SV: John Smith, Re: iyaat (Buddhist pseudo-Sanskrit)

The idea that optatives are used with a preterite meaning would seem to turn
the semantics of verbal usage upside down. How could an optative
structurally suddenly become preterite? I doubt that there is an easy
solution to the problem, but I would suggest to look at the phonological
possibilities. Perhaps the string ayA- was no longer productive, and
speakers raised /a/ to /i/ under the influence of /y/. Anyway, the string
/ay/ is hardly ever met with as far as I can see. This should be taken into
consideration. 

Regards
Ole Holten Pind

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af Eisel Mazard
Sendt: 01 December 2007 07:55
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: [palistudy] John Smith, Re: iyaat (Buddhist pseudo-Sanskrit)

> > Dear group, In recent days I have a couple of
> times
> > found iyaat and such forms, which I would take to
> be
> > optative in form, used with what seems to have to
> be a
> > simple preterite meaning, "he went", and so on.
> Is
> > this a recognized possibility in the Mahabharata's Sanskrit?
>
> This is an old favourite -- I first bumped into it at 2.67.5, 2.67.15,
> where the editor Edgerton flags it and refers to a JAOS article by
> himself that (if I remember correctly) points to comparable usages in
> Buddhist Sanskrit. More recently, Oberlies has a two-page list of
> optatives being used with preterite sense (and a long footnote full of
> references); whet he doesn't say, but stands out on the printed page,
> is that iyAt outweighs all other forms many times over. Most of the
> other examples are one-offs, and I dare say some could be interpreted
> in other ways (haven't checked). Clearly iyAt has in some way got
> "crossed" with the normat imperfect form ayAt (from yA-), though why
> this should have happened I have no idea.
>
> John Smith



Yahoo! Groups Links