[Y-Indology] o toro fra gli uomini

[Guest guest]

A compound of the type "narapumgava" is a karmadhAraya compound as per pANini

sUtra 2.1.56 [upamitaM vyAghrAdibhiH sAmAnyAprayoge] and its padaccheda is

"naro'yaM puMgava iva" [this man (is) like bull]. Similarly "puruSa-vyAghraH",

"puruSa-siMhaH". The meaning is "a man as strong/powerful as a bull/tiger/lion".

But if the word indicating the sAmAnya dharma (common

nature/feature) is explicitly expressed, the compound will not take place. For

example: "puruSo'yaM vyAghra iva shUraH" ---used as a sentence only, because

the common dharma "shUratva" is explicitly mentioned.

 

The complete meaning of the above sUtra is as follows:

 

upamitaM vyAghrAdibhiH sAmAnyAprayoge ||2.1.56|| anuvRttis: samAnAdhikaraNena

(from 2.1.49), tatpuruSaH (from 2.1.22), vibhASA (from 2.1.11), sup (from

2.1.2), saha supA (from 2.1.4), samAsH (from 2.1.3).

 

Meaning: [sAmAnyAprayoge] sAmAnya-dhrmavAci-shabdasya aprayoge (=anuccAraNe

sati) [upamitaM] upameyavAci ^{subantaM [samAnAdhikaraNena]}

^{samAnAdhikaraNaiH [vyAghrAdibhiH saha supA] vyAghrAdibhiH subantaiH saha}

^{[vibhASA ] vibhASA (optionally) [samAsaH] samsyate, [tatpuruSaH] tatpuruSashca}

^{(samAso bhavati).}

^{Here, as per PANini sUtra "tatpuruSaH samAnAdhikarNaH krmadhArayaH (1.4.42),}

^{the above tatpuruSa samAsa is karmadhAraya.}

^{--- Narayan Prasad}

^-

^{<phillip.ernest}

^<INDOLOGY>

^{Friday, November 26, 2004 12:40 AM}

^{[Y-Indology] o toro fra gli uomini}

^{> Hi, group.}

^>

^{> I heard today that compounds like narapumgava are definitely not to be}

^{translated as 'bull among men', a saptamitatpurusa I guess, but as}

^{karmadharayas, 'bull of a man'. Do we know from Sanskrit grammarians and}

^{commentators that this is how such compounds were understood, or is there}

^{controversy even amongst them?}

^>

^{> Phillip}

[Guest guest]

>-- Messaggio originale --

><INDOLOGY>

>"Narayan Prasad" <prasad_cwprs

>Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:33:56 +0530

>Re: [Y-Indology] o toro fra gli uomini

>INDOLOGY

>

>

>

>

>A compound of the type "narapumgava" is a karmadhAraya compound as per

pANini

>sUtra 2.1.56 [upamitaM vyAghrAdibhiH sAmAnyAprayoge] and its padaccheda

is

>"naro'yaM puMgava iva" [this man (is) like bull]. Similarly "puruSa-vyAghraH",

>"puruSa-siMhaH". The meaning is "a man as strong/powerful as a

bull/tiger/lion".

 

So this means that indian commentators and grammarians who understood such

a compound as a tatpurusa were in violation of Panini's rule, did not know

about it, or were following a dissident grammatical tradition? A certain

bhikku, who apparently contacted me offlist and not on, quoted a Pali grammarian

who understood such compounds in a variety of ways, of which he quoted three,

karmadharaya, and what in Sanskrit would be sasthitatpurusa and

saptamitatpurusa.

 

Phillip

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

One is a bit taken aback when encountering the expression ';bull among men '

as the translation for the word 'narapungava' .Compounds lile narapungava,

purusarsabha and purusavyaghra defy literal translation given the rich

cultural undertones these concepts possess in the Indian tradition.. I feel

that in the Indian cultural context, the animal image doesnot enter in to the

mind at all. These seem to be similar to instances of nirudha laksana like the

word lavanya, wherein we do not become conscious of the literal meaning of

'saltishness'. A literal trnaslation somehow or other has weird effect.

