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

I have noticed a typo. It is herewith corrected
OHP

   _____ 

Fra: Ole Holten Pind [mailto:ohpind@...]
Sendt: 05 December 2007 12:16
Til: 'palistudy@yahoogroups.com'
Emne: SV: [palistudy] John Smith, Re: iyaat (Buddhist pseudo-Sanskrit)



The idea that iyaat is an optative used as impf. is absurd, although
respected indologists are seen to think so. The next question is how do we
explain this form as the reading iyaat would seem to be a regular opt. of i.
I think like Philip Ernest that the form is imp. of yaa. This, in fact, is
the only possible solution. The question is why iyaat and not ayaat. To my
mind the solution is not a matter of simple confusion because the writers
could have picked the impf. of i which is ait. So why iyaat instead of
ayaat.  My suggestion is to look at the ay- iy- opposition as conditioned by
the string ay of ayaat because in MI a is generally raised to e before  y .
In short, I think that there might be a solution to the problem by
addressing it as a problem of phonetics. That´s basically all I wanted to
say.

Ole Holten Pind



-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af Eisel Mazard
Sendt: 05 December 2007 09:19
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: [palistudy] John Smith, Re: iyaat (Buddhist pseudo-Sanskrit)

[Forwarded from Dr. Philip Ernest]

[...] I don't think this is  question of the optative becoming anything.
It's just that some of the optative forms of the verb i closely enough
resembled those of the imperfect another common verb, yaa, and thus came to
be picked by the poets when they needed a preterite form.  From my limited
point of view, there isn't an ay string here, but the verb i taking the
optative ending yaat and so on, and the verb yaa in its imperfect form,
ayaat.  But my view the naive view of a mere reader of Sanskrit with only
the most practical and rudimentary sense of the theory of grammar, so Pind
may probably be talking beyond my earshot.  That the forms in question are
not optative in meaning seems quite necessary in the context of their
passages.  I am guessing that Pind is a senior expert in Indian linguistics.

[...]



Yahoo! Groups Links








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