Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1* See Professor Weber’s pertinent remarks in Kuhn’s Beitrige, vol. iii, p. 394. T do not think that in the verses adduced by Professor Kuhn, in which final o is considered by him as an iambus or trochee, this scanning is inevitable. Thus we may scan the Samhita text: I, 88, 2. rukmo na Aitrah svadhitivan. I, 141, 8. ratho na ydtak sikvabhik krito. I, 174, 3. sho na dame apAmsi vastoh. VI, 24, 3. aksho na éakryoA sGra brehan X, 3, 1. ino rdgann aratié samiddho. This leaves but one of Professor Kuhn’s examples (Beitrige, vol. iv, p. 192) unexplained: I, 191, 1. kahkato na kafkato, where iva for na would remove the difficulty. > This subject, the shortness of e and o in the Veda, has been admirably treated by Mr. Maurice Bloomfield, ‘ Final as before Sonants,’ Baltimore, 1882. Reprinted from the American Journal of Philology, vol. iii, No. 1. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxxv Pazini says, VI, 1, 127, that i, u, 7¢ (see RV. Bh. IV, 1, 12) at the end of a pada (but not in a compound®*) may remain unchanged, if a different vowel follows, and that, if long, they may be shortened. He ascribes this rule, or, more correctly, the first portion of it only, to Sdakalya, Pratisikhya 155 seq.> Thus #akri atra may become éakri atra or akry atra. Madhd atra may become madhii atra or madhv atra. In VI, 1, 128, Pasini adds that a, i, u, 7% may remain unchanged before ri, and, if long, may be shortened, and this again according to the teaching of SAkalya, i.e. Pratiskhya 136°. Hence brahma rishi becomes brahma vishi# or brahmarshi#; kumari risyah becomes kuméri risya# or kumary risyak. This rule enables us to explain a number of passages in which the Samhita text either changes the final long vowel into a semivowel, or leaves it unchanged, when the vowel is a pragrzhya vowel. To the first class belong such passages as I, 163, 12; IV, 38, 10, vagi arva, Samh. vagyarva ; VI, 7, 3, vagi agne, Sash. vagyagne; VI, 20, 13, pakth? arkafh, Samh. pakthyarkath ; IV, 22, 4, sushmi 4 gé%, Sah. sushmyd gék. In these passages i is the termination of a nom. masc. of a stem ending in in. Secondly, IV, 24, 8, patni a4k&ha, Samh. patnydkkha ; IV, 34, 1, devi dhnam, Samh. devydhnam; V, 75, 4, vaniki &-hita, Samh. vanifyéhita; VI, 61, 4, avitri avatu, Sah. avitryadvatu. In these passages thei is the termination of feminines. In X, 15, 4, dti arvak, Samh. dtyarvdk, the final i of the instrumental dt? ought not to have been changed into a semivowel, for, though not followed by iti, it is to be treated as pragrihya; (Pratis. 163, 5.) It is, however,
2avitryadvatu. In these passages thei is the termination of feminines. In X, 15, 4, dti arvak, Samh. dtyarvdk, the final i of the instrumental dt? ought not to have been changed into a semivowel, for, though not followed by iti, it is to be treated as pragrihya; (Pratis. 163, 5.) It is, however, ® There are certain compounds in which, according to Professor Kuhn, two vowels have been contracted into one short vowel. This is certainly the opinion of Hindu grammarians, also of the compiler of the Pada text. But most of them would admit of another explanation. Thus dhanvarsasah, which is divided into dhAnva-arszasah, may be dhanu-armasah (RV. V, 45, 2). Dhanarfam, divided into dhana-arkam, may have been dhana-rv7#am (RV. X, 46,5). Satarkasam (RV. VII, 100, 3) may be taken as satd-ri4asam instead of sata-aréasam. > In the Pratisakhya the rule which allows vowel before vowel to remain unchanged, is restricted to special passages, and in some of them the two vowels are savarna; cf. Sitra 163. © Cf. Vagasan, Pritisdkhya, IV, 48; Indische Studien, vol. ix, 309; vol. x, 406. Ixxxvi VEDIC HYMNS. mentioned as an exception in Sitra 174, 9. The same applies to II, 3, 4, védi {ti asydm, Sash. védyasyfm. The pragvzhya i ought not to have been changed into a semivowel, but the fact that it had been changed irregularly, was again duly registered in Sftra 174, 5. These two pragrzhya i therefore, which have really to be pronounced short, were irregularly changed in the Samhita into the semivowel ; and as this semivowel, like all semivowels, may