Rajendran

 

 

Dr.C.Rajendran

Professor of Sanskrit

University of Calicut

Calicut University P.O

Kerala 673 635 Phone: 0494-2401144

Residential address:28/1097,Rajadhani Kumaran Nair Road,

Chevayur, Calicut Kerala 673 017 Phone: 0495-2354 624

 

 

 

Mail - You care about security. So do we.

 

 

[Guest guest]

>-- Messaggio originale --

>INDOLOGY

>Rajendran C <crajenin

>Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:47:25 -0800 (PST)

>Re: [Y-Indology] o toro fra gli uomini

>INDOLOGY

>

>

>

>

>Dear friends,

>One is a bit taken aback when encountering the expression ';bull among

>men ' as the translation for the word 'narapungava' .Compounds lile

narapungava,

>purusarsabha and purusavyaghra defy literal translation given the rich

>cultural undertones these concepts possess in the Indian tradition.. I

feel

>that in the Indian cultural context, the animal image doesnot enter in

>to the mind at all. These seem to be similar to instances of nirudha

laksana

>like the word lavanya, wherein we do not become conscious of the literal

>meaning of 'saltishness'. A literal trnaslation somehow or other has weird

>effect.

 

I think this weirdness is inevitable in any translation that does not seek

to completely mask the otherness of its text's origin. In the case of the

type of compound in question, what is the alternative? It was once suggested

to me that it is best to render narapumgava and the like according to its

general sense, as 'a hell of a man'. To me, this is an impoverishing practice.

It is a truism that translation is, strictly, impossible; any representation

of a text in another language will inevitably be a misrepresentation, more

or less. No non-indian reader of the Mahabharata or the Ramayana, even

if he is reading it in Sanskrit, will feel the text in an 'indian' way;

it can't be helped, the difference of his background translates, so to speak,

into a radical difference of perspective that will make him notice a lot

of things that will, through ancient familiarity, long since have ceased

to seem salient to an indian reader. It hardly needs to be said that this

will be true of anyone who reads 'someone else's' texts. I have been reading

Shakespeare since I was a teenager, and by now, there is nothing to think

about, nothing to work through, in what were, even in their own time, strikingly

original phrases, such as 'to take arms against a sea of troubles', or 'the

dram of eale/ Doth all the noble substance overdaub/ To his own scandal'.

The awareness of the lexical meaning of such phrases is no longer conscious,

but it is available to me, if I have a need to think about it, just as,

I imagine, an indian reader will not actually be at a loss as to the lexical

meaning of narapumgava. New readers of Shakespeare, whether western or

non, will, like new readers of the Ramayana (and perhaps, to allude to another

truism, only non-indians can read the Ramayana for the first time), inevitably

take notice of the text's beauty in what is, in a sense, a more immediate

and vivid way, while the seasoned reader will read with a different sort

of wisdom. It is not even this simple: even for a native speaker of English,

Shakespeare's text will seem more brilliantly poetic and original than it

would have seemed in the context of its own time; much that was in fact

rather hackneyed and unoriginal will, through the passage of centuries and

the loss of intimate contact with the greater part of Shakespeare's literary

and cultural context, seem to glow with an 'inauthentic' uniqueness and

genius. Even English speakers approach Shakespeare as aliens, and translate

him into their own language without knowing it, and experience the text's

alienness as mere beauty. Where translations from other languages are

concerned,

the reader is more likely to attribute the beauty of a phrase like 'bull

among men' to a foreign aesthetic. No doubt the cultural disjuncture may

actually make such an image more beautiful to a non-indian reader, if the

image has long since ceased to convey anything more than a bland superlativity

to one who has grown used to it. But I feel that it can only be a positive

thing, even if 'inauthentic' in a sense, to dredge up the etymology of such

a word in rendering it for a foreign readership, or even in reading it in

Sanskrit for the first time, instead of striving to present the reader with

the closest possible imitation of just more English poetry, in unoffensively

european metres filled with undisturbingly european imagery designed to

accurately represent the sameness and familiarity that culturally fundamental

texts have for their first audiences.

 

Phillip

[Guest guest]

Dear Philip,

Yes, we are opening the Pandora's box of the translation problem. I have always

felt that translation is the art of the impossible, yet we have to make the

best of a bad business there.

