Visarga to retroflex s?

[Guest guest]

Would one expect visarga to change to .s in cak.su.h + prakaa"sa

(cak.su.sprakaa"sa) in the yoga suutram 3.21? Even if it does not change

and remains written as visarga, would (could) it be pronounced as .s?

 

 

 

Girish Sharma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Girish Sharma" <girish.sharma@e...>

wrote:

> Would one expect visarga to change to .s in cak.su.h + prakaa"sa

> (cak.su.sprakaa"sa) in the yoga suutram 3.21? Even if it does not

change

> and remains written as visarga, would (could) it be pronounced as

..s?

 

It would seem that it has to be 'cakSuSprakaaza'. But, there are some

interesting issues here. Panini's rules are 8.3.44-45:

is-usoH saamarthye; nityam samaase 'nuttarapadasthasya

 

1. Do 'is' and 'us' here refer to (uNaadi) suffixes or just the sound

sequences?[elsewhere, Panini says 'idudupadhasyaapratyayasya' when he

wants to specify the sound sequences 'is' and 'us'.) If the former,

which words are derived with those suffixes?

 

2. According to Patanjali, 8.3.44 (which is optional) applies only to

sentence sandhi. So the change 's' -> 'S' is mandatory in two-member

compounds when preceded by 'i' or 'u' and followed by k, kh, p or ph;

but it is prohibited when the word ending in 'is/us' is at the end of

a compound itself. So we have

sarpiH karoti or sarpiSkaroti

sarpiSkuNDikaa (but >not< sarpiHkuNDikaa)

paramasarpiHkuNDikaa (>not< paramasarpiSkuNDikaa)

[apparently either] paramasarpiH karoti or paramasarpiSkaroti

But this would mean that sentence sandhi preserves an archaism that is

lost in compounds, the reverse of what one would expect. [Kaiyata

records a divergent view according to which 8.3.44 applies to both

sentences and compounds, with 8.3.45 making s->S mandatory in a subset

of the cases to which 8.3.44 applies.]

 

3. Translations of Ashtadhyayi render the example

'paramasarpiHkuNDikaa' as 'a big ghee pot'. But if 'sarpiSkuNDikaa'

has already been formed, how can it revert back when it is compounded

with 'parama'? [Jinedrabuddhi, IIRC, explains 'paramasarpiHkuNDikaa'

as (parama+sarpiH)+kuNDikaa ('pot of grade A butter'?)].

 

Nath Rao

[Guest guest]

Hello Girish,

 

While the change of a final visarga to 's' before an initial 'p' is

not common in the classical language, one finds examples like

manaspApa (ZaunakIya AV 6.45.1) and rAyaspoSa (AV 1.9.4). If the

final visarga is preceded by 'i', 'u' etc, then it can change to

retroflex S, as in Vedic examples paruSparuH (AV 1.12.3),

paridhiSpatAti (AV 529.2). The yogasUtra usage, if it is genuine,

could be an archaism of this sort.

 

Madhav Deshpande

 

INDOLOGY, "Girish Sharma" <girish.sharma@e...>

wrote:

> Would one expect visarga to change to .s in cak.su.h + prakaa"sa

> (cak.su.sprakaa"sa) in the yoga suutram 3.21? Even if it does not

change

> and remains written as visarga, would (could) it be pronounced as .

s?

>

>

>

> Girish Sharma

>

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "deshpandem" <mmdesh@U...> wrote:

> INDOLOGY, "Girish Sharma"

> <girish.sharma@e...> wrote:

> > Would one expect visarga to change to .s in cak.su.h + prakaa"sa

> > (cak.su.sprakaa"sa) in the yoga suutram 3.21?

> > Even if it does not change and remains written as visarga,

> > would (could) it be pronounced as .s?

>

> While the change of a final visarga to 's' before an initial 'p' is

> not common in the classical language, one finds examples like

> manaspApa (ZaunakIya AV 6.45.1) and rAyaspoSa (AV 1.9.4). If the

> final visarga is preceded by 'i', 'u' etc, then it can change to

> retroflex S, as in Vedic examples paruSparuH (AV 1.12.3),

> paridhiSpatAti (AV 529.2). The yogasUtra usage, if it is genuine,

> could be an archaism of this sort.

 

Wouldn't 8.3.44,45 (isusoH saamarthye, nityam samaase

'nuttarapadasthe) apply, triggering the change to S?

