syntactic disputations deshpande

8/13/2019 Syntactic Disputations Deshpande

1/19

MADHAV M. DESHPANDE

S A N S K R I T G E R U N D C O N S T R U C T I O N S : S Y N TA C T I C

D I S P U TAT I O N S

1. Grammatical theorizing in ancient and mediaeval India was not confined tothe tradition of Sanskrit grammarians. The traditions of M_fm~rhs~i, Nyhya etc. alsosignificantly contributed to grammatical thinking. Apart from general metaphysicaldiscussions concerning the nature o f the language, i.e. Sanskrit, and its origin andfunction, one finds a good deal of 'grammatical' argumentation in works belonging

to these systems, and on several topics, the authors belonging to these systems holdopinions different from those held by the Sanskrit grammarians. In this paper, I aimat presenting one such topic where the traditions of Sanskrit grammarians andMfm~hs~i offer divergent explanations, i.e. the syntax of gerund constructions inSanskrit. The Sanskrit grammarians themselves are split on the explanation of suchconstructions. In my recent monograph E v o l u t i o n o f S y n t a c t i c T h e o r y in S a n s kr i tGrammar." Sy n ta x o f t he Sa nsk r i t In f in i t ive - tum UN , [L ingu is ti ca Ex t ranea , S tud iai0 , Karoma Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, 1980], I have attempted to reconstructthe original views held by PLqini concerning the syntax of infmitive cons tructions

in Sanskrit, and have also shown in detail how the theories of the later Sanskritgrammarians differ from this original conception. In dealing with infinitives, Ialso had to deal with gerunds, which are lumped together by all the Sanskritgrammarians in terms of their syntact ic behavior. Here, I will briefly present myconclusions concerning the syntactic explanations of gerund constructions providedby the Sanskrit grammarians, and then I will compare and contrast these syntacticexplanations with those provided by the mediaeval Mim~fisg author Khan..dadeva.For the full details o f my recons truct ion of the earl.y syntactic explanations ofinfinitive and gerund construct ions, the reader is requested to refer to the above-

mentioned study. A general knowledge of the kdraka system in P~inini is taken forgranted in the following discussion.

2. For P~nini, the kdraka denoted by the affixes such as - tumUN, -Ktvai etc.,like that denoted by the affix -t/P, is kart.r agent , by rule P.3.4.67 (kartari k.rt).This meaning, it may be called syntactic meaning, is invariant and is not dependenton the voice of the main verb. With these assumptions, there are no problems inexplaining a sentence such as:

E(1) rdma.h grdma~n gatvd lalam piba t iHaving gone to town, Rama drinks water.

Indo-Iranian Journ al2 3 ( 1 98 1 ) 1 6 7 - 1 8 5 . 0 0 1 9 - 7 2 4 6 / 8 1 / 0 2 3 3 - 0 1 6 7 0 1 .9 0 .Copyright 91 9 8 1 by D . Reidel Publishing Co., Do rdrecht, Holland, and Bo ston, U.S.A.


2/19


3/19

S A N S K R I T G E R U N D S 1 69

E(4) rd m en a rdmarh gatvd jalam p fyateH a v i n g g o n e t o t o w n , w a t e r is d r u n k b y R a m a .

Here , acco rd ing to K~ty~ya na , t he a ff ix-Ktvdm u s t d e n o t e t h e o b j e c tkarman),s ince the m a in ve rbpfya te is passive . I f , for th is reason , the formgatvd i s cons id eredto be a pas s ive fo rm , then the indep ende n t ob jec t o f th i s fo rm, i .e .grdma,m u s tt ake a nom ina t ive case -end ing . In o the r words , i f we accep t K~i ty~yana' s t heo ry , we

cann o t exp la in the accusa t ivegrdmam inE(4) . Th i s can be exp la ined on ly i f t h isob jec t karman) is anabhihita ' no t exp res sed ' .

4 . Pa ta f ij al i po in t s ou t t hese p rob lems in K~ty~ya na ' s p roposa l s , 4 and p roposes s

tha t a ff ixes like-Ktvda n d - t umUNne i the r deno tekartr ' a g e n t ' , n o rkarman ' o b j e c t ' ,bu t i nva r i ab ly deno te on lybhdva ' ac t io n ' . T ho ug h Patafi ja l i goes th is fa r, h i spropo sa ls a re ne i ther h is tor ica l ly P~.n in ian , nor theore t ica l ly sa t i s fac tory, 6 an dc rea te p ro b lem s in exp la in ing even the m os t co m m on sen tences . Cons ider :

E(5 ) rdm a.h rdma/n gatvd ]alam pibatiH a v i n g g o n e t o t o w n , R a m a d r in k s w a t e r.

