Dear Pali List,

Sorry there is a spelling mistake in my previous post which could confuse a
reader. The Skt word citragu is not translated as 'having bridled cows'.
The correct phrase is 'brindled cows'. There is an N missing.
Thanks and regards.
Mahipaliha

On 2/14/08, mahipaliha <mahipal6@...> wrote:
>
> Piya Feb 10 says
>
> <Regarding citta-gu, it is similarly formed as paara,guu etc. I think
> <-GUU can mean either
> <(1) literally, "gone" as in Paara,guu (gone across), that is,
> crossed over
> <suffering, doubt, etc.
>
> Actually, citta-gu is not similarly formed as paara-gu. The meaning
> ('having spotted cows': cittaa gaavo yassa) makes that clear. To
> take it as so formed makes it hard to assign a meaning to the word.
> If we still doubt the meaning `having spotted cows' we can compare
> the identical compound (citra-gu, with the common phonological
> variation of tra for Pali tta) used in a Sanskrit text (Bhaagavata
> Puraa.na <http://puraa.na/> x.61.13 as the name of a son of Krishna),
> which is
> translated as `having bridled cows'. In any case, what reason is
> there to doubt the given meaning?
>
> One may ask, what then is �gu? It is obviously the unaccented or
> weak form of go. The word go and its derivative gava occur with
> extreme frequence in Indo-Aryan languages, reflecting the fact that
> cattle rearing was a favourite occupation of the early (self-styled)
> Aryans. It has always been explained as a word going back to Indo-
> European. Cognate words are Greek bous, Latin bovii (from which
> English `bovine') Armenian kov, German Kuh (compare English `cow'),
> Avestan gaaus etc. etc. Apparently the original IE word had an
> initial guttural-labial pronounciation, something like kw, of which
> Indo-Iranian/Indo-Aryan retained the guttural k/g element only,
> while some other languages retained the labial only. (This is of
> course a simple layman's explanation. showing my elementary grasp of
> a complex linguistic phenomenon.)
>
> When we understand the gradation au/o/u as the three levels of the
> same vowel, many problems of grammar in Pali and Sanskrit disappear.
> Vowel gradation (or ablaut) was of course known to ancient
> grammarians who used the terms gu.na (middle or normal grade) and
> v.rddhi (strong grade) in dealing with the phenomenon. They did not
> use a specific technical term for the weak grade, apparently
> assuming the so-called weak grade to be the normal grade. We have
> the strong grade vowel in the form gaavo (nom. pl.), the middle
> grade in gona.m (gen. pl.) and the weak grade in this form gu- This
> form of course occurs rarely, both in Sanskrit and Pali, whence
> probably the misunderstandings.
>
> Best wishes
> Mahipaliha
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]