 

There are several things about the interpretation of these rules that

I find puzzling, though none of them seem relevant to Girish's question:

 

Patanjali's interpretation, supplemented by examples from Kasika and

Nyaasa, seems to say that 8.3.44 applies only to sentence sandhi, and

8.3.45 to only compounds (though Kaiyata records the existence of a

divergent opinion, according to which, both options in (iv) below are

acceptable); also 'is' and 'us' refer to sound sequences and not to

the uNaadi suffixes (though the examples given are undoubtedly made

with suffixes is or us). So

(i) sarpiH karoti or sarpiSkaroti

(ii) paramasarpiH karoti or paramasarpiSkaroti

(iii) sarpiSkuNDikaa, but not sarpiHkuNDikaa

(iv) paramasarpiHkuNDikaa, but not paramasarpiSkuNDikaa

 

This says that the more archaic sandhi is preserved in sentence

sandhi, but not compound sandhi, as in (ii) vs (iv). That is the

opposite of what one would expect. The alternate interpretation,

mentioned by KaiyaTa would be bolstered if there are other places in

Panini where an optional prior rule is made mandatory in a subset of

cases by a subsequent rule with 'nityam'. Are there any?

 

Also, Vasu, Renou, Kale (in his Higher Sanskrit Grammar), and

presumably others translate 'paramasarpiHkuNDikaa' as 'big ghee pot'

(or equivalent). But how can 'sarpiSkuNDikaa' revert back after it has

been formed? IIRC, Jinedrabuddhi explains this as

(parama+sarpis)+kuNDikaa, presumably meaning 'pot of grade A ghee'

which fits in with (ii) above. Which is right?

 

Nath Rao

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "deshpandem" <mmdesh@U...> wrote:

> INDOLOGY, "Girish Sharma"

> <girish.sharma@e...> wrote:

> > Would one expect visarga to change to .s in cak.su.h + prakaa"sa

> > (cak.su.sprakaa"sa) in the yoga suutram 3.21? Even if it does

> > not change and remains written as visarga, would (could)

> > it be pronounced as .s?

>

> While the change of a final visarga to 's' before an initial 'p' is

> not common in the classical language, one finds examples like

> manaspApa (ZaunakIya AV 6.45.1) and rAyaspoSa (AV 1.9.4). If the

> final visarga is preceded by 'i', 'u' etc, then it can change to

> retroflex S, as in Vedic examples paruSparuH (AV 1.12.3),

> paridhiSpatAti (AV 529.2). The yogasUtra usage, if it is genuine,

> could be an archaism of this sort.

 

[for some reason, my replies to this group don't seem to be making it.

So I am resending my reply. Please accept my apologies if three,

somewhat differt versions of this message make it out.]

 

Wouldn't 8.3.44, 45 ([kupvoH/iNaH] isusoH saamarthye, nityam samaase

'nuttarapadasthasya) apply, triggering the change to S?

 

I find two things about the interpretations of these rules that I find

puzzling. If I understand the comments on this by Patanajli, Kaasika

and Jinedrabuddhi correctly, 8.3.44 applies only to sentence sandhi

and 45 to compounds. So

(1) sarpiH karoti or sarpiSkaroti

(2) sarpiSkuNDikaa, but not sarpiHkuNDikaa

(3) paramasarpiHkuNDikaa, but not paramasarpiSkuNDikaa

(4) paramasarpiH karoti, or paramasarpiSkaroti [this is not in

Mahaabhaashya, but IIRC either in Kaasikaa or Nyaasa.]

 

But this means that sentence sandhi preserves an archaism lost in

compound sandhi, the reverse of what one would expect. KaiyaTa records

a divergent opinion, according to which 8.3.44 applies to both

sentence sandhi and compound sandhi, with 45 making the change

mandatory in a subset of cases. I am curious as to whether there are

any other cases where an optional prior rule is made to apply

mandatorily in a subset of cases by 'nityam'. ['nityam' generally

seems to have a disjoint sphere of application compared to the

immediately preceding rule.]

 

The second relates to the meaning of paramasarpiHkuNDikaa: Vasu,

Renou, and Kale, in Higher Sanskrit Grammar, gloss

'paramasrpiHkuNDikaa' as 'a big ghee pot' or similar. How can

sarpiSkuNDikaa, once formed, revert to sarpiHkuNDikaa in a larger

compound? IIRC Jinendrabuddhi explains it as (parama+sarpis)+kuNDikaa.

Which is correct?

