[Y-Indology] "Goghna" and Panini 3.4.73

[Guest guest]

"deshpandem" <mmdesh wrote:

 

| Panini's rule 3.4.73 (dAzagoghnau sampradAne) offers derivations

| of the words dAza and goghna in the sense of targets/recipients

| of certain actions, and not as agents of those actions.

 

| [ dAza ~ dAzanti asmai ]

| [ go+ghna ~ AgatAya tasmai dAtum gAm ghnanti iti goghno 'tithiH ]

 

| These are the explanations given in the commentary kAzikAvRtti

| on this rule.

 

If I've understood this correctly, Panini is saying that the

entities identified by these two words stand in the dative case

(sampradAne) with respect to the verb/action involved; daz

"bestow" in one case, han "kill" (-ing of a cow) in the other.

 

Okay, that sounds straightforward enough. Thank you. :-)

 

| According to this explanation, the word does not literally

| mean "cow-killer", but refers to a guest for whose hospitality

| a cow is killed to prepare a meal.

 

In other words, an idiomatic usage.

 

But at what point (before Panini, obviously) was this idiom

established? Are there examples of its actual use in the early

texts?

 

For example, the word "goghna" appears in RV.1.114, parts of which

are in the Zatarudriya litany. From the context it's practically

certain that the literal meaning, "cow-killer", is meant. (And is

duly to be found in translations such as by Griffith and Wilson.)

Also, the accent is on 'ghna' in 'goghna', so a normal tatpurusa

construction would be warranted anyway.

 

So, could a shift in accent have been used to establish the idiom?

(Although that would have become obsolete for Panini anyway.)