Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Ixxxi the same words, and the only difference between the two passages is this, that, according to the former, semivowels are simply changed back into their vowels, while, according to the latter, the semivowel remains, but is separated from the preceding consonant by its corresponding vowel. These rules therefore show clearly that the authors of the Pratisdkhya, though they would have shrunk from altering one single letter of the authorised Samhita, recognised the fact that where two vowels had been contracted into one, they might yet be pronounced as two; and where a vowel before another vowel had been changed into a semivowel, it might either be pronounced as a vowel, or as a semivowel preceded by its corresponding vowel. More than these two modifications, however, the PratisAkhya does not allow, or, at least, does not distinctly sanction. The commentator indeed tries to show that by the wording of the Sftras in both places, a third modification is sanctioned, viz. the vocalisation, in the body of a word, of semivowels which do not owe their origin to an original vowel. But in both places this interpretation is purely artificial. Some such rule ought to have been given, but it was not given by the authors of the Pratisakhya. It ought to have been given, for it is only by observing such a rule that in I, 61, 12, gor na parva vi radA tiraskd, we get a verse of eleven syllables, and thus secure for da in rada the eighth place, where alone the short a could be lengthened. Yet we look in vain for a rule sanctioning the change of semivowels into vowels, except where the semivowels can rightly be called kshaipra-varva (Sitra 974), i.e. semivowels that were originally vowels. The independent (svabhavika) semivowels, as e.g. the v in parva, are not included ; and to suppose that in Sfitra 527 these semivowels were indicated by varna is impossible, particularly if we compare the similar wording of Satra 974%. * It will be seen from my edition of the Prtisékhya, particularly from the extracts from Uvasa, given after Sfitra 974, that the idea of making two syllables out of goA, never entered Uvaéa’s mind. M. Regnier was right, Professor Kuhn (Beitrage, vol. iv, p. 187) was wrong. Uvasa, no doubt, wishes to show that original (svabhavika) semivowels are liable to vy(ha, or at least [32] f Ixxxii VEDIC HYMNS. We look in vain, too, in the Pratisakhya for another rule according to which long vowels, even if they do not owe their origin to the coalescence of two vowels, are liable to be protracted. However, this rule, too, though never distinctly sanctioned, is observed in the Pratisakhya, for unless its author observed it, he could not have obtained in the verses quoted by the Pratisakhya the number of syllables which he ascribes to them. According to Sitra 937, the verse, RV. X, 134, 1, is a Mahapankti, and consists of six padas, of eight syllables each. In order to obtain that number, we must read: : samragam farshazinam.
2According to Sitra 937, the verse, RV. X, 134, 1, is a Mahapankti, and consists of six padas, of eight syllables each. In order to obtain that number, we must read: : samragam farshazinam. We may therefore say that, without allowing any actual change in the received text of the Samhita, the Pratisakhya distinctly allows a lengthened pronunciation of certain syllables, which in the Pada text form two syllables; and we may add that, by implication, it allows the same even in cases where the Pada text also gives but one instead of two syllables. Having this authority in our favour, I do not think that we use too much liberty if we extend this modified pronunciation, recognised in so many cases by the ancient scholars of India themselves, to other cases where it seems to us required as well, in order to satisfy the metrical rules of the Veda. Secondly, I believe it can be proved that, if not the authors of the Pratisakhya, those at least who constituted Shortening of the Vedic text which was current in the long vowels. ancient schools and which we now have before us, were fully aware that certain long vowels and diphthongs could be used as short. The authors of the Pratisakhya remark that certain changes which can take place before a short syllable only, take place likewise before the word no, although the vowel of this ‘no’ is by them supposed to be long. After having stated in Sdtra 523 that the eighth syllable of hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, if short, is lengthened, provided a short syllable to vyavaya; but though this is true in fact, Uva¢a does not succeed in his attempt to prove that the rules of the Pratisékhya sanction it. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxxiii follows, they remark that for this purpose na& or no is treated as a short syllable: X, 59, 4. dyu-bhié hitaé garimd su nak asta, (Samh. sd no astu.) Again, in stating that the tenth syllable of hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, if short, is lengthened, provided a short syllable follows, the same exception is understood to be made in favour of na& or no, as a short syllable : VII, 48, 4. nu devdsa# varivak kartana nah, (Samh. kartand no, bhdta no, &c.) With regard to e being shortened before a short a where, according to rule, the a should be elided, we actually find that the Samhit4 gives a instead of e in RV. VIII, 72, 5. véti st6tave ambydm, Samh. véti stdétava ambyam. (Pratis. 177, 5-)