take vyavaya, the same object was attained as if it had been written by a short vowel. With regard to pragrzhya Q, no such indication is given by the Samhita text; but in such passages as I, 46, 13, sambha {ti sam-bhQ 4 gatam, Samh. sambhi 4 gatam; V, 43, 4, baht iti ddrim, Sash. bahd adrim, the pragrzhya 0 of the dual can be used as short, like the 0 of madhd atra, given as an example by the commentators of Pazini. To Professor Kuhn, I believe, belongs the merit of having extended this rule to final 4. That the 4 of the dual may become short, was mentioned in the Pratisdkhya, Sitra 309, though in none of the passages there mentioned is there any metrical necessity for this shortening (see p. lii). This being the case, it is impossible to deny that where this 4 is followed by a vowel, and where Sandhi between the two vowels is impossible, the final 4 may be treated as short. Whether it must be so treated, depends on the view which we take of the Vedic metres, and will have to be discussed hereafter. I agree with Professor Kuhn when he scans: VI, 63, 1. kva tya valgd puru-hatd adya, (Samh. puruhdtAdya); and not kva tyd valgd puruhdtAdya, although we might quote other verses as ending with an epitritus primus. IV, 3, 13. m4 vesasya pra-minatak mA Aped, (Samh. mapez,) although the dispondeus is possible. I, 77, 1. kathd ddsema agnaye kA asmai, (Samh. kAsmai.) VI, 24, 5. aryak vasasya pari-etA asti. °
3IV, 3, 13. m4 vesasya pra-minatak mA Aped, (Samh. mapez,) although the dispondeus is possible. I, 77, 1. kathd ddsema agnaye kA asmai, (Samh. kAsmai.) VI, 24, 5. aryak vasasya pari-etA asti. ° Even in a compound like tv4-(ta, I should shorten the first vowel, e.g. - vrovrv = although the passage is not mentioned by the Pratisakhya PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 1xxxvii among those where a short final vowel in the eighth place is not lengthened when a short syllable follows *. But when we come to the second pada of a Gayatri, and find there a long 4, and that long 4 not followed by a vowel, I cannot agree with Professor Kuhn, that the long 4, even under such circumstances, ought to be shortened. We may scan: V, 5, 7. vatasya patman ita daivya hotarA manushad. The same choriambic ending occurs even in the last pada of a Gayatri, and is perfectly free from objection at the end of the other padas. So, again, we may admit the shortening of au to o in sAno avye and sano avyaye, as quoted in the Pratisdkhya, 174 and 177, but this would not justify the shortening of au to av in Anushtubh verses, such as V, 86, 5. martdya devau adabha, amsi-iva devAu arvate, while, with regard to the Trishfubh and Gagati verses, our views on these metres must naturally depend on the difficulties we meet with in carrying them out systematically. There is no reason for shortening 4 in V, 5, 10. devandm guhya namani. It is the second pada of a Gayatri here; and we shall see that, even in the third pada, four long syllables occur again and again. For the same reason I cannot follow Dr. Kuhn in a number of other passages where, for the sake of the metre, he proposes to change a long 4 into a short one. Such passages are in the Pada text: VI, 46, 11. didyavak tigma-mdrdhanad, not mardhdnas. I, 15, 6. ritund yag#am Asathe, not Asdthe. V, 66, 2. samyak asuryam AsAte, not dsdte. V, 67, 1. varshish¢Zam kshatram 4sAthe, not 4sdthe. See Beitrage, vol. iii, p. 122. I, 46, 6. tim asme rasathdm isham, not rdsdtham isham. * I see that Professor Kuhn, vol. iv, p. 186, has anticipated this observation in eshfau, to be read A-ishyan. Ixxxviii VEDIC HYMNS. IV, 32, 23. babhrO yAmeshu sobhete, not sobhete. IV, 45, 3 uta priyam madhune yuagathim ratham, not yuagdtham ratham. V. 74, 3. kam akéha yuagathe ratham, not yuégathe ratham. IV, 55, 1. dyAvabhimi ({ti) adite trasitham naA, not trasithim na. V, 41, I. ritasya va sadasi trasithdm na, not trasithim nah. I must enter the same protest against shortening other long vowels in the following verses which Professor Kuhn proposes to make metrically correct by this remedy: I, 42, 6. hiranyavasimat-tama, not vasimat-tama.
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.
