Re: [palistudy jāññā

Dear All,

On the derivation, since there is a long -ī- in jānīyāt, one further step must be added, the shortening of the -i-; otherwise it wouldn't be palatalized, so

jānīyāt > jāniyāt > jaññāt > jaññā

It is interesting that something similar occurs in Ardha-Māgadhī (AMg) which some well-known scholars considered (Alt-Ardha-Māgadhī, Heinrich Lüders; Ardha-Māgadhī, Ludwig Alsdorf) was the "original language of Buddhism".

Here (in AMg) the optative jānīyāt > jāṇijjā > jāṇĕjjā or jāṇĕjja (-ĕ- = short e as in Eng. "bed", rather than long e as in Eng. "plain".

So here the derivation went in a different direction from Pāli (retaining the interconsonantal -i-), but interesting in that jāṇĕjjā or jāṇĕjja are both 3rd person sing. and plural, which possibly influenced jāññā in Pāli (for reference see Pischel's Prakrit Grammar, §459)

Best wishes,

Bryan

From: "Bryan Levman bryan.levman@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: "palistudy@yahoogroups.com" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 10:47 PM
Subject: [palistudy] n

Hi Chris,

Sorry, I guess I missed your question. The plural form would be jāññu as I stated in a previous email, but sometimes in the Prakrits through the process of simplification a third person sing. is used as a plural. I note that Cone gives both jāññā and jāññu as third person plurals.

Probably if one checks the mss there will be some confusion on these two forms; the "correct" one is jāññu, but because of the convergence of paradigm endings in both nominal declensions and conjugations, these become blurred together. Plus scribes forget the little used Skt. -īyuḥ ending for the third plural. The only reference I can give you on this is Edgerton's Grammar (25.4) where he talks about "widespread confusion of person and number, usu. in that 3 sg. forms are used for any person and either number", but perhaps someone else can remember other instances - I seem to remember something in Geiger, bur can't find it,

Best wishes,

Bryan

From: "Chris Clark chris.clark@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] jaññā

Dear Bryan,

Thanks. I understand janīyāt (Skt.) > jaññā (Pali). The main query I had is regarding the usage of jaññā as a third person *plural* optative.

Regards,
Chris

Hi Chris, Aleix

The standard optative for jñā (a class 9 verb) in Skt. is janīyāt, 3rd person singl.

In the Prakrits the -īy- is assimilated to the final consonat of the verb (-n) and becomes ñña- doubled because of the two consonants - this linguistic phenomena is called palatization. The final -t is dropped, which is a common Pkt change, and the vowel lengthened to reflect the dropped final consonant.

So the derivation is janīyāt > jaññāt > jaññā

so it is a standārd Skt > Prakrit derivation.

Best wishes, Bryan

From: "Aleix Ruiz Falqués ruydaleixo@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 5:03 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] jaññā

Dear Chris,

Perhaps a form of subjunctive (after all the conditional, optative and subjunctive are the modes of the irreal) 3rd plural ending in -an, like bhavān, so Pāli jaññā < *janyān (<jan-ya-an) (cf. Burrow, section on subjunctive). I am not sure at all, but I think the 3rd pl. -an of the Skt subjunctive seems to me a decent candidate, because the suffix -yāt that Geiger calls an optative is actually subjunctive in Skt.

Best wishes,

Aleix

2016-03-24 15:31 GMT+07:00 Chris Clark chris.clark@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:

Dear all,

The second and third person singular optative is sometimes formed with the ending -yā (Skt. -yāḥ and -yāt, respectively; Geiger § 129A). Thus, the second and third person singular optative of √jñā can be jaññā (there are other forms, of course).

In Cone’s “A Dictionary of Pāli” (s.v. jānāti), jaññā is also listed as a third person plural optative. A number of passages are quoted which seem to support this. Assuming Cone is correct, does anyone know the historical process that led to this form? Is the ending -yā found in other third person plural optative verbs?

Regards,
Chris

Previous in thread: 4577
Next in thread: 4579
Previous message: 4577
Next message: 4579

Contemporaneous posts Posts in thread all posts