Here , acco rding to Pa tafi ja l i, the a ff ix-Ktvdd e n o t e sbhdva ' a c t i on ' , wh il e t he a ff ix

- t /P denoteskartr age n t . Thus the same agen t r ema ins unexp res sedanabhihita)b y t h e a f fi x-Ktvd,whi le i t i s exp res sed by the a ff ix-tiP. Hence there i s a funda-m enta l con f l ic t be tw een these tw o form s, and , l ike P~.n in i, Pa tafi ja l i has p rovid edno exp l i c it so lu t ion to r e so lve these p rob lem s , no r has he shown even an awarenesso f these p rob lem s .

5 . I t i s Bhar t.rhari w ho com es up wi th a fu l ly for m ed so lu t ion to these prob lem sfo r t he f i rs t time in the h i s to ry o f Sansk r i t g ramm ar. H is i deas have been accep tedby the la te r Pan .in ian t rad i t ion , and m ay b e s ta ted be lo w: 7

When an entity is separately related to a mainpradhdna)and a subordinategau.na)action, insuch contexts the particularkdrakarelation based on the subordinate action abides by theka-raka relation based o n th e ma in action.

W here the p articularkdrakarelation w ith respect to the m ain action is expressedabhihita)by the main verbal affix, thekdrakarelation with respect to the subordinate action, eventhough n ot expressed, becomes expressed.

With these s ta tem ents , Bhar t .thari so lves pro blem s which Patafi ja l i has n ot evenm en t ion ed . 8 He accep t s Pa ta f ij a li 's no t ion tha t t he a ff ix-Ktvdi nva r i ab ly de no te s

bhdva ' ac t io n ' . 9 How ever, wi th h is theo re t ica l so lu t ion , we ca n sa t i s fac tor i ly dea lwi th the fo l lowing sentences :

E(6 ) rdmah,g~. harh gatv d jalam pibatiH a v i n g g on e h o m e , R a m a d r in k s w a t e r.


4/19


5/19


Trans fo rm at iona l Grammar. T he Trans fo rm at iona l tr ees fo r the fo l lowing sen tencesare presented below.13

E ( 9 ) J o h n h o p e d t o l ea v e.

i sP

V N P

NP VPI I

Joh n i hope Joh n i leave

E(10) Bar ry conv inced Nan cy to run .

P

V NP

ar ry conv ince

N P

NancYi NancYi

NP

S

V P

r un

Exam ina t ion o f these d iagrams wi l l make i t obv ious tha t the e ffec t o f th ist r ans fo rma t ion is to de le t e the sub jec t N[oun ] P [h rase ] o f an embed ded sen tencewhen tha t N P is co - re fe ren ti a l w i th an N P h igher in the t r ee . 14 I t m ay be no tedthat th e Sanskr i t grammarians are no t d er iv ing gerun d or inf in i t ive con st ruct ion sby embedd ing sen tences , even by re fe r r ing to the i r ow n no t ion o f wha t a sen tence

is. i s I f , how ever, t he t r ans fo rmat iona l equ i -NP-de le tion p rocedure w ere in t rodu cedi n t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o f Sa n sk r it g r a m m a ri an s , J U S T F O R T H E S A K E O FDEM ON STRA TION , we ma y be ab le to see the p re -de le t ion fo rms in the ge rundc lauses mo re d i s t inc tly, and the morpho log ica l impac t o f d i ff e rences he ld con ce rn ingt h e m e a n i n g o f K t v d will bec om e m ore t ransp arent . T he fo l lowing diagrams take fo r


6/19


7/19


8/19

174 MADHAV M. DESHPA NDE

Tree D

agent ob ect V P ~

complement

r~mena odanah bhujyate r~mena odanah pa ktv~

Nl lnstr N2 Nom Vl P sv N l ln st r N2 NomV2 Psv

The t rees C and D show h ow Kgty~iyana 's the ory pro duc es t rue equi-s in the caseof the two sen tences . However, as po in ted ou t ea rl ie r, i f t he vo ice o f a ge rund ismade depen den t o n tha t o f the ma in ve rb , then we have p rob lems in examples such as

E(11) odanampaktvd grdm o gam yate rdme na( R a m a ) h a v i ng c o o k e d r i c e , t h e t o w n is go n e t o b y R a m a .

A pseudo-Kg tygyan ian tr ee o f th is sen tence may be g iven as be low:

Tree E

agent obe c t V P ~

c o m p l y .

V

r~fimena g r~ m ah gamyate r~mena od an ah pak tv r162

Nl lnstr N2 Nom Vl Psv N l ln str N3 NomV2 Psv


9/19

SANSKRIT GERUN DS 175

K~ ty~yana s theo ry forces mo rphological equi-s, such as the nom inat ivesgrama.hand odana.hwh en actu ally the usage requiresodanam paktvcLThis cann ot beobta ined , i f the voice o f the gerund is a lways determined b y the main verb.

