use has a dynamic of the past and present, of the prescriptive and non-prescriptive and of the conventional and creative. There would be nothing unusual or damaging if some Sanskrit writers/speakers continued to use one ca and some continued to squander ca-s or if one and the same writer/speaker oscillated between one-ca-use and more-than-one-ca use. The world already has enough problems coming from persons who think that what is good in their view must be followed by all. I do not wish to add to the problems by suggesting that Sanskrit writers/speakers should follow only one path. Maybe that is the message of the Yajurveda in having a camaka section as well as a namaka section! prak.rty-anuruupa.m parivartanam anubhavantii pravahataat sa.msk.rta-mandaakinii.

a.a.

[hn bhat]

Thanks for the discussion actively taken care of by Prof. Ashok Aklujkar and Dr. Sadashivamvurthy.

The issue is of meaning difference (this meaning may be thought of as dyotya 'co-signified' or as connotation of the sentence as a whole), not of syntax.

In fact, as suggested by Dr.Ashok Aklujkar and Mr.Murthy there are four meanings for च : चत्वरः खलु चार्थाः।. I do not know the equivalent terms in linguistic terminology, but the examples using "ca" alternatively can be seen in the examples provided by grammarians:

समुच्चयः, अन्वाचयः, इतरेतरयोग and समाहारः| and these are differently explained:

परस्परनिरपेक्षस्यानेकस्य एकस्मिन्नन्वयः समुच्चयः ,

अन्यतरस्यानुषङ्गिकत्वे अन्वाचयः, मिलितानामन्वयः इततेतरयोगः, समूहः समाहारः। 

ईश्वरं गुरुं च भजस्व इति समुच्चये, भिक्षामट गां चानय इत्यन्वाचय:।

अत्र न समासो ऽसामर्थ्यात्।

The above example is for the co-ordination of two substances (Dravya) into one action.The other examples of समुच्चयः are as follows:

राज्ञो गावो ऽ‍श्वाश्च - द्रव्ये द्रव्ययोः समुच्चयः, 

पटः शुक्लो रक्तश्च - द्रव्ये गुणयोः समुच्चयः,

रक्तः पटः कुण्डलं च - इति गुणे द्रव्ययोः समुच्चयः,

In all the above, there is not a single use of double च। But the use of the members of द्वन्द्व Compound in the case of समाहार and इतरेतरयोग in sentences, to show display independently, we generally use two च-s. 

धवश्च खदिरश्च - धवखदिरौ,

भेरी च मृदङं च - भेरीमृदङ्गम्।

To quote the use of multiple ca the example give given from Bhartrhari is quite enough. From the epic literature also I can quote an enumeration, where ca occurs twice in the verse:

मत्स्यः कूर्मो वराहश्च नरसिंहो ऽथ वामनः।

रामो रामश्च रामश्च बुद्धः कल्कीति ते दश।

That is the normal use of ca I observed in grammar texts. Further, in South Indian languages the use of coordinators with each words is obligatorily observed. I don't remember otherwise.  The use of double coordinators may due to the influence of other languages.

Hope I have given some more examples for the use of "ca"  if it may be of any help to the discussion. This includes one one more example you had asked for the coordination of multiple action by the same agent: anvaacaya.

Thanks once again to Prof.Aklujkar for his concluding remarks.  

When the multiple and single use of this coordinator is attested in the written language and also in spoken languages, why should we restrict the freedom of its use in the implementation of Sanskrit Language into day to day use.

I am not conversant with the conventions and norms of Linguistics. If anything is irrelevant to the discussion in my post, please ignore that part or suggest correction.

With regards

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY

[sadasivamurty rani]