 

Nath Rao

[Guest guest]

Dear Nathrao,

 

I think you have hit an interesting dilemma and I am not sure we

know all the answers. How does the sentence sandhi preserve an

archaism that is presumablly lost inside a compound? This raises

important issues regarding our understanding of the term sAmarthya

in Panini. Sometimes Patanjali takes it to mean

ekArthIbhAva "unification of constituent meanings into a single

whole" that is found in compounds, and sometimes he takes it to mean

vyapekSA "mutual semantic expectancy between the words of a phrase

or sentence". By picking one or the other of these two types of

sAmarthya, Patanjali effectively directs a given rule either toward

compounds or toward sentences or phrases. So some of the problem

would lie in how one takes sAmarthya in issusoH sAmarthye. Since

in many of these cases, genuine linguistic data are lacking, the

commentaries are going in circular explanations. This is the

problem with examples like sarpiSkuNDikA vs paramasarpiHkuNDikA.

Since the "normal" tendencies of writing visarga etc. changed with

time, even the manuscripts of texts like the ZaunakIyacaturAdhyAyikA

don't seem to follow the rules of the prAtizAkhya even while citing

examples. Whitney had pointed out this problem long time ago, and I

found the same thing while re-editing this text with about twenty

mansucripts. I personally do not believe there are two types of

sAmarthya in Panini, and have argued in that direction in my

publications. However, since we enter into gray areas for lack of

genuine attested examples, we remain somewhat uncertain no matter

what we do. I wish I had something more reassuring to say.

 

Madhav Deshpande

 

 

INDOLOGY, "nathrao" <nathrao> wrote:

>

>

> INDOLOGY, "deshpandem" <mmdesh@U...> wrote:

> > INDOLOGY, "Girish Sharma"

> > <girish.sharma@e...> wrote:

> > > Would one expect visarga to change to .s in cak.su.h +

prakaa"sa

> > > (cak.su.sprakaa"sa) in the yoga suutram 3.21? Even if it does

> > > not change and remains written as visarga, would (could)

> > > it be pronounced as .s?

> >

> > While the change of a final visarga to 's' before an initial 'p'

is

> > not common in the classical language, one finds examples like

> > manaspApa (ZaunakIya AV 6.45.1) and rAyaspoSa (AV 1.9.4). If

the

> > final visarga is preceded by 'i', 'u' etc, then it can change to

> > retroflex S, as in Vedic examples paruSparuH (AV 1.12.3),

> > paridhiSpatAti (AV 529.2). The yogasUtra usage, if it is

genuine,

> > could be an archaism of this sort.

>

> [for some reason, my replies to this group don't seem to be making

it.

> So I am resending my reply. Please accept my apologies if three,

> somewhat differt versions of this message make it out.]

>

> Wouldn't 8.3.44, 45 ([kupvoH/iNaH] isusoH saamarthye, nityam

samaase

> 'nuttarapadasthasya) apply, triggering the change to S?

>

> I find two things about the interpretations of these rules that I

find

> puzzling. If I understand the comments on this by Patanajli,

Kaasika

> and Jinedrabuddhi correctly, 8.3.44 applies only to sentence sandhi

> and 45 to compounds. So

> (1) sarpiH karoti or sarpiSkaroti

> (2) sarpiSkuNDikaa, but not sarpiHkuNDikaa

> (3) paramasarpiHkuNDikaa, but not paramasarpiSkuNDikaa

> (4) paramasarpiH karoti, or paramasarpiSkaroti [this is not in

> Mahaabhaashya, but IIRC either in Kaasikaa or Nyaasa.]

>

> But this means that sentence sandhi preserves an archaism lost in

> compound sandhi, the reverse of what one would expect. KaiyaTa

records

> a divergent opinion, according to which 8.3.44 applies to both

> sentence sandhi and compound sandhi, with 45 making the change

> mandatory in a subset of cases. I am curious as to whether there

are

> any other cases where an optional prior rule is made to apply

> mandatorily in a subset of cases by 'nityam'. ['nityam' generally

> seems to have a disjoint sphere of application compared to the

> immediately preceding rule.]

>

> The second relates to the meaning of paramasarpiHkuNDikaa: Vasu,

> Renou, and Kale, in Higher Sanskrit Grammar, gloss

> 'paramasrpiHkuNDikaa' as 'a big ghee pot' or similar. How can

> sarpiSkuNDikaa, once formed, revert to sarpiHkuNDikaa in a larger

> compound? IIRC Jinendrabuddhi explains it as (parama+sarpis)

+kuNDikaa.

> Which is correct?

>

> Nath Rao