3kartand no, bhdta no, &c.) With regard to e being shortened before a short a where, according to rule, the a should be elided, we actually find that the Samhit4 gives a instead of e in RV. VIII, 72, 5. véti st6tave ambydm, Samh. véti stdétava ambyam. (Pratis. 177, 5-) I do not ascribe very much weight to the authority which we may derive from these observations with regard to our own treatment of the diphthongs e and o as either long or short in the Veda, yet in answer to those who are incredulous as to the fact that the vowels e and o could ever be short in Sanskrit, an appeal to the authority of those who constituted our text, and in constituting it clearly treated o as a short vowel, may not be without weight. We may also appeal to the fact that in Pali and Prakrit every final o and e can be treated as either long or short*. Starting from this we may certainly extend this observation, as it has been extended by Professor Kuhn, but we must not extend it too far. It is quite clear that in the same verse e and o can be used both as long and short. I give the Sashita text: I, 84, 17. ka ishate | tugyate ko bibhdya ko mamsate | santam indram ko anti, kas tokaya | ka ibhayota rdye adhi bravat | tanve ko ganaya. * See Lassen, Inst. Linguze Pracriticee, pp. 145, 147, 151; Cowell, Vararugi, Introduction, p. xvii. Kedarabhaffa says: Paxinir bhagavan prakrstalakshasam api vakti samskr#tad anyat, dirghaksharam 4a kutratid ekim matram upaititi. Secundum d’Alwisium commentator docet sermonem esse de litteris Sanscriticis eeto. Cf. Pischel, De Grammaticis prakriticis, 1874. f 2 Ixxxiv VEDIC HYMNS. But although there can be no doubt that e and o, when final, or at the end of the first member of a compound, may be treated in the Veda as anceps, there is no evidence, I believe, to show that the same licence applies to a medial or initial e or o. In IV, 45, 5, we must scan usrak garante prati vasto# asvind, ending the verse with an epitritus tertius instead of the usual dijambus *. Thirdly, the fact that the initial short a, if following upon a word ending in o or e, is frequently not to be elided, is clearly recognised by the authors of the Pratisakhya (see p. xlviii). Nay, that they wished it to be pronounced even in passages where, in accordance with the requirements of the Pratisakhya, it had to disappear in the Samhita text, we may conclude from Stra 978. It is there stated that no pada should ever begin with a word that has no accent. The exceptions to this rule are few, and they are discussed in Sdtras 978-987. But if the initial a were not pronounced in I, 1, 9, sdk nak pitd-iva sindve 4gne su-upa4yana/ bhava, the second pada would begin with »gne, a word which, after the elision of the initial a, would be a word without an accent >, Fourthly, the fact that other long vowels, besides e and 0, may under certain circumstances be used as short in the Veda, is not merely a modern theory, but rests on no less an authority than PAzini himself.
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.
1Ixxxi the same words, and the only difference between the two passages is this, that, according to the former, semivowels are simply changed back into their vowels, while, according to the latter, the semivowel remains, but is separated from the preceding consonant by its corresponding vowel. These rules therefore show clearly that the authors of the Pratisdkhya, though they would have shrunk from altering one single letter of the authorised Samhita, recognised the fact that where two vowels had been contracted into one, they might yet be pronounced as two; and where a vowel before another vowel had been changed into a semivowel, it might either be pronounced as a vowel, or as a semivowel preceded by its corresponding vowel. More than these two modifications, however, the PratisAkhya does not allow, or, at least, does not distinctly sanction. The commentator indeed tries to show that by the wording of the Sftras in both places, a third modification is sanctioned, viz. the vocalisation, in the body of a word, of semivowels which do not owe their origin to an original vowel. But in both places this interpretation is purely artificial. Some such rule ought to have been given, but it was not given by the authors of the Pratisakhya. It ought to have been given, for it is only by observing such a rule that in I, 61, 12, gor na parva vi radA tiraskd, we get a verse of eleven syllables, and thus secure for da in rada the eighth place, where alone the short a could be lengthened. Yet we look in vain for a rule sanctioning the change of semivowels into vowels, except where the semivowels can rightly be called kshaipra-varva (Sitra 974), i.e. semivowels that were originally vowels. The independent (svabhavika) semivowels, as e.g. the v in parva, are not included ; and to suppose that in Sfitra 527 these semivowels were indicated by varna is impossible, particularly if we compare the similar wording of Satra 974%. * It will be seen from my edition of the Prtisékhya, particularly from the extracts from Uvasa, given after Sfitra 974, that the idea of making two syllables out of goA, never entered Uvaéa’s mind. M. Regnier was right, Professor Kuhn (Beitrage, vol. iv, p. 187) was wrong. Uvasa, no doubt, wishes to show that original (svabhavika) semivowels are liable to vy(ha, or at least [32] f Ixxxii VEDIC HYMNS. We look in vain, too, in the Pratisakhya for another rule according to which long vowels, even if they do not owe their origin to the coalescence of two vowels, are liable to be protracted. However, this rule, too, though never distinctly sanctioned, is observed in the Pratisakhya, for unless its author observed it, he could not have obtained in the verses quoted by the Pratisakhya the number of syllables which he ascribes to them. According to Sitra 937, the verse, RV. X, 134, 1, is a Mahapankti, and consists of six padas, of eight syllables each. In order to obtain that number, we must read: : samragam farshazinam.