10. [PSEUDO] -PATAN JALIAN TRE ESPatafi ja l i s v iew tha t a gerund-aff ix a lways denotes on ly the act ion, and no t theagent or the o bject , y ie lds an acceptable t ree for the examp le E(11) w i th requiredequi-s and non-equi-s:

Tree F

ob

agent obi ect VP

complement

V agent

grama.h ga m ya te r~qmen

ect VP

r q m e na o d a n a m p a k t v ~

Nl lns t r N2 Nom Vl PS v Nl lns t r N3 Acc V2 Act ion

W hile Patarijali s th eo ry th us prov ides the re quire d equi-s an d non-equi-s in th eabove ex am ple, i t fai ls in the case o f 1)rdma.h odanam pak tvgb hu hkteand 2)rtime.na odana.h pa kt vd bh u]yate intha t i t neither produ ces true equi-s as required,nor proposes a w ay to dele te the u nw ante d non-equi-s . See the fol lowingdiagrams:


10/19

t76 MADHAV M DESHPANDE

Tree G

agent ob

r ~ m a h o d a na m b h

~ct VP

complement

V agent ob ect VP

~kte ramena odan am paktv ~

Nl+Nom N2+Acc Vl+Act Nl+lnstr N2+Acc V2+Action

Tree H

agent ob ect

r ~m ena odanah .

VP

complement

V agent ob ect VP

V

bhu jya te ramen a odanam pa ktvd

Nl+lnstr N2+Nom Vl+psv Nl+lnstr N2+Acc V2+Action


11/19

S A N S K R I T G E R U N D S 1 7 7

In nei the r o f the ab ove t rees we see t rue equi-s, i .e . Tree G hasrdma.h/rdme.na,whileTree H hasodana.h/odanam,and as I have po inte d o ut ear l ie r, there i s no device inPatari ja l i' s wo rk b y w hich the f i rs t form s in these pai rs can supersede the seconds .

What has Bhar t rha ri done ? He has no t p rov ided a means to p roduce t rue equ i- sin cases w here Patafi ja l i' s the ory fa il s to pro duc e them , bu t he s imply recognizesthe h ie ra rchy be tween the m a in ac t ion and the subord ina te ac t ion , o r in Trans -fo rmat iona l t e rms , the d i ff e rence be tween ' h ighe r in the t r ee ' and ' lower in thet ree ' . Given such a h iera rchy , Bhart .rhari w ould o nly re ta in the form which appears'h igher in the t ree ' , and suppress the fo rm w hich occu rs 'lowe r in the t ree ' . I shouldm en t ion once again th a t th e abov e analys is i s no t a l ite ra l represe nta t ion o f the

theor i e s o f Sanskr i t g rammar ians , bu t a co nven ien t r eana lys is in Trans fo rm at iona lterms. None of the Sanskr i t grammarians ac tual ly propose the s t r ings which appearin these Trees above.

1 i . One of m y purposes in present ing the t rees and the pre- f ina l s t rings in theseear l ier sec t ions has been t o be able to com pre hen d an analysis of the S anskr i tgerund con st ruct io ns as propo sed b y the M im~fis~ auth or Khan..dadeva. As we shal lsee , there i s a great deal of s imi lar i ty betw een these s t rings and the s t rings propo sed

by Khan. .dadeva to acco un t for the Sanskr i t gerund c onst ru ct ions . We wil l concen-t ra te on ly o n ce r ta in aspects o f Kha.n.dadeva 's d iscussions , and n ot de lve in to o the rdetai ls . Kha.n.dadeva offe rs the fol low ing exam ple: 16

E ( 1 2 ) caitra.hpaktvd cai tro bhu hkteCai t r a hav ing cook ed , Ca i tr a ea t s .

In the above exam ple , Khan.dadeva repeats the wo rdcaitra twice , once in re la t ionto paktvd,and th en in r e l a t ion tobhuhkte ,thus g iv ing us two surface forms.

