From: Edgard Bikelis
Message: 71487
Date: 2013-10-30
On 30 October 2013 16:33, Lalit Mishra <litsol@...> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 11:05 PM IST frabrig@... wrote:
>> 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).
Richard and you, both are still wrong, either explanations given are wrong and to make a cover,
endorsing rule from the book of sanskrit grammar is not given.
I see this is groups moderators are biased, they block posts uncomfortable and challanging to
conventional dogma spread in west and east.
No free and fair discussion here if moderators make the group suffocating.
Lalit Mishra
[Reformatted. -BMS]