Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1A still more extraordinary case of misunderstanding on the part of the original compilers of the Vedic texts, and likewise of the authors of the Pratisa- khyas, the Niruktas, and other Vedic treatises, has been pointed out by Professor Kuhn. In an article of his, ‘ Zur altesten Geschichte der Indogermanischen Volker’ (Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 351), he made the following observation: ‘The Lithuanian laukas, Lett. lauks, Pruss. laukas,all meaning field, agree exactly with the Sk. lokas, world, Lat. locus, Low Germ. (in East-Frisia and Oldenburg) louch, léch, village. All these words are to be traced back to the Sk. uru, Gr. evpds, broad, wide. The initial u is lost, as in Goth. rims, O.H.G. rOmi, rdmin (Low Germ. rQme, an open uncultivated field in a forest), and the r changed into 1. In support of this derivation it should be observed that in the Veda loka is frequently preceded by the particle u, which probably was only separated from it by the Diaskeuastz, and that the meaning is Uloka. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxv that of open space.” Although this derivation has met with little favour, I confess that I look upon this remark, excepting only the Latin locus’, i.e.stlocus, as one of the most ingenious of this eminent scholar. The fact is that this particle u before loka is one of the most puzzling occurrences in the Veda. Professor Bollensen says that loka never occurs without a preceding u in the first eight Mazdalas, and this is perfectly true with the exception of one passage which he has overlooked, VIII, 100, 12, dyauz dehi lokam vagraya vi-skdbhe, Dyu! give room for the lightning to step forth! Professor Bollensen (I. c. p. 603) reads vritrdya instead of vagraya, without authority. He objects to dyauh as a vocative, which should be dyatiz; but dyau# may be dyo&, a genitive belonging to vagraya, in which case we should translate, Make room for the lightning of Dyu to step forth!
2Professor Bollensen (I. c. p. 603) reads vritrdya instead of vagraya, without authority. He objects to dyauh as a vocative, which should be dyatiz; but dyau# may be dyo&, a genitive belonging to vagraya, in which case we should translate, Make room for the lightning of Dyu to step forth! But what is even more important is the fact that the occurrence of this unaccented u at the beginning of a pada is against the very rules, or, at least, runs counter to the very observations which the authors of the Pratisdkhya have made on the inadmissibility of an unaccented word in such a place, so that they had to insert a special provision, Prat. 978, exempting the unaccented u from this observation: anudattam tu p4d4dau novargam vidyate padam, ‘no unaccented word is found at the beginning of a pada except ul!’ Although I have frequently insisted on the fact that such statements of the Pratisdkhya are not to be considered as rules, but simply as more or less general statistical accumulations of facts actually occurring in the Veda, I have also pointed out that we are at liberty to found on these collected facts inductive observations which may assume the character of real rules. Thus, in our case, we can well understand why there should be none, or, at least, very few instances, where an unaccented word begins a pAda. We should not begin a verse with an enclitic particle in any other language either; and as in Sanskrit a verb at the * On locus, see Corssen, Krit. Beitr. p. 463, and Aussprache, and ed., p. 810. Corssen does not derive it from a root st4 or sth4, but identifies it with Goth. strik-s, Engl. stroke, strecke. Ixxvi VEDIC HYMNS. beginning of a pada receives ipso facto the accent, and as the same applies to vocatives, no chance is left for an unaccented word in that place, except it be a particle. But the one particle that offends against this general observation is u, and the very word before which this u causes this metrical offence, is loka. Can any argument be more tempting in favour of admitting an old form uloka instead of u loka? Lokam is preceded by u in I, 93, 6 ; II, 30, 6; (asmin bhayd-sthe krizutam u lokdm, make room for us, grant an escape to us, in this danger!) IV, 17, 17; VI, 23,3; 7(with urdm); 47, 8 (urim nad lokam, or ulokdm ?); 73,23 VII, 20, 2; 33, 5 (with urim); 60, 9 (with urim); 84, 2 (with urim); 99, 4 (with urdm) ; IX, 92,5; X,13, 2; 16, 4 (sukr#tém u lokdm); 30, 7; 104, 10; 180, 3 (with urim). Loké is preceded by u in ITI, 29, 8; V, 1,6; lokakrtt, IX, 86, 21; X, 133, 1. In all remaining passages u loka is found at the beginning of a pada: loka4, ITI, 37, 11; lokam, ITI, 2, 9 (u lokam u dvé (iti) ipa gamim fyatuA) ; V, 4, 11; loka-kvitnim, VIII, 15, 4; IX, 2, 8. The only passages in which loka occurs without being preceded by u, are lokam, VI, 47, 8 (see above); VIII, 100, 12; X, 14, 9; 85, 20 (amrttasya) ; lok&#, IX, 113, 9; lokdn, X, 90, 14; loké, IX, 113, 77; X, 85, 24.