Th oug h th is s tr ing appears to be ext r em ely similar to the s tr ings in Trees A and Cabo ve, Kha0..dadeva doe s no t in ten d his str ing to be a pre-f'mal deriv ational s tr ing,bu t as a f ina l st r ing and hen ce he im pl ic i t ly a t taches a cer ta in k ind o f gram mat ica l i tyto i t . The s t r ing pro vided b y Khan. .dadeva i s ext r em ely valuable in tha t th is is theon ly a t tem pt in the ent i re range of Indian linguist ic analys is , wh ere an au tho r

ac tua l ly spells o u t h ow a ge rund wou ld indepen den t ly p rod uce su r face fo rms o f i tso w n kdrakas.Khan.dadeva just if ies the nominativecaitra.hof the agen t -word inre la t ion topaktvdby s t a ting tha t the a ff ix -Ktvd deno tes the same agen t a s tha t o fthe m a in ve rb , and henc e , in e ffec t , deno tes the agen t

ka rl). 17In o th e r words , in

Khan. .dadeva's opinion , the g erund form is an inh eren t ly ac t ive voice form . Since theagen t is thus a l r eady expressed by the ge rund a ff ix , one has to have the nomina t ivecase for the agen t-wordcaitra t o express it s own mean ingprdtipadikdrtha)andgender e t c . [Ref : P.2 .3 .46 ] .


12/19

178 MADHAV M. DESHPAN DE

12. I f one accepts Kha.n .dadeva's v iew ab ou t the syntac t ic mean ing o f the aff ix-Ktvd, i.e . it s inhe rent ac t ive voice , then we c ou ld der ive the fo l lowing passivestring:

E ( 1 3 ) caitra.hpak tva caitrena bhujyateCai t r a hav ing coo ked , ea t ing i s done b y C a i t r a .

The inhe ren t ac tive vo ice o f the ge rund ough t to r emain unchanged , desp i t e the f ac ttha t the m ain verb is pass ive , and hen ce the agent w ordcaitra in r e l a t ion to theg e r u n dpaktvdoug ht to oc cur in the nom inat ive . This st r ing looks very simi lar tothe s t ring in Tree B, and is pa r t ly pr odu ced d ue to s imi lar assumpt ions . T he abi l i tyo f a ge rund fo rm to ex ac t the nom ina t ive case fo r i ts agen t , i ndep enden t ly o fthe m ain verb , i s h is tor ica l ly a t tes ted in a fe w pre-P~n, n ian and p os t -P ~in ianusages, t 8

Ho we ver, Khan..dadeva f inds the s t r ing in E (13) u nacc eptab le , and the onlypassive se nten ce ac cepta ble to him is: 19

E ( 1 4 ) cai t renapak tvd caitrena b hujyateCo oking hav ing been done b y Ca i tr a , eat ing is done by Ca i t r a .

This par t icular s t r ing appears to be very s imilar to the s t rings in Trees D, E, F, a ndH, thou gh in each case the und er ly ing reasons for the resul t ing equi-pai r o f theagent-wo rd are d i fferen t . Khan.dadeva i s sure abo ut the des i rabi l ity of the surfacefo rms in E(14 ) , t houg h he i s no t su re as to h ow to de r ive them. A sen tence suchas th is conf l ic ts wi th h is ow n ear l ier v iew that a gerund-aff ix denote s the ag ent ,because the agent o f an ac t ive voice verbal i tem such as a gerund m ust appear inthe no min at ive . W ith the con vic t ion tha t the surface form o f a pass ive sentencemu st be l ike E(14) , a nd no t l ike E(13) , Khan.dadeva propo ses to achieve th is a im bycons ide r ing the ins t rum enta l case fo rmcaitrena in caitre.na pa ktv aof E (14) a srep resen ting an ins t rum entkarana),and no t the agen tkart.r).2~ T h o u g h s u ch a nexp lana t ion m ay jus t i fy the use o f the ins t rumenta l case o f the w ordcaitra incaitrena paktv d inE(14) , i t b y i t se lf has no ab i l ity to r e s t r ic t t he de r iva tion o f asentence such as E(13 ) , w hich Kha.n .dadeva considers to be un acceptab le . T here i sn o r e a s o n w h ycaitra can be an agen t in an ac t ive voice sentence , and th a t he mu stcease to fu nc t ion as an agen t and becom e an ins t rum ent fo r the sake o f a passivesen tence . On the co n t ra ry , once we pe rmi tcaitra, the t rue agent , to be rec lass if iedas an ins t ru m ent f or the sake of a pass ive sen tence , there i s no reason w hy such a

rec lassi f ica tion should no t a lso be op era t ive in ac tive voice . This wou ld fo rce upo nus the der ivat ion of a sentence l ike :

E ( 1 5 ) caitre.napaktva caitro bhuhk teCo oking hav ing been d one by Ca i tr a , Ca i t ra ea t s .


13/19


This str ing appears to be similar to th e str ing in Tree G, tho ug h for very diffe rentreasons . Kha0..dadeva does no t d iscuss h ow he can s top the prod uct ion of sentencessuch as E(15). Thu s Khan..dadeva s exp lana tion is no t ve ry system atic.