Dear Madhav Ji! Good Evening! Due to some preoccupied programme I could not give you immediate reply. In the meanwhile I felt very happy to read the highly scholarly postings of Prof. Ashok Ji and Prof. HN Bhatt Ji.  As it has been maintained in their observations ca is one of the striking lingusitic peculiarities of Sanskrit Language. Here I would like to add some more thoughts to make its purposes more clear. The Nature of ca: Ca is not a Content word like any Noun or Verb.  It is not even a substitute word like pronouns. But prominently it is a Function Word by nautre. It has many functions to carry out in the language. We cannot simply say its presence is unnecessary in any particular instance in any original citations from ancient texts. I try to give some more examples in support of its various finest uses in the literature. १. क्षमा शत्रौ च मित्रे च यतीनामेव भूषणम्। (हितोपदेशे सुहृद्भेदे ८कथायां १९१ श्लोक:) In this context the repeatitive use of ca is meant for indicating the simultaneity of the Attributive Noun क्षमा to agree with both शत्रौ and मित्रे| Similarly in the sentence "वज्रं च राजतेजश्च द्वयमेवातिभीषणम्।" (हितोपदेशे सुहृद्भेदे ८कथायां  १७९ श्लोक:) Here the simultaneity of अतिभीषणम्  as a common attribute of वज्रम् and राजतेजस् is achieved through the repeatitive use of Ca. २. सत्यानृता च परुषा प्रियवादिनी च     हिस्रा दयालुरपि चार्थपरा वदान्या।     नित्यव्यया  प्रचुरनित्यधनागमा च     वाराङ्गनेव नृपनीतिरनेकरूपा॥ (हितोपदेशे सुहृद्भेदे ८कथायां १९४ श्लोक:) Here ca is used for four times.  But its repeated use is not an unnecessary one. It is used to emphasize  a very close resemblance among the many characteristics of two chosen things. So here it has an emphatic value. ३. कर्पूरद्वीप: स्वर्ग एव द्वितीय:। राजहंसश्च द्वितीय: स्वर्गपति:। (हितोपदेशे विग्रहे प्रारम्भवाक्येषु) here Ca is not at all used in its copulative function. It is used here in its emphatic function. 4. Another noticeable function of this ca as Anandavardhana declares is its suggestive force. While explaining the vyanjakatva of various language components in the Asamlakshyakrama Vyangya Anandavardhan, the best of all Sanskrit poeticians, considers the Vyanjakatva of ca also at the instance of the Vyajakatva of a Nipatas. निपातानां व्यञ्जकत्वं यथा - अयमेकपदे तया वियोग: प्रियया चोपनत: सुदु:सहो मे। नववारिधरोदयादहोभिर्भवितव्यं च निरातपार्धरम्यै:॥ इत्यत्र च शब्द:। (ध्वन्यालोके तृतीयोद्योते) Here the suggestive power of CA is well appreciated by Anandavardhana. 5. Another purpose of ca is to fill the shortage of syllables in a metrical line: वाग्देवी च महारात्रि: काळरात्रिस्त्रिलोचनी। भद्रकाळी कराळी च महाकाळी तिलोत्तमा॥ अरूपा बहुरूपा च विरूपा विश्वरूपिणी। पंचभूतात्मिका वाणि परा च परमात्मिका॥ (श्रीलक्ष्मीसहस्रनमस्तोत्रे) In most of the SahasranAmastotras of various Gods and Goddess we come across this type of ca as a syllabic filler in metres. Interestingly Sri Lalita Sahasranama is the only avaialbe stotra where we do not find CA in its entire length.   These are a few examples given by me to show various possible purposes of ca. Ca has still many more uses.  As it needs a prolonged exercise to prove them all I restrict myself these examples only. Before concluding this present posting I would like to mention a thing particularly. By nature English is prominently an Agglutinating Language. It is still in its developing stage. Sanskrit is one of the very few Inflexional languages of the world.  It has reached its peaks of perfection. Before drawing any conclusions from the teachings of Panini I feel it is very much essential to understand thoroughly What is Panini and his Scheme. We may be permitted to use Simple Sanskrit for our day to day conversation but we cannot simplify Sanskrit against the Paninian instructions.   With Warm Regards, Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

[hn bhat]

Thanks Dr. Murthy for providing different examples of usage of "ca" potentially different in their function. 

I also was about to suggest the same, before drawing any conclusion on this point, we will have to process and verify many more samples from the stock of Sanskrit Literature, preferably from prose passages and note the difference in the use of both. For in metrical structure, may require "ca" many times simply for filling in the metrical completion of syllables, which may not serve our purpose. This is in terms of linguists in the field survey of living languages, which may not be applied to Sanskrit, which we use  today as we use English in day to day use. Hence spoken form could be surmised somehow from the samples from prose works either Shastra-works like Mahabhashya, Sarvadarshana-sangraha etc. and poetical and general works like Kadambari, Dasakumaracarita, which use  idiomatic expressions and would not fail to make use of the idiomatic usage of this conjunct with precision of meaning. It may be a time consuming work, but may be productive in justifying the use of double coordinator "ca" than setting aside it as useless. Madhavji is the person in the field and he may be interested in this work.

[Madhav Gopal]

I am very thankful to the scholars namely Prof. Ashok Aklujkar, Prof. H.N, Bhat and Dr. Rani Sadashiv Murty for enlightening me on this complicated issue. Their views are really very valuable and up to the point. As Prof. Bhat suggests, a study could be carried out on this aspect of Sanskrit language perusing specially the prose works that he has quoted. I hope some of us will definitely take up this issue to find the exact glory of the different usages of च.

 

Thank you all.

 

With warm regards,

Madhav     

2010/8/23 hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com>

--

अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

 

The following verses from Vakyakanda of Vakyapadiyam will be of some use --

 

nipAtAh dyotakAh kecit prthagarthAbhidhAyinah I

 AgamA iva ke'pi syuh sambhUyArthasya vAcakAh II

uparistAtpurastAdvA dyotakatvam na bhidyate I

tesu prayujyamAnesu bhinnArthesvapi sarvathA II

 

cAdayo na prayujyante padatve sati kevalAh I

 

pratyayo vAcakatve'pi kevalo na prayujyate II

 

samuccitAbhidhAsdne'pi visistArthAbhidhAyinIm I

gunaih padAnAm sambandhah paratantrAstu cAdayah II(192,193,194,196)

 

'Ca' is a Padam , it is not a vAcaka  but  dyotaka and cannot be used 'independently .

CAdayo'sattve (Panini 1-4-57) says it is a NipAta in case it does not denote a Dravya .