Like you, we had also our Shakespeare lesson, in the weird Indian way.[Nobody,

alas! reckons an Indian Professor's perceptions on Shakespeare , at least in any

English speaking country.]I feel that an Englishman is best equipped to ponder

deep into the nuances of Shakespearean English than his Indian counterpart,

obviously due to cultural reasons.

Be it as it is . In the bull questiion, it is the bullishness of the bull which

scares me which I feel is not the same as the word Rshabha or gauh. Even the

word ox does not cause this weird effect. I was just recording a subjective

impression.

Rajendran

 

 

Dr.C.Rajendran

Professor of Sanskrit

University of Calicut

Calicut University P.O

Kerala 673 635 Phone: 0494-2401144

Residential address:28/1097,Rajadhani Kumaran Nair Road,

Chevayur, Calicut Kerala 673 017 Phone: 0495-2354 624

 

 

 

All your favorites on one personal page – Try My

 

 

[Guest guest]

>-- Messaggio originale --

>INDOLOGY

>Rajendran C <crajenin

>Sat, 4 Dec 2004 07:59:53 -0800 (PST)

>Re: [Y-Indology] o toro fra gli uomini

>INDOLOGY

 

>Be it as it is . In the bull questiion, it is the bullishness of the bull

>which scares me which I feel is not the same as the word Rshabha or gauh.

>Even the word ox does not cause this weird effect. I was just recording

a

>subjective impression.

 

Hello, Professor. Yes, it is important to know about the disparity of the

subjective impressions created in the minds of indian and non-indian readers

of Sanskrit and translations from Sanskrit. I love to know far more about

a text than a single translation can convey, and although, if I must read

just one, I will choose one that preserves the literal meaning of naravyaghra

(insofar as a lexical translation is literal), I would also want to read

one which renders it as 'excellent man' or the like, in order to learn the

fact of which you speak. I remember that ages ago a friend of mine told

me that he had read of the difficulties considered by early translators

of the Bible into the language of a people for whom the staple livestock

was the guinea pig. It seemed most accurate to these translators to render

the phrase as 'guinea pig of god', since these people had no idea what a

lamb was, and the effort to introduce them to the concept of a lamb would

distract from the translators' purpose. No doubt someone can remind me

of the details of this story. I suppose many new and alien concepts were

introduced to the european mind as Christianity moved north; I am not sure

if the Vikings, for example, were shepherds. Who knows what philosophical

and religious harm may have been wrought in european history by the failure

to find more culturally accurate equivalents, such as bison or chicken of

god.

 

John Smith, in the introduction to his translation of the text of the Tale

of Pabuji, which I recently read, wrote:

 

--begin quote--

 

The translation which follows is intended to be an accurate English

representation

of the performance by Parbu Bhopo transcribed in the preceding pages. It

is not, however, literal in the narrowest sense of the term-- that is to

say, it is not a crib. I have tried to find for each Rajasthani phrase

an acceptable English equivalent; if that equivalent differs significantly

in terms of literal meaing, I have provided a more accurate gloss in a footnote.

Thus, to take a single example, I have translated *kara tala vegairi takida*

as 'make swift speed', and explained in n. 37 that the original phrase really

means 'make speed swifter than the clap of a hand': in this case the chance

of a simple English alliteration echoing the Rajasthani *tala... takida*

seemed to me to counterbalance the loss in content. Naturally, other phrases

required other kinds of treatment.

 

That there is an overall loss in content I cannot deny. In making my

translation

I have often felt, rather helplessly, that the richness of the original

phraseology was trickling away through my fingers: so many words ended up

with pedestrian English equivalents such as 'fine' or 'great'; so many

variations

in word-order emerged into English as suchject plus verb plus object; so

much onomatopoeia was lost or weakened; and so on, and on....

 

--end quote--

 

For myself, I thought it a great pity that 'make speed swifter than the

clap of a hand' was not retained. I would have preferred to keep the whole

image, and grow used to its strangeness, and come as much as possible to

feel at home with it in the context of its home. But perhaps it is too

strange for even me to get used to it, it does occur so very frequently

in the poem. Yet I recall that, by the end of my first reading of the Shastri

Ramayana, I no longer had a very clear image of a tiger or a bull when I

encountered one of those omnipresent superlative phrases. 'Bull among men'

had become as familiar as anything can, when one is able to remember hearing

it for the first time.

 

Phillip