3The only passages in which loka occurs without being preceded by u, are lokam, VI, 47, 8 (see above); VIII, 100, 12; X, 14, 9; 85, 20 (amrttasya) ; lok&#, IX, 113, 9; lokdn, X, 90, 14; loké, IX, 113, 77; X, 85, 24. It should be remembered that in the Gathas the u of words beginning with urv° does not count metrically (Hiibschmann, Ein Zoroastrisches Lied, p. 37), and that in PAli also uru must be treated as monosyllabic, in such passages as Mahav., p. 2, line 5. The same applies to passages in the Rig-veda, such as I, 138, 3; VII, 39, 3, where the metre requires uru to be treated as one syllable. In IX, 96, 15, the original reading may have been urur iva, instead of uru-iva. Considering all this, I feel as convinced as it is possible to be in such matters, that in all the passages where u loka occurs and where it means space, carriére ouverte, freedom, we ought to read uloka; but in spite of this I could never bring myself to insert this word, of which neither the authors of the Brahmazas nor the writers of the Pratisakhyas or even later grammarians had any idea, into the text. On PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xxvii the contrary, I should here, too, consider it most useful to leave the traditional reading, and to add the corrections in the margin, in order that, if these conjectural emendations are in time considered as beyond the reach of doubt, they may be used as evidence in support of conjectures which, without such evidence, might seem intolerable in the eyes of timid critics. There remains one difficulty about this hypothetical word uloka, which it is but fair to mention. If it is derived from uru, or, as Professor Bollensen suggests, from urvaé or urvak, the change of va into o would require further support. Neither maghon for maghavan, nor durova for dura-vana are strictly analogous cases, because in each we have an a preceding the va oru. Strictly speaking, uroka presupposes uravaka, as sléka presupposes sravaka, or 6ka, house, avaka (from av, not from uz). It should also be mentioned that a compound such as RV. X, 128, 2, urulokam (scil. antdriksham) is strange, and shows how completely the origin of loka was forgotten at the time when the hymns of the tenth Mazdala were composed. But all this does not persuade us to accept Ascoli’s conjecture (Lezioni di Fonologia Comparata, p. 235), that as uloga (but not uloka) is a regular Tamil form of loka, uloka in the Veda might be due to a reaction of the aboriginal dialects on the Vedic Sanskrit. We want far more evidence before admitting such a reaction during the Vedic period. The most powerful instrument that has hitherto been applied to the emendation of Vedic texts, is the metre. Metrical Metre means measure, and uniform measure,
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1A still more extraordinary case of misunderstanding on the part of the original compilers of the Vedic texts, and likewise of the authors of the Pratisa- khyas, the Niruktas, and other Vedic treatises, has been pointed out by Professor Kuhn. In an article of his, ‘ Zur altesten Geschichte der Indogermanischen Volker’ (Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 351), he made the following observation: ‘The Lithuanian laukas, Lett. lauks, Pruss. laukas,all meaning field, agree exactly with the Sk. lokas, world, Lat. locus, Low Germ. (in East-Frisia and Oldenburg) louch, léch, village. All these words are to be traced back to the Sk. uru, Gr. evpds, broad, wide. The initial u is lost, as in Goth. rims, O.H.G. rOmi, rdmin (Low Germ. rQme, an open uncultivated field in a forest), and the r changed into 1. In support of this derivation it should be observed that in the Veda loka is frequently preceded by the particle u, which probably was only separated from it by the Diaskeuastz, and that the meaning is Uloka. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxv that of open space.” Although this derivation has met with little favour, I confess that I look upon this remark, excepting only the Latin locus’, i.e.stlocus, as one of the most ingenious of this eminent scholar. The fact is that this particle u before loka is one of the most puzzling occurrences in the Veda. Professor Bollensen says that loka never occurs without a preceding u in the first eight Mazdalas, and this is perfectly true with the exception of one passage which he has overlooked, VIII, 100, 12, dyauz dehi lokam vagraya vi-skdbhe, Dyu! give room for the lightning to step forth! Professor Bollensen (I. c. p. 603) reads vritrdya instead of vagraya, without authority. He objects to dyauh as a vocative, which should be dyatiz; but dyau# may be dyo&, a genitive belonging to vagraya, in which case we should translate, Make room for the lightning of Dyu to step forth!