NipAta means UccAranam ( of a readymade word for usage).

 

Usage of 'Ca' --

 

1. AnvAcayah : bhiksAmata gAm cAnaya (one is important and the other is additional,

i.e.also if you find fetch the cow .

 

2.SamAhArah : pAnI ca pAdau ca pAnipAdam (in SamAhAra the parts are not seen separately ).

 

3.Itaretarayogah : pacati ca pathati ca Caitrah (things are clubbed) .

 

4. Samuccayah : aham ca tvam ca putra gacchAvah (independent things are put together).

 

5.TulyayogitA : kimanyadevam nihatAsca no dvisah

 

6. AvadhAranam : atItah panthAnam tava ca mahimA vAnmanasayoh (atIta eva)

 

7. Hetau : grAmasca gantavyah, sItamca (sItAddhetoh katham gamyate ).

 

8.PAdapUrane : bhIsmah pArthastathaiva ca .

 

CandassAstra prevails upon Vyakaranam - who said ? Panini and Kapila - cso'ci lope cetpAdapUranam (Panini 6-1-130) and 'iyAdipUrane' (PingalasUtram) .

'Api mAsam masam kuryAt chandobhangam na kArayet ".

 

9. Yadyarthe : tvam ca gamisyasi, phalisyati nah kAmah .

 

10. PaksAntare : sAntamidamAsramapadam sphurati ca bAhuh kutah phalamihAsya

(here 'ca' means 'punah') - SAkuntalam.

 

11. Kimca ityarthe : dadhati ca vikasadvicitrakalpadrumakusumairabhigumbhitAnivaitAh

(SisupAlavadha 4-50)

 

dhanyo'smi

Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

[S P Narang]

ca has no connection with the dual form. It can denote the mukhya and gaunabhaava. In literature we find the examples that when one ca is there, the singular is also used. gachhati for gacchataH. apte has given some examples. first ca is not very useful. regards, spnarang

---

From: Madhav Gopal <mgo...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 6:25:03 PM

Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} किम् शुद्धम्?

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

 

yes , ca  sometimes does not have any meaning  . In fact, I did not give the complete picture and it may take a book to explain .

 

rAmah krsnasca Agacchati / Agacchatah - both are correct .

 

It is clear in Mahabhasyam under 'cArthe dvandvah' (Panini 2-2-29) that there cannot be SamAsa in the sense of Samuccaya and AnvAcaya . Why ? because there is no SAmarthyam , ' samarthah padavidhih'(2-1-1) .

 

In vAkyAlamkAra also ca is just  ornamental -

 

NipAta in VyAkaranam - ' uccAranam' ( of a readymade word ) - srotriyamchando'dhIte

(Pan 5-2-84) .

 

Niruktam - uccAvacesvarthesu nipatantIti nipAtAh

 

PrAtisAkhyA - ' nipAtah pAdapUranah' .

 

VAkyAlamkAra is not confined to ' ca ' - khlUktvA khalu bhAsitam - SisupAlavadha (2) .

Here either 'khalu' is in VAkyAlamkAra .

 

In Telugu there is a  saying - Rama followed his father's words without missing 'tu' and

'ca' . That means taking the meaning of even tu and ca , which , in fact , have no meaning at all .

The other point   - 'ca' is commented as ' uktasamuccAyaka' and ' anuktasamuccAyaka '

especially in Vyakaranam and Kosa . The latter is used to include certain other examples

and this is under - vyAkhyAnato visesapratipattih  and ' sUtresveva hi tatsarvam yadvrttau yacca vArtike '.

AdhiparI anarthakau (Pan 1-4-92 ) - is PramAnam . This aspect is beautifully explained

by Hari (VP  2-190) --

 

aprayoge'dhiparyosca yAvaddrstam kriyAntaram I

tasyAbhidhayako dhAtuh saha tAbhyAmanarthakah II

 

Regarding the use of the word ' samuccaya' instead of 'samuccita'  there will be problem

- cAdayo'sattve (Pan 1-4-57 is not followed and as a result we cannot get AvyayasamjnA

by 'svarAdinipAtamavyayam' (Pan1-1-37 ) -- explains Hari (VP2-195) -

 

samuccitAbhidhAne'pi vyatireko na vidyate I

asattvabhUto bhAvasca kriyAnyenAbhidhIyate II

 

In Vrttisamuddesa of Padakanda(Vakyapad.) Hari takes up the SUtra, cArthe dvandvah

and explains in 20 verses If read with commentary one would get the 'tattvam' of 'ca' --

 

cArthah sabde kvacidbhedAt kathamcit samavassthitah I

dyotakAscAdayastasya vaktA dvandvastu tadvatAm II etc.

 

dhanyo'smi

[Divakar Jha]

उभावपि शुद्धौ... किन्तु प्रायः रामः "हमीदा च उद्यानं गच्छतः" इत्यस्यैव प्रयोगः क्रियते।

2010/8/27 S P Narang <spna...@yahoo.com>

--

दिवाकर झा

शोधच्छात्र

श्रीलालबहादुरशास्त्रीराष्ट्रियसंस्कृतविद्यापीठ, नई दिल्ली

9868343091