Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

vant vs vantu

Expand Messages
  • jayarava
    Most Pāli grammars (Collins, Geiger, Duroiselle) produced in the west give the form of the possessive suffixes as -vant/-mant. But Narada s Intro, and
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 6, 2010
      Most Pāli grammars (Collins, Geiger, Duroiselle) produced in the west give the form of the possessive suffixes as -vant/-mant. But Narada's Intro, and Buddhadatta's dictionary follow the Pāli grammars in making the stem form -vantu/-mantu.

      Since the 'u' plays no role in the declensions I'm interested to know why it is there, especially since western scholars silently dropped it in most cases (except for a very brief note in Warder's intro p.252, n.1).

      Can anyone shed light on this form?

      Thanks
      Jayarava
    • Jim Anderson
      Dear Jayarava,
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 7, 2010
        Dear Jayarava,

        << Most Pāli grammars (Collins, Geiger, Duroiselle) produced in the west
        give the form of the possessive suffixes as -vant/-mant. But Narada's Intro,
        and Buddhadatta's dictionary follow the Pāli grammars in making the stem
        form -vantu/-mantu.

        Since the 'u' plays no role in the declensions I'm interested to know why it
        is there, especially since western scholars silently dropped it in most
        cases (except for a very brief note in Warder's intro p.252, n.1).

        Can anyone shed light on this form? >>

        The 'u' is called an anubandha (indicatory letter) which is dropped in
        word-formation. The traditional grammars, both Pali and Sanskrit, when
        giving a root or suffix frequently show them with an attached anubandha
        letter (sometimes more than one). They have a purpose, e.g. an '.n'
        indicates that a vowel in the root undergoes vuddhi (increase).

        Compare Pali mantu/vantu with their Pa.ninian Sanskrit counterparts:
        matup/vatup.

        I don't know the purpose of having a 'u' at the end of mantu or vantu
        instead of some other vowel. That would require some investigation.
        Explanations of the anubandhas can be found in S.C. Vasu's English
        translation of Panini's A.s.taadhyaayii.

        Best wishes,
        Jim
      • jayarava
        Hi Jim Thanks, that s very helpful. Jayarava
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 8, 2010
          Hi Jim

          Thanks, that's very helpful.

          Jayarava
        • jayarava
          Further to my question... Actually Warder does deal with this under primary derivatives starting on pg.251. The -u presumably distinguishes the mant/vant
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 24, 2010
            Further to my question... Actually Warder does deal with this under primary derivatives starting on pg.251. The -u presumably distinguishes the mant/vant taddhita suffixes from the kita present-participle in -nt.

            Jayarava
          • Nina van Gorkom
            Dear Jayarava, ... N: I am glad you mention the page in Warder. The explanation of taddhita I find very difficult and would wish he gave examples. A new word
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 25, 2010
              Dear Jayarava,

              Op 24-apr-2010, om 12:54 heeft jayarava het volgende geschreven:

              > Further to my question... Actually Warder does deal with this under
              > primary derivatives starting on pg.251. The -u presumably
              > distinguishes the mant/vant taddhita suffixes from the kita present-
              > participle in -nt.
              -------
              N: I am glad you mention the page in Warder. The explanation of
              taddhita I find very difficult and would wish he gave examples. A new
              word derived not from a root but from another wordstem is not so
              clear. What is that other wordstem?
              I remember Jim wrote a post about this subject, but it is some time ago.
              -------
              Nina.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jim Anderson
              Hi Jayarava, In my first response, I explained the u of vantu and mantu as an anubandha or indicatory letter. After some further digging I now think this
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 25, 2010
                Hi Jayarava,

                In my first response, I explained the "u" of "vantu" and "mantu" as an
                anubandha or indicatory letter. After some further digging I now think
                this is not right. It was an assumption based on the Sanskrit
                counterparts "vatup" and "matup" for Pali "vantu" and "mantu" plus the
                fact that the "u" is not seen in the declensional paradigms. For
                example, in the locative singular form one would expect a
                "bhagavantusmi.m" instead of "bhagavantasmi.m" with the stem
                "bhagavantu". Well, I just found a rule in the Saddaniiti which states
                that the "u" of "ntu" is changed to "a" before some of the
                declensional vibhattis or case endings -- so bhagavantu + smi.m >
                bhagavanta + smi.m > bhagavantasmi.m. It's not clear why the
                traditional grammarians use "vantu" instead of "vanta" in the first
                place and then having to add another rule just to change the "u" to
                "a".

                Best wishes,
                Jim

                > Further to my question... Actually Warder does deal with this under
                primary derivatives starting on pg.251. The -u presumably
                distinguishes the mant/vant taddhita suffixes from the kita
                present-participle in -nt.
                >
                > Jayarava
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.