16. Khao..dadeva s discussion ma kes one thing very certain. He has definite ideasabo ut w hich surface s t ructures are acceptable and wh ich are no t , but h e has no suchdef ini te preference for par t icular syntact ic explanat ions . Syn tact ic explanat ions forhim are clearly nego tiable, while the surface form s are no t. Th is is also true o f thediscussions fo un d in the w orks o f Sanskrit gram marians.21 Kha0.dadeva is so clearlyoppo sed to a s t ructure such as E(13) , wh ich is ma de incu m ben t by his v iew that

the gerund aff ix denotes the agent , that he is will ing to a band on this v ie w to s topits deriva tion. He is willing to accept Patari jali s view th at the affix -K tvd den otesonly the act ion, and no t the agent or the object . 22 W ith th is v iew he can cer ta inlyderive the desired structure, i .e . E(14 ), and stop the d erivation of E(13). B utchoo sing Patafi jali s the or y do es no t solve all the prob lems. I t in fac t creates newdiffic ulties for Kha.n.dadeva. W hile his e arlier view, i.e. the inh ere nt active voiceof gerunds , a llows him to derive the act ive s t ructure E (12) , h is acceptance o fPatari jali s views wou ld no t al low him to derive th at stru cture. In stead , he c an o nly

derive the stru ctu re represen ted in E(15 ), wh ich is no t very desirable to him . Thu s,his shi fts in the syntact ic argum entat ion are n ot very wel l -mo t ivated, bu t areadhoc, and d o no t take in to a ccou nt a ll the impl icat ions .

17. W hy did Khan..dadeva and him self in all these problem s? He was obvio uslyno t prod ucing the pre-deletion strings such as the strings in Tran sform ationa lGram m ar. Nor did Khan..dadeva consider th e str ings given by him to be pre-finals tr ings in som e other scheme. I f that w ere so , he could have chosen to wri te somekind of rules or fou nd som e pr inciples to get r id o f the m orphological ly divergent

bu t lexically and referen tial ly identical form s in the gerun d clauses. In f act , aspo inte d o ut earl ier, Bhart.rhari s principle does this to a certain ex ten t. How ever,Khal3 .dadeva does n ot fo l low this cou rse , and ins tead f inds himself s tuck w i thunacceptable case-forms in the g erund c lauses, no m at ter which th eory h e chooses .

The or igin of h is problems l ies in his being a fol lower of the school ofBh~i.t.tam~m~irfisa.The two ma in branches o f the school o f Mim~-hs~, i .e .Bh~t.t.amrm~irfis~ian d Pr~bh~karamfm~rias~, ho ld diffe rent views concerning theparticular wa y o f interpre ting ellipsis. W hile the Pr~bh~karamim~rhs~ school

believes in the n oti onofarth lhydhdra, th e Bhfi.t.tam~m~ri~s~i ch oo l, alo ng w iththe schoo l of Ny~iya, believes in th e n oti onofkabdddhydhc~ra. 23 Thedifferencebetw een these tw o views is clarif ied below.

18. The first the or y o f interpre ting ell ipsis , i .e.arthddhydhdra,holds tha t to be


14/19

180 MAD HAV M. DESHPAND E

able to fully un der stan d an ell iptical sentence such as ' (Close) th e doo r 'pidhehi)dvdram),i t i s suffic ient to assume s imply the m eaning of the miss ing wo rd tosupplem ent the m eaning der ived f rom the w ord a ctual ly available in the ut terance .On the o ther han d , the theo ryofkabdddhydhdraholds tha t in order to be able toful ly und ers tand an e l lip tica l sentence, one m ust f i rs t reconst ruct the w ords wh ichare missing, and th en this recon struc ted com plete sen tence will yield i ts com pletemean ing in a no rmal way. In M~ngrias~ texts , w e f ind deta i led argu men ts regardingthese theo ries, 24 bu t w e shall no t go into thos e details here. Su ffice i t to say thatthe first view is held b y the school o f PrgbhftkaramimLrhs~, and the second viewis he ld by the Bh~.t. tamimgrflsg choo l to wh ich K ha.n.dadeva belongs. Since th e

assum ption o f meaning- i tems to com plete an e l l ip t ica l sentence does no t involvethe b urden of reconst ruct ing the surface forms o f the miss ing words , one doesno t have to w orry abo ut th e gramm atical features o f these surface forms. On theother h and , the second th eor y enta i ls the ful l der ivat ion of the m issing w ords andhen ce involves the resp onsibil i ty to see throu gh th e entire process of mak ing suretha t the re con structe d missing words get 'appro priate ' case endings etc. The'appropr ia teness ' o f the gramm atical features of the re const ruc ted forms can on lybe judged by compar ing such recons t ruc ted cons t ruc t ions wi th o ther n a tu ra l fu l lconst ruct ions .

