Everything posted by Kobzar
Hello everybody, I am trying to translate Sāyaṇa's commentary on "Ṛgveda", III, 33, and I have found a sequence (for I think there are several words written together, according to the "devanāgarī" rules), which I cannot figure out. I have tried to separate it into its elements in all the ways that have come to my mind, without any success so far. Perhaps the problem lies in the proper reading of the "devanāgarī" signs in the editions that I have consulted, in which the printing, the scans, or both do not seem to have the best quality: MÜLLER, F. M. (ed.), 21890: Rig-veda Samhitâ. The Sacred Hymns of the Brâhmans, Together with the Commentary of Sâyanâkârya, vol. II, London, Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press, p. 242 = 317 of the PDF, first line: अंतर्णीतसनर्थो लिहिः (aṃtarṇītasanartho lihiḥ). The word लिहिः does not seem to be the problem; it seems an action noun derived through the suffix –i from the verb root lih- (“to lick”). The problem lies in अंतर्णीतसनर्थो (if that reading is correct, it seems a sandhi form equivalent to अंतर्णीतसनर्थस् before voiced consonant at the beginning of the following word). Since the printing, the scan, or both are not very clear, perhaps one should read अंतर्णोतसनर्थो (aṃtarṇotasanartho), अंतर्णोतसनर्थी (aṃtarṇotasanarthī), अंतर्णीतसनर्थी (aṃtarṇītasanarthī) or any of those hypothetical sequences, but with मinstead of स, that is, अंतर्णीतमनर्थो (aṃtarṇītamanartho), etc. SONTAKKE, N. S.; Kashikar, C. G.; Varadaraj Sharma, T. S., & Umranikar, B. V. (eds.), 1936: Ṛgveda-Saṃhitā with the Commentary of Sāyaṇāchārya, vol. II, Poona, Vedic Research Institute, p. 347 = 402 of the PDF, lines 4-5: अन्तर्णीतसन्नर्थो लिहिः The correspondence between अन्तर् (Sontakke) and अंतर् (Müller) leads us to suspect that perhaps one should read अंतर्णीतसंनर्थो in Müller’s text as well, although in the scan we are using we do not see any anusvāra mark on the स (or म) in Müller’s edition. Anyway, it seems to me that we should separate अर्थो or अर्थी, but for the rest I have not found any convincing segmentation or interpretation yet. Any help will be appreciated. Thank you very much in advance, and best regards.
Hello, dear colleagues, I would like to say that I have already solved the problem I had with the passage of Ṣaḍguruśiṣya's Vedārthadīpikā, mentioned in my previous post. In Indische Studien, I, 119-20, I have found the same passage transliterated, and the proper reading confirms my conjecture: ह्यवासीदच्च = हि अवासीदत् च. Thank you very much anyway.
Hello, I am trying to translate a passage of Ṣaḍguruśiṣya's Vedārthadīpikā, published by A. A. Macdonell in his edition of Kātyāyana's Sarvānukramaṇī, etc. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1886). The passage I am dealing with is on p. 107 of that book (corresponding to p. 135 of the PDF version you may find in https://es.scribd.com/document/122758125/Katyayana-sarvanukramani-Sounaka-Anuvakanukramani). Unfortunately, the scan (or, perhaps, the original print) is not very clean, and I am not at all sure of the proper reading of a sequence in line 11 of p. 135 of the attached PDF (corresponding to verse 2 b, before footnote reference no. 6): वासिष्टेनाभिभूत: स त्यवासीदच्च गाथिज: But I am not at all sure about the sequence that I have tentatively transcribed here as त्यवासीदच्च. If that reading is correct, I guess it can be analysed as त्यौ आसीदत् च, where त्यौ is the masculine dual accusative of the demonstrative pronoun त्य; आसीदत् would be the 3rd person singular of the active imperfect of आ सद्, and च would be the enclitic copulative conjunction. But I cannot figure out a translation with too much sense from all that: "he was surpassed by Vasiṣṭha's son, and the son of Gāthin met / approached those two," and one could ask: who are those two? Further, I am not at all sure whether the reading त्यवासीदच्च is correct, because the ligature त्य does not look exactly the same in other parts of the same page, for example in the very footnote no. 6. So I have tried reading it as ह्यवासीदच्च, and analysing the sequence as हि अवासीदत् च. Then, the verse could be translated as follows: "For he was surpassed by Vasiṣṭha's son, and the son of Gāthin became disheartened." This looks somewhat better. What do you think? Thank you very much in advance for whatever help.