2Professor Bollensen (I. c. p. 603) reads vritrdya instead of vagraya, without authority. He objects to dyauh as a vocative, which should be dyatiz; but dyau# may be dyo&, a genitive belonging to vagraya, in which case we should translate, Make room for the lightning of Dyu to step forth! But what is even more important is the fact that the occurrence of this unaccented u at the beginning of a pada is against the very rules, or, at least, runs counter to the very observations which the authors of the Pratisdkhya have made on the inadmissibility of an unaccented word in such a place, so that they had to insert a special provision, Prat. 978, exempting the unaccented u from this observation: anudattam tu p4d4dau novargam vidyate padam, ‘no unaccented word is found at the beginning of a pada except ul!’ Although I have frequently insisted on the fact that such statements of the Pratisdkhya are not to be considered as rules, but simply as more or less general statistical accumulations of facts actually occurring in the Veda, I have also pointed out that we are at liberty to found on these collected facts inductive observations which may assume the character of real rules. Thus, in our case, we can well understand why there should be none, or, at least, very few instances, where an unaccented word begins a pAda. We should not begin a verse with an enclitic particle in any other language either; and as in Sanskrit a verb at the * On locus, see Corssen, Krit. Beitr. p. 463, and Aussprache, and ed., p. 810. Corssen does not derive it from a root st4 or sth4, but identifies it with Goth. strik-s, Engl. stroke, strecke. Ixxvi VEDIC HYMNS. beginning of a pada receives ipso facto the accent, and as the same applies to vocatives, no chance is left for an unaccented word in that place, except it be a particle. But the one particle that offends against this general observation is u, and the very word before which this u causes this metrical offence, is loka. Can any argument be more tempting in favour of admitting an old form uloka instead of u loka? Lokam is preceded by u in I, 93, 6 ; II, 30, 6; (asmin bhayd-sthe krizutam u lokdm, make room for us, grant an escape to us, in this danger!) IV, 17, 17; VI, 23,3; 7(with urdm); 47, 8 (urim nad lokam, or ulokdm ?); 73,23 VII, 20, 2; 33, 5 (with urim); 60, 9 (with urim); 84, 2 (with urim); 99, 4 (with urdm) ; IX, 92,5; X,13, 2; 16, 4 (sukr#tém u lokdm); 30, 7; 104, 10; 180, 3 (with urim). Loké is preceded by u in ITI, 29, 8; V, 1,6; lokakrtt, IX, 86, 21; X, 133, 1. In all remaining passages u loka is found at the beginning of a pada: loka4, ITI, 37, 11; lokam, ITI, 2, 9 (u lokam u dvé (iti) ipa gamim fyatuA) ; V, 4, 11; loka-kvitnim, VIII, 15, 4; IX, 2, 8. The only passages in which loka occurs without being preceded by u, are lokam, VI, 47, 8 (see above); VIII, 100, 12; X, 14, 9; 85, 20 (amrttasya) ; lok&#, IX, 113, 9; lokdn, X, 90, 14; loké, IX, 113, 77; X, 85, 24.
3The only passages in which loka occurs without being preceded by u, are lokam, VI, 47, 8 (see above); VIII, 100, 12; X, 14, 9; 85, 20 (amrttasya) ; lok&#, IX, 113, 9; lokdn, X, 90, 14; loké, IX, 113, 77; X, 85, 24. It should be remembered that in the Gathas the u of words beginning with urv° does not count metrically (Hiibschmann, Ein Zoroastrisches Lied, p. 37), and that in PAli also uru must be treated as monosyllabic, in such passages as Mahav., p. 2, line 5. The same applies to passages in the Rig-veda, such as I, 138, 3; VII, 39, 3, where the metre requires uru to be treated as one syllable. In IX, 96, 15, the original reading may have been urur iva, instead of uru-iva. Considering all this, I feel as convinced as it is possible to be in such matters, that in all the passages where u loka occurs and where it means space, carriére ouverte, freedom, we ought to read uloka; but in spite of this I could never bring myself to insert this word, of which neither the authors of the Brahmazas nor the writers of the Pratisakhyas or even later grammarians had any idea, into the text. On PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xxvii the contrary, I should here, too, consider it most useful to leave the traditional reading, and to add the corrections in the margin, in order that, if these conjectural emendations are in time considered as beyond the reach of doubt, they may be used as evidence in support of conjectures which, without such evidence, might seem intolerable in the eyes of timid critics. There remains one difficulty about this hypothetical word uloka, which it is but fair to mention. If it is derived from uru, or, as Professor Bollensen suggests, from urvaé or urvak, the change of va into o would require further support. Neither maghon for maghavan, nor durova for dura-vana are strictly analogous cases, because in each we have an a preceding the va oru. Strictly speaking, uroka presupposes uravaka, as sléka presupposes sravaka, or 6ka, house, avaka (from av, not from uz). It should also be mentioned that a compound such as RV. X, 128, 2, urulokam (scil. antdriksham) is strange, and shows how completely the origin of loka was forgotten at the time when the hymns of the tenth Mazdala were composed. But all this does not persuade us to accept Ascoli’s conjecture (Lezioni di Fonologia Comparata, p. 235), that as uloga (but not uloka) is a regular Tamil form of loka, uloka in the Veda might be due to a reaction of the aboriginal dialects on the Vedic Sanskrit. We want far more evidence before admitting such a reaction during the Vedic period. The most powerful instrument that has hitherto been applied to the emendation of Vedic texts, is the metre. Metrical Metre means measure, and uniform measure,
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.