1* See Professor Weber’s pertinent remarks in Kuhn’s Beitrige, vol. iii, p. 394. T do not think that in the verses adduced by Professor Kuhn, in which final o is considered by him as an iambus or trochee, this scanning is inevitable. Thus we may scan the Samhita text: I, 88, 2. rukmo na Aitrah svadhitivan. I, 141, 8. ratho na ydtak sikvabhik krito. I, 174, 3. sho na dame apAmsi vastoh. VI, 24, 3. aksho na éakryoA sGra brehan X, 3, 1. ino rdgann aratié samiddho. This leaves but one of Professor Kuhn’s examples (Beitrige, vol. iv, p. 192) unexplained: I, 191, 1. kahkato na kafkato, where iva for na would remove the difficulty. > This subject, the shortness of e and o in the Veda, has been admirably treated by Mr. Maurice Bloomfield, ‘ Final as before Sonants,’ Baltimore, 1882. Reprinted from the American Journal of Philology, vol. iii, No. 1. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ixxxv Pazini says, VI, 1, 127, that i, u, 7¢ (see RV. Bh. IV, 1, 12) at the end of a pada (but not in a compound®*) may remain unchanged, if a different vowel follows, and that, if long, they may be shortened. He ascribes this rule, or, more correctly, the first portion of it only, to Sdakalya, Pratisikhya 155 seq.> Thus #akri atra may become éakri atra or akry atra. Madhd atra may become madhii atra or madhv atra. In VI, 1, 128, Pasini adds that a, i, u, 7% may remain unchanged before ri, and, if long, may be shortened, and this again according to the teaching of SAkalya, i.e. Pratiskhya 136°. Hence brahma rishi becomes brahma vishi# or brahmarshi#; kumari risyah becomes kuméri risya# or kumary risyak. This rule enables us to explain a number of passages in which the Samhita text either changes the final long vowel into a semivowel, or leaves it unchanged, when the vowel is a pragrzhya vowel. To the first class belong such passages as I, 163, 12; IV, 38, 10, vagi arva, Samh. vagyarva ; VI, 7, 3, vagi agne, Sash. vagyagne; VI, 20, 13, pakth? arkafh, Samh. pakthyarkath ; IV, 22, 4, sushmi 4 gé%, Sah. sushmyd gék. In these passages i is the termination of a nom. masc. of a stem ending in in. Secondly, IV, 24, 8, patni a4k&ha, Samh. patnydkkha ; IV, 34, 1, devi dhnam, Samh. devydhnam; V, 75, 4, vaniki &-hita, Samh. vanifyéhita; VI, 61, 4, avitri avatu, Sah. avitryadvatu. In these passages thei is the termination of feminines. In X, 15, 4, dti arvak, Samh. dtyarvdk, the final i of the instrumental dt? ought not to have been changed into a semivowel, for, though not followed by iti, it is to be treated as pragrihya; (Pratis. 163, 5.) It is, however,
2avitryadvatu. In these passages thei is the termination of feminines. In X, 15, 4, dti arvak, Samh. dtyarvdk, the final i of the instrumental dt? ought not to have been changed into a semivowel, for, though not followed by iti, it is to be treated as pragrihya; (Pratis. 163, 5.) It is, however, ® There are certain compounds in which, according to Professor Kuhn, two vowels have been contracted into one short vowel. This is certainly the opinion of Hindu grammarians, also of the compiler of the Pada text. But most of them would admit of another explanation. Thus dhanvarsasah, which is divided into dhAnva-arszasah, may be dhanu-armasah (RV. V, 45, 2). Dhanarfam, divided into dhana-arkam, may have been dhana-rv7#am (RV. X, 46,5). Satarkasam (RV. VII, 100, 3) may be taken as satd-ri4asam instead of sata-aréasam. > In the Pratisakhya the rule which allows vowel before vowel to remain unchanged, is restricted to special passages, and in some of them the two vowels are savarna; cf. Sitra 163. © Cf. Vagasan, Pritisdkhya, IV, 48; Indische Studien, vol. ix, 309; vol. x, 406. Ixxxvi VEDIC HYMNS. mentioned as an exception in Sitra 174, 9. The same applies to II, 3, 4, védi {ti asydm, Sash. védyasyfm. The pragvzhya i ought not to have been changed into a semivowel, but the fact that it had been changed irregularly, was again duly registered in Sftra 174, 5. These two pragrzhya i therefore, which have really to be pronounced short, were irregularly changed in the Samhita into the semivowel ; and as this semivowel, like all semivowels, may take vyavaya, the