19. K h~ .dade va as a zealous follow er o f the Bh~t. t.amfm~rhs~ chool no t onlyaccepts the doctr ine of f i l ling an e l l ip t ica l const ruct ion w i th recon st ructed wo rds ,he is extend ing th is doctr ine to gerund and inf ini t ive const ruct ions as wel l. T he f i rs tund erlyin g assum ption in K han..dadeva's discussion is tha t g erund con struction s areell iptical con structio ns, an d his second a ssum ption is th at , s ince these are el l ipticalconst ruct ions , they can be 'com pleted ' b y reconst ruct ing the missing words . Thatth is was his or ien ta t ion is clear f rom his writ ings . Consider a normal gerund

construc t ion such as:

E(16) cait rena b huk tvd gam yateLit .: "Having eaten, going is done by Cai t ra ."

In such a sentence, the ag ent-word in th e in s t rume ntal , i .e .caitren,a , actual ly occurson ly once. The fact that there is only one word is in terpreted by Khan..dadeva ome an tha t i t can only be conn ected wi th one act ion, i .e . the m ain act ion of going,and tha t i t has no co nn ectio n w ith the othe r a ction o f eating. 2s Thus, Kha_9.dadevaexplains the ins t rume ntal case o f the agen t wo rdcaitrenaby referr ing to i t s on lyconn ect ion, i .e . that wi th the m ain pass ive verbgamyate.26 Kha0..dadeva op en lyrejects the view expressed b y Bhart.rhari th at a sharedkdrakasuch as the agentCai t ra in th is example does have s imul taneous rela t ions wi th the main and thesubordinate ac t ions , thou gh the actual case ending in the surface on y shows i ts


15/19


con nect io n w i th the main act ion. 27 Kha0..dadeva re jects the idea tha t one wordcan have two such s imul taneous re la t ions wi th two act ions . On the co ntrary , heproposes tha t i f a th ing is re la ted to tw o d ifferent ac tions in the above man ner,and i f the surface sentence shows on ly one w ord, then such a sentence mu st beconsidered to be an e l lip tica l sentence, and the miss ing words can an d m ust be f i lledwith recon st ructed words to have a ful l access to th e tw o inten ded s im ul taneousrelationships. He discusses the follow ing exam ple: 28

E(17) pak tvd odana.h bhujya teRice , hav ing been cooked , i s ea ten .

Referr ing to th is exam ple , Kha.n .dadeva says that i f on e in tends the re la tionship o fr ice to bo th co oking and eat ing s imu l taneously, then th is sentence m ust be viewedas an elliptical sentenc e, and the m issing word m ust b e r eco nstru cted as follows: 29

E(1 8) odanamp ktv odanah bhujyateHaving cook ed r ice , rice is ea te n.

He re, K han..dadevahas recon struc ted the accusative formodanam to f il l the apparentmiss ing object of the gerundpaktvd ,and in th is process he has to ju s t i fy the par tic-

ular choice o f accusative 30 To jus t i fy his reconst ruct ion, he offers the fol lowingusages as ex am ple s: 31

E(19) odanam bh uk tvd kdstram pa.thyateHaving eaten r ice , the sacred tex t i s rec ited (or read) .

E(20) ~rutvd api artham nanumata.h tena sa.h artha.h ku bu dd hin dEven hav ing heard th a t m at te r, tha t ma t te r was no t approved by tha t

i l l-wi t ted perso n.

In bo th of these usages , the objects of the gerundsbhuk tvda n d krutvdhave beenseparate ly provided, and the y are in the accusat ive case . However, both of theseexam ples are actual ly som ewh at d i fferent f rom E(18) . E(18 ) presents a very normalgerund con st ruct ion where the gerun d and the m ain verb share an object incom mo n. In E(19) , the ge rund has a to ta lly independen t ob jec t , which has no th ingto do w i th the main verb. Hence th is indep end ent object of the gerund must bem ent io ned separate ly. In E(20) , th oug h seemingly the gerund and the main verbhave the same object , the sentence is c learly m arke d w i th emph asis ( ref :api , and

hence the provis iono f a r t h a mwith krutvdi s necessary to enhance the in tend edemphasis . The exam ple E(18 ) does not show such an emp hasis. Thus , Kha.n .dadevais r ight in c la iming tha t i f one provides an indep ende nt object fo r the gerun d, thatobject m ust ap pear in the accusat ive case, bu t he is indeed o n q uest ionable groundswhe n he c la ims that reconst ruc t ion o f such an object -word is necessary s imply to


