[Y-Indology] "Goghna" and Panini 3.4.73

[Guest guest]

Ref: Message No.4439

 

I supply herewith the explanation of "goghna" under P.3.4.73 by Pt

Brahmadatta Jij~naasu in his aSTAdhyAyii (bhaaSya) - prathamaavRtti (Pub:

Ramlal Kapoor Trust, Bhalagarh, Harayana) in Sanskrit-Hindi:

 

************

gaaM = dugdhaadikaM ghnanti = praapnuvanti [1] yasmai sa goghno'tithiH.

 

[1] Here, ghnanti means "to get", as "hana hiMsaa-gatyoH" is read in the

dhaatupaaTha. The term "gati" has three meanings (1) j~naana (2) gamana (3)

praapti. Here the term "gau", on the "pramaaNa" of nirukta [2.5], has the

meaning "the vikaara of gau", i.e. milk etc.

************

 

Regards.

Narayan Prasad

[Guest guest]

"Narayan Prasad" <prasad_cwprs wrote:

 

| [citing Pt Brahmadatta Jij~naasu ]

| ************

| gaaM = dugdhaadikaM ghnanti = praapnuvanti [1] yasmai sa goghno'tithiH.

|

| [1] Here, ghnanti means "to get", as "hana hiMsaa-gatyoH" is read

| in the dhaatupaaTha. The term "gati" has three meanings

| (1) j~naana (2) gamana (3) praapti. Here the term "gau", on the

| "pramaaNa" of nirukta [2.5], has the meaning "the vikaara of gau",

| i.e. milk etc.

| ************

 

Having apparently accepted the kAzikAvRtti exegesis that the word

identifies a beneficiary and not an agent (as a normal tatpurusa

analysis would indicate), this seems to be a further gloss on the

action itself.

 

Pt JijJAsu seems to be claiming that 'goghna' *literally* means

something "milk-acquirer", based on a derivative reading of 'gAm

ghnanti'.

 

I find that more than a little farfetched (e.g. how does hiMsA fit

in? Is the cow milked violently or mercilessly?)

[Guest guest]

Ref: Message No.4449

 

>Pt JijJAsu seems to be claiming that 'goghna'

>*literally* means something "milk-acquirer",

>based on a derivative reading of 'gAm ghnanti'.

 

Please read the complete sentence and then derive the meaning. You have

completely left the term "yasmai". "gaaM praapnuvanti yasmai sa

goghno'tithiH". Here, "gaaM praapnuvanti yasmai" is equivalent to the

passive structure "gauH prApyate yasmai".

 

 

>I find that more than a little farfetched

> (e.g. how does hiMsA fit in? Is the cow

>milked violently or mercilessly?)

 

Again you do not seem to have read the complete information supplied by

me. The root "han" does not mean only "hiMsA", but also "gati" as per

dhAtupATha and "gati" in turn has three different meanings. Please refer

also to the nirukta [2.5], which is earlier to PANini.

 

Hope, the matter is clear.

 

--- Narayan Prasad

[Guest guest]

"Narayan Prasad" <prasad_cwprs wrote:

 

| Ref: Message No.4449

|

|> Pt JijJAsu seems to be claiming that 'goghna' *literally*

|> means something "milk-acquirer", based on a derivative reading

|> of 'gAm ghnanti'.

|

| Please read the complete sentence and then derive the meaning.

| You have completely left the term "yasmai".

 

I think you misunderstood what I meant, though the fault is mine

for not spelling it out clearly enough. I emphasized "literally"

in order to distinguish that (provisional) meaning from the final

interpretation in the dative case as per 3.4.73, i.e. from a

literal meaning of something like "X-acquirer" (where X is some

vikAra of of gau) we derive something like "he for whom X is

acquired" as the final result. This was not controversial at all.

My problem was with the starting point.

 

| The root "han" does not mean only "hiMsA", but also "gati" as per

| dhAtupATha and "gati" in turn has three different meanings.

 

Well, thank you, that's news to me. Is there an attestation of

'han' being used in the sense of 'prApti' in any text prior to

Panini?

 

There are two reasons why this analysis is farfetched. First, it

involves a double-stretch of both 'gAm' and 'ghnanti' away from

principal meanings, especially when the use of 'goghna' in the

actual *literal* sense, i.e. with those principal meanings (never

mind a later development of an idiom), is already attested in

RV.1.114.10.

 

Second, the stretch with 'han' is also double, through 'gati' to

'prApti'. This kind of analysis, as a principle, would mean that

we could chained through any number of "locally close" synonyms to

arrive at any meaning we please. (I'm reminded of the old story

of why fire engines are red.)

 

This is why empirical checks are important. Is there an example,

preferably prior to Panini, where someone has inflected the root

'han' with a meaning of 'prApti' in mind?

 

If not, then the analysis, while *possible*, must be dismissed as

improbable. Simply because something can be so doesn't make it

so.

 

Did I mention Occam's razor? ;-)