same object was attained as if it had been written by a short vowel. With regard to pragrzhya Q, no such indication is given by the Samhita text; but in such passages as I, 46, 13, sambha {ti sam-bhQ 4 gatam, Samh. sambhi 4 gatam; V, 43, 4, baht iti ddrim, Sash. bahd adrim, the pragrzhya 0 of the dual can be used as short, like the 0 of madhd atra, given as an example by the commentators of Pazini. To Professor Kuhn, I believe, belongs the merit of having extended this rule to final 4. That the 4 of the dual may become short, was mentioned in the Pratisdkhya, Sitra 309, though in none of the passages there mentioned is there any metrical necessity for this shortening (see p. lii). This being the case, it is impossible to deny that where this 4 is followed by a vowel, and where Sandhi between the two vowels is impossible, the final 4 may be treated as short. Whether it must be so treated, depends on the view which we take of the Vedic metres, and will have to be discussed hereafter. I agree with Professor Kuhn when he scans: VI, 63, 1. kva tya valgd puru-hatd adya, (Samh. puruhdtAdya); and not kva tyd valgd puruhdtAdya, although we might quote other verses as ending with an epitritus primus. IV, 3, 13. m4 vesasya pra-minatak mA Aped, (Samh. mapez,) although the dispondeus is possible. I, 77, 1. kathd ddsema agnaye kA asmai, (Samh. kAsmai.) VI, 24, 5. aryak vasasya pari-etA asti. °
3IV, 3, 13. m4 vesasya pra-minatak mA Aped, (Samh. mapez,) although the dispondeus is possible. I, 77, 1. kathd ddsema agnaye kA asmai, (Samh. kAsmai.) VI, 24, 5. aryak vasasya pari-etA asti. ° Even in a compound like tv4-(ta, I should shorten the first vowel, e.g. - vrovrv = although the passage is not mentioned by the Pratisakhya PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 1xxxvii among those where a short final vowel in the eighth place is not lengthened when a short syllable follows *. But when we come to the second pada of a Gayatri, and find there a long 4, and that long 4 not followed by a vowel, I cannot agree with Professor Kuhn, that the long 4, even under such circumstances, ought to be shortened. We may scan: V, 5, 7. vatasya patman ita daivya hotarA manushad. The same choriambic ending occurs even in the last pada of a Gayatri, and is perfectly free from objection at the end of the other padas. So, again, we may admit the shortening of au to o in sAno avye and sano avyaye, as quoted in the Pratisdkhya, 174 and 177, but this would not justify the shortening of au to av in Anushtubh verses, such as V, 86, 5. martdya devau adabha, amsi-iva devAu arvate, while, with regard to the Trishfubh and Gagati verses, our views on these metres must naturally depend on the difficulties we meet with in carrying them out systematically. There is no reason for shortening 4 in V, 5, 10. devandm guhya namani. It is the second pada of a Gayatri here; and we shall see that, even in the third pada, four long syllables occur again and again. For the same reason I cannot follow Dr. Kuhn in a number of other passages where, for the sake of the metre, he proposes to change a long 4 into a short one. Such passages are in the Pada text: VI, 46, 11. didyavak tigma-mdrdhanad, not mardhdnas. I, 15, 6. ritund yag#am Asathe, not Asdthe. V, 66, 2. samyak asuryam AsAte, not dsdte. V, 67, 1. varshish¢Zam kshatram 4sAthe, not 4sdthe. See Beitrage, vol. iii, p. 122. I, 46, 6. tim asme rasathdm isham, not rdsdtham isham. * I see that Professor Kuhn, vol. iv, p. 186, has anticipated this observation in eshfau, to be read A-ishyan. Ixxxviii VEDIC HYMNS. IV, 32, 23. babhrO yAmeshu sobhete, not sobhete. IV, 45, 3 uta priyam madhune yuagathim ratham, not yuagdtham ratham. V. 74, 3. kam akéha yuagathe ratham, not yuégathe ratham. IV, 55, 1. dyAvabhimi ({ti) adite trasitham naA, not trasithim na. V, 41, I. ritasya va sadasi trasithdm na, not trasithim nah. I must enter the same protest against shortening other long vowels in the following verses which Professor Kuhn proposes to make metrically correct by this remedy: I, 42, 6. hiranyavasimat-tama, not vasimat-tama.
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.