16/19

182 MA DHAV M. DESHPAND E

show tha t tha t ob ject has a re la tion wi th the gerun d, even though the gerund-act ionand the m ain act ion have the same o bject . Precise ly for th is reason, the f requen cyof usages like E(18) is very very low, and such a repet i t ion of a sharedkdraka occurson ly in a h ighly ma rked c on text , such as that o f emphasis in E(20) . In each case o f akdraka shared by the g erund-act ion and the main act ion, thekdraka indeed has twosimul taneous re la t ions , thoug h on e o f these is the m ain re la t ion, and the othe r i s thesubordinate re la t ion. While the m ain re la t ion is g iven di rect ly by the inf lect ion on theword deno t ing tha t sha redkdraka the o ther re la t ion is to be un ders to od f rom theco nte xt. These con structio ns are n ot trully el liptical con structio ns, where the el lipsiscan and m us t be f i ll ed by recons t ruc ted words . The fac t tha t they a re no t t ru ly

elliptical con stru ctio ns is bet ra ye d b y Khan..dadeva's failure in Filling the so-calledmissing w ords, with 'appr opria te ' inflections . This is part icu larly evident in th eproblem s he has in deal ing wi th const ruct ions such as E(13) an d E(15) . There isa lmost no external s tand ard for judging the appropr ia teness of such recon st ruct ionsinvolving the shared agen t, because the shared agen t is alm ost never repeated twice.Precise ly for th is reason, such const ruct ions ma y no t be considered to be t ru l lyel lip tica l const ruct ions . The con st ruct ion ' the doo r ' , in the place of 'open thedo or ' , can b e con sidered to b e a trully el l iptical con struc tion , precisely becausethe ex pand ed const ruc t ion 'op en the doo r ' is an in tegral par t o f the object language.This is norm al ly not the case wi th g erund o r inf in i tive const ruct ions in Sanskr it .

20. Khan. .dadeva, n m y opinion, has wrong ly extend ed the no t ion of e llips is togeru nd con struction s in Sansk rit . W hat is at f ault is no t so m uc h the Bh~i.t.tamimm-fls~doctr ine tha t an e l lips is mu st be id led w i th actual ly reconst ructed words , bu t thefac t tha t Kha.n.dadevahas fai led in m akin g a clear dist inc tion betwe en true ell ipsisand u nsta ted bu t c ontex tual ly recoverable re lat ionships . Only those cases ofun state d bu t co ntex tua lly recoverable relat ionships are truly el l iptical , where the

expan ded reco nst ruct ion is m atch ed by a paral le l bu t natura l con st ruct ion in theobject language. Otherwise , the so-called exten ded reconst ruc t ion is on ly a f ic t ion,perhaps useful in g ramm atical theo ry, bu t w i th no c la ims to any l inguis t ic real ity.Such for instance m ust b e th e case wit h al l deletion rules in m od ern l inguistics.De letion rules can be said to describe el l iptical con structio ns, only if the pre-dele t ion con st ruct ions are a legi t imate par t of the object language. Otherwise , thepre-dele tion const ructs such as Jo hn hop e Johni leave , prod uced to descr ibe thepost -dele tion object language const ruct ion Jo hn hope d to leave , m ust be t reatedas par t o f the par t icular metalanguage, and one m ust no t mak e an y c la ims to thei rl inguistic reali ty. To this ex ten t, I thin k the Sanskrit gram marians are justif ied inno t viewing these con structio ns as el l iptical con struc tions, and tryin g to derive justone surface form, which has two s imul taneous l inks , one w i th the ma in act ion andthe other w i th the subo rdinate act ion.


17/19


18/19

1 84 M A D H AV M . D E S H PA N D E

16 Bh~t. .atantrarahasya,p. 41 , : ata eva ktv d-p ra tya ye nd pi samdna -kart.rkatvdbhidhdndt caitra.hpa ktv d caitro bh uh kt e i t) , atrddya-caitra-pade' pi prathamopapatti .h.