2According to Sitra 937, the verse, RV. X, 134, 1, is a Mahapankti, and consists of six padas, of eight syllables each. In order to obtain that number, we must read: : samragam farshazinam. We may therefore say that, without allowing any actual change in the received text of the Samhita, the Pratisakhya distinctly allows a lengthened pronunciation of certain syllables, which in the Pada text form two syllables; and we may add that, by implication, it allows the same even in cases where the Pada text also gives but one instead of two syllables. Having this authority in our favour, I do not think that we use too much liberty if we extend this modified pronunciation, recognised in so many cases by the ancient scholars of India themselves, to other cases where it seems to us required as well, in order to satisfy the metrical rules of the Veda. Secondly, I believe it can be proved that, if not the authors of the Pratisakhya, those at least who constituted Shortening of the Vedic text which was current in the long vowels. ancient schools and which we now have before us, were fully aware that certain long vowels and diphthongs could be used as short. The authors of the Pratisakhya remark that certain changes which can take place before a short syllable only, take place likewise before the word no, although the vowel of this ‘no’ is by them supposed to be long. After having stated in Sdtra 523 that the eighth syllable of hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, if short, is lengthened, provided a short syllable to vyavaya; but though this is true in fact, Uva¢a does not succeed in his attempt to prove that the rules of the Pratisékhya sanction it. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxxiii follows, they remark that for this purpose na& or no is treated as a short syllable: X, 59, 4. dyu-bhié hitaé garimd su nak asta, (Samh. sd no astu.) Again, in stating that the tenth syllable of hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, if short, is lengthened, provided a short syllable follows, the same exception is understood to be made in favour of na& or no, as a short syllable : VII, 48, 4. nu devdsa# varivak kartana nah, (Samh. kartand no, bhdta no, &c.) With regard to e being shortened before a short a where, according to rule, the a should be elided, we actually find that the Samhit4 gives a instead of e in RV. VIII, 72, 5. véti st6tave ambydm, Samh. véti stdétava ambyam. (Pratis. 177, 5-)
3kartand no, bhdta no, &c.) With regard to e being shortened before a short a where, according to rule, the a should be elided, we actually find that the Samhit4 gives a instead of e in RV. VIII, 72, 5. véti st6tave ambydm, Samh. véti stdétava ambyam. (Pratis. 177, 5-) I do not ascribe very much weight to the authority which we may derive from these observations with regard to our own treatment of the diphthongs e and o as either long or short in the Veda, yet in answer to those who are incredulous as to the fact that the vowels e and o could ever be short in Sanskrit, an appeal to the authority of those who constituted our text, and in constituting it clearly treated o as a short vowel, may not be without weight. We may also appeal to the fact that in Pali and Prakrit every final o and e can be treated as either long or short*. Starting from this we may certainly extend this observation, as it has been extended by Professor Kuhn, but we must not extend it too far. It is quite clear that in the same verse e and o can be used both as long and short. I give the Sashita text: I, 84, 17. ka ishate | tugyate ko bibhdya ko mamsate | santam indram ko anti, kas tokaya | ka ibhayota rdye adhi bravat | tanve ko ganaya. * See Lassen, Inst. Linguze Pracriticee, pp. 145, 147, 151; Cowell, Vararugi, Introduction, p. xvii. Kedarabhaffa says: Paxinir bhagavan prakrstalakshasam api vakti samskr#tad anyat, dirghaksharam 4a kutratid ekim matram upaititi. Secundum d’Alwisium commentator docet sermonem esse de litteris Sanscriticis eeto. Cf. Pischel, De Grammaticis prakriticis, 1874. f 2 Ixxxiv VEDIC HYMNS. But although there can be no doubt that e and o, when final, or at the end of the first member of a compound, may be treated in the Veda as anceps, there is no evidence, I believe, to show that the same licence applies to a medial or initial e or o. In IV, 45, 5, we must scan usrak garante prati vasto# asvind, ending the verse with an epitritus tertius instead of the usual dijambus *. Thirdly, the fact that the initial short a, if following upon a word ending in o or e, is frequently not to be elided, is clearly recognised by the authors of the Pratisakhya (see p. xlviii). Nay, that they wished it to be pronounced even in passages where, in accordance with the requirements of the Pratisakhya, it had to disappear in the Samhita text, we may conclude from Stra 978. It is there stated that no pada should ever begin with a word that has no accent. The exceptions to this rule are few, and they are discussed in Sdtras 978-987. But if the initial a were not pronounced in I, 1, 9, sdk nak pitd-iva sindve 4gne su-upa4yana/ bhava, the second pada would begin with »gne, a word which, after the elision of the initial a, would be a word without an accent >, Fourthly, the fact that other long vowels, besides e and 0, may under certain circumstances be used as short in the Veda, is not merely a modern theory, but rests on no less an authority than PAzini himself.
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.