From: frabrig
Message: 71475
Date: 2013-10-30
Lalit Mishra wrote:
> Can you [= Francesco Brighenti] show the rule from the books
> of grammars of Vedic Sanskrit or from Classical Sanskrit that
> allows you to write a genitive singular for example the word in
> context “sunasya shepa” as per your take, with a visarga “sunaHshepa”
> or even “sunasshepa”.
But Francesco is not assuming that the word for 'dog' being used is _śuna_, whose genitive singular (g.s.) is _śunasya_; he is assuming that word being used is the form _śvan_, whose g.s. is _śunas_ (or _śunaḥ_if you prefer).
Thank you, Richard, for pointing this out; Lalit Mishra has propagated this false interpretation of my cybalist post around the Web (in discussion forums plus private mailing lists) for days by now, but he did not realize I never cited a form “śunasya”. Indeed, as you rightly remark the genitive singular of śvan is śunas, which in sandhi becomes śunaḥ- (ḥ = Lalit’s “visarga”).
This reflects the nom.sg. : gen.sg. paradigm of the reconstructed PIE etymon as well as of some IE cognate forms of śvan:
PIE ḱu̯ón : ḱun-ós
Sanskrit śvā́ : śúnas (< *śunás, with original PIE accent)
Greek kúōn : ku-n-ós (a form influenced by the zero-grade ku- and preserving the original PIE accent)
Proto-Celtic *kū : *kunos
Lithuanian šuõ : šunès (dialectal) > šuñs
Hittite kuu̯an : ku-ú-na-aš (standing for either an innovative gen.sg. *kuu̯anas or for a restored gen.sg. *kunas that replaced expected **konas < PIE *ḱunos)
Richard continues:
> You may find the analysis at
>
> http://www.vedakosh.com/rig-veda/mandal-5/sukta-002/mantra-rig-05-002-007
>
> helpful. The phrase you highlighted earlier, _śunaścicchepaṁ_,
> is analysed as _śunaḥ-śepam cit_.
The form śunaścicchepaṃ (“even Śunaḥśepa…”) is an example of tmesis in a double-accented compound. Here the enclitic cit ‘even’ is inserted between the two members of the compound, making it discontinuous. This phenomenon occurs on analogy with dual dvandva compounds with intervening enclitic. Its only other occurrence is with nárā ca śáṁsam (nárāśáṁsa- intercepted by the enclitic ca).
Regards,
Francesco
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Lalit Mishra wrote:
> Can you show the rule from the books of grammars of Vedic Sanskrit or from Classical Sanskrit > that allows you to write a genitive singular for example the word in context "Sunasya Shepa" as> per your take, with a Visarga "Suna : Shepa" or even "SunasShepa".
But Francesco is not assuming that the word for 'dog' being used is _śuna_, whose genitive singular (g.s.) is _śunasya_; he is assuming that word being used is the form _śvan_, whose g.s. is _śunas_ (or _śunaḥ_if you prefer).> Put the rule in response and then explain that with help of use of Shunah Shepa in a Vedic
> mantra, avoid making unfounded justification.
You may find the analysis at http://www.vedakosh.com/rig-veda/mandal-5/sukta-002/mantra-rig-05-002-007 helpful. The phrase you highlighted earlier, _śunaścicchepaṁ_, is analysed as _śunaḥ-śepam cit_.
One odd thing I've seen is the writing of the phrase in *Devanagari* with word breaks as _śunaś cic chepaṁ_. Is this normal? I've also seen it with no spaces, but halants at the word boundaries, and I find it hard to believe the font lacked the ligatures or half-forms.
Richard.