17 ktvd-pratyayena kartur updddndt, Bhdt. t .atantrarahasya, p. 41.18 Deshpande (1980 : 13 5 -3 6 , n . 52 ) .19 Bh~tta tantrarahasya,p. 41 .20 na caivarh caitre.na pa kt vd caitre.na bhul'yate ity atrddya-eaitra-pade ~H ydndpattih. , ktvd -pratya yena kar tur upd ddndd i t i v~cyam / ta tra gtm dnam dtm and vetsi , anena ]~vendtmandnu.pravikya ntima-rape vydka rav~.ni, ity 4d i-v at kara.natvasya trt[yd rth atv dt / , Bhdtt.atantrarahasya,p. 41 .21 Deshpand e (1980: 126) .22 y ad i tv asm in pak.se caitro b hu ktv d caitrena gam ya te i t i pray ogdp attir i t i vibhdvyate, tadgm dstu ktvd-pr atyaya sya sam ~na-kart .rkatva.parva.kdlatvayoh, kakti.h /k in tu bh~va-krt .tv~tbhdva e v a /, Bh~t.tatantrarahasya,p. 43.23 M~mdrhsdkoka,Vol . 2 , pp . 6 6 2 - 6 3 ; N y a y a k o k a ,p . 868 , and K . Ra ja (19 63 :17 0 f f ) .24 Ibid.25 evarh caitre.na bh uk tvd gam ya te i ty atra eaitrasya bh uji-kriyd ydm anan vayd t gamana-Icriydy~m anvaydhg~ kdre.na trt~yopapattih. / , Bh dttata ntra rah asy a, p. 4 2.26 Ibid.27 evarh ca paktva udan o bhu /yate i ty~d au paci~lhdto.h karm dkdhk sdydm dvi t iydntaudana-padddhydhdre.na vdkya-para.nam / na hi prad hdna kriydy~ m ukta sya kYrakasya gu.na-bhata.kr iygy~ m a py ukt i r i t i n iyam e pramd.nam ast i, yenddhy~hdrarh vin~pi v~kyam p~r yeta / ,Bh~t.t.atantrarahasya, p. 4 2.28 Ibid.29 Ibid.

3o Ibid.a~ Ibid. , pp. 42 --43 .a~ evarh ca caitrah, pa ktv~ caitro bh uh kt e i t y aprayoga eva / pradht~nakriygy~m ukta sya kart.r-k~rakasyaiva gu.na-bhftta-kriydygm ap y uk tir i t i niyamdhg~k~re.na v~ tasya sddh utvam /. . . ataeva caitre.na pa ktv d caitro bh uh kte i ty a py aprayogah. / , Bh~ttatantrarahasya,p. 43.aa Vgkyapad[ya ,2.326ff ; and K. Raja (1963: 175ff ) .34 dr kya nte hi v~kye.su vgkyaikadek~n prayu~]~nd h, pade.su padaikadek~n / v~kye.su tt~vadvdkyaikadekdn - pmvika, pin. .dfm; pravika, tarpa.nam iti / pade.su padaikadek~n - devadattah.da tt ah ., sa tyabhdm~ bh~ m et i / , b iB ,Vol. I , Sec. I , p. 252.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Bha.ttatantrarahasyaby K hag..dadeva. Ed ited by A . Sub ram any a Sastf i . Banaras, 1970.Delbri ick, B. , 1888,Alt ind i sche Syn tax , Syn tac t i sche Forsehungen ,V. H al le : Ver lag der

Bu chh and lung des Waiserthauses.Deshpande , Madhav M. , 1978, Sentenc e-Cog ni t ion in Nyf iya Epis tem ology . InIndo-Iranian

Journal ,Vo l . 20 , p p . 1 9 5 - 2 1 6 .Deshpande , Madhav M. , 1980,Evolu t ion o f Syn tac t i c Theory in Sanskr i t Grammar: Sy n tax o f

the San skr i t Inf ini t ive - rum UN. Linguis tica Extranea, Studia10. Ann A rbor : Ka rom aPublishers, Inc.

Gr inder, Jo hn T. and Elg in , S. H. , 1973,Guide to Transformat ional Grammar,N e w Yo r k :Hol t , Rinehar t and Wins ton , Inc .

Mat i la l, B . K. , 1966, Indian The or is t s on the N ature of the Senten ce . InF o u n d a t io n s o fLanguage2 , 3 7 7 - 3 9 3 .

M B , M a h d bh @ y aby Pataf ijal i. Wi th the c om me ntar iesPrad~paby Kaiya. ta andU d d y o t ab yNfige~a. De lhi: M otila l Banarsidass, 196 7.

M~mdrhsdkoka.Ed ited b y Kev alanand a Sarasvati. In sev en Volum es. Va i: Prajf ia Pat.ha~51~,1 9 5 2 - 6 6 .


19/19


Nydyakoka b y Bhim ac~rya Jh al;ka-kar.Bom bay Sans krit Series No. 49 1893. Second Edition .Poo na: Bhandark ar Orie ntal Research Insti tu te 1928.

Raja Kunjurmi K.1963 Indian Theories of Meaning. Madras: The Ad yar Libra ry and R esearchCentre.

Sl~eijer J. S. 1886Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden. R eprin ted in India. D elhi: M otilal Banarsidass1973.

Vdkyapadgya by Bhart4.hari . Edite d by K . V. Ab hya nka r and V. P. Limay e. University of Poon aSansk rit and Prakrit Series Vol. II . Poo na 1965.

syntactic disputations deshpande

Documents