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

Re: [Pali] vant vs vantu

Expand Messages
  • Jim Anderson
    Dear Jayarava,
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 7, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 6 , Apr 8, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 6 , Apr 24, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 6 , Apr 25, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 6